A marriage made in hell

Kate

I don't think anyone really believes that this present reconciliation effort will lead anywhere soon. The two sides haven't agreed anything in detail and they almost certainly won't. The decisions on government formation and elections have to be by consensus - unlikely to happen. Fatah and Hamas appear to have wholly differing views of what the new PLO leaders' forum will actually do and what its relationship will be to the PLO executive committee. And the vital issue of the two rival security apparatuses has just been glossed over entirely.

Abbas has said today that any consensus government would not affect the political programme of the PLO which remains a negotiated solution with Israel. And, of course, it's the PLO not the PA that holds that file. The US Congress and Israeli reactions look hysterical, if understandable given their equities.

The terribly sad thing is that even though this is probably a false start the direction of travel is clear. It's bad for everyone. Parts of the Israeli government and people such as Melanie have so long peddled the view that there is no distinction between Fatah/PLO/PA (the "genocidal pragmatists") and Hamas ("the genocidal fanatics") that the, in actuality, moderate and secular Palestinians have been driven into this corner. The failure of Israel seriously to engage in two rounds of proximity talks and one round of direct talks with Abbas, the needlessly oppressive measures taken by the IDF in the West Bank (not because the IDF is "evil" and not because they don't have genuine security threats to address but because after 40 odd years any occupation becomes poisonous) and the ongoing settlement programme have undermined those committed to negotiations. The result is that the best partners for peace Israel will ever have - Abbas and Fayyad - are hanging by a thread. If they don't go now they will soon. It is, at least, good to see that (in amongst the usual poorly evidenced accusations) Melanie Phillips is beginning to acknowledge what was being created in the West Bank and the risk to all concerned from losing it. She is right that the Palestinians will be the primary victims of all this. But sadly Israel will play a price too. Having destroyed the moderates and empowered the extremists and fanatics, I am sure that Melanie and others will quickly claim that the renewed violence is proof that the Palestinians could never be trusted all along. Sadly, it will be ordinary Israelis living here and not self-proclaimed defenders of the land of Israel living in North London who will end up paying the price for this kind of ideologically driven and self-fulfilling prophecy.

daniel maris

The Hamas-Fatah re-alliance is a fundamental block on the road to peace. It means no one can take Arab assurances of peaceful intent seriously, given that Hamas is explicitly pro-genocide.

It reminds us of the baleful influence of Islam at all levels on the mores and the politics of the region.

It is infinitely depressing, but it is the reality we have to deal with.

Indeed not a penny should go to the PLA as long as it has Hamas as part of its govenrment. That applies whether or not people vote for Hamas.

Ben-Tsiyon (ha rishon)

How, in Heaven's name, can Mahmoud Abbas be described as a 'moderate'! He has blatantly declared that there is no Jewish people, that the Jews have never had any connection whatsoever with the Land of Israel, and that he will never recognise Israel as a Jewish state.

Kate writes that: "Parts of the Israeli government and people such as Melanie have so long peddled the view that there is no distinction between Fatah/PLO/PA and Hamas....". They're right ! There are no genuine "partners for peace" on the Arab side.

Augustus

'Abbas has said...'this, Abbas has said...that! Mahmoud Abbas is a liar, he has clearly learned the trick from his tutor
Arafat how to make warlike speeches in Arabic while making peaceful noises in English. He speaks with a forked tongue and it is disgraceful for the West not to challenge Palestinian leaders on this issue.
Because that is exactly how the West connives with this culture of violence by keeping it ongoing. Don Mahmoud Abbas, the original Godfather who always tells the truth. That is, if you're a Palestinian or other Arab listening in Arabic and have nothing but hatred for Israel.

C.Gee

Kate:

Like laetrile for cancer patients, so Abbas for peace-partner negotiations, so peace negotiations for actual peace, so Palestinian statehood for individual freedom and liberal democracy and a normal life.

Israel may pass legislation to end the Oslo peace process, and to annex Judea and Samaria. I very much hope this happens, before the declaration of Palestinian statehood in September, for which grand theatre the Fatah/Hamas deal is a rehearsal.

Actual moderates among Arab Palestinians, rather than the ham actors of Fatah, are prepared to sacrifice statehood and collective “self-determination” in order to enjoy civil rights and self-fulfillment.

“We Palestinians do not view a national Palestinian state as part of a divine plan; ours is primarily a down-to-earth affair of longing to live normal lives in our homeland. From a purely utilitarian perspective, therefore, if we were granted all the civilian rights needed for a normal life - if, in other words, the State of Israel, backed by an international guarantee, provided the human well-being for which, otherwise, we might have to establish a separate national state - then what need would we have for such a state? Granted, in this scenario we would be excluded from all the rights and functions directly connected to the state itself, such as being elected to the Knesset or other official positions or serving in the army or government posts. But even without such privileges life under this scenario would be far better than life under continuing occupation or in Bantustans under Israeli hegemony.” Sari Nusseibeh, “What is a Palestinian State Worth?”, 2011.

kate

Ben

Can you point to any sources for the following:

"[Abbas] has blatantly declared that there is no Jewish people, that the Jews have never had any connection whatsoever with the Land of Israel, and that he will never recognise Israel as a Jewish state."

On the first two points other readers might get a more accurate picture from e.g. this editorial below (from AIPAC - which I don't think can be seriously accused of being leftist or pro-Palestinian)

http://www.aipac.org/NearEastReport/20100624/Editorial.html

On the third point which is more complex (because the ask of Abbas is to agree to recognise Israel as a Jewish state in advance of talks and thereby give up one of his bargaining chips - the "right of return"), the interview below gives a nuanced and detailed picture. I happen to think that ordinary Palestinians, particularly in the diaspora, have a long way to travel in realising that the dream of the refugees going home is a fantasy, but as you can see from the below Abbas understands what the shape of a final deal must look like (compensation rather than actual return) but feels constrained in giving this up in advance.

SPIEGEL: In a speech at Bar-Ilan University in June 2009, Netanyahu said: "If the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state, we are ready to agree to a real peace agreement, a demilitarized Palestinian state side by side with the Jewish state."

Abbas: You see, he's the one who is setting preconditions. He declares Jerusalem as the "undivided and eternal capital of the State of Israel." He refuses to discuss the question of Palestinian refugees. And he insists that we accept Israel in advance as a Jewish state.

SPIEGEL: But the principle of the two-state solution must mean that the one state is for the Palestinians and the other is for the Jews. Why do you have a problem with recognizing Israel as a Jewish state?

Abbas: We recognized the State of Israel within the 1967 borders. Whether it defines itself as a Jewish state, a Hebrew state or a Zionist state is its business. As far as I'm concerned, it can call itself what it pleases. But he cannot force me to agree with this definition.

SPIEGEL: Israel wouldn't be Israel without a Jewish majority.

Abbas: It is a fact that the majority of the citizens of the State of Israel are Jews. But it isn't within my power to define Israel's character.

SPIEGEL: But with such remarks, you create the suspicion among Israelis that you actually hope to eventually overcome this Jewish majority, particularly when you continue to insist that all Palestinians expelled in 1948 have the right of return.

Abbas: I understand these concerns. Today, there are 5 million Palestinian refugees. I'm not saying that they all have to return, but we need a fair solution. United Nations Resolution 194 ...

SPIEGEL: ... of Dec. 11, 1948 ...

Abbas: ... states that those who relinquish their right of return must receive appropriate financial compensation for doing so. In other words, the solution has been on the table for 60 years, so what's the problem?

My wider point has, if anything, been reinforced by your posting. Your portrayal of Abbas's positions is inaccurate. Many Israelis however genuinely believe exactly what you have written and don't bother to find out the truth for themselves. The result is exactly what I said I feared - a failure to appreciate and reward moderation leads to the rise of extremism and violence. It is tragic.

Hamas is not Fatah. Hamas is bad. Israel is helping Hamas.

Melanie is fond of saying that anyone who opposes the settlement programme in the West Bank, who criticises current Israeli policy or who advocates a withdrawal to something close to '67 borders has "blood on their hands". Actually it is those of us trying to find the middle ground that are the peacemakers. The kind of polarised view that Melanie espouses - all Palestinians evil, all Israelis blameless - is both wrong and unhelpful.

Many people on this thread have consistently asked Melanie to put forward her vision for peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Despite writing on this conflict on a more than weekly basis for many years, she has not once managed to do so.

Until she does and until she is able to form a more sophisticated view of the conflict and the different parties on both side of it (I don't think she has, for example, ever been to the Palestinian territories other than to deliver a speech at the university in the settlement of Ariel) she remains part of the problem not part of the solution.

Mr Sponge

What I find unbelievable is glee exhibited by the media, led by the BBC, at this arrangement.

they talk as if it is all solved now and its only the intransigence of the Jews who are holding up a solution.

Perhaps the Final Solution?

The BBC is either incredibly naive (not) or knows exactly what is going on and brainwashing the public - again.

tiki

Don't you worry, the 'Baroness Ashton & friends WILL find a beam of light, meaning an exuse, to come to the conclusion that, after profoundly studying the text, there IS hope, and we MUST not 'miss this opportunity to let Hamas PROVE that from now on they ARE comitted to Peace. This is an unique opportunity and WE should not be blamed of letting it pass by. And if not? 'Than it's not our worry anymore. The 'United Pallies will have their State and we can go on with our lives! Thank you very much.

Truthtriumphs

The hard truth is that there isn't a cigarette paper between Hamas and Fatah and the PA.
The former is absolutely explicit as to its plans for the Jews, whereas the latter couches its intentions in diplomatic double-speak for the benefit of western ears, except
when it speaks to its own people in its media and educational outlets, which are saturated in Jew hatred which surpasses even that of the third Reich.
So, as long as these two organisations continue to poison the minds of their young, and teach them to hate and kill Jews and "infidels", one can only hope and pray that a Palestinian state will not materialise.

Veracity

I don't know whao you are Kate but from your comments I have a pretty good idea! I have not found Melanie guilty of all you describe and I have religiously followed her blog. I imagine she has made someone very disturbed and you have been put on the case to 'give us all another perspective'. I think you insult us all as most people reading this blog are very cognisant of the facts. No one believes there is an easy answer to the problems . All we want is justice and fairness for everyone . We have watched the situation for many years and talked to many people of all shades of opinion. The Palestinian Arabs are ill served by their political masters whose vagaries the West chooses to ignore as they have those of Mubarak, Assad and Gaddafi. You would think they would learn wouldn't you. They also don't understand that once a piece of land has come under the rule of Islam it is Islamic in perpetuity. What chance peace when a sizeable number of people will fight to the death to retrieve the Islamic ascendancy over the land of Israel.That will never change and Israel has to live with that. For the record yes, Abbas is a henchman of Arafat and is surrounded by the same corruption that Arafat was and nothing has changed .Abbas who obtained his doctorate on the thesis that the Holocaust never happened.

Herzen

C.Gee
April 29th, 2011 1:26am
It is a point: the Israeli settlement of the West Bank has made a two-state solution impracticable. This leaves two options for the Palestinians: imprisonment in perpetuity in their ghettoes or second-class citizenship in a single state of Israel. The latter clearly offers better conditions than the ghetto. Israel is unlikely to oblige (although I believe there are those on both extremes who advocate a single-state solution). The fear of the "demographic timebomb" is what moved Israel to close off Gaza as a prison for surplus population, and to try to persuade the Palestinians on the West Bank to accept their ghettoes as a "state" to absolve Israel of all responsibility for the population of the occupied territories.

Stephen Rothbart

Kate, I do not think it is up to Melanie to offer a solution to something no one has ever been close to solving in over 60 years.

The whole issue of this dialogue between Stern and Abbas was the way he wriggled and wriggled to avoid saying anything concrete about Israel being a Jewish State. And he is supposed to be the moderate!

There will never be a solution to this problem because the Fatah leaders are too weak and divided, and Hamas too radical.

Israel recognizes this and so avoids anything to do with a Peace initiative coming from Fatah. It is a Trojan Horse.

Deal with Fatah, return to 1967 borders, and then when Fatah is replaced by Hamas, what then?

Until the world goes back to 1967, when there was no Palestinian question, and takes the Palestinian state off the table, and pushes the responsibility of the Palestinians back on to Jordan, Syria and Lebanon (who of course don't want them either), there will be this continual problem.

But don't fool yourself that either party is ready yet for Peace.

Gazans must throw out Hamas and the West Bank Palestinians must show real intentions of recognition and moderate behaviour, like showing Israel on their school books (for example), and then perhaps after 10 years or so, an atmosphere of trust, through trading, and cultural exchanges might encourage a new generation to try again.

Until then, Israel feels safer doing nothing, and the leaders of the Palestinians, whoever they are, feel safer being aggressive.

Miranda Rose Smith

Off topic, but I hope and pray that all of you who live in the Southeastern U.S. are safe from the storms.

Raymond Douglas

Trouble is Melanie, we will be taken in by this. Led by the BBC/Guardian ,we will be led by the nose to give unthinking approval to this stitch up. Of course, the professional Israel haters will think this is so wonderful, all the better for reaching their goal of eliminating the JEWISH state. But for the majority of us unthinking Brits, we will go along with this in our desire to be rid of this pesky Israel and all the trouble "they" cause.Do,look mat Lance Lambert site, Christian friends of Israel, prayer for Israel for more information.

Another Joshua

One wonders whether, like the recent uprisings that there are strong enough sentiments and courage for Arabs to rid itself of Hamas and Fatah and find a truly authentic group not out to destroy Israel, but to create a peaceful entity along side israel. it is to those, that we should be trying to encourage. That is the only real way forward. I fear that this suggestion is not likely to be taken up anytime soon.
As for Herzen's whose theory about demography being the reason for controlling the border with Gaza, seems to suggest that he/she is in cloud cuckoo land over how this came about, the context and real causes continuously ignored.

Ben-Tsiyon (ha rishon)

I suggest that Kate and her fellow travellers take a look at: http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=708
for a full profile of the "moderate" Abbas (aka Abu Mazen)which includes details of his numerous "moderate" pronouncements and activities.

Augustus is spot on with his comments on the Abbas forked tongue and Western connivance with the Arab culture of violence.

Herzen

C.Gee
April 29th, 2011 1:26am
You want Israel to confirm the illegality of its occupation by annexing the territories.

Even with its discriminatory laws of Return and No Return, and with the people of Gaza safely locked away, it will be painfully clear that Israeli Jews are and always have been a minority in Palestine. Will Israel then revert to the early Zionist position that democracy is not a good idea?

Are the new second class citizens to be confined to certain areas of the newly enlarged state?

Herzen

Another Joshua

"As for Herzen's whose theory about demography being the reason for controlling the border with Gaza, seems to suggest that he/she is in cloud cuckoo land over how this came about, the context and real causes continuously ignored."

I think I know what you will say, but do tell me all about the real context and causes.

Herzen

Stephen Rothbart

"...pushes the responsibility of the Palestinians back on to Jordan, Syria and Lebanon..."

The Palestinians are inhabitants of Palestine. Why should they be content to be evicted by Israel or taken over by Jordan etc.?

There has been a "Palestinian problem" ever since Zionists first started emigrating to Palestine. That Israel, Jordan etc. all had reason to connive in pretending otherwise (Israel, transfer; Jordan, territory) does not change this.

Alex Bensky

Kate, one place you might check out is www.memri.org, the Middle East Media Research Institute. It contains translations of various Palestinian and other Arab media.

You will see that what Abbas and other "moderate" Palestinian leaders say, frequently and clearly, to their own people in Arabic is different from the soft words whispered into the willing ears of Der Spiegel and other westerners. You prefer to believe that rather than pretty much everything the Palestinian leadership says to its own people OK; everybody's got an opinion.

Meanwhile, whenever any Israeli puts a shovel to dirt anywhere in Jerusalem the Palestinian Authority insists that this is yet another Zionist trick, that today's Jews have to historical linkage to the land. Doesn't sound like the voice of acceptance to me.

Victoria

Kate:

"I am sure that Melanie and others will quickly claim that the renewed violence is proof that the Palestinians could never be trusted all along. Sadly, it will be ordinary Israelis living here and not self-proclaimed defenders of the land of Israel living in North London who will end up paying the price for this kind of ideologically driven and self-fulfilling prophecy."

Absolutely on the mark. Well said.

Melanie, for her zeal and love of Israel, should focus on a large majority of Palestinian and Israeli youths who co-exist quite happily.

I often think if Israel was left alone by the lobbyists who meddle in US and European foreign policy, it would be a very different picture.

Elizabeth

You meant a SECOND de facto state of Palestine. The first one was established when the east bank of Palestine (Trans-Jordan) was detached from the mandate and given to the Arabs.

Stephen Rothbart

Yes Herzen, the Palestinians are inhabitiants of Palestine.

So are the Israelis, the Jordanians, the Syrians and the Lebanese.

It's a bit like you are saying the Scandinavians are the inhabitants of Scandinavia.

Yes, true. So are the Swedes, Norwegians, Danes...well you get the drift.

Once again we are back to the old argument of what is/was Palestine.

Well, the Jews that fought for the British Army in WW2 were called the Palestinians even though there were no Arabs in the regiment, and Israel was not yet a state. Neither was Palestine.

Palestine had no borders, no army, no passports, no government, no currency - so it was clearly not a sovereign entity or state either. Nor were the Arabs living there from the same tribes or clans.

So since the new Palestinian state will be ruled by Muslims of the Hamas "bent" as Melanie has pointed out, and Hamas will never sign a peace treaty with Israel, recognize her existence or cease trying to kill every Jew in the region (which is expressed in their charter), the concept of a Palestinian/Israeli peace process is really a non-starter wouldn't you agree?.

So we have to remove Hamas from the equation if we ever want peace between the two sides.

Although many anti-Zionists seem to think it better to just remove all the Jews and "cut out the middle man," as it were.

In which case, if that is your concept, then at least have the decency to be as honest as Hamas leaders are, and say so.

Derek Blades and his ilk may think that all Israel has to do is move back to pre 1967 borders, and suddenly Hamas will recognize Israel, and all will be well in Heaven and on Earth, but you just have to ask what he is smoking? Probably the same thing as Obama.

So if we have a Palestine ruled by Hamas, who will never accept a peace deal signed with Jews, at least not with living ones, then you have to dump the 43 year old idea of a Palestinian State. Where else is there to go?

Those Palestinians who want to live in a "democracy" where their human rights are accepted, their votes counted, should be absorbed into Jordan, Lebanon and Syria, which are of course perfect examples of universal suffrage.

Those that want to live in a secular state, with equal rights for women and homosexuals, where churches and mosques can flourish along with the synagogues of the Jewish state, and, swear allegiance to the Israeli flag rather than burning it, well, they can apply for citizenship in Israel, and if accepted, live there.

However if they circumcize their young women, kill them for dishonouring the family by effecting western values and dress, demand that Sharia law supercedes the laws of Israel, etc. they should be deported to where their lifestyle is accepted, such as the UK, where that kind of behaviour seems perfectly acceptable to the governments there.

So there, I think, is a perfectly reasonable solution for everyone.

A win/win situation.

Muslims living with Muslims, no Hamas, Israel able to negotiate with existing states rather than terrorist gangs or the contradictory factions inside Fatah, and Jerusalem remains a city where Judaism and Christianity are allowed to flourish along with Islam, and all over the City, instead of just in one section.

Of course my solution has a snowball's chance, but so has peace in the Middle East.

Another Joshua

Herzen, since you know what I was going to say, have a go...

Herzen

Stephen Rothbart
April 29th, 2011 3:23pm

It is called obfuscation, I think.

Once the Allied Powers had finished carving up the Ottoman Empire, there were several states recognized by the League of Nations (this was all covered in great detail in earlier threads). These states included Syria, Lebanon, Trans-Jordan, Palestine. The inhabitants of Palestine, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim, were the Palestinians. The Mandate Power introduced a citizenship law - those who lived in Palestine in Ottoman times became citizens of Palestine and immigrants could be naturalized if they met certain requirements. The Mandate Power was entrusted with the administration of Palestine until such time as it deemed the population able to govern themselves (imperialist condescension!). The Mandate Power bungled the transition from the Mandate (because of its inconsistent undertakings both to protect the interests of the inhabitants and to help immigrants establish a "Jewish Home"). Its bungling allowed the Yishuv to declare its independence and grab the bulk of Palestine (sorry, defend itself against overwhelming genocidal force brought to bear by a united and highly organized alliance of evil Arabs intent on driving all Jewish inhabitants of Palestine into the sea).

I hold no brief for Hamas. However, its leaders have indicated for many years now their willingness to negotiate. The charter was written by one man several decades ago. I don't know its status within Hamas. They certainly keep very quiet about it. It has been reported (by US academics) that the charter would have been ditched long since had it not been for Israel's loud insistence on it as a precondition for any talks. (I have no idea whether this is so, but it sounds plausible.) Hamas is not a monolith. I am sure the Israeli authorities are aware of this, but it suits to perpetuate the myth of uniform rejectionism and barbarity. It allows Israel to avoid serious negotiation and continue with the "peace process" until it has served its purpose.

Derek BLADES

Melanie writes that "Hamastan (a united West Bank and Gaza) would more likely only lead to a Final Solution..."

Israel has more than 150 000 men and women on military service. It is armed with modern land, sea, and air weaponry and a hundred or more nuclear bombs and missiles. In addition, Israel can rely on military support from the World’s only super-power.

Hamas is armed with elderly Kalashnikovs and home-made rockets. The Palestinian security services have rifles and tear gas canisters. The P.A. and Hamas are supported by tottering regimes in Syria and Iran.

To suggest that a combination of Hamas and the PA threatens a "Final Solution" is sheer fantasy. What purpose is served by such rhetoric other than to delay moves towards peace negotiations?

Herzen

Another Joshua
April 29th, 2011 4:13pm
Noble gesture giving Gaza to the Arabs... met with rocket fire from ungrateful Arabs... causing trauma to Israeli children...Arabs clearly don't want peace...Arabs irrational, evil, and revel in violence...Arabs clearly want to kill every last peace-loving Israeli Jew...Israelis only want to live in peace in land of forefathers...Israel offers peace and Arabs respond with violence...why do Arabs hate Israel?...

Edward in the USA

The above black and white photo documents the alliance between Soviet Socialists and national Socialists.

So much for the meme that Socialists are warm and fuzzy advocates of peace.

Stephen Rothbart

Derek, have you seen how Obama has defended Libyans from the mighty Gaddafi army? Yes. Not at all.

Obama will not act without the UN and the UN will not act against the interests of the Arab states since Russia and China have huge investment in their mutual well being and will block any intervention.

Rely on the Ditherer in Chief for protection? Well, would you?

This is not a war against the Palestinians. This is a war against a nasty strain of Islam.

For all our insults and differences, Derek, I know you are not a stupid man, and nor is Herzen.

I simply do not understand how you all still believe that Hamas and Fatah care about their people.

Hamas is an agent of Iran which funds it and arms it, along with Iran's Best New Friend, Turkey.

Iran's other agents are Syria, which it arms and funds, and Lebanon's paramilitary Army, Hezbollah, which you may remember, fought the "invincible" IDF to a standstill a few years back.

Lebanon is now a proxy state of Syria, and Egypt has now opened the borders with Gaza and started a dialogue with Iran.

So Iran, which threatens Israel with nuclear weapons (and not the other way round) is now physically represented by Hamas to Israel's south west, Syria to its north east, Hezbollah to its north, all armed with the latest Iranian and North Korean rockets. Which in a country not bigger than Wales, are hard to defend against.

Wow! 150,000 soldiers in the IDF. The British Army lost almost twice that number at the Somme in 1916. In one afternoon.

Herzen, I know your comments were meant to be ironic, but sadly, you have actually hit the truth.

That is exactly what is going on there.

Look at all the warfare going on across the Middle East, Turkey (quietly killing its Kurds) and Pakistan, Afghanistan killing each other over religious text and drugs.

Millions of young unemployed Muslim men, often fired up by fanatical death cults, and no hope of a job. What a toxic situation to exploit.

Israel, low unemployment, growth better than any Eurozone state and much better than the US.

Which one wants or needs to be at war? Go figure.

It is very easy for both of you, safe in your western homes, far away from the Middle East, to tell Israel what to do and how to act.

If you are wrong, all you lose is your... well actually, you lose nothing. probably not even a night's sleep.

If Israel gets it wrong, they lose everything.

On a footnote, the UNHRWA for Palestine has again refused to allow the teachings of the Holocaust in its schools. The UN. Understand that? The UN sanctions not teaching the Holocaust to Palestinians.

Says it all really.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Herzen: "There has been a "Palestinian problem" ever since Zionists first started emigrating to Palestine. That Israel, Jordan etc. all had reason to connive in pretending otherwise (Israel, transfer; Jordan, territory) does not change this."

Herzen, there seems also to be a Syrian problem, Saudi problem, Iraqi problem, Lebanese problem, Egyptian problem, yemeni problem...and muslem problem in the Middle east, as they continue to murder each other wholesale.

You are a disingenuous zealot and should go fight the good fight with genuine courage rather than continue to blow smoke up everyone's proverbial...

logdon

Talking of Nick Cohen's article...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PlCWl5LpnM&feature=player_embedded#at=61

daniel maris

I think this move to bring back Hamas into the PLA fold, means that the focus is now clearly back on the Arab side. There can be no peace until the Arabs accept the existence of the state of Israel and give up on genocidal policies. We just have to wait and see whether they are part of a civilised international community or not. Across the globe there are people who are unhappy with the hand dealt with them by history...The Armenians, the Serbs, the Hungarians (looking at their compatriots in Romania), Germans who lost their cities in the East, Bolivians who lost their coastal strip to Chile, Argentinians who think the Falklands belong to them...

They all have to learn to live with what history has done to them.

It is simply unacceptable in the modern era for states or organisations to seek to eliminate UN member states and wipe out a whole people.

Harvey

Not wishing to nit pick but nick cohens jc article has been lifted straight off a you tube talking head cartoon character which has recently sprung up Spelling out the I/P conflict in an unusual but logical manner.
Unless Mr Cohen is the originator of this cartoon he should be citing / h/t his source

St Bruno

Slowly but surely the wheels turn till the return of the Twelfth Imam.

It was said only a few days ago in Iran.

So is the end of days count-down running parallel with the Islamic atomic weapon?

Would they dare use it?

If they dare who would be first? One guess.

Yes, big Satan, the United States of America!

Then Israel and the rest of Europe would be invaded by the largest Muslim army the world has ever seen. It has happened before so why not again but this time it will succeed to conquer all infidel lands. The seeds are sown and the die is cast.

Too many questions? One more.

Who will protect Europe and Israel should the event happen?

This constant war of words between Israel and the ‘Palestinians’ is just a side show and a smoke screen. The real issue, if the truth be known, is the relationship between Iran, Islam and the rest of the non-Muslin world.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Well said, St Bruno!

Stuxtnet forever, then?

GaryL

re Herzen's history - "It is called obfuscation, I think".
I'm sure it is.

"Once the Allied Powers had finished carving up the Ottoman Empire, there were several states recognized by the League of Nations (this was all covered in great detail in earlier threads). These states included Syria, Lebanon, Trans-Jordan, Palestine."

Trans-Jordan was part of the mandate for Palestine, not a separate mandate. Britan excepted the part of Palestine east of the Jordan from the requirement to assist the settlement of Jews. The British puppet army in Trans-Jordan shoved the eastern border miles further into the mandated area of Iraq and further in the south into Saudi Arabia. The Leage of Nations declared that Britain was not complying with the terms of their mandates for Palestine and Iraq. None of the borders of the mandated states are as set by the League of Nations.

"The inhabitants of Palestine, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim, were the Palestinians. The Mandate Power introduced a citizenship law - those who lived in Palestine in Ottoman times became citizens of Palestine and immigrants could be naturalized if they met certain requirements."

Until Egypt established the Palestinian Liberation Organisation in 1965 Christian and Muslim Arabs of southern Syria, as they called it, refuted the use of the term "Palestine".

"The Mandate Power was entrusted with the administration of Palestine until such time as it deemed the population able to govern themselves (imperialist condescension!)."

No - until the Jews of Palestine were ready for self-government.

"The Mandate Power bungled the transition from the Mandate (because of its inconsistent undertakings both to protect the interests of the inhabitants and to help immigrants establish a "Jewish Home")."

Britain attempted to "protect the interests of the [Arab] inhabitants" by restricting the immigration and land purchases of Jews. This was inconsistent with their undertaking under the Mandate.

"Its bungling allowed the Yishuv to declare its independence and grab the bulk of Palestine (sorry, defend itself against overwhelming genocidal force brought to bear by a united and highly organized alliance of evil Arabs intent on driving all Jewish inhabitants of Palestine into the sea)."

The Egyptian air force were British pilots in British planes. The Arab army of Jordan was under general Glubb, an officer of the British army. British forces didn't depart from Iraq until 1961. Britain played a substantial part in the forst genocidal Arab war against Israel.

Thomas

daniel maris
April 29th, 2011 10:47pm

The Native Americans are a better fit, except perhaps in one respect - unlike earlier European settlers, Israel has not enjoyed the inadvertent advantages of infection, and Israel has been much much more sparing in the use of force (much much more civilised than earlier European settlers), and as a result there are now more Palestinian Arabs than Israelis - which is a bit awkward. Israel has the preponderance of power and the connivance of the superpower, so it may yet prevail on the Palestinians to abandon hope and resign themselves to huddling in their ghettoes - but it might have to reach some accommodation with the native population - it remains to be seen whether Israel, as part of the "civilised" "international community" can bring itself to do the decent thing, where in the past the "civilised etc." has decided time and again not to bother.

St Bruno

Undoubtedly, I’m in favour of a friendly promiscuous worm attacking an evil snake-like creature.
As long as it remains friendly that is! Could be Stuxnet is only the first generation of friendly worms.

teresa

From Nick Cohen's article recommended by Melanie Phillips: -

// I support all Palestinians. Their oppression by Israel is the great injustice of our time. Western hypocrites ignore racism, and use false accusations of antisemitism to stop legitimate criticism. The Zionist-controlled media label resistance 'terrorism', while ignoring the state terrorism of Israel which is the root cause of all the violence in the Middle-"

"All right, stop there//

Yes. Stop there. This is the crudest Aunt Sally of an argument I've read in a long while. A little spin here and a little spin there and Nick ends up misrepresenting the case made by Palestinian supporters completely. Needs to have a rethink.

Herzen

GaryL
April 30th, 2011 3:55pm

"Trans-Jordan was part of the mandate for Palestine, not a separate mandate..."

Indeed. I refer you to Article 25. Trans-Jordan's status was determined by the Palestine Mandate (and authorised by the League of NAtions) and by subsequent treaty between Britain and Trans-Jordan.

"Until Egypt established the Palestinian Liberation Organisation in 1965 Christian and Muslim Arabs of southern Syria, as they called it, refuted the use of the term "Palestine"."

I refer you to the Palestinian Citizenship Order enacted as an order in council in 1925 by Britain as it was obligated to do by Article 7 of the Mandate.

"No - until the Jews of Palestine were ready for self-government."

Well, no. That is not what the League of Nations Covenant and the Mandate say.

"Britain attempted to "protect the interests of the [Arab] inhabitants" by restricting the immigration and land purchases of Jews. This was inconsistent with their undertaking under the Mandate."

Again, no. It was not inconsistent with the Mandate, as confirmed by the Permanent Mandate Council.

Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Palestine etc. were all viewed by the British government as vital to the strategic interests of the empire. The Mandate carve-up served no other purpose than to further its interests (and those of France), and if that required military "assistance" to any or all of the puppet regimes it put in place, then it would provide that "assistance" whether asked for or not. This military assistance had nothing to do with any "genocidal" wars on anyone, but with keeping the population down and the regime in power, protecting lines of communication, and maintaining control over oil fields.

Trans-Jordan and the Yishuv negotiated over the West Bank and Britain was aware of the negotiations. They agreed who would annexe what. (In the event I am not sure who was more over-zealous in trying to acquire more territory under cover of war. The Jordanian army, however, did not venture into territory assigned to Israel in the proposed UN partition.)

"Britain played a substantial part in the first genocidal Arab war against Israel."

It is time you studied all the evidence now available and quietly dropped the David and Goliath myth.

charles soper

Thanks, Melanie. Ronnie Gordon's recent cartoon of a snake swallowing its own tail seems an apt illustration of this union.

There is one ray of light in the gloom, it will expose Hamas impotence to bring about real change in Gaza, and will increasingly put the lie to the MB's ruling slogan, 'Islam is the solution'. Gazans will have two invidious choices - to radicalise further or to begin to abandon Islamist ideas altogether, all this in the crucible of global gaze.

daniel maris

It's pretty clear that if Palestine as a nation deserving a state is dodgy, then the idea of a Jewish peoplee as a nation deserving a state ni Palestine is equally and probably more dodgy.

A little humility would not go amiss.

Ian Hills

I think westerners should mind their own business and let the middle east sort out its own affairs. Meddling in other countries' ways of doing things smacks of condescending colonialism at best, oil and arms profiteering at worst. We should devote more time to domestic concerns, and recall that foreigners somehow managed to get by before western nations were even invented.

Edward in the USA

Herzen said:

"It is time you studied all the evidence now available and quietly dropped the David and Goliath myth"

Israel stands despite the genocidal wishes of Islamists and Europeons.

Sounds like David vs. Goliath is not a myth.

Mustapha Bunn

Garry L @ 3.55pm .... " the Egyptian Air Force were British pilots in British planes"
Aircraft types,squadron numbers etc. please.

Truthtriumphs

daniel maris
April 30th, 2011 11:58pm
"It's pretty clear that if Palestine as a nation deserving a state is dodgy, then the idea of a Jewish peoplee as a nation deserving a state ni Palestine is equally and probably more dodgy.

A little humility would not go amiss."

What a daft, facile and ignorant comment.
What is the evidence for a Palestinian nation...it never existed?
The only people who want a new state called Palestine are the left bien-pensants like you, who have found this great "cause" to give "meaning"
to their empty lives.

In the words of Azzam Tammimi of the Muslim Brotherhood...we do not want another Islamic state... there are enough of those. There is no difference between Jordanians, Syrians, lebanese, etc. We are all part of the same ummah. We just do not want a Jewish state in an Islamic region.
That is the widely held Arab view, so stop projecting your own erroneous wishful thinking onto those who have a different notion of their own destiny.

And what has humility to do with those fighting for their own minuscule piece of land, so tiny that it is all but invisible on a map of Arab conquests?

Adam B.

Kate, perhaps you can also explain away Abbas' Holocaust denial? A "historian" like Irving is described, rightly, as a fascist, and Abbas, who maintains the same position, is described "a moderate".

Adam B.

Off topic, an excellent demolition of Goldstone here:

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/83/goldstone_vs_goldstone_the_ugly_truth_about_an_anti_israeli_report_at_the_un

Another Joshua

@ Herzen

You say (on my behalf): "April 29th, 2011 4:13pm
Noble gesture giving Gaza to the Arabs... met with rocket fire from ungrateful Arabs... causing trauma to Israeli children...Arabs clearly don't want peace...Arabs irrational, evil, and revel in violence...Arabs clearly want to kill every last peace-loving Israeli Jew...Israelis only want to live in peace in land of forefathers...Israel offers peace and Arabs respond with violence...why do Arabs hate Israel?..."

Precisely. Whilst there are a number of Arab voices that call for the end of violence with Israel, there isn't a single strong enough leadership in any Arab country today or yesteryear who was or is willing to make the peace AND A world that finds it uncomfortable to realise that Jews, as much as any other have a right to live. That,in a nutshell, is the problem.

You can theorise, reinterpret the Mandate terms to your heart's content, but YOU offer no practical solution. There have been no bloodbaths of 50,000 dead , as say in Algeria, or 30,000 in Syria, which if given the chance, Hamas and the PA would gladly carry out. That's the reality.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

The beauty of the union between Abbas and Hamas is that the next deliberate targeting of civilians by Hamas can be met with the targeted killing of Abbas as well the Hamas henchmen.

I cant wait. I think Israel now should have no fear of taking the gloves off..perhaps taking inspiration - in terms of "legality" and moral propriety - from NATO's deliberate targeting of Gadaffi and his family.... to protect civilians.

kate

Interesting. I challenged Ben to find any evidence for his assertation that:

"[Abbas] has blatantly declared that there is no Jewish people, that the Jews have never had any connection whatsoever with the Land of Israel,"

He provided a link to this (happy to include it again):

http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=708

It offers absolutely no evidence for either accusation.

Ben also includes the rather odd phrase: "for a full profile of the "moderate" Abbas (aka Abu Mazen)".

I've never really understood this. All Arabs in the Levant are known by the name of their eldest son. Slipping this in is akin to an anti-semite who lets you know that "Chas" was born "Chaim".

In many ways my point is made again. The level of discourse is so debased and the ability to speak seriously and with some degree of accuracy about this issue so compromised that it will be hard to make peace.

GaryL

Mustapha Bunn

Thank you for asking. This is where you can read about Britain's involvment in the 1948 war against Israel - http://emperor.vwh.net/history/br.htm, or as a pdf file for more leasured reading - http://emperor.vwh.net/history/br-role.pdf. I'm sure you'll be pleased to be educated about this from a UN memorandum of April 1948.

Stephen Rothbart

John Roosevelt, let us hope you are right, and that NATO will not, under the precedent of the UN intervention in Libya to protect civilians, and with the connivance of the Islamist POTUS and his cohorts, Samantha Powers and Susan Rice in the White House, call for intervention by NATO when the IDF is next called upon to attack Hamas in Gaza.

As everyone knows, except the idiots behind the Goldstone report, Hamas deliberately sets up its rocket launchers where any reprisals will cause civilian casualties, in the certain knowledge that the useful idiots in the UN, EU and Left wing inntellectual circles, will then blame Israel.

They have done it for years with great success. The UI fall for it every time.

This is what Israel has to prepare for now.

I would not gloat. Yes, the Palestinians, under their rotten leaders, will kill each other and murder each other, while the world sits and says nothing. But not when Jews do it. Then they cry "foul."

But Hamas now has the Egyptian border crossingto Gaza open, and Turkish and Iranian warships already have access to the Suez Canal.

Turkey is now an ally of Iran and Hamas.

The world just took a step closer to Armageddon because an isolated Israel will have nowhere else to go.

blue_&_white_avenger

Steven Rothbart - well said - both times.

St Bruno:"f they dare who would be first? One guess.
Yes, big Satan, the United States of America! "
Yers - but as has been expounded here, the US currently only has a titular head, that well known orator, back-room lawyer & local councillor, "the Great Ditherer".
Can you really imagine him pulling a trigger !?

Herzen

Another Joshua
May 1st, 2011 11:39am

Of the early Zionists, some looked on the indigenous population as a primitive people who would welcome the Zionists' civilising mission (or at least be employed as "hewers of wood"); most simply ignored their presence or understood that it would be necessary to displace them.

You adhere to a modern version: The Palestinians should simply accept their dispossession. If they resist, they are criminals and terrorists. Israelis should be allowed to enjoy in peace what they took by force.

The "noble gesture" has been explained many times. It was anything but noble.

Several years ago, a member of one of the militias in Gaza explained his crimes to a visiting journalist by saying that he wanted Israeli civilians to understand the trauma that had been endured by Palestinian civilians for years by experiencing a very very little of the same themselves. Does this excuse his crimes? No. Does it explain the snort of derision from Palestinians when Israel complains of trauma? Yes.

Arabs clearly don't want peace. - The Arab states and the Palestinians, like the rest of the international community (including for a while even the US) have long since accepted the principle of a two state solution based on the Green Line. Israel has worked relentlessly to make this impracticable and has now pretty much succeeded.

Arabs are like any other people, not easily confined by racist stereotypes.

Even Hezballah has explained patiently that it has no objection to Jews living in Palestine but to a Zionist state imposed on the indigenous population. This is not equivalent to wanting to kill every last Jew.

Israel only wants to live in peace in the land of its forebears translates in practice into Israel only wants those it dispossessed to leave it in peace to enjoy what it has taken. (Its forebears are not relevant.)

Israel has not offered peace. It has been willing to allow the Palestinians to call the ghettoes it keeps them in a "state". This is not peace but the formalisation of humiliating defeat and perpetual imprisonment.

Why do they hate Israel? The answer is too obvious for the question to be other than disingenuous.

You say my version of what you would say is precisely right. It shows how precisely and wilfully wrong you are about the conflict.

prasad

Both sides (Israel and Palestinian) countries should have peace talks then this issue will be solved otherwise this issue will continue for a long time and neighbouring countries will suffer along with these countries and also this conflict will be one of the reason for world war so we have to solve this problem immediately United Nations should negotiate with these countries.

Adam B.

Kate

Whilst you try to get Abbas off the hook and present him as reasonable and moderate, perhaps you would consider this:

1. Abbas is a Holocaust denier.
2. Abbas controls the Palestinian Authority, which controls the official broadcasting of TV. This state television broadacsts the most outrageous racism and antisemitism; jews are routinely referred to as "monkeys and pigs", and violence against Jews is openly encouraged. Sermons broadcast call for the murder of Jews, as a holy act. In addition, PA controlled press publish antisemitic cartoons and articles on a regular basis. The Al Aqsa martyrs brigades, which target civilians and rejoice in civilian deaths, remains part of Abbas' party, Fatah.

Some "moderate".

Truthtriumphs

daniel maris
April 30th, 2011 11:58pm

And as a postscript....the Palestinians already have their state....it's called Jordan, and it sits on 77% of the geographical area of Palestine.
Indeed, its population comprises a similar percentage of Palestinians.
Don't believe me?
King Hussein said as much.
"Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan", so all they have to do is to change he name of Jordan to Palestine.

Truthtriumphs

Herzen
May 1st, 2011 3:23pm

"Of the early Zionists, some looked on the indigenous population as a primitive people who would welcome the Zionists' civilising mission..."

So when you talk of the indigenous population of Palestine, how far back do you go in time.
After all, the Arabs hail from the Arabian Peninsula, so give us the dates when they arrived in the Palestinian region.

"Even Hezballah has explained patiently that it has no objection to Jews living in Palestine but to a Zionist state imposed on the indigenous population. This is not equivalent to wanting to kill every last Jew".

Hezbollah was resposible for the bombing of the Buenos Aires Jewish community centre in 1994, which killed 87 innocents, and maimed more than 100.
Nasrallah, the head of Hezbollah, publicly stated that he would welcome the in gathering of world Jewry in Israel, as that way, he said, would save him the trouble of going after them worldwide. ie.it would make their extermination so much easier.

"Why do they hate Israel? The answer is too obvious for the question to be other than disingenuous".

It certainly is. they hate Israel, the Jews and the infidels ie.non Muslims, because they have been indoctrinated to do so from birth.
That unfortunate pro-Palestinian ISM activist, the Italian Arrigoni, who was hanged in Gaza a few weeks ago, must have been mightily shocked when he was beaten up and then hanged by his beloved Palestinians, for whom he gave his all.
That's gratitude for you, but should serve as a permanent reminder as to what this conflict is really about.

Herzen

Truthtriumphs
May 1st, 2011 5:04pm
I will not believe that Jordan is Palestine until you quote me Mark Twain to that effect, whom failing, Martin Luther King.

You know fine well that land east of the Jordan river has nothing to do with the indigenous population of the land west of the Jordan river. This is just a nonsense. It's like saying the Scots should get out of Scotland because they already have a state in Ireland, or some such *&~@.

Herzen

Truthtriumphs
May 1st, 2011 5:40pm
Herzen
May 1st, 2011 3:23pm

"Of the early Zionists, some looked on the indigenous population as a primitive people who would welcome the Zionists' civilising mission..."

So when you talk of the indigenous population of Palestine, how far back do you go in time.
After all, the Arabs hail from the Arabian Peninsula, so give us the dates when they arrived in the Palestinian region.

Truthtriumphs, you lurch from one ignorant blunder to the next.

You think (against all the evidence)that the inhabitants of Palestine all came from the Arabian peninsula?

And all those of the Jewish faith around the world came from Mesopotamia with Abraham?

And the fact that we can all trace our ancestors back to Africa...

Let's stick to what is relevant: there was a settled community in the region in the nineteenth century which the Zionist immigrants sought to supplant.

In 1994... And in 1982, Israel, in an effort to provoke the PLO to provide a pretext to invade Lebanon, killed many more than this in a school in south Lebanon. In the course of the invasion itself, Israel killed many thousands of civilians...Your point is? Oh, you mean you think Nasrallah is actually going to go after every single Jew in the world...

"they hate Israel, the Jews and the infidels ie.non Muslims, because they have been indoctrinated to do so from birth." - They don't need to be indoctrinated to hate Israel - it dispossessed them and continues to oppress them. To make the mistake of confusing Jews with Israelis, they need only listen to the insistent propaganda of Zionists.

daniel maris

Truthtriumphs,

Well if you are along with others really want to take the focus away from Hamas and their genocidal policies...

There were no "Israeli people" before the 1940s. The Israeli nation was formed from people with a common cultural core, but equally wide differences of language and custom. The Palestinian people didn't exist before the post war period either, but they have as much a common cultural core as Israelis.

What do you suggest should happen to Palestinian Arabs. You don't want them to have state. I presume you don't want to let them have a vote. What are you proposing for them? Expulsion to Jordan? Or worse?

It is time now for the Arabs to demonstrate they want something more than Israel's destruction. But in the meantime Israel should not attempt to settle the West Bank.

Truthtriumphs

May 1st, 2011 9:42pm
Truthtriumphs,

"There were no "Israeli people" before the 1940s. The Israeli nation was formed from people with a common cultural core, but equally wide differences of language and custom. The Palestinian people didn't exist before the post war period either, but they have as much a common cultural core as Israelis".

You really are hopelessly confused!
The Jewish nation has existed as a separate, distinct people since the giving of the law at Mount Sinai.
It has a distinct language, religion, culture, law etc. from any other.

There has NEVER in history been a distinct Palestinian nationality--- it is a recent invention.
If there is a separate identity, what defines it?
What is its language, religion, history etc. that would give it a separate identity?

"There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and lebanese. We are all part of one nation.
It is only for political identity....yes, the existance of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes. The founding of a Palestine state is a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel".

Zuheir Muhsin. Head of military department of the PlO. March 1977.

"There is no language known as Palestinian. There is no distinct Palestinian culture.
There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians."
Joseph Farah. Arab-American journalist. January2002.

Adam B.

No Herzen, over 60% of the population of Jordan is made up of Palestinians.

Tell me how the Arabs who live in Jordan are different from Arabs west of the Jordan. Does the difference begin in 1922, when the eastern 80% of Palestine was broken off to make the exclusively Arab state of Jordan?

By the way, your sarcastic tone really doesn't help you.

C.Gee

- “Ben also includes the rather odd phrase: "for a full profile of the "moderate" Abbas (aka Abu Mazen)".
- "I've never really understood this. All Arabs in the Levant are known by the name of their eldest son. Slipping this in is akin to an anti-semite who lets you know that "Chas" was born "Chaim".”

No, Kate. You are perfectly well aware of the Arab custom of taking a nom de guerre. Arabs adopt and use the nom de guerre as a sign of pride and respect. It is not in the least like a Jew adopting a non-Jewish name, nor is it anti-Arab to point it out.

I am interested that you should impute antisemitism to someone “who lets you know “Chas” was born “Chaim”.” I can think of many reasons to do so. The only antisemitic one would be the satisfaction of “outing” a Jew when to do so would cause the outed Jew personal embarrassment or harm by exposing him as a Jew to antisemites.

So, I would not choose Ben’s pointing out that Abbas has a nom de guerre as an example of the debasement of discourse. I would choose the habit of the “middle-ground” peacemakers to see false equivalence between Arabs and Jews.

C.Gee

“It's pretty clear that if Palestine as a nation deserving a state is dodgy, then the idea of a Jewish peoplee as a nation deserving a state ni Palestine is equally and probably more dodgy.”

No. It is the other way round. If the idea of a Jewish people as a nation deserving a state in Palestine, which was the name of the territory marked out for their National Home, is dodgy, then the idea of Arabs being a Palestinian nation and deserving a state on the same territory by virtue of having the Jewish National Home boundary drawn around them is far more dodgy.

“A little humility would not go amiss.”

In whom and to whom? And why?

Rick

Adam B.
May 2nd, 2011 12:17am
"No Herzen, over 60% of the population of Jordan is made up of Palestinians."

Here's a curious thing. People indigenous to the territory the Zionists wanted are not a "people" - there is "no such thing" as Palestinians. Yet people who live in territory the Zionists wanted to transfer the people indigenous to the territory the Zionsits wanted are - Palestinians.

Very odd.

Herzen

C. Gee

Once Israel has annexed the occupied territories and offered second-class citizenship to the Palestinians who live there, are those who accept citizenship to be restricted to certain areas of their new country? and what is to be done with those who do not accept citizenship?

Mustapha Bunn

Gary L @ 2.41 .. I'm always ready to be educated which was why I asked for information ref.RAF squadrons/pilots purely for my own knowledge.
I don't believe or disbelieve what you wrote at all.
However, I have read through the site you linked to,admittedly fairly quickly,but I can find no reference to the RAF other than a matter of airfields.
What was noticeable though was that, if one replaces the word 'Britain'with 'Israel', how similar the arguments seem to be 60 years later.
Lots of accusations and counter accusations each with their built in bias and none of which solve any of the problems.Which probably means others will be here in another 60 years on this or a similar site re-gurgitating the same old hatreds .... which is a shame really.

Grumpy true Zionist

meanwhile from more of lunatics in the me

hamas condemns the killing of binladen (another terror brother)

and you want Israel to do whaaaat.....make peace with whom????

blow that out of your ..se

Another Joshua

@Herzen
The WTC was struck by terrorists killing civilians and was celebrated by the many Arabs living in Gaza and elsewhere. Today's announcement by Hamas mourning the loss of the "Holy Warrior" OBL is there for all of us to hear. How do these events square with a reasoned "alleged" grievance of dispossession you maintain is the cause off terrorism, with the other point of view, that Israel have little doubt that it is its destruction that Hamas seeks and not for a state of its own?

Answer....

Kermack

Only two groups have come out today condemning the killing of Osama Bin Laden, predictably the Taliban, no surprises there. But also Hamas, and these are the people you want us to make peace with…

Herzen

Another Joshua
May 2nd, 2011 12:41pm
I checked back to see if there was any response from you on anything previously touched on, and found none.

I checked through your latest for any logical inference, and found none.

Herzen

C. Gee
On the break-up of the Ottoman Empire, the Allied Powers recognized that its inhabitants had a right to determine their own future governance (however hypocritical this recognition). They also, at the behest of the British, undertook to facilitate a Jewish National Home in Palestine. It is still not clear why they gave this (on the face of it) bizarre undertaking. You have not seen fit to provide an explanation. (It is reminiscent of European monarchies giving their settlers "rights" to chunks of the New World.) But is it not reasonable to conclude from the recognition of the inhabitants' rights, and the undertaking to the fringe group calling themselves the Zionists (allegedly on behalf of "World Jewry), that the Great Powers recognised the claims of both groups to determine their own governance? (It is another matter how the Great Powers thought it possible to reconcile the two claims.)

Celato

Truthtriumphs:

The defining features of a nation, you insist, are "a distinct language, religion, culture, law, etc". On this basis, Israel would never have come into existence, I'm afraid.

1. Language - I don't know how many Jews in the world spoke Ivrit (modern Hebrew) prior to Israel's foundation, but it sure wasn't many. Even today roughly 50% of Israelis are not native speakers of the country's official tongue. They had to LEARN it because - even if they were familiar with ancient Hebrew through religious usage - Ivrit is so heavily derivative from dozens of other languages; and this was because....

2. Culture - after centuries of settlement all over the globe, Jews had become native speakers of everything from Aramaic to Greek to Russian to English. American Jews had become culturally immersed in America; Polish Jews attuned to the culture of Poland. But, ah, you will say, not in one vital respect, which is ...

3. Religion - the one unifying factor which trumps local culture because (apart from anything else) it brings us back to the "language" definer of nationhood. Forget Ivrit - Hebrew is the crucial factor! But is it really? Here we have a dead language as far as colloquial usage is concerned, so to be a "national" Jew it is essential to have been educated in Jewish liturgy - and since roughly a quarter of Jews describe themselves as non-affiliated/secular, it's pretty certain their Hebrew is, let's say, not exactly fluent. (Besides, TT, would you define Catholics as a "nation" on the basis that their church services are conducted in Latin? Hmm, very doubtful.) So all we are left with is ...

4. Law - which is, unfortunately, either bedevilled by the religious objections noted above, or has to be taken to apply to a legal system devised AFTER Israel's foundation. What else ...?

5. Oh yes, "Etc" - Could this perhaps be a complex, powerful sense of kinship and shared destiny, which Palestinian Arabs feel no less "distinctly" (and mysteriously) bonded by than Zionist Jews?

Uncomfortable as this might be for you, Truthtriumphs, it's high time you faced up to current reality rather than living in a long-dead past.

Adam B.

Then Rick, perhaps you can explain the difference between the Arabs who live in Jordan (aside from the British imposed Hashemites) and the Arabs who live in Israel/Judea/Samaria/Gaza - culturally, religiously, or any other way. I look forward to your reply.

And no-one is moving or transferring anyone anywhere - except the Kurds being moved into camps in Syria, which none of the Israel bashers seems to give a fig about.

Kate

Adam B

On Abbas as a holocaust denier I refer you to my earlier post.

On Palestine TV can you validate the two claims below please. Links to actual instances, please, not to "PalMediaWatch" homepage and a general exhortation to go and have a look.

"jews are routinely referred to as monkeys and pigs"
"sermons broadcast call for the murder of jews as a holy act".

Do not accidentally direct me to Al Quds TV, the Hamas channel. Otherwise you might end up making my point for me - that Fatah and Hamas are not the same.

On the AAMB you are half right. They are unpleasant nutters. But Abbas and Fayyad have kept them under control (when was the last attack carried out by the AAMB in the West Bank - don't, by the way, say it was the Itamar killings because it wasn't).

C.Gee. The "chas/chaim" reference was, if memory serves me correctly, to do with one of Mel Gibson's weird racist rants. Or was it Charlie Sheen. Anyway, a recent example.

The point about the moniker "Abu" is that it is not necessarily a "nom de guerre". For most Arabs it is just a "nom". All Arabs take the name as symbol of male pride when they have their first born son. Some adopt the name before they have children -for good luck as it were. It's also used as a humourous term. Abu Binairt (father of the daughters) for someone who only has had girls. Abu Kirsk (father of the stomach) for someone who is a bit fat. People are referred to publicly as "Abu xyz" as a mark of community respect. But that respect does not necessarily come from a reputation for violence.

I can name hundreds of "Abus" who have never had anything to do with violence. And I can name lots of terrorists who never used the moniker Abu e.g. Yahya "Al-Muhandis" Ayyash or Dr Abdel Aziz Rantissi.

For those posters highlighting Haniyeh's latest repulsive statement on Bin Laden - couldn't agree more. Contrast it with the PA statement.

Palestinians are not "all the same" any more than Israelis are. I hope it is not too late for Israel to realise this and save the moderates. I fear that it might be.

If so, as I have said before, those who have consistently demonised the PA, Abbas and Fayyad over recent years will have done Israel a great disservice.

wonderer

@Herzen
May 1st, 2011 7:41pm, "They don't need to be indoctrinated to hate Israel - it dispossessed them and continues to oppress them."

The hatred is far older than that sentence implies.

For example, the first monthly report of the UN Committee on Palestine in 1948 quotes Sir Alexander Cadogan, Britain’s representative, as follows:-

“The Government of Palestine fear that strife in Palestine will be greatly intensified when the Mandate is terminated, and that the international status of the United Nations Commission will mean little or nothing to the Arabs in Palestine, to whom the killing of Jews now transcends all other considerations.”

Truthtriumphs

Herzen
May 1st, 2011 6:04pm
Truthtriumphs
May 1st, 2011 5:04pm

"I will not believe that Jordan is Palestine until you quote me Mark Twain to that effect, whom failing, Martin Luther King".

Just for your info, and where does one begin with an ignoramus of biblical proportions, when the British, in 1922, hived off Palestine East of the Jordan River, intended for the future Jewish homeland, to the Hashemites, King Abdullah wanted to call his new kingdom, Palestine.
The British refused, and it became Trans Jordan.
As I told you, King Hussein said "Jordan is Palestine, and Palestine is Jordan".

But you, Herzen, the great luminary, know better.

Herzen, why don't you stand for Parliament....any parliament?
It seem a shame to deprive the world of your infinite talents and wisdom?

Truthtriumphs

Kate @ 6.33pm.

"Do not accidentally direct me to Al Quds TV, the Hamas channel. Otherwise you might end up making my point for me - that Fatah and Hamas are not the same".

Indeed, they are not!
They are opposite sides of the same evil coin.
At least Hamas is "honest" as to its evil intentions, whereas Abbas speaks with a forked tongue.
I suggest you look at the poisonous propaganda the PA pumps out on its state controlled TV, newspapers and radio, not to mention the contents of its schoolbooks, university material etc.
It rivals the output of Hitler's Nazi Germany in its Jew hatred.
And more to the point, the PA is routinely complicit in acts of terror against Israeli civilians.
Just last week, its "policemen" opened fire on worshippers visiting Joseph's Tomb in Nablus, as they were leaving.
One 25 year-old man was shot dead, leaving 3 orphaned infants, and 15 others were injured.
It wasn't an isolated incident either.
Neither does the PA view the establishment of a Palestinian state as a final status situation.
It says so openly. It wants Palestine "from the river to the sea".

Get real!

C.Gee

Kate:

Yes, and thanks for the warm waffle, but Abu Mazen is a nom de guerre, isn’t it?

Herzen:

Who said anything about citizenship?

Permanent resident status under Israeli governance would be a splendid improvement for (up to 1.5 million) West Bank Arabs: no vote, but protection of civil rights, individual freedom (including internal movement and work, barring only some government jobs), opportunity for prosperity, better health and education. It would indeed be granting a partial “right of return”. Citizenship could be earned in the usual way. (See USA . Compare and contrast Saudi Arabia, which does not allow Palestinians (Muslims only) to become citizens after 10 years of residency, unlike all other Muslims.) Insurrection could be dealt with in the usual way.

As for your question: “But is it not reasonable to conclude from the recognition of the inhabitants' rights, and the undertaking to the fringe group calling themselves the Zionists (allegedly on behalf of "World Jewry), that the Great Powers recognised the claims of both groups to determine their own governance?”

No.

Adam B.

Kate

I see no reference by you regarding Abbas' Holocaust denial, which is well documented. Could you refer me to the time you wrote about it?

I will gladly refer you to just some of the many instances of Jews being called "apes and monkeys" by Fatah's state controlled television - several are listed here, and the second link has video of such instances:

http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=786

http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=787

Although you will see some of these instances come from Hamas, you will also see that Fatah indulges in the same racism and incitement to murder. I have also seen video, via Memri, showing a cleric on Fatah's TV stating the following:

"Blessed is he who puts a billet in the head of a Jew". Here are some more instances - on Palestinian Authority TV:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwQXBgK8qls

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjuDTO8fgqM&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gcohE-V3pM&feature=related

In addition, you can find antisemitic cartoons reminiscent of Nazi Germany in Fatah's newspapers.

Are you really unaware of this Kate?

In addition, you dismiss the Al aqsa martyrs brigades rather too flippantly. I know they did not commit the Itamar massacre (I guess years of Jew hatred being broadcast by the Palestinian Authority is enough to incite individuals to murder Jews of their own volition). I do know that AAMB initially claimed responsibility for it - so they only WISHED they had done it. Well, that makes all the difference.

Furthermore, this terror group, which is part of Fatah, has been responsible for the murders of countless Israeli civilians, as recently as 2008 (when Abbas was in power), and whose deaths they celebrate.

Recently, Fatah has named several streets and squares after terrorists who deliberately targeted civilians (including school buses and kindergartens, individuals who deliberately sprayed children with machine gun fire).

Now if you want to believe that Fatah, responsible for all the above, are a reasonable bunch of guys who just want peace, then please be my guest. But the deliberate whitewashing of a group which promotes the most outrageous racism, which you would not tolerate elsewhere for one second, hatred, terrorism and primitive religiously inspired garbage is simply appalling.

GaryL

Mustapha Bunn

re British/Egyptian ploanes & pilots.

If it isn't in that document then it was probably in one of the other references published at that time by those who were there, possibly by Pierre Van Passern or David Kimche.

This doc shows that the Egyptian air force was completely wiped out then almost instantly replaced by Britain. Someone flew the planes to Egypt, and Egypt somehow found enough replacement pilots. Both Egyptian and Syrian pilots were trained in Britain.

Stephen Rothbart

Can I just try to put to bed the idea that RAF pilots flew against Israel during the 1948 war of Independence.

It is true that ex-RAF Spitfires sold by the RAF to Egypt were in the air against re-built Messerschmidts flown by Israelis and supplied by the only European country that did not abandon the Jews to their fate, Czechoslovakia.

In fact a few ex-RAF pilots, including a non-Jewish Brit, so disgusted by his perception of British bias towards the Arabs as they abandoned their Protecorate that he volunteeed to fight for Israel, ended up flying ex-German fighters against some German and Egyptian pilots flying the heroic Spitfires!

Ironic. But no RAF pilots, just planes, but the perception on the ground was that Britain certainly helped the Arabs in every way they could.

Look I understand it. Britain had to look aftr the British interests, which is securing oil for its people, so of course they favoured the Arab nations, as Israel had no oil.

That is real-politik.

What I can't stand is the hypocricy of ordinary people who blame Israel for the very things their own countries have done and still do.

We all know politicians are whores and have no morals, but what drives Herzen Rick and Blades to be so supportive of a nasty terrorist clique? Did they also support the IRA? Not just their cause but their reaction to futhering it?

As others have now noted, Hamas, everyone's darling victim, has indicated their dimay that Osama was killed. Yet Hamas is the new partner that EU and UN and USA leaders will be pressuring Israel to make eace with.

Remember the outrage of the British government at a supposed hitjob on a top Hamas arms trader?

Now the USA have targeted Osama Bin Laden by assassination and landed a US force in a sovereign country that they were not at war with, and without their permission, and the world is in ectasy, including Cameron.

Good for the USA and good for Israel for ridding the world of human cockroaches but what a difference of perception by our PM.

And Herzen, be a good chap and give it a rest.

Even if one accepts your concept that Israel is illegitimate, the fact is that they are here.

So Hamas is justified in firing rockets at anyone they wish and targeting school buses? Is that really your conclusion?

Because that was the thesis of this article by Melanie.

Hamas and Fatah are joining together. Hamas wants Israel and all Infidel out of the Middle East. They deliberatley target women and children and are quite open about it.

Do you think this is justified or not?

Why does every mention of Israel end up with you and Truthtriumphs endlessly debating whether Israel is legitimate or not?

Tell us what you think about Hamas and Fatah now being a true partner for Peace with Israel.

daniel maris

Celato,

Well I think you shouldn't raise the bar too high for a "people". The British people are only a "people" in a rough sense. In many ways you couldn't find people more different than Scots and Welsh. The Welsh have their own language. The Scots have their own legal system distinct from the English.

If the British are a people, then so are the Jews and there is no particular reason why the Jews shouldn't have a state.

However, Zionists keeping trying to push things ways beyond reasonable limits. To take the most obvious point, Jerusalem is not a Jewish city. It is a Jewish, Islamic, Christian, Bahai and secular city.

kate

Adam B - In a hurry so only looked at the first of your links. Sorry. But again, it rather proves my point. I asked you to show me evidence that on Palestine TV:

"jews are routinely referred to as monkeys and pigs"
"sermons broadcast call for the murder of jews as a holy act".

The link (to PalMediaWatch whose raison d'etre is to monitor and highlight any such instances) has no recent examples of either. It has examples from 2004 - during the second intifada and while Arafat was still in charge. This is not to excuse it. But it is to point out that in 2004 the Palestinians were doing this stuff. Under Abbas and Fayyad they have not. I repeat, Abbas and Fayyad are the best Palestinian leadership the Israelis will ever get and wilfully ignoring this is to do a disservice to Israel.

On the AAMB I'm not sure we disagree. They are Fatah and they are murderous nutcases. My point was that they are also under control of Abbas and Fayyad. Because they are moderates. That's a good thing. And lose the current moderates and the AAMB will be back out of their box in the West Bank. They are more of a threat to Israel from there than Hamas or PIJ.

Truthtriumphs:

"It rivals the output of Hitler's Nazi Germany in its Jew hatred. And more to the point, the PA is routinely complicit in acts of terror against Israeli civilians."

I suspect that even you know that neither of these claims is true. On the Nablus shootings the IDF reaction (before the politicians got hold of it) was that it was not a terror attack, was an isolated incident and could and should have been prevented by proper prior co-ordination. If three car loads of Palestinians had attempted to break through an Israel checkpoint they would have elicited the same response. And that wouldn't have been a terrorist attack either.

C Gee: Let's agree to disagree since you are unable to actually muster any support for argument but have taken to simply restating it.

Another Joshua

@Celato

You have done a marvellous job of destroying the Jewish people by denying them everything that gives them identity. Well done!

The one thing that Jews do have however, that is not on your list is memory. Memory of where they came from, what moulded them into a people, what suffering they endured for keeping their faith, what achievements and failures they performed, what languages they had - Hebrew, considered by Jews to be a Holy tongue, but there were other jewish languages as well, many of which used Hebrew script, that the letters of these languages had numerical meanings as well. This is more than a language, it s a meditation on being. That it remained the language of prayer and later evolved into "Modern" Hebrew to meet the requirements of daily usage and to preserve the identity of the Jewish People many of us who do speak it , is what makes it a relevant factor to identity.

I could go on...

@Herzen

Others on this thread have answered a number of the points that you refute quite regularly. I do not wish to spend time repeating those points. Your history and legal application is selective to say the least, and often not correct, or if it is I do not agree with the points you conclude with. Others have filled in the missing parts that have dealt with several points already and I do not need to keep making the same points.

One point that I find irksome is that you ridicule references by Mark Twain's to 19th Century Palestine, referred to by TT, but of course there are many others too, who travelled the near East who have written in a similar vein. The point TT makes is that Twain ( and other writers) had no political axe to grind when describing the land, unlike many today who wish to give the "Palestinian" Arabs as opposed to Arabs, an identity they did not have, though they now have acquired over time a shared experience that gives them an identity, a dialect and so on.

For the record, my view is, whether Israeli Jews like it or not, there is an Arab presence and there always was, many of whom were nomadic tribal communities that lived in the area or had moved into the area. Some had been there for a very long time and many had not. The records are scant on exact details and the Ottomans did not keep any clear census.What was however clear, the Land was under developed, the people that lived there were very poor, diseased and not over abundant in numbers and that as more Jewish settlement occurred conditions improved.

Whatever the position, the Arabs rights to a State have essentially not been ignored. The Treaties with Turkey referred to Arab national rights as well as Jewish rights, but the Arabs have continuously failed to acknowledge Jewish rights. It is this latter point, more than the negation of the Arabs rights , that dominate the debate and the conflict, fuelled once by the British Colonialists and the Mufti, and later by the Arab League has prevented a peaceful resolution, the present incumbents adopting the same old vitriol.You do not accept that and prefer to give these murderers a narrative to justify their actions, which is fair enough, but most Jews do not agree with you - obviously. Jews DID own land and did live there in significant numbers, and would have owned even more, if Ottoman Land could have been bought.

Arabs were dispossessed , but not because of the Jews. Arabs chose not to recognise the rights of jews, that brought about the conflict. The War against israel in 1948 for the Arabs was a zero end game. For the Jews to have lost it would have meant another holocaust.

I have spoken to my friend from Algeria, who described his upbringing as one of indoctrination and hatred towards Jewish people. Nothing to do with dispossession, as you say, but pure vitriolic hatred. Algeria does not even border israel, and yet he said, given the chance, his people would have no hesitation killing Jews. Is he wrong Herzen?

Kermack

@Daniel
The name should really give it away, Jerusalem - it's a Hebrew name and the city itself contains Judaism’s holiest site, the Wailing Wall. The temple mount for example can't be described as Islam’s holiest site and I'd imagine most Christians would consider Bethlehem holier. However despite that they can all pray in peace in the City now, a city that is largely Israeli/Jewish (secular and religious). So to perfectly reasonable I'd say that the Jews are best placed to be the caretakers of the city....
BTW The Baha’i faith is based in Haifa - I can see the gardens from where I'm sat now....

Truthtriumphs

Kate.

Truthtriumphs:

"It rivals the output of Hitler's Nazi Germany in its Jew hatred. And more to the point, the PA is routinely complicit in acts of terror against Israeli civilians."

"I suspect that even you know that neither of these claims is true".

Wrong.
I have some of this stuff in my possession, including cartoons of hideous hook-nosed "Jews".
Are you really denying a wealth of evidence?
Are you really saying that the PA doesn't teach toddlers that Haifa, TelAviv, etc will be returned to them?
Are you saying that they show don't maps of the ME minus Israel?
If so, to put it politely, you are dishonest.

And your comment comparing worshippers at Joseph's Tomb to carloads of Palestinians breaking through a checkpoint in Israel, is absurd and disgusting.
These were people, chasids, leaving a Jewish holy site....one, incidentally, that has in the past been trashed by the Palestinians, who deny the Jewish connection.
Jews don't go on terror attacks, blow up buses, use civilians as target practice, do drive-by shootings and ambushes etc., so your analogy is absurd.
This most certainly WAS a terror attack, so don't sanitise it to fit in with your warped narrative.
Did you know, btw, that the Waqf that control's Temple Mount in Jerusalem, Judaism's actual holiest site whereupon two temples stood long before the mosque was built there, actually forbids any non-Jew from worshipping there---they even watch to see that visitors don't silently pray?

You need to read more about the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims throughout history.
I think you will find that it is one based on persecution and domination of the Muslims upon the infidels.
The PA is no different, rather more of the same.

Celato

daniel maris & Another Joshua:

Sorry if I gave the impression I was "denying" the national identity of Jews in my post of May 2nd (6.00pm). That most emphatically is not my position.

What I was doing was challenging the rigid and ill-thought-through criteria for nationhood proposed by Truthtriumphs (May 2nd, 12.03am) in his/her dismissal of any authentic PALESTINIAN national identity.

Perhaps if you read the two posts in tandem, you will see that far from "setting the bar too high", my purpose was to remove spurious barriers.

Rick

Adam B.
May 2nd, 2011 6:22pm
Whoa! a bit of a body swerve there. You say they are Palestinians if they live in Jordan. You say there is no such thing as Palestinians if they live in Palestine. And you fail to explain why those living in Palestine should consider Jordan their homeland.

Herzen

Stephen Rothbart
May 3rd, 2011 12:35am
When you ask rhetorical questions of the "Do you really think such and such?" variety, you can usually answer them yourself.

I have said many times that Israel exists like any other state and its citizens have the same rights as anyone else. I have said many times that I think those in the Israeli security services are right who say (usually after they have retired) that Israel should talk to Hamas, not because they like them, but because they think a settlement in Israel's interests. There is an even stronger case for talking to Hamas plus Fatah, unless Israel is still pursuing the strategy of fragmenting and containing the Palestinians. The question is whether Israel is ready to compromise or still hopes to confine the Palestinians to a scattering of ghettoes, in which Palestinians can exercise sovereignty chiefly by ensuring Israelis are not troubled by them. All the stuff about evil Islamists and virtuous Israelis is humbug.

Truthtriumphs

Celato
May 2nd, 2011 6:00pm
Truthtriumphs:

"The defining features of a nation, you insist, are "a distinct language, religion, culture, law, etc".

"On this basis, Israel would never have come into existence. Uncomfortable as this might be for you, Truthtriumphs, it's high time you faced up to current reality rather than living in a long-dead past".

The discomfort is all yours, Celato, because however much you theorise, events have proven otherwise.
How do you explain the remarkable resurgence of Jewish identity in the Soviet Union in the 1970s, when Jews who just about knew that they were Jewish, began to idetify with their heritage strongly, and from nothing, started to learn Hebrew, learn about their heritage, and clamoured to leave for Israel?
Or completely secular Jews in the South American continent, from countries like Argentina and Uruguay, who did not speak Hebrew and had no Jewish religious knowledge, making aliyah?
They knew one thing, namely, that they did not belong to their host nations, that they were outsiders, and they wanted to return home.
Doesn't that suggest to you, belonging to a nation?
And doesn't that explain anti-semitism to you, when the host nations from diverse regions complain that the Jews are "a people apart", with their own laws, customs etc?
Weizmann, who came from Motol, in western Russia, wrote in "Trial and Error":---

We were strangers to their ways of thought ( those of their non-Jewish neighbours),to each other's dreams, religions, festivals, even languages.
Therewere times when the non-Jewish worldwas practically excluded fromour consciousness, as on the Sabbath, and still more, in the spring and autumn festivals.
My father was not a Zionist, but the house was steeped in rich Jewish tradition, and Palestine was at the centre of the ritual....the return was in the air, a vague deep-rooted Messianism, a hope which would not die."

It is you who inhabits a land of wishful thinking, probably because you are in denial, and wish to be considered quintessentially English.
Unfortunately for you, the English don't consider you as such, but rather as a Jew, an outsider.

Truthtriumphs.

Celato
May 3rd, 2011 10:33am
daniel maris & Another Joshua:

"Sorry if I gave the impression I was "denying" the national identity of Jews in my post of May 2nd (6.00pm). That most emphatically is not my position.

What I was doing was challenging the rigid and ill-thought-through criteria for nationhood proposed by Truthtriumphs (May 2nd, 12.03am) in his/her dismissal of any authentic PALESTINIAN national identity".

Untrue, because that has been your position on a number of posts.
As to an authentic Palestinian national identity, the Arabs...that is the more honest among them, deny such a thing.
I have given you many quotes to that effect on these blogs, but you are deaf to them.

Ahmed Shukeiry, a founder member of the PLO, said some years before he founded it..."There is no such place as Palestine...everyone knows it is nothing more than southern Syria."
Or Azzam Tamimi of the Muslim Brotherhood...."there is no difference between Jordanians, Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis...we are all part of the same ummah.
We do not need another Muslim state....we just don't want a Jewish state in Islamic lands".

Herzen

C. Gee
You are quite right, of course. You said nothing about second-class citizenship. That was my mistake. You talked of bestowing civil rights minus the vote.

You talked also of a partial right of return. I think it clear you mean a right of return for the refugees who crowded into the West Bank, but not for refugees who crowded into Gaza or neighbouring countries. This discrimination I assume is intended as a generous compromise. Israel wants the land but not the people. Just as it compromised in 1948 by getting rid of only 700-800k, so in the illegal annexation of the West Bank, it would allow "up to 1.5m" to stay under certain conditions. The rest can stay in their prison/potential Abu Dhabi in Gaza, no responsibility of their jailers (in defiance of law), or in other countries at the expense of anyone rather than the Israel that drove them out. This way, Israel can be generous but also postpone the "demograhpic timebomb" (the fact that Jewish people have been in a minority in Palestine ever since the first Zionist immigration and will become ever more so).

I am still not clear about the conditions you think should be demanded of those in the West Bank.

They will be given civil rights, but not the vote. Does this automatically apply to all of them, or do they have to pass a test? What happens to those who fail the test?

Those who pass the test will still be distinct from the Palestinians who already live in Israel. Will the new returners be allowed to marry Palestinians who already live in Israel? What will be the status of their offspring. Will they have the vote? Will any of them be allowed to marry Jewish inhabitants of Israel?

And what happens, when despite jettisoning all the refugees in Gaza and elsewhere, the Palestinians who are left become the majority in Palestine/Israel? Does Israel persist with its "Jewish democracy"?

Do you think your proposal likely in defiance of the world to succeed in ending the conflict?

Celato

Truthtriumphs:

Your ability to dissemble is quite astounding. First you insist on explicit criteria for nationhood, then throw them all out of the window (just as I did), citing instead a perception of being "a people apart" (which pretty much accords with my expressed view), while still managing slag me off!

And your rationale? That I have supposedly denied Jewish national identity "in a number of posts". Please direct me to a sample - it should only take you a couple of hours of wasted effort.

The real reason for your froth is that it's impossible to define Jewish national identity without at the same time conceding Palestinian identity... unless, of course, you rely entirely on the opinions of carefully-selected mavericks who no more "represent" Palestinians than you (for example) "represent" Jews.

Truthtriumphs

Celato
May 3rd, 2011 2:48pm
Truthtriumphs:

"The real reason for your froth is that it's impossible to define Jewish national identity without at the same time conceding Palestinian identity... unless, of course, you rely entirely on the opinions of carefully-selected mavericks who no more "represent" Palestinians than you (for example) "represent" Jews".

What rubbish!
Jewish peoplehood, the Jewish nation, goes back 4,000 years.
Palestinian "nationhood", is a recent construct, some 40 years or so.
It isn't my opinion, it is the accepted fact....except by you and similar revisionists.
You don't like it because you detest the idea of a sovereign Jewish state.....it makes you feel uncomfortable as a Jew in this green and present land.

You still have not given any of the defining characteristics of nationhood for the Palestinians....just invective against me for exposing your malevolent ignorance.

Stephen Rothbart

Herzen, a rhetorical question means a question posed but on which no answer is expected.

Actually all the questions I put to you are genuinely asking a question for which I am interested in your views.

You just never seem to want to give those views some air though.

You are clearly no anti-Semite, perhaps not even much of an anti-Zionist, so I am intrigued about why you have so much faith in the Arab mentality to make a Peace.

In case you have not noticed, Egyptians have already opened the Rafa crossing into Gaza and the "liberal democratic" movement that ousted Mubarak are calling for the Peace treaty with Israel to be torn up.

Is Israel occupying Egypt? Is it threatening Egypt? Why is the new liberal Egypt making nice to the Iranian government that was far more brutal to its citizens in their push for democratic reform than Mubarak was to his people?

Can you understand this?

I can not. You are, as I have said, an informed person with clear Muslim/Arab sentiments, which is your obvious right.

But I truly do not understand your belief that any Christian or Jewish citizen living in the Middle East should trust their life to a piece of paper written by such people.

What is Egypt so incensed about with Israel? What has it done to harm her lately?

Israelis went to Egypt on holidays, traded with Egyptians, but now Egyptians want them dead. As do Iranians, Syrians, Palestinians, Pakistanis, many Lebanese and Saudis.

Why? Because they are Jews.

So please, Herzen, no rhetorical question, what is it about such people you find so appealing?

Another Joshua

The University Press of America did us a great service in 1982 when it published Saul S. Friedman's excellent 248-page history of "Palestine" as another millennium turned into the 19th century.

In the opening chapter, Friedman recounts the claims of Palestine Liberation Organization Chairman Yasser Arafat on Nov. 13, 2974, when he was given the "extraordinary privilege of addressing the 29th Session of the United Nations General Assembly," and firmly debunks each one.

But mostly, he focuses on the fact that in 1906, Ottoman Turks considered "Filastin" (there is no 'p' in Arabic) "part of Syria," and consisting of "several administrative districts, including the Vilayet of Beirut. Palestine was "only southern Syria until the British and French forced a different view upon them after World War I."

Historically, however, if one included "all territories held by the ancient Israelite tribes within the bounds of Palestine, we would have to add at least half of present day Jordan, for the tribes of Reuben, Gad and Manasseh dominated the Waters of Merom (Luke Huleh) to the Mountains of Moab." Indeed, the Jordan River "flowed through Palestine, and did not serve as a boundary."

The 12th to 7th century B.C.E. Philistines, moreover, from whom Israel's Roman conquerors took the name "Palestine" were known as the Pulesti and according to tradition had migrated from "Caphtor," with dress and culture identifying them "with the declining civilization of Crete." They were almost certainly "the Sea Peoples" who Ramses VI defeated in Egypt's Nile delta. Afterward, they settled in Ashdod, Ekron, Gath, Gaza and Ashkelon.

But they never "established hegemony," since they arrived "significantly after the Israelites...." For more than 1,000 years, in fact, the inhabitants of what was called Palestine in 1900 called it "Israel, Samaria, Judea, Avar Naharin or the Yahud." The area was no officially renamed "Palestine" until 132 to 135, after the birth of Jesus, or the Common Era.

Of the Saudis, Jordanians and Palestinians tracing their ancestry to Mohammed, Friedman reports, Philip Hitti wrote that the Arabian genealogist and historian "had a horror vacui, and his fancy had no difficulty bridging gaps and filling vacancies" which thus succeeded in most often creating "a continunous record from Adam, or in more modest compassion, from Ishmael and Abraham."

In any case, the idea of a harmonious indigenous people in what today constitutes Israel looks absurd considering the number of conquests in that area over the centuries.

Besides Amorites, Phoenicains, Aramaeans and Philistines, there were also Assyrians, Greeks, Persians, Arabs, Tulunid Egyptians, Fatamids (including Berber, Slav and Kurdish mercenaries), Persians again in the 12th century C.E. under Saladin, the Mongol hoards of Hugalu Khan's and Tamerlane from 1260 through 1400, followed by the Yurate Tatars (from the Euphrates), Moulai Mongols, Mamelukes leading legions of Georgian, Circassian and
Turkomen mercenaries, not to mention the Seljuks and the Christian Crusaders.

Citing Finnish anthropologist Hilma Grandquist, Friedman notes that in the 1820s, Irtas villages near Bethlehem were settled by peoples east of the Jordan, and the Negev tribes include Mararba from Libya and Sudanese imported into the region as slaves. In addition 10,000 landless felahin moved from Egypt to Acre and Jaffa in 1829, a point supported by Anthony Nutting who reports that in the 1830s, "numbers of Beduin moved to Palestine to avoid paying the Pasha's (Mehemet Ali) extortionate levies." Other Egyptian soldiers moved to Nablus and Beisan around the same time.

Fred Gottheil of the University of Illinois found that between 1922 and 1931, 60,000 Arabs came to what is now Israel from nearby lands, but other scholars indicate the number of Arab immigrants into Israel in the 1920s and 1930s was perhaps as high as 250,000. Their ranks were increased significantly after World War II, moreover, "by carpetbaggers and adventurers" who "flocked to the standard of the Grand Mufti's [Haj Amin al Husseini] Arab Liberation Army." Anthropoligsts in 1948 identified them as Bosnians, Kalmucks, Kharmazians, Ethiopians, Druze, and even Armenian, Maronite and Romany Christians.

Arabs owned only one fifth of the land when the United Nations voted to partition Palestine.

Moreover, the Jewish people, among this mass of mostly Muslim Arab, Syrian, North African, Caucasus and Central Asian immigrants, the Jewish people were "not, as Arafat would have us believe, an insignificant trifle." As early as 1844, Jews comprised 47% of Jerusalem's population of 15,000, for example, and by 1905, the Jewish people constituted two thirds of a population that had quadrupled in 61 years, to 60,000.

Animosity against the Jewish people, moreover, was rampant. Even in 1882, Jews were regularly debased as "awlad al-mawt" (children of death), "shayatin" (devils), or "siknag," a derogatory slang word equivalent to "kike."

In short, antisemitism in "Palestine" then related in no way whatever to the formation of Israel as a Jewish state. It was hatred of Jews, pure and simple. And the fact that these derogatory terms exist in the historical record does indeed testify to the continued Jewish population.

Please note: This book was published in 1982, and makes no mention (lest anyone suggest otherwise) of Joan Peters or Shmuel Katz. Indeed, a high percentage of the citations refer to primary documents.

Moreover, the book contains roughly 90 circa 1905 photographs, further showing that Palestine at that juncture was indeed a land of dust, virtually bereft of bounteous crops, cities, large or populous villages, or multitudes of homes or buildings.

This book is a fabulous piece of scholarship and belongs in every library concerning the Middle East.

Herzen

Another Joshua
May 3rd, 2011 7:49am
I would like to think I do "refute" the points I object to, but I doubt you would agree. Who is it you think has answered me (in the sense of rebutted me) and where?

I have a great admiration for Mark Twain, one of the greatest tellers of tall tales. You miss the point. I and others have provided Truthtriumphs with scholarly work on the subject of Palestine before the advent of the Zionists. He declines to consult it, preferring anecdotal evidence. You will find that much more is known about Palestine than you think. I will add one more work - A History of Palestine by Gudrun Kramer (previous authors cited include an American demographer, a Palestinian historian, and, I believe, an early Zionist scholar).

It should not need repeating that whether you consider the people "poor and diseased" and their land "under-developed", this does not give anyone a right to take over their land and "improve" it. This is typical European colonialist presumption.

Your comments on Arab rights and Jewish rights I find confusing, so I can't comment. I have yet to find anyone explain why the inhabitants of Palestine should have been expected to accept that Zionist immigrants had a right to the land, especially when those Zionists made it clear that they intended to establish a Zionist state. That the Allied Powers decreed that the inhabitants of Palestine make room for a Jewish National Home (which the Zionists glossed as a Jewish State) in their midst must have had something of the surreal air of European monarchies granting their pirates and colonists property rights in the New World - it must have taken the native Americans some time to understand the intricacies of the law that required them to give way, by which time most of them were dead.

Your apportionment of blame for the conflict both before and after Israel declared its independence is not supported by the historical evidence.

On the growth of European-style anti-semitism in Arab states, I think you and others here get it the wrong way round. It is not that they hate Jews and therefore hate Israel. They hate Israel, and, because they follow Zionists in identifying Zionists with Jews, they therefore hate Jews. (The blurring of the distinction between Jews and Zionists is pernicious in more than one respect.) The rise in hatred coincided with the advent of Zionism, and has appropriated the tropes of European anti-semitism (helped by the Nazis seeking clients)and an ahistorical melange of caricatures from Islam (although, whatever the lachrymose school of Jewish history may say, relations between Islam and Judaism were - largely - mutually beneficial). As for Algerians, you must know that Israel was a staunch ally of the French in trying to maintain colonial rule in the notably brutal wars of independence. Israel saw French Algeria as a natural partner - another European colonialist state among the barbarian Arabs. The Algerians saw things differently. One consequence was the emigration to France and the US of Jewish Algerians, now branded (mostly unjustly) as aiders and abettors of the enemy.

On modern Arab anti-semitism, I can recommend Gilbert Achcar's recent book, which gives a more detailed history of its various types and their provenance.

Anti-semitism still persists in Europe despite its utter irrationality (a viral meme). It will persist in the Middle East likewise, no doubt long after Israel and the Palestinians make peace - but we can hope that it will become increasingly irrelevant, as it has in the West.

C.Gee

Herzen:

Of course there is no “right of return” for Arabs on the other side of Israel’s borders. Like other refugees and transferred peoples the world over, they must dwell elsewhere than their “homeland”. Israel is not responsible for displaced Arabs, just as Poland is not responsible for the German population expelled from its borders after the war. Nor are the Arab nations who expelled Jews in 1948 responsible for them. Israel should make it very clear that they will never accept a right of return of Arabs, and it is the responsibility of the Arab host nations to bring their Palestinian Arab refugees into the fold (such as it is) and ameliorate their plight. (And if they do not, that illustrates the fundamental fact that Arab nations are inhumane and uncivilized, which is beginning to dawn on the humanitarian west and those nations’ own populations.)

The “demographic time bomb” is a cynical argument designed to lend urgency to a two-state-solution-peace-now-and-at-any-cost. Leftists propaganda spreads the myth that the two-state solution will preserve Israel as a Jewish state, despite the fact that the solution demands that Israel give the Arab state land free of Jews, accept a large Arab population and abandon the request for recognition as a Jewish state. The demographic time bomb folk routinely inflate Arab population numbers and birth rates, and their fears have gripped those who should know better. Sharon made a political and humanitarian error when he uprooted Jewish settlements from Gaza, partly because he bought the demographic bomb argument.

For those who believe in a demographic time bomb, there is only one certain political answer for any nation threatened by it: mass deportation - call it ethnic cleansing - of the demographic threat. Hence the growing sentiment for immigration control and deportation among the Dutch who will soon be a minority in their state, where control of some cities has already passed to immigrants (Muslims). Other European countries will have effective Muslim majorities within several decades, based on demographic time bomb theory.

In Israel’s case, it is impossible to eliminate the demographic threat: the nation is surrounded by Arabs. Exiling the Arabs from within its borders to surrounding nations, simply swells the ranks of the enemy. As you correctly point out, Jews are minority in the Middle East, as they are in the world. The Jewish population in Israel is breeding at a relatively high rate, but birth rates are hard to control and to bet the future upon. The Jewish population will never outnumber the Arab population.

The issue is: is a demographic time bomb necessarily a democratic time bomb?
Is it possible for, say, the Dutch democracy to continue because a sufficient number of citizen immigrants will see its benefits and choose to continue it? Will the institutions of Great Britain continue when taken over by Muslims who identify themselves as Muslim first, British second? If laws are enacted which limit voting rights to immigrants, can a democracy sustain itself with a minority of the population determining governance and a non-voting majority remaining content to live under laws it has no say in? These are all questions of assimilation and national identity - for which there are no definitive universal political answers. The national political structures of Europe, America, China, Russia, are all threatened demographically. Israel is threatened most acutely.

Given the history of the formation of states in the Middle East and the imposition of a “minority” sovereign power upon them, there is no reason why a Jewish minority sovereign - in the form of a liberal democracy, rather than a head of a clan - should not have been imposed by the great powers upon the inhabitants of Palestine as upon other inhabitants of other regions created in the formerly Ottoman Middle East. I say no “reason”. You and others have displayed here an irrational objection to Jews ruling over a mixed population of Jews and gentiles. You have tried to find rationalizations for that objection in ad hoc, Marxist norms (including identifying Jews as a colonists), but it is manifestly clear that you would prefer the Arabs of Palestine to suffer under Arab fascists rather than thrive under Jewish democrats because you approve of, if not share in, their visceral, reflexive, repulsion at Jews in power.

Your questions concerning the Arab population subject to Israeli jurisdiction reveal your blind faith in Israel’s malignity.

The only “test” for civil rights, in Israel as in other liberal democracies is obedience to the law.

The status of offspring of the new residents must be decided by Israel as it must by all states. America is now rethinking the automatic citizenship accorded to all babies born within its borders. The offspring of residents born in Israel may have more privileges than their parents, including a different set of qualifications for full citizenship. Every nation has immigration rules pertaining to the status marriage confers on the spouse of a legal resident or citizen.

Finally, you ask:

“Do you think your proposal likely in defiance of the world to succeed in ending the conflict?”

No. The conflict will continue, as it will whatever the world thinks and whatever the world proposes, for as long as there is an Israel. Israel should optimize its abilities to live with and manage the conflict.

Adam B.

Kate

A remarkable response - remarkable for its refusal to acknowledge facts. Confronted with evidence that the broadcasting arm of the Palestinian Authority does broadcast race hatred (which you initially cast doubt on), you say its not recent enough to be important, and can therefore be dismissed. Yet on the link I sent you, you will also see an antisemitic cartoon form Al Hayat al jadida, which is the "newspaper" of the Palestinian Authority. There are, if you care to look, numerous examples of such routine antisemitism in this publication. It is incredible that you tie yourself in knots trying to avoid the issue of the PA's role in encouraging violence against Jews and the sheer race hatred and violence which is incited.

Furthermore, I have yet to see you respond in any way to Abbas' antisemitic Holocaust denial. Indeed, repeating the mantra "but he's a moderate" flies in the face of the evidence of his own personal racism.

And, for your information, the Al Aqsa martyrs brigades, an arm of Abbas' Fatah, was murdering Jews well after Abbas took control. I suppose you have an excuse for that somewhere as well.

That's not to mention antisemitic laws of the PA, such as selling land to a Jew being punishable by death.

Just what does it take to make you sit up and take notice of the racist and violent nature of the Palestinian leadership?

Adam B.

Rick

Please explain the difference, whether cultural, religious, national, or any other criteria you choose, between the Arab inhabitants of Jordan, which constituted 80% of Palestine until 1922, and the Arab inhabitants of Israel Judea, Samaria, and Gaza.

It is my contention that they are the same people.

I look forward to your reply.

Adam B.

Cleato, are you saying there is an historical basis for "Palestinian" nationalism, and if so, when did it come about, and in what circumstances?

And are you denying that the Jewish people exist as a distinct nation?

Adam B.

Kate

Fatah's armed wing, under Abbas, has now said that Bin Laden is a martyr "on the path to victory".

Will your next line of defence be that Abbas has nothing to do with Fatah's Al aqsa martyrs' brigades?

Victoria

Thought the IB (Israel Brigade) would like to see this bit of news. Apparently, it's not just the Palestinians capable of terrorist actions:

http://paltelegraph.com/palestine/west-bank/9066-settlers-burn-mosque-in-hawara.html

Does it get any better for all the pro-pals? The settlers are just fueling the argument against their right to steal Palestinian land. They have proven themselves to be nothing but war mongers.

Truthtriumphs

Kate.

The "moderate" PA, under the leadership of the very "moderate" Abbas, leaves no doubt as to its long-term goals.

On June 29,2010, Abbas-controlled PATV aired a sermon by the PA's Mufti Sheikh Muhammed Hussein in which he said, "The Jews, the enemies of Allah and of His Messenger, the enemies of Allah and of His Messenger! Enemies of humanity in general, and of Palestinians in particular......The Prophet says: You shall fight the Jews and kill them...."
Similarly, in the same week PATV re-broadcast a "documentary" film in which all of Israel is described as "occupied "Palestine".
In it , the film's narrative asserts, "The West Bank and Gaza have another section in Palestine which is the Palestinian coast that spreads along the (Mediterranean) sea, from Ashkelon in the south, until Haifa in the Carmel mountains, and on and on and on.

And how about this?...
"Stop murdering Israelis
until we have an independent Palestinian state".
Abu Mazen. PA prime minister Feb.2003.

And this...
"We will continue to aspire to the strategic goal, namely, a Palestine from the river to the sea.
Whatever we get now cannot make us forget this supreme truth".
Faisal Al-Husseini, PA minister of Jerusalem affairs. 21/3/2001.

So much for Abbas's reconciliation and desire for peace.
Kate, would YOU want to negotiate with this man if the future of YOUR children were at stake?

Truthtriumphs

Victoria
May 3rd, 2011 11:11pm
http://paltelegraph.com/palestine/west-bank/9066-settlers-burn-mosque-in-hawara.html

"Does it get any better for all the pro-pals? The settlers are just fueling the argument against their right to steal Palestinian land."

Ah, The Palestine Telegraph, so it must be true!
The genuine source of unbiased truth in all matters pertaining to the Middle East, and those evil Jews/Israelis, isn't it?

Victoria, are you not embarrassed to make a laughing stock of yourself?
Clearly not!

Mustapha Bunn

Gary L @ 11.37pm .. "Both Egyptian and Syrian pilots were trained in Britain ... agreed,it's no secret that Britain has a long history of training members of the armed forces of other countries,but that is a long way from "the Egyptian Air Force were British pilots in British planes" and certainly does not warrant your further claim that,"Britain played a substancial part in the first genocidal Arab war against Israel.
After all the Israeli Air Force of the time had foriegn pilots who had previously been members of the RAF, the RCAF and the US armed forces flying ex British aircraft.( see events on Nov.20th.1948 and Jan.7th.1949).

Mustapha Bunn

Stephen Rothbart @ 12.53 .. Czechoslovakia did indeed supply ex German and British aircraft to Israel but I'm not convinced that they had the sort of motives you think.More likely would be the fact that the Czechs new Communist master wanted their new state to have more modern aircraft built and supplied by the Soviet Union.Notwithstanding that the ex German job was not well liked by its' Israeli pilots anyway.
Ps. your comments @ 7.39pm were well written.

Celato

Truthtriumphs:

Moving the goalposts yet again, you now decide that a 4,000-year "peoplehood" timeline defines the Jewish nation, which (according to your unexplained "peoplehood" concept) doesn't apply to Palestinians.

Please elucidate: Does the Jewish timeline consist of an ethnically-rooted continuum to a particular corner of the Middle East? Or is the magnetic attraction to Israel an entirely religious one, of no special significance to secular Jews?

Please explain - because, if the latter,

Adam B.

Victoria, the Palestine Telegraph indeed. Well, as a full member of the Palestinian lobby, you would believe that wouldn't you? I bet you also believe in the non-existant "Jenin massacre" that never was, the poisoning of Palestinian children with Israeli chewing gum, and Israeli efforts to spread Aids - all claims emanating form the Palestinian leadership over the years.

And all lies.

John

Now is the time to return to the possibility of the West Bank becoming a Jordanian province - which it always was. Let the West then worry about the Islamists and it's Al Qaeda allies taking over.

Adam B.

By the way Kate, the Al aqsa martyrs' brigades are not "nutcases".

Evil, hateful racists, yes. But they are not crazy. Indeed, such a term simply minimizes their trail of murder - and belittles their victims.

Adam B.

Cleato

The Jewish people's connection to the Land of Israel is both religious and ethnic.

Understand?

What an appalling question.

Mustapha Bunn

GaryL @ 11.37 ..Given David Kimches' background as a Zionist ..and I don't have any worries about that..and as the founder or whatever of Mossad you'll have to excuse me if I don't believe everything the bloke said.

Tilly

Truthtriumphs -

Oh, dear - busy defending the terrorist activities of settlers again, I see...

Dodgy as the Palestinian Post might be as a source, your criticism of Victoria for citing it (May 4th, 1.05am) rings awfully hollow when I note how heavily you draw on Mark S. Rosenblit's website in denying the "nationhood" of Palestinians.

Such a mine of useful catchphrases and quotations, Rosenblit - he who pays tribute to his "martyred friends and mentors" Rabbi Meir Kahane and Binyamin Kahane.

Just in case it's slipped your mind, these two unsavoury characters were founding father and loyal son of Kach - a PROSCRIBED Israeli terrorist organisation.

So how about answering me at last about Yitzhak Shapira? Your only posts to me on this obnoxious rabbi and his vicious acolytes consisted of demands for chapter-and-verse citations of Shapira's "Torah justifications" for the killing of non-Jewish babies. I supplied these. You retreated into silence.

Not good enough for a person with an impeccable moral compass, TT.

Truthtriumphs

Celato
May 4th, 2011 10:07am
Truthtriumphs:

"Moving the goalposts yet again, you now decide that a 4,000-year "peoplehood" timeline defines the Jewish nation, which (according to your unexplained "peoplehood" concept) doesn't apply to Palestinians".

Why moving the goalposts?
Nationhood or peoplehood is not he same as sovereignty, as in a a nation state, although the Jewish nation DID have sovereignty for more than 1,000 years in Israel and Judah.
It is not a matter of contention that the Jews became a nation at the giving of the law at Mt.Sinai. That is the accepted, scholarly position.
Sorry if you don't like it.

"Please elucidate: Does the Jewish timeline consist of an ethnically-rooted continuum to a particular corner of the Middle East? Or is the magnetic attraction to Israel an entirely religious one."

Yes.
The Jewish religion, which has always been the glue that keeps the Jewish people together as a nation, IS intrinsically bound up to "a particular corner of the Middle East".
Anyone with the most scant knowledge of Judaism....even you...must acknowledge that.
That idea presents throughout the Petateuch.
Just because there are Jews who define themselves as irreligious, secular "cultural" Jews, does not change that eternal truth.
As to "magnetic attraction", it isn't the weather that attracts Jews there, surely?
There are much more beautiful, inviting and safe places in the world than the "ethnically rooted" corner of the ME.

Another Joshua

@ Herzen

Thank you for the reading suggestion. I will look at it. My full posting of a review by Alyssen Lappin on Amazon of Professor Saul Friedman's well researched book called "The Land of Dust: Palestine at the Turn of the Century" is well worth a look.

If time, and out of courtesy to Melanie Phillips, I am permitted to respond to your lengthy post I will try to deal with it later on, though C Gee has made valliant efforts to restore balance to some of the outrageous positions that you adopt in discussion, that unless I feel stronly enough to disagree, will let him/her to continue than try to compete or repeat points too many times.

Just one point:

In the "Game of Nations" the term Jewish NATIONAL home can only mean what it says. That no final name was given to it or agreed upon at the time left the drafters with a rounded general term that the World, Zionists and Jews understood it. We refer to the League of NATIONS, the United NATIONS and so on.The Jewish Nation is one that the world recognised then and now. Simple. But not to those who wish to construct another State that didn't exist and from which a state could be constructed at the time. No, it's hardly a gloss by Zionists or anyone. No one in any future agreement is calling for a Palestinian Homeland to be anything other than a State and to belong to the United Nations - that is if that is how the Arabs in that Area see themselves and want it. The position is left (deliberately) ambiguous.

I could go on and on, but it seems Herzen, that in order for your position to hold meaning, we have to reverse back to argue terms that apply today to the ones used at the time. It's all theoretical and a bit Utopian for my taste and does not help.

Much of the argument about rights and so on is perceived by those opposing Israel to be rights not existing for Arabs, but ignore the overall scenario of continuous conflict and non-resolution. Comparing Israel's conflict with Syria cannot be compared with today's Britain and France differences of opinion on European Policy and the societies that exist within the confines of discussion. One can establish a clearer set of rights akin to equality in countries like Britain or France once there is an overall political settlement to the conflict.

Adam B.

Tilly, if you think radical rabbis pose a greater threat than radical imams, there is nothing further to discuss with you.

I must have missed all those rabbis exhorting their members to go out and strap suicide vests on in order to kill infidels.

What a joke.

Adam B.

Tilly, your focus on radical rabbis is merely a ploy to downplay the terrorism of the Palestinians. that's why people like you are well versed with the name Baruch Goldstein but will struggle to name one of the hundreds of Palestinian terrorists who have murdered and maimed in the cause you support.

Herzen

Stephen Rothbart
"Actually all the questions I put to you are genuinely asking a question for which I am interested in your views."

Let us look at a couple of your questions:

"So Hamas is justified in firing rockets at anyone they wish and targeting school buses? Is that really your conclusion?

Hamas and Fatah are joining together. Hamas wants Israel and all Infidel out of the Middle East. They deliberatley target women and children and are quite open about it.

Do you think this is justified or not?"

If these were not rhetorical questions, we have nothign further to discuss.

Herzen

C. Gee and Another Joshua,

Thank you for your intersting responses. When I have a moment later, I have some questions (obviously it is up to you whether you have the patience to bother replying!) Thanks.

Thomas

Adam B.
May 3rd, 2011 10:20pm
I have read your exchange with Rick. I know your ploy of repeating questions either answered or pointless, in an attempt to hide, at least from yourself, the paucity of your reasoning. Nevertheless, I will point out, just the once, how irrelevant your irritatingly repeated question is. If the people on either side of the Jordan were identical in every respect, it would still not justify the assertion that Trans-Jordan "is" Palestine. If the people of Northern Ireland are virtually identical to the people of the West of Scotland, it still does not make it correct to say that Northern Irealand "is" the West of Scotland. The existence of people who live east of the Jordan provides absolutely no excuse for asserting that people west of the Jordan should give up their land to immigrants and move east.

Stephen Rothbart

Herzen, then a simple "no" and "no" would be helpful.

"All the stuff about evil Islamists and virtuous Israelis is humbug."

I did not write these words, you did.

So my question to you about whether Islamists, who attack their own people in Mosques, yet rail against cartoons, who set off as suicide bombers, and induce their children to become one, who throw handcuffed prisoners off a roof and who murder pro-Palestinian Italian journalists, as well as the other things I asked you, I think represent a legitimate question, in light of that comment of yours.

Do I mean everyone who is Muslim? No. Do I mean most Palestinians who live in Gaza (they voted Hamas in it seems with 70% of the vote)? Yes.

And if your answer is "no" then say so and stop asking people to expect a peaceful resolution with such people.

Unless you also believe in Father Christmas. (That WAS a rhetorical question).

Adam B.

And Rick, this is the answer. there is no Palestinian people, but there are Arabs who lived in Palestine. They are no different from the Arabs in neighbouring states, and Palestinian nationalism suddenly became a goal in the 1960's. It has absolutely no roots.

So there is no inconsistency.

Truthtriumphs

Thomas
May 4th, 2011 4:56pm
Adam B.
May 3rd, 2011 10:20pm

"Nevertheless, I will point out, just the once, how irrelevant your irritatingly repeated question is. If the people on either side of the Jordan were identical in every respect, it would still not justify the assertion that Trans-Jordan "is" Palestine".

King Hussein, the King of Jordan, said "Jordan is Palestine, and Palestine is Jordan."
King Abdullah wanted to call Trans-Jordan Palestine....the British refused.
Who are you to disagree with them, just because that narrative is at odds with your anti-semitic views?

"The existence of people who live east of the Jordan provides absolutely no excuse for asserting that people west of the Jordan should give up their land to immigrants and move east".

The people west of the Jordan to whom you refer are the immigrants, and the children of immigrants.
You have been told enough times.
Another Joshua, on this thread, recommended an excellent book, Saul S.Friedman's "Palestine".
Read it, and stop irritating and annoying us with your facile and repetitive comments.

Celato

Truthtriumphs and Adam B:

Excellent - we can agree on one thing at least: there is a distinct Jewish ethnicity traceable over 4,000 years to a particular region of the Middle East. So let's now focus on the obstacle you erect to Palestinian claims of nationhood within this particular frame ...

(For Adam's benefit, I've never had any quarrel with the idea of Jewish identity, only with TT's insistence that Palestinians do not conform to the same "definitive" criteria.)

As I understand it, TT's position is that those calling themselves "Palestinians" cannot claim a similarly distinct ethnicity to that of Jews. They are just a disparate bunch of Arabs, who "constructed" themselves around 40 years ago. (OK so far?)

Would it make any difference if genetic testing proved you wrong? Or are you only interested it if proves you right? Oh, well, never mind, here goes:

Various DNA studies have been made of Palestinians and Jews, with the consensus being that their genetic match is remarkably similar - Jews and Palestinians are significantly closer to each other than either group is to non-Jewish Europeans or other Arabs. Somehow both have managed to preserve 4,000-year-old genetic roots originating in one unique corner of the world. (See globalpolitician.com among other websites.)

How could this be? You say, Adam, that religion was the "glue" for Jews, but if that were the case the Palestinians should have come unstuck over centuries of absorption into Islamic populations bearing markedly different DNA characteristics. So even if religion played a significant part for Jews, some other factor(s) must be taken into account.

The only explanation that makes sense to me is that both Palestinians and Jews were essentially what Harry Ostrer, director of the Human Genetics Program at New York University's School of Medicine, called the "children of Abraham". One lot remained faithful to Judaism, while the other lot became Muslims. But like gluey birds of a feather, they stuck together in their separate family camps after the religious rift.

An immutable sense of "kinship" thus was key: on a big enough scale, it's what ultimately produced perceptions of nationhood.

No doubt you will both now rush to find evidence of studies which dispute the Palestinians' distinct DNA linkage, both to each other, and to Jews, and to the geographical area at issue. But a word of warning: the only serious dissent I've found is from certain Palestinians who reject the genetic approach because it lends support to Zionist claims on Israel. Should you concur with that view, baby and bathwater spring rather readily to mind...

Adam B.

Thomas, the paucity of comprehension unfortunately lies with you. I never contended any such thing, and you have tried to make a point by putting words in my mouth.
No-one is talking of moving people anywhere - except you.

This is about nationalism. Both Rick and you have been unable to give any reason as to why a new Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan is an imperative, because you cannot give any grounds for the people west of the Jordan being different from the people on its east, who already have a state. Now if you wish to create a new state, despite the lack of any grounds for such a state coming from you, in the interest of peace, fine. I would go along with it. If this is what the conflict has been about, simply create a state in Judea and Samaria, (would the Jews there be allowed to stay?) and have done with it.

That is not what this conflict is about - and you know it. The Palestinian Arabs have been offered a second state on numerous occasions since the 1930's, even before Israel had been re-established. They have rejected it every time, and instead launched wars of annihilation along with the Arab states, which, to their surprise, they lost. Palestinian nationalism is a fig leaf for destroying Israel (hence the absence of calls for a Palestinian state between 1948-67, when Egypt occupied Gaza and Jordan occupied Judea, Samaria and the Old City of Jerusalem, ethnically cleansing it of every Jew as they went), rather than creating a new state - and has been all along. Arafat was quite open about the strategy of accepting land in stages, as a means of destroying Israel in stages. People like you, who lay the blame for the entire conflict at Israel's door, steadfastly refuse to acknowledge what this conflict is about. If we can't diagnose the problem, we can't offer a solution.

Another Joshua

@Celato

You are right to identify some Arab Tribes are related to Jews, about 70,000 to be precise, but that is because they were descended from Jews and some even practise Judaism in secret and trace their ancestry to the Bar Kochba Revolt. They even possess DNA similarities to Jews who came from Eastern Europe. Many were made to convert to Islam. But before you get all excited about the others, many do not originate from the region and have come from all over the place.

On the Jewish Arabs watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPRgXAYTQlU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPkLWlylISM&feature=related

Truthtriumphs

Celato.

"No doubt you will both now rush to find evidence of studies which dispute the Palestinians' distinct DNA linkage, both to each other, and to Jews, and to the geographical area at issue."

You have an inflated sense of importance of self.
I would not spend a nanosecond of my time researching the DNA "evidence" that you suggest.
This last post of yours surpasses your previous efforts, in its stupidity, absurdity, ignorance and irrelevence.
Well done!

Celato

Another Joshua:

Thanks for your courteous and thoughtful reply. The Middle East's genetic mix is, of course, a complex one and I'm certainly not suggesting DNA evidence provides the "final word" on what constitutes nationhood. (Just as some Arab tribes are more closely linked to Jews than others, so some Jews have stronger ancestral roots in the ME than others.)

My purpose in raising this was to postulate that a sense of kinship - "being of one blood" - is key to both Jewish and Palestinian perceptions of themselves as distinct entities.

Whether this "blood" is real, mixed, or entirely metaphorical doesn't tend to matter ... except, unfortunately, when it comes to laying claim to property. Members of a New Age religious sect might, for example, feel firmly bonded in "brotherhood" thanks to shared beliefs and rituals, but if they wish to live as a discrete community they are obliged to congregate wherever space is available, rather than demanding settlement on one particular plot as a matter of "right".

The transcendent "right" comes from inheritance - which is where ancestral questions come in. Who originally owned this land? Who were their legitimate heirs? Did those heirs voluntarily relinquish their heritage through sale or abandonment, or were they robbed? And so forth...

In the Middle East context, the question of "blood" - real, not metaphorical - has been crucial to Zionist claims on a particular piece of land. In an effort to fend off counter-claims, it has been deemed necessary to argue EXCLUSIVE inheritance, with other claimants dismissed either as robbers or impostors.

Truthtriumphs currently relies on the latter dismissal (though doubtless robbery and God-knows-what-else also come into it). The Palestinians simply "don't exist" - they are Arabs PRETENDING to an identity distinct from other Arabs, with no genuine sense of special kinship, let alone nationhood; they could live in Jordan, Syria, Saudi ... anywhere ... and feel right at home there.

To my mind this is insidious nonsense. On all the identity criteria posited by TT (so far), those calling themselves "Palestinians" have just as many, or few, distinct national characteristics as those calling themselves "Israelis".

I, personally, would be more than happy to accept the territorial claims of both on the basis of something other than blood in a test-tube. But if ancestral lines are really such a clincher in the lunatic arena of Middle East, it's an element impossible to ignore.

* I'll take a look at that Youtube item you recommend if I get a chance later and let you know what I make of it.

Herzen

C Gee
On refugees, I suppose we just have to leave it. I have not yet had a clear consistent answer from anyone here on the question whether Israel thinks it should observe the laws it has subscribed to or choose to observe some and disregard others (as its sponsor and protector does). That refugees from war be allowed to return has been the rule since time immemorial. Unfortunately for Israel it is also a principle enshrined in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, reaffirmed annually. The UN set up a commission specifically to aid the refugees from 1948 with return, restitution, compensation or resettlement. It is curious that Israel has invented a right of return for citizens of other states but denies the universally accepted right of return for refugees. There is an interesting twist. It is customary for the inhabitants of a state supplanted by another to become automatically citizens of the new state. Israel has expelled its own citizens at gunpoint and refused them return, again at gunpoint. You refer to what was certainly one of the last great atrocities of WW2, the expulsion of Germanic minorities from eastern Europe, which the Allies did nothing to stop. I suspect that this is now no longer a live question only because it was more attractive to assimilate into Western Europe than insist on return to the Eastern bloc. You also refer to the expulsion of Jews from Arab states. I think they are due compensation, although the complexity in calculating how much the Arab states should contribute and how much Israel would be daunting. I agree with you that the states where the refugees are housed should look after them better and allow them the opportunity to assimilate.

On demographics, I am astonished at your chutzpah. Demographics has been an obsession with Zionists from the outset, for obvious reasons. Since Oslo, at least, a “two-state” solution, as interpreted by Israel (a cluster of enclaves to confine the Palestinian population, granted “sovereignty” to allow Israel to disclaim any responsibility for their welfare), has been seen as a way to deal with the fact that Jews are a minority in Palestine. This has been the position of all the main parties from Labour to Lieberman. There are those on the extreme “left” who advocate a single state for all its citizens; and those on the extreme “right” who advocate a single settler state, a Sparta with citizens and helots.

As an aside, Israel's problem of demographics is not about the “Arabs”. It is about the Palestinian Arabs, those whose homeland is Palestine.

You then use an argument I find odd. You say that the Allied Powers carved up the Middle East to suit themselves and imposed rulers to suit themselves. They did this despite their pronouncements about respecting the rights of the populace to determine their own government. They did so because they had the power to pursue their own interests at the expense of others. I agree that this is a fair description. The carve-up will probably persist as the populations have acquired national identities as well as local, tribal, religious etc. The rulers imposed we may hope will soon be history and self-determination will soon be a reality (although there is a risk that the ruling elites subvert the nascent democracy or the nascent democracy produces Islamist regimes). Your argument is that the Allied Powers carved up Palestine in much the same way and in much the same way imposed the Zionists as rulers of Palestine. The first thing to say is that they did not impose the Zionists as rulers. They undertook to help the Zionists establish a Jewish National Home in Palestine. The second thing to say is that this is an extraordinary way to defend Israeli rule over Palestine and the Palestinians - that the Allied Powers imposed Israeli rule in pursuit of their own interests and in defiance of their purported principle of self-determination.

You then appear to describe what I have called a Sparta with citizens and helots: a Palestine with a majority of Palestinian Arabs with no vote ruled by a Jewish minority “democracy”. (A minority with the vote who rule a majority without is one of the more outmoded versions of democracy.) As I understand it, you advocate this as a model for the future of Palestine.

You then fall back on your usual brew of “totalitarianism” and “anti-semitism”, which are no more appropriate here than elsewhere. Self-determination is not a Marxist concept. The population of Palestine who would have exercised self-determination, as you know I have made clear, included Jews, Christians, and Muslims. I have not called the Jews of Palestine colonists. The Jews from Europe who emigrated to Palestine certainly were. The passengers on the Mayflower were not Marxists. They were colonists. And when you are down to “you approve of, if not share in, their visceral, reflexive, repulsion at Jews in power” you are getting silly again.

“Your questions concerning the Arab population subject to Israeli jurisdiction reveal your blind faith in Israel’s malignity. “ Your comment indicates a surprising ignorance about Israel's current policies towards Israeli Arabs with family in the occupied territories etc.

We have been discussing your proposal that Israel annexe the occupied territories (you are silent on the illegality) It is your proposal for the helots with civil rights we are trying to elucidate. To say that Israel must decide, when you are asked for the detail of your proposal, has the appearance of evasion.

Thomas

Truthtriumphs

"The people west of the Jordan to whom you refer are the immigrants, and the children of immigrants."

If you had taken the trouble to study the references you have been given by more than one contributor, you would know this to be false and would not repeat what can now only be called a lie.

Thomas

Adam B.
May 4th, 2011 10:53pm
I am relieved that you are willing to allow those of the Palestinians west of the Jordan who have resisted the various ethnic cleansings to remain west of the Jordan, although I am still not clear what you think their status is to be, given that you think they do not deserve a state because they are not a "nation".

A deep breath. One more attempt. Whether you think the people who lived in Palestine a "nation" or not (whatever you mean by the term) has no bearing whatsoever on their right to self-determination recognized by both the League of Nations and the UN. The fact that Britain created a state east of the Jordan has no bearing whatsoever on the right of the people west of the Jordan to self-determination, as recognized by both the League and the UN. The fact that the UN recommended a partition did not nullify the right of the people to exercise their right of self-determination by refusing to accept the partition of their homeland, as the UN recognized.

Now that Israel is established fact, the people of Palestine whose rights have been trampled are offering to settle for a right to self-determination in a small fragment of their homeland.

Herzen

Another Joshua,
I am puzzled why you think the history mentioned in the review of Friedman's book relevant. Similarly why you think Arab immigration during the Mandate worth mentioning (I am always bemused when a Zionist uses immigration as an argument against anyone living in Palestine.) The only fact we need establish (and it IS established) is that there was a settled population in Palestine when the Ottoman Empire fell. There was a population of peasants and townsfolk (notables, merchants, tradesmen). With each census, the figures were more reliable. By the time the British took over, the figures were (within a margin of error) not seriously in question. It was this population of Jews, Muslims and Christians whose right to a say in their government the Allied Powers purported to recognize even as they postponed its exercise by establishing the Mandate (a Mandate which in addition contained an undertaking to facilitate a Jewish National Home in Palestine).

Your remarks on the term “National Home” are mistaken. It was indeed Zionist code for a Jewish state. Balfour, Lloyd George and the others who participated in the drafting of the Balfour Declaration understood the Zionist code. Those who drafted the League of Nations Covenant and the Mandate, when they incorporated the Balfour Declaration, explicitly stated that the term in these documents did not mean a Jewish state and did not bestow on the Zionists any legal claim. It is precisely the contemporary use of words and contemporary law that renders the Zionist code and its use in the Balfour Declaration irrelevant to the discussion of the Mandate.

The fact is that the Allied Powers recognized the rights of the inhabitants to self-determination and also undertook to facilitate a Jewish National Home. That the Zionists took the opportunity offered by this undertaking to create the Jewish state they always intended does not cause the rights of the other inhabitants of Palestine to lapse. Some of the citizens of Palestine imposed their state on the others by force. Those others still have rights in the state of Palestine. For the sake of justice, but more urgently in practice, for the sake of peace, Israel should negotiate in good faith a settlement that gives some measure of self-determination to the rest of the people of Palestine, whom it has until now shamefully oppressed.

You say again that you are minded to expose what I say as false. I would appreciate it if you were finally to make the effort.

Truthtriumphs

Thomas
May 5th, 2011 1:23pm
Truthtriumphs

"The people west of the Jordan to whom you refer are the immigrants, and the children of immigrants."

"If you had taken the trouble to study the references you have been given by more than one contributor, you would know this to be false and would not repeat what can now only be called a lie".

That more properly applies to you.
Are you saying that ChurChill lied whan he referred to uncontrolled Arab immigration into the land?
I have the references to it, and why he said it...when I have time I will post them.

And what references have I been given other than those of revisionists and propagandists?

Truthtriumphs

Celato.

"Truthtriumphs currently relies on the latter dismissal (though doubtless robbery and God-knows-what-else also come into it). The Palestinians simply "don't exist" - they are Arabs PRETENDING to an identity distinct from other Arabs, with no genuine sense of special kinship, let alone nationhood; they could live in Jordan, Syria, Saudi ... anywhere ... and feel right at home there".

They say it themselves, so who are you to disagree?

You just don't like it because, as a Jew, the existence of Israel makes you feel uncomfortable in the UK.
You are just one in a long line of similarly afflicted Jews. (Afflicted by an inferiority complex, that is.)

When Ahmed Shukeiry, future founder member of the PlO, said:--"There is no such place as Palestine---everyone knows it is nothing more than southern Syria", was he lying?

Truthtriumphs

Thomas.

"Now that Israel is established fact, the people of Palestine whose rights have been trampled are offering to settle for a right to self-determination in a small fragment of their homeland".

The so-called Palestinians already have a homeland on 77% of the historical area called Palestine, so let them call it Palestine, as king Abdullah originally wanted.
They are NOT offering to settle "on a fragment of their homeland", as you put it, but still demand, openly, the whole of Israel as well.
And btw the vast majority of lands inhabited by Arabs, were stolen from the indigenous populations, by bloody conquest, forced conversions and the rest.
It is still going on today.

I cannot decide who is the worst dissembler....you or Herzen.

Thomas

Truthtriumphs

Let us take this slowly. The population the League promised self-determination to was the population living in Palestine at the fall of the Ottoman Empire, a population of Jews, Christians, and Muslims (most of the Jews immigrants in the 18th or 19th century). That "Arabs" entered Palestine during the Mandate does not affect this at all (and by the way many left again in the 1930s as jobs dried up during the revolt). I am sure you can understand that Churchill can be correct in saying that there were immigrant "Arabs" as well as the many immigrant Jews without this affecting the case that the population of Palestine had been promised self-determination.

I am astonished you profess ignorance of the references you have been given (although, if honest, it may explain your repetition of falsehoods).

I am sure you can understand why the inhabitants of Palestine would not be as keen on a Hashemite land grab as Abdullah, and why they might be less inclined to accept his description of Jordan as Palestine than you are - it served his interests, it serves yours, but it is inimical to theirs.

I am sure you can understand that those in the Sanjaks of Baloa and of Jerusalem were not persuaded that the Sanjaks of Hauran or of Maan represented their homeland - in fact approximately 100% of them would represent territories that were NOT their homeland.

It is a question of faith with you, blind and unshakeable, that the Palestinians are not willing to negotiate the settlement they are willing to negotiate. This gives you a fine excuse (impervious to reason or experience) to justify Israel's continued expropriations.

And finally, you seem to labour under the misapprehension that the "Arabs" of Palestine all came from the Arabian gulf. As is general knowledge among other than bigots like you, many of them will be descendants from the Jewish peasants who stayed in Judea, Samaria, Galilee...You cannot resolve this conflict with simplistic racial (racist) stereotypes.

There is something blackly humourous about the hypocrisy or profound self-ignorance of Europeans sounding off about the propensity of Arabs or Msulims for conquest and carnage.

Truthtriumphs

Thomas
May 5th, 2011 8:03pm
Truthtriumphs

"Let us take this slowly. The population the League promised self-determination to was the population living in Palestine at the fall of the Ottoman Empire, a population of Jews, Christians, and Muslims (most of the Jews immigrants in the 18th or 19th century)".

Out and out lies, as is the rest of your post.
The Jews were offered the RE-CONSTITUTION of their ancient homeland in the Holy land.
The Arabs were offered self determination in 4 other mandates.
It is all in the public domain for anyone to read, and I'm not going down that path again to repeat umpteen times what I said before.
How you and Herzen have the wilful arrogance to presume that the league meant something quite different from what it unambiguously sets out in black on white, is for you to ponder.
Others here can decide who has right.

Truthtriumphs

Thomas.

"There is something blackly humourous about the hypocrisy or profound self-ignorance of Europeans sounding off about the propensity of Arabs or Msulims for conquest and carnage".

The evidence is all there...in the vast swathe of Arab/Muslim countries stretching across the whole of North Africa.
Or, according to you, they are all populated by the "indigenous" Arabs.

Do tell us your definition of "indigenous".
Answer... any people other than the Jews.

Adam B.

Thomas, you work from an entirely false perspective. It is NOT Israel which has refused Palestinian Arabs west of the Jordan the "right" to self-determination - but rather the Palestinian Arabs themselves, who have turned down several offers of a state over several decades - whilst all the time expending huge amounts of energy and resources into destroying the Jewish one. This is because "Palestinian" nationalism has always been about destroying Israel, and not creating a new state. That is why the Arabs rejected the UN partition plan to which you refer (which was accepted by the Jews). Israel has accepted the two state solution. The Arabs have not.

As for your slur of "ethnic cleansing", I invite you to consider the complete ethnic cleansing of Jews from Arab lands (who once made up large proportions of the population in some Arab states), whilst 20% of Israel remains Arab.

Who is better at ethnic cleansing then?

Adam B.

Celato, your DNA studies and genetic obsession is utterly irrelevant to what makes Jews Jews, and Palestinians Arabs. Whilst you may think you have found the key to world peace and harmony, this is nothing more than an armchair obsessive living in a fantasy of absolutely no relevance or application in the real world.

Do enjoy.

Truthtriumphs

Tilly
May 4th, 2011 11:18am
Truthtriumphs -

"Oh, dear - busy defending the terrorist activities of settlers again, I see...

Dodgy as the Palestinian Post might be as a source, your criticism of Victoria for citing it (May 4th, 1.05am) rings awfully hollow when I note how heavily you draw on Mark S. Rosenblit's website in denying the "nationhood" of Palestinians".

So, according to you, a report in a Palestinian newspaper, of course unbiased, counts as the truth.
Probably just as true as the Jenin "massacre", the Al Dura (hoax) killing...costing more than 1,000 innocent Jewish lives, the Qana "massacre", the Gaza beach "massacre", fuelling outrage worldwide, until proved to be Pallywood productions, by which time the damage to Israel's reputation is done.
The Palestinians excel at fabrication, so wouldn't it be a good idea to find out the truth before you jump to your pre-conceived conclusions?
Fortunately, we live in a country where the moral and legal code is to presume innocence until guilt is proven, and in that sense, you would be more comfortable in any of the Arab states, where the opposite is true.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I have never heard of Rosenblit, or his website.
If his views match mine, then all praise to him....he's a clever fellow.
The nationhood of the Palestinians is denied by many of their leaders, who admit that it is an expedient, a tool, with which to remove the "Zionist entity"from the exclusive Islamic region.
A bit presumptious of you, isn't it, to claim superior knowledge to that of the Palestinian Arabs and other Arabs themselves.
You dislike my quotes...I bet you do because you cannot prove them wrong.

Truthtriumphs

Tilly
May 4th, 2011 11:18am
Truthtriumphs.

"So how about answering me at last about Yitzhak Shapira? Your only posts to me on this obnoxious rabbi and his vicious acolytes consisted of demands for chapter-and-verse citations of Shapira's "Torah justifications" for the killing of non-Jewish babies. I supplied these. You retreated into silence".

It's easy to expose your facile sophistry, for which it's necessary to return to the gruesome murders of the Fogel family, and their innocent, defenceless children, the youngest a mere 3 months old, murdered in cold blood for the crime of being Jewish.
Melanie wrote a piece about it, and the natural reaction of sentient, normal human beings was to express profound regret and revulsion, even by those anti-Israel commenters,such as Victoria.
Not you.
Your very first comment was to tell me that my "moral compass was hopelessly skewed".
Not one word from you anywhere, anywhere at all, to express sorrow, pity, revulsion...all the normal feelings one would expect of any decent human being, at the sheer horror of it all.
Your next tactic was to surf the web, to try to find Israelis, preferably "settlers", whose behaviour was, in your mind, similar to the that of the violent murderers who perpetrated this outrage.
Your purpose was, of course, to draw a moral equivalence
between the Israeli "settlers" and the barbarians who committed these murders, to show that the Israelis are exacty the same, and they got what they deserved.
You then jubilantly found and paraded one Rabbi Shapira, on whom to hang your prejudices, a man whom most Jews and Israelis have never heard of.
You then paraded his remarks which you sourced, and found some translations, which fed your desired narrative, in order to "prove" that Jewish law sanctions, indeed encourages, the murder of gentile babies.
Interestingly, you let the cat out of the bag when you admitted that you cannot read Hebrew (why not...too much of an intellectual challenge, is it?).
Far from "retreating into silence", I, unlike you, prefer to engage my brain before my mouth, and consulted highly regarded Jewish scholars in the UK, who told me that your extrapolations from Shapira's books, to Jewish law are rubbish.
Unsurprising, as you cannot read Hebrew.
I have no doubt that Shapira is an unsavoury character and a purveyor of views inimical to Jewish values.
But he HAS been apprehended by Israeli law for incitement, and is an exception rather than the rule. He does not represent the views of the vast majority of the 500,000 thousand decent, law-abiding West Bank Israelis, nor of the government.
You accused him and his followers of committing murder.
Whom has he murdered...name names?
Had that been the case, he would have been tried for murder, in a country that has just seen a former president convicted of rape in a court presided over by an Arab judge.

As I said before, you don't have a moral compass, just a stone where your heart should be.

Truthtriumphs

Tilly.

The difference between Israel and the "moderate" PA under Abbas, not even mentioning the violent Hamas regime in Gaza, is that violence and terror is encouraged and praised.
It is what they aspire to.
That is why four days after the Fogel outrage, Abbas, speaking with a forked tongue, first condemned the murders, and than named a public square after one of the worst terrorists, who murdered 37 innocent Israelis, mainly children,
praising her as a martyr.
That is what they do, just as they celebrated the deaths of 3,000 innocent people on 9/11.

You might remember the execution of four young Israelis, including a pregant woman, near Hebron, on September 1st.,whilst the settlement freeze was still in place. Six children were left as orphans.
The Hebron murders were designed to torpedo the direct face to face "peace" talks which had just begun, and had the desired effect.
This has been the pattern of Arab behaviour towards the Jews since the 1920s, before there was the Jewish state.
You might also like to reflect on the upsurge of terrorism against Jews that happened every time there was the most benign, left leaning government in Israel, offering the most compromise.
The suicide bombings and terror attacks were always the worst then.
That rather contradicts your neat little theory about the Palestinians being the peace lovers, doesn't it?

Truthtriumphs

Tilly.

Here is the story of just one religious "settler" who was murdered on Feb.1st 2001.
His name was Dr. Shmuel Gillis, a Sunderland-born haematologist and cancer specialist of blood disorders, who worked in the Hadassah Hospital.
He was driving back to his home in Gush Etzion on the J'lem/Hebron highway, when a drive-by assassin sprayed him with 11 bullets.
He left 5 orphans between the ages of 3 and 13, and he was about to join in the birthday party of one of his children.
One of his Arab patients described him as "better than an angel".
Indeed, he was as deeply mourned by his Arab patients, who hailed from, amongst other places, Gaza, Ramallah, Nablus, Jordan and Egypt, as by his Jewish ones.
They said he was irreplaceable, and feared that their treatment would suffer as a result.
But for you, Tilly, he would be described as a "religious extremist settler", who got what he deserved.

Yes, compared to you I do have a "perfect moral compass".
I, at least, know the difference between right and wrong.

Celato

Truthtriumphs:

Unlike you, I do bother to take the odd nanosecond to research your claims. Almost invariably I'm taken aback by your uncritical reliance on dubious or unrepresentative sources.

If, for example, you had asked YOURSELF why Ahmed Shukeiry should "deny the existence" of Palestine, a number of explanations might have occurred to you: ignorance; political expedience - the fact that he was born in Cairo and committed to Arab unity; etymological controversy about the word "Palestine", etc, etc.

You might also (in a spirit of broad-minded curiosity - do try it sometime) have had your eye drawn to other quotations about the existence/non-existence of Palestine which gave pause for thought. Here are a couple for you on a plate:

1. Moshe Dayan, 1969 - "Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist ..." [Spooky echo of Palestinians erasing Israel from school atlases, huh?] "Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul, Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta [more locations follow] ... There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population."

2. David Ben-Gurion, 1938 - "Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves ... politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves ... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down."

OK, now - were Dyan and Ben-Gurion "lying"? Or was Shukeiry?

Truthtriumphs

Tilly,

Instead of spending vast amounts of energy defending the indefensible, could I suggest that you do something useful here, and write in defence of Gilad Shallit, a young Israeli soldier kidnapped without provocation from his own country, by the Hamas thugs, now 5 years in captivity, and refused visits by every international agency, including the Red Cross, thus breaking laws of warfare and the Geneva Convention.
Or is it only the Palestinian victims you care about?
Is that humane? Is that just?

Thomas

Truthtriumphs
May 5th, 2011 10:41pm
On the Mandate (again). Wording from the Balfour Declaration was incorporated at the insistence of the British over the strong objections of the other Allied Powers, who required that the guarantees of the inhabitants' rights be made more explicit. British intentions are therefore crucial to understanding the Mandate.

Here is the Palestine Commission, "It was agreed that they (the Zionists) had no claim, whatever might be done for them on sentimental grounds; further, that all that was necessary was to make room for Zionists in Palestine, not that they should turn it, that is the whole country, into their home."

Here is Curzon to the Cabinet deliberating on HMG's position, "It was pointed out 1. that, while the Powers had unquestionably recognized the historical connection of the Jews with Palestine by their formal acceptance of the Balfour Declaration and their textual incorporation of it in the Turkish Peace Treaty drafted at San Remo, this was far from constituting anything in the nature of a legal claim, and that the use of such words might be, and was, indeed, certain to be used as the basis of all sorts of political claims by the Zionists for the control of Palestinian administration in the future, and 2. that, while Mr. Balfour's Declaration had provided for the establishment of a Jewish National Haome in Palestine, this was not the same thing as the reconstitution of Palestine as a Jewish National Home - an extension of the phrase for which there was no justification, and which was certain to be employed in the future as a basis for claims to which I have referred...Mr. Balfour, who interested himself keenly in (the Zionists') case, admitted, however, the force of the above contentions, and...suggested an alternative form of words which I am prepared to recommend. Para 3 of the Preamble would then conclude as follows 'whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine, and to the grounds for reconstituting their National Home in that country...'"

Here is Churchill in his White Paper, "The status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status."

Zionist propagandists have tried to portray the words as confirming their claim and at the same the interpretation of the words by those who drafted them as a betrayal. The words and their interpretation are clear. They form the legal basis for the state of Palestine and for the status of its inhabitants.

On the term "national home". Scotland has long been considered the national home of the Scots. It has been several kindoms, a unified kingdom, part of a united kingdom, and may yet be independent again. "National home" is not synonymous with "nation state". It is customary for the words in treaties to be taken in their common usage unless explicitly defined otherwise. The Zionists should not have used code. Treaties are not written in code.

I will leave you with the plea of so many others: do some honest research.

Truthtriumphs
May 5th, 2011 10:47pm
I do not know if you miss the point deliberately or it is simply beyond you. Europeans tut-tutting at the Arabs of past centuries for bloody conquest and colonisation is rich.

You do however understand, do you?, that the Palestinian "Arabs" are not all from Arabia.

Thomas

Adam B.
May 6th, 2011 12:17am
You have quietly dropped what was previously your insistently repeated one and only point. Probably wise. I take it we no long need undertake extensive ethnographical studies of the peoples east and west of the Jordan before we decide who has a right to self-determination.

Your new point is based on a misunderstanding or on ignorance of the history. The people of Palestine exercised their right to self-determination by rejecting the proposal to partition their land made by outside powers. The UN recognized as much when it acknowledged the impracticability of its proposal in the face of such opposition and worked instead on a temporary UN trusteeship. The Zionists by establishing a state in Palestine and expelling most of its inhabitants did indeed deprive them of their right to determine their government.

On ethnic cleansing. I suggest you study a bit more the "ingathering "of Jews from Arab states and the part played by those in the Israeli government who considered the need for manpower (evern "second-rate") paramount. The Arab states are certainly guilty in this matter of expulsion, but Israel is not innocent. I think the Arab states should make restitution. I do not think this, one of the greatest tragedies of the conflict, can appropriately or decently be used as an excuse to deflect criticism of Israel's behaviour to the Palestinians.

You should know that denial does not change facts. The evidence, even if you confine yourself to the archives of the Israeli government, military, and individuals, is extensive and incontrovertible. Denial demeans you.

Truthtriumphs

Celato
May 6th, 2011 9:15am
Truthtriumphs:

"Unlike you, I do bother to take the odd nanosecond to research your claims. Almost invariably I'm taken aback by your uncritical reliance on dubious or unrepresentative sources".

For the very good reason that I am not a crank, and therefore do not waste time "researching" material based on outrageous propaganda and lies.
I would not, for example, take time to research the writings of David Irving, for obvious reasons.

Dubious or unrepresentative sources?
Dubious..you mean,like Winston Churchill?
Unrepresentative.... like Azzam Tamimi?
Unrepresentative...better describes your views, which don't stand up to any academic, critical analysis.

"If, for example, you had asked YOURSELF why Ahmed Shukeiry should "deny the existence" of Palestine, a number of explanations might have occurred to you:"

There is only ONE explanation that makes sense...namely, that he was telling the truth.

"Moshe Dayan, 1969 - "Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist ..."

True to form taken out of context, it can be shown to mean the opposite of it's intended meaning, unlike the Churchill quotation.
It could have said that before the Arab villages, there were Jewish villages which had been destroyed, which, indeed there were, such as Gush Etzion.
You have never answered my question as to how far back you go to determine real ownership.
What is your time line?
The whole world is a history of war, conquest, migrations of people.
There is a complete inconsistency in your arguments.

David Ben-Gurion, 1938 - "Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves ... politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves ... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down."

The meaning would change completely, if the words "the way they see it is that...." appeared in the text before the words "politically we are the aggressors".
An old trick of yours, removing the context, the game of smoke and mirrors.

Azzam Tamimi is absolutely
unequivocal about the nonsense of a Palestinian nationality, or do you regard him as a "dubious, unrepresentative source"?

Another Joshua

@Herzen

In respnse to your comment of 5 May, and with regard to your first paragraph, I have no real issue with it. The refernce to Friedman's book was to give a more nuanced view of the terrain , is one of the points I intended to make. To your point I can add one further point, which I don't think you will disagree on: that around 8% of Palestine was "owned" by Jews as purchased land, and that around 20% was Arab owned land and that the balance of the land area was under-developed Ottoman lands, or "Mowat" Land, as I believe it was termed, that could not be purchased.Which leads to a point in reply to your second paragraph.

Your account omits a chronological sequence of events that arrives at the Mandate point. The culmination of discussion that resulted in the Jews (all 14 million of them) being given the a right to a State was SETTLED at San Remo in 1920. TT, who regularly writes on here, correctly refers to the preamble to the agreement recognising the Jewish connection to Palestine and the grounds for the Jews to reconstitute their national homeland in Palestine.

The operative word is "RECONSTITUTE" not "CONSTITUTE", please note.

The San Remo Conference, with Arab Delegations present as well is what turns all previous discussion into what was a final decision regarding the status of the territory. The Jews became beneficially entitled to it under modern international legal agreements.

There is a very interesting discussion by Dr Jacques Gauthier who has painstakingly gone through evey document, agreement, visited evey location and has made it his life's work to get to the bottom of it all. He has said quite clearly that it is "so easy to get this wrong". So much discussion and disagreement and written books arguing in each and every direction. His specialism is essentially on Jerusalem and "who owns it?"

The fact is that, Jews from places where there had been a long history of persecution responded to the declaration and left their lands to come to this land and to restore the land to its peoples. This gave rise to suspicion by those who lived on the land and the British reneged on the terms under which it held the territory by taking advantage of divisions and fuelling dispute by recognising the Mufti and so on. You know the points.Colonial interests over legal responsibilities. For contemporary accounts I recommend the 1943 published book by Pierre Van Paassen "The Forgotten Ally".

Quite clearly, the facts on the ground have moved on since the days of Balfour. The rights of the Arabs are recognised in many ways Herzen. It may not be an even society, but Israel pretty much preserves the rights of all of its citizens. Given the conditions of war that exist and constant security issues, Israel has achieved a great deal - not just in my eyes, but Arab eyes too. Many Arabs I believe long to end the dispute by ridding itself of vile gangsters that control the Arabs in Gaza. Those conditions have yet to be created and the World Powers today owe a duty to this end, and not the way they are doing it at present: rewarding terrorism, by not tackling it and blaming the wrong party.

It is possible. There is a section in van Paassen's book that records a period of total calm and harmony between the Arab and Jew in Palestine. And guess when that was and why (if you have not read the book)?

Herzen

Another Joshua
May 6th, 2011 1:50pm
I am no expert on Ottoman law (!) I get the impression that there is a tendency among Zionists to draw conclusions about property rights under Ottoamn law as if it were modern Western law, which is especially problematic in respect of the customary rights of peasants in a system in the midst of reform detrimental to the peasants, which the peasants naturally resisted. (I do not deny the obvious fact, of course, that Jews in Palestine owned property and Jewish immigrants to Palestine had every right to acquire property.)

On the Mandate, I refer you to the comments above by Thomas, and to a long exchange with C. Gee a week or two ago. C. Gee cited an excellent book setting out the Zionist case by Howard Grief. I will look for M. Gauthier's work. You will have guessed that I am not persuaded. (As a footnote to what Thomas said, it is curious that Zionists insist that the Balfour Declaration take precedence over all other agreements, undertakings and proclamations before and after precisely because it was incorporated into the League of Nations Mandate system - and yet they condemn its interpretation therein as a betrayal.)

It is worth bearing in mind that the Permanent Mandate Commission of the League of Nations monitored and approved Britain's performance as Mandatory Power. The charge by Zionists of betrayal either in the drafting of the treaties or in their implementation is difficult to sustain.

As you say, things have moved on. Before you are too complimentary about Israel's treatment of its "Arab" citizens, you should perhaps revisit the history of its systematic discrimination against them ever since 1948. Israel has been a calamity for the rights of the rest of Palestine's "Arab" population.

I agree that peaceful coexistence should be possible but will be difficult to achieve.

I am sure most Palestinians would be relieved to be rid of the gangsters, as they would of their Israeli oppressors. I am sure you are aware that one set of gangsters (the PA) have in many respects acted as Israel's gangsters (or to be more accurate gangsters funded, trained and supervised by the US as is standard in all US neo-colonialist policing of subject peoples). They are there to police the Palestinian people and to accept "sovereignty" over their ghettoes to relieve Israel of the responsibility. All that has stopped the "two-state" charade which US support of the PA was meant to facilitate (on the evidence of the Palestine Papers, Wikileaks, etc.) is the intransigence of Israel in refusing to make any significant concessions on land or resources in return for the PA's abject surrender.

(I use the term "Zionist" simply to refer to those who support Zionism.)

Another Joshua

@Herzen
I did of course did not say Balfour was binding in law. Balfour was a pledge but the claims were set out in Paris first in 1919 and then agreed upon at San Remo in 1920. The binding law is established at San Remo. That is the point I make.Dr Gauthier, who is French Canadian can be heard lecturing on Youtube and elsewhere.1400 pages of a thesis with 30,000 footnotes is a record. And you Herzen, with no expertise in Ottoman Law and already dismissive!

Secondly I did ask you to try to guess (at least once please) when there was a very distinct moment in the history of jew and Arab during the mandate, when nearly all hostility ceased giving way to a period of calm and complete cooperation. There is a point I would like to make regarding this, once you have a go.( This is open to anyone reading this, by the way.)

Of course I agree that the position for the Arabs under israel is not ideal, but has this not got something to do with the conflict, rather than the conflict being present because of some injustices that can arise from the continuous conflict? I think so. Is it all malignant feeling by Jews, that perpetuates this conflict, or could it also be something to do with those gangsters who are quite capable of doing a lot of "oppressing" .

As regards to failed policies and of doing deals with Arafat and now with perceived moderates - the PA , I agree to a degree that this willhave infected the chances of some reformist approach being undertaken sooner rather than later. One of the biggest regrets sometimes expressed, was that Arafat was invited back , armed (for heaven's sake!) and given a Nobel Prize - and for what!?

Yes I did follow some of the discussion you had with C Gee and that is why I withdrew and did not wish to repeat points, at the time. C Gee showed some openess and an ability to reflect on issues, whilst I saw very little flexibilty from you . You do emit contradictory stances which leads me to believe, that by being far to theoretical sometimes prevents some people from entirely being able concur with you and or to entirely disagree.Instead they prefer to disagree. In short some of your own reasoning as i read does not add up to your conclusions, which are often outrageous, and which tends to drive others here to distraction. This may be something to do with an affiliation to hard politics over years at sometime during ones life and that they are struggling. But I have also seen people close to me, displaying similar tendencies suddenly changing it all round the other way (not left to right, necessarily), and they are released and happier about life, without losing the empathy for others or anything else.

Daulat Ram

ANOTHER JOSHUA:

A simple query: whatis Israel going to do when, as is inevitable, the Arab population west of the Jordan becomes the majority, within two to three decades?

Adam B.

Thomas, you demean every Jew ethnically cleansed by the totalitarian Arab states of the 1940's and 50's by your denial of their plight. This is a typical response of the revisionists, who wish to downplay Jewish victimhood of Arab racism, because they are unable to explain how every last Jew has been driven from several Arab countries, whilst Israel has a thriving Arab population, which continues to grow. In the face of these facts, they claim that all the Jews left of their own free will (how likely is it, Thomas, that they ALL left) whilst you ignore the reality of the pogroms they faced, the dhimmui apartheid system under which Jews were forced to live, and Nazi sympathies of the Arab nationalists...al these must be expunged from the record lest they give the game away. Instead, new atrocities must be invented and levelled at the Jews themselves, so that Jews are on the defensive, and the truth may be avoided.

This is an appalling display Thomas. And, for your information, I have changed no record. There is categorically no difference between the Arabs east and west of the Jordan. the line is an invention of British colonialism. And how ironic that you then defend Palestinian Arab rejectionism of the two state solution, thus revealing that you also reject two states, as "outside interference", whilst you quote the UN and League of Nations when it suits your case. That is rank hypocrisy, Thomas, and historical illiteracy, as the Jews are NOT outsiders. Their presence there predates anyone else's, is inegral to the Jewish religion, and has been continuous despite various conquests over the ages from real outsiders.

Time you recognized that fact.

Adam B.

Kate

More evidence of the Palestinian Authority, under "moderate" Abbas, inciting racist hatred against Jews.

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/130/bringing_up_a_palestinian_child

Tilly

Truthtriumphs -

You highlight a number of issues arising from the Fogel family murders and the comments I made regarding Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira, which I will try to address over two separate posts.

In this one, just a few corrections to your statements are needed:

1. You say the "natural, sentient, normal reaction [to the murder of children] is to express ... sorrow, pity, revulsion" and accuse me of failing to do so.

While I appreciate that the correspondence on these murders extended over three very lengthy threads, I do think you ignore (rather than merely fail to spot) comments which don't "fit the image" of the person with whom you're arguing. I'll return to this is in my next post, but for now simply quote one remark (out of several) by way of rebuttal: With reference to reported "celebrations" at the murders, I said those rejoicing had "so lost touch with normal feelings of revulsion at the killing of children that one could only suppose they'd become monsters - literally inhuman."

2. You claim that my "tactic" (in supposedly avoiding condemnation of the murders) was to "surf the web to find Israelis - preferably settlers" with the purpose of drawing a "moral equivalence".

I actually did not contribute to the initial discussion until a total of 32 comments had been posted, including one from "Pete" in which Yitzhak Shapira's activities were cited. It was only following your responses to HIM that I took issue with your moral stance and challenged you to address the rabbi's published utterances.

3. You state that I accused Shapira and his followers of "committing murders", and then demand to know, "Whom has he murdered?"

I did not at any time say that Shapira had murdered anyone. I accused him of "endorsing" the murder of non-Jewish babies and pointed out that he had (which you, indeed, accept) been apprehended on suspicion of "incitement". The only reference I made to a Shapira adherent committing murder concerned Jack Teitel, a SELF-PROCLAIMED follower, who confessed to killing two Palestinians and the attempted murder of a liberal Israeli historian.

As far as Shapira's other followers were concerned, I cited widely-reported crimes committed by students at his yeshiva - rocket salvos, arson attacks, assault, etc; I also pointed out the link between Shapira and another rabbi, Dov Lior, who organised a shrine to the mass-murderer Baruch Goldstein.

I hope this clarifies at least some matters for the moment ...

3.

Adam B.

Daulet Ram, that question has been asked for decades, and predictions of an Arab majority have always proved to be false.

Herzen

Another Joshua
May 6th, 2011 6:42pm
I did not mean to dismiss M. Gauthier. I have been reading Mr. Grief's work, which (on my brief exposure to Gaulthier's) seems of higher calibre, though still dependent on special pleading.

We agree that it is at Paris and San Remo, and in the mandate treaty, that the British commitment to the Zionists took legally binding form.

I have no idea when cooperation between "Arabs" and Zionists was at its height. I would be grateful if you would tell me. I should make clear that I do not see any reason why there could not have been a practicable accomodation between immigrants and existing inhabitants. However, such an accomodation was not consistent with the Zionists' avowed plan to turn Palestine into a "Jewish state". Peasant resistance on the land and political resistance in the cities seems to me the inevitable consequence. I struggle to understand why it is thought that the inhabitants should have quietly accepted Britain's imposition of what the inhabitants had good reason to fear was a state founded by and for recent immigrants. (I am always at a loss why Britain thought it could balance its commitments to both the inhabitants and the Zionists.) But, as a continuing student of the period, I would be interested to know what you are referring to (and to hear of any books you can recommend).

Do I think the conflict is perpetuated just by "malignant feeling by Jews" (!) Of course not. Each side (Jewish Israeli and Palestinian Arab) has reason to hate the other. No-one, I think, would find it easy to trust someone who has tried to kill your family or friends.

The biggest missed opportunity, I think, was in 1967, when Eshkol was prevailed upon to abandon the idea of an autonomous Palestine in the West Bank. Since Oslo, Israel's purpose has not been simply peace, but peace with the Palestinians divided and ruled by those willing to take over policing them from the IDF. This is not to deny that very many in Israel believed in good faith that the negotiations were genuine and offered a genuine opportunity for peace (which Madrid could have done). On Arafat's failings, Shlomo Ben Ami is very good (not this site's favourite politician - Labourite - but with first-hand experience). On the flaws in Oslo, Reja Shehadeh is good, as is Edward Said (if you are broadminded enough not to hiss at his name).

I would be grateful if you could tell me where C. Gee shows "openness" (I'm not sure he'll thank you). You upbraid me, again, politely as ever, for my contradictions and other dialectical failings. I would be grateful if you would be more specific (genuine request). Likewise, my "outrageous" conclusions.

Thank you.

Thomas

Adam B.

It can't be that you misunderstand what is said to you deliberately. You would choose a way of twisting it that made you look clever. It can't be that you don't understand the language. Your sentences are in correctly formed English. By elimination, it must be something less than flattering to mention that causes you to misrepresent your opponents so consistently. And, if you genuinely simply cannot understand what is said to you, which appears to be the case, then your indignation must be purely Pavlovian.

Adam B.

Thomas, a completely vacuous, substanceless, yet smug, response. Well done.

Why not try delaing with the points put to you?

Because you cannot. You can't bring yourself to admit that the Arabs have ethnically cleansed the Jews, and the Jews have not ethnically cleansed the Arabs. You cannot bring yourself to admit that Jews lived under a system of apartheid in Arab lands. You cannot bring yourself to admit that there is no difference between the Arabs east and west of the Jordan, and that such a distinction is a hangover from British imperialism. You cannot bring yourself to admit Arab rejectionism of a state repeatedly offered, offered despite the aggression and repeated attempts of genocide against the Jews of Israel. And you cannot bring yourself to admit that this conflict is not about final borders, but about the cult of intolerance, nihilism and racism which does not accept a Jewish state, whatever its borders.

No Thomas, I understand you well.

Adam B.

Herzen, you blame Eshkol for the lack of peace after 1967. Have you not heard of the Khartoum declaration, where the Arab states issued the three "No's"?

No talks, no recognition and no peace.

Herzen

Adam B.
May 8th, 2011 9:42am
You are quite right. Khartoum was one of the many low points in Arab diplomacy. (It appears Nasser and King Hussein tried to dissuade the others but felt they had to go along with it, while trying to make secret contacts with the Israelis. I don't know how accurate this account is.) There was also a very generous offer from Israel which the cabinet thought better of and withdrew pretty much as soon as they had communicated it to the Americans. It is not clear whether the Arab states were ever formally notified. I did not at all blame Eshkol for the absence of peace. I said his idea of an autonomous Palestinian West Bank would possibly have produced a sustainable solution, which the competing plans of Moshe Dayan and Allon certainly would not.

David Goshen

PA & Hamas have agreed that no peace negotiations with Israel will take place till after the elections.
Very convenient to defer for a year.
There will however be no peace negotians between the new PA which includes Hamas even after the elections.It has been agreed that the PLO will be the only body to negotiate with Israel.Very vague idea which virtually buries the peace process.Question is whether USA & EU are aware of this strange idea of shunting the peace process back to the original Oslo negotiators PLO-what this means is that neither Abu Mazam or Hamas need to negotiate with Israel-how very convenient!

Herzen

Adam B.
May 7th, 2011 11:40pm
I meant to ask you what purpose you think is served by twisting other people's words, as with what I said about Eshkol, and more offensively with what Thomas had to say (and indeed just about everyone you disagree with). Would it not be more useful to read carefully and respond to what is written rather than what you think you can easily tip a load of ersatz indignation on? Time and again you latch onto what was not said, and refuse to let go!

Another Joshua

@Herzen

The period in which there was an almost unprecedented period during the Mandate , was after 1939 at the commencement WW2. It was explained by van Paassen to be down to the fact that the Mufti, Haj Amin Husseini, had left Palestine for Nazi Germany with a number of his followers then . Some of the worst trouble makers were languishing in prison. He described Palestine, these thugs and the street life in the 30s, the Mufti supporters, would drive their cars waving Swastikas and the like. If he is right, this suggests that it was more than Arab nationalism that was fuelling the conflict. Historians like Shlaim play these points down, but they cannot be ignored.

After the Mufti left, Arabs living in Palestine started to meet with Jews. Suspicions and fears of reprisals subsided and Arab and Jew traded and opened businesses together. They formed trade unions and had Arabic/Hebrew newspapers, they socialised meeting in Tel Aviv beaches and the society had a seamless quality of peaceful existence. The British found the new conditions unsettling and introduced ordinances to disrupt the developments that were being achieved. Joint TUs were banned, the newspapers were shut down and so on.Congregatimng at meetings were banned. Excuses to release murderers were made and the tensions were restored. Now no one will know for sure what the outcome might have been if the new state of affairs were allowed to continue, but it is a small window in which life was obseved without problems. I was quite surprised to read it myself.

In short, the point I make is simple The antisemitism displayed by the Arab leadership of the time, and of todaty's leadership cannot be ignored in any discussion.

Tilly

Truthtriumphs -

As promised, here is Part 2 of my reply ...

Your central criticism seems to be that I have a "heart of stone" where Israeli deaths are concerned and that I seek to devalue them by (a) failing to express "pity and revulsion", and (b) drawing attention to Palestinian deaths in a "morally equivalent" way, which you comprehensively reject.

In my previous post (May 7th, 11.12am) I pointed out that your perception of heartlessness was largely based on a failure to take note of clearly-stated condemnations of Palestinian atrocities from correspondents adopting a critical stance towards Israel.

But here's something else you should take on board. One of the reasons, I suspect, that many people are reluctant to express sympathy for Israeli victims too effusively is the stinging ripostes they get from you (and others) when they do.

Here's a good example. In order to illustrate my "lack" of sympathy, you tracked down and (in this thread) gave credit to a "contrasting" post from Victoria in which she'd written: "To hear of [the Fogel family murders] ... is heartbreaking. May God be with them." Credit was not, however, what you afforded her at the time. Accusing her of "obscene moral equivalence" for raising the issue of Palestinian deaths in a subsequent post, you told her: "Spare us your nauseating crocodile tears!"

(Another correspondent, incidentally, went so far as to suggest Victoria "supported" the Fogels' killers.)

What earthly purpose do such unpleasant and unfounded accusations of hypocrisy serve? And what, in this light, am I to make of your invitation to comment on the death of Dr Gillis? If I tell you I entirely agree that his killing was an outrage, quite without justification, and an appalling tragedy for his wife and children, will you believe me? I rather think not...

Your yardstick of "genuineness" seems to be that unless I simultaneously develop a stony heart as far as Palestinians are concerned, any expression of pity I might make about Israeli victims are morally degraded.

And this is really where I take issue with you. In an effort to check whether I was being just as "blind" to your disgust at the killing of children - in ANY circumstances - as you were to mine, I looked long and hard for the slightest expression of sympathy from you for Palestinian civilians killed and bereaved.

The best I could come up with on your behalf were condemnations of Hamas for using civilians as "human shields". But as for evidence of what you call the "natural, sentient, normal reaction" to children's deaths, "to express profound regret and revulsion" - not a dicky-bird.

I may, of course, have missed something among hundreds of posts and also acknowledge that you may be reluctant to express such feelings for fear of eliciting similar cries of "crocodile tears!" from opponents - but that ball's now in your court if you wish to prove me wrong.

Another Joshua

@ Herzen
"This is not to deny that very many in Israel believed in good faith that the negotiations were genuine and offered a genuine opportunity for peace"

I agree, and I was one of them.
But, I was also aware that there were contradictions in Arafat's stance from the outset. I took the view that even despite this, Arafat had started a processs that could not be reversed. Even if he wanted to, he would have to put himself under unbearable pressure from every direction that he would have had to let go and to sign the deal and give the Arabs a Palestinian State and move on. It seems that my hunch was wrong and those who were cautioning against handing over land so readily ,turned out unfortunately to be right.

I will not respond to your request for examples at the moment but will scream at you as soon as you do it again, if that's OK with you?

Herzen

Another Joshua
May 9th, 2011 10:40am
I don't think anyone here is ignoring anti-semitism among Arabs. You have the reference earlier to Gilbert Achcar's recent book.

There is religious anti-semitism, although Islam's record is way better than Christianity's and Arabs than Europeans. In Palestine, there is the suspicion of outsiders, especially when they purchase land peasants had worked for generations. Then there is the identification of the Zionists, who were clearly detrimental to their interests, with Jews, an identification Zionists encouraged. Then there was the paucity of Great Power sponsors: Britain was seen to have sided with the interloper for its own imprial purposes; the US was only beginning to exert its influence; by a process of elimination, Germany was the only plausible protector left, a protector whose anti-semitism became ever more virulent - it is no suprise that those seeking their protection would play to their prejudices. Then there were those like the Mufti who were genuine converts (it was ill-judged, to say the least, for Britain to promote him as a leader of the Palestinian Arabs). After 1948, the Palestinians, and their "brothers" in other Arab countries, surely had every reason to hate the Zionists, and the indentification with Jews generally was by then deeply engrained, and the religious element only made it more virulent. Surely it is disingenuous to ascribe the hostility to Israel to anti-semitism, as if military conquest, ethnic cleansing, and discrimination had nothing to do with it.

To say that the hostility to the Zionists in the 1930s was just a matter of the Mufti and his thugs and blind anti-semitism is wrong. The same applies to any period from the late-19th century to the end of the Mandate and from Israel's UDI to the present. It is a wilful misunderstanding - surely we can all understand that immigrants coming in to establish a state where we and our families have lived for generations are going to rouse hostility. Indeed many on this blog make a similar point in bloodcurdling terms about Muslims coming to Europe.

There are many stories of cooperation between Arabs and Jews in Palestine. There are even stories of Arab peasants during the civil war in 1947-8 who were not too concerned who ruled so long as they could continue to till their land (something the Zionists' strategy for statehood could not allow). As I said, I do not see why an accommodation could not have been reached between the existing inhabitants and incomers, were it not for the fact of the Zionist project.

To say that there would have been no conflict but for blind anti-semitism is implausible.

P.S. I would appreciate it if you would tell me what you consider my contradictions and outrageous conclusions.

Draken

Herzen

You can try to argue semantics till the cows come home, you either side with the savages or with civilization, which is it going to be, choose wisely.

Adam B.

Herzen, I have not twisted anything. That argument is the refuge of someone who doesn't like the stark barbarity of their position being exposed.

And such an accusation from a master of twisted history...But then accusation is your basic tactic - accuse Israel, accuse defenders of Israel...

Adam B.

Funnt, Herzen, that you didn't consider the Khartoum declaration and it rejection of peace as worthy of any mention in your little potted history, as if it were a mere footnote. Could this be because it blows your thesis against Israel out of the water?

Another Joshua

@Herzen
You asked for an outrageous point. Here's one you wrote a few days ago.

"That the Allied Powers decreed that the inhabitants of Palestine make room for a Jewish National Home (which the Zionists glossed as a Jewish State) in their midst must have had something of the surreal air of European monarchies granting their pirates and colonists property rights in the New World "

Flowery language. What divine right did those colonialists have to give land to the zionists?

Well they did didn't they. If you were consistent, you would (and not just you of course) have said what right did they have to give Mesapotamia to Faisal and so on - but they did.

Then you more recently flow pro-zionist, so to speak when you readily agree that San Remo was from where The Jewish Nation (not just Zionists) are given rights over Palestine. Howard Grief and Gauthier are 2 examples of people who make this clear. And here's a very interesting clip on Youtube - someone who met Faisal and Weitzman and heard Faisal's own personal views on what benefits to expect from the Zionists were they to come to Palestine.

Listen to Philip Noel Baker a delegate at the Paris Conference 1919 talking about his meeting with Lawrence of Arabia and Faisal. Listen to it 10 times Herzen!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdThzSoQCGI&feature=related

Herzen

Another Joshua
May 9th, 2011 11:42pm
I have in fact on several previous threads pointed out that the whole Mandate system was an imperial carve-up purely in the interests of Britain and France.

I am not aware however that they indulged in demographic engineering (as opposed to gerrymandering as in Lebanon) anywhere but in Palestine. So what I said still stands. It is not a contradiction, neither is it outrageous.

You are mistaken about what the treaties actually bound Britain to. What various politicians thought would eventuate is another matter. Nevertheless, the treaties required Britain to facilitate a Jewish National Home in Palestine (for some reason which I do not understand Britain accepted that a fringe group should represent "world Jewry" at international conferences.) The treaties did not give the Zionists "rights over Palestine".

It is a good question what Feisal and his father were doing letting him apparently negotiate with a representative of a fringe group. Whereas the Hejaz had the legal status of a sovereign entity or state, the Zionists had no such status. There is a question whether their agreement had any legally-binding force. Feisal was acting as his father's agent and had been instructed not to depart from what Britain had agreed in the Hussein-McMahon correspondence. Weizman inserted the phrase "Jewish state" in the original draft. Feisal insisted on "Palestine". Feisal added a reservation to the agreement, which I suggest you read. I also suggerst you read his initial memorandum to HMG, which he refers to in his reservation. As an aside, in an interview with the Jewish Chronicle, he compared the Zionist claim to Palestine to the Arab claim to Andalucia. He also said, "We Arabs cannot yield Palestine as part of our kingdom. We would fight to the last ditch against Palestine being other than part of our kingdom and for supremacy of Arabs in the land." He also said that he had no objection to Palestine becoming a Jewish cultural centre, as he saw Jews as his "cousins" and would willingly make them "brothers".

Read the historical record. Ten times if necessary.

Another Joshua
May 9th, 2011 1:32pm
You praised C. Gee for "openness". Yet here you show none. You are disappointed that Arafat was not compelled to sign. You don't consider what it was he was to sign. What Israel was offering was a confederation of autonomous Palestinian ghettoes, which Arafat would be expected to police on behalf of Israel. This was what Rabin had in mind and what every Israeli government since has sought to implement, with various interpretation of "autonomous" and with ever more Israeli settlements to be accommodated.

You said I was guilty of contradictions and outrageous conclusions. I would be grateful if you would point them out to me. Thank you.

Another Joshua

@Herzen

Here's an example of confused thinking. You say, in your last comment:" What Israel was offering was a confederation of autonomous Palestinian ghettoes, which Arafat would be expected to police on behalf of Israel. This was what Rabin had in mind and what every Israeli government since has sought to implement, with various interpretation of "autonomous" and with ever more Israeli settlements to be accommodated."

In short you are agreeing with Arafat's excuse.

But in an earlier post, you acknowledge Arafat's "failings" by accepting Said's position and Shlomo Ben-Ami, who incidentally did, with a number of others, including Clinton finally place the blame on Arafat for not agreeing to unprecedented offers.

As to duplicity , whatever Israel might have thought with regard to misguidedly believing that Arafat as some are suggesting would be Israel's stooge listen instead to what Arafat really wanted to do from the start. Bari Atwan discloses what Arafat confided in him. It was all a pretence. He wasn't "failing", it was quite intentional.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0tmmd4VoVI.
The contradiction here is you accept Arafat as a failure (and I read it as a failure to make peace in this instance) yet you accept the garbage excuses he makes (not just you, others too) in order to somehow restore some sort of honour for the "losing" party.

But everybody lost. Arafat did not perceive it as that.He was playing "the longer game". The rest is detail.

You say:
"I have in fact on several previous threads pointed out that the whole Mandate system was an imperial carve-up purely in the interests of Britain and France."

Yes and no. It is was after all a division of an empire by victorious powers, with different motives underlying it, but in the case of Palestine, it was differnt. I am not going to gothrough all the quotes, but Lloyd George, who Avi Shlaim says was motivated by antisemitism, with no evidence to support it and bebnny Morris who refers to LG's own personal religious beliefsa , as with others, is, I think closer to the truth.

As regards to recognising the Allied Powers to deal with the lands it acquired after a World War with millions dead, the sovreign rights were settled under traties that they were entitled to settle. You Herzen, and others may not want to agree they had any authority to deal with it, but in absence of any other power at the time, I cannot see how an alternative canould have existed then.If you can, then it becomes theoretical. These were tribal societies and I accept that nationalism and tribal custom will clash. But then let's go back to Ottoman times is all I can suggest.

Herzen

Another Joshua,
You are struggling to create an inconsistency in what I said where there is none.

That Israel offered a confederation of ghettoes is easy to establish from Israeli sources. Indeed, you need only look at the map of what was offered at Camp David (they can call it a state if they want, was Ehud Barak's attitude), or read the briefing on it prepared for Ehud Olmert when he came to office.

This is something no Palestinian leader could agree to. You say even Clinton blamed Arafat, as if the US was in any way playing honest broker. Yet even Clinton belatedly understood that the Palestinians could not sign, and produced his "principles" which were the framework for further talks at Taba, talks which both sets of negotiators said were making good progress, talks which Israel, not the Palestinians, cut short. (Clinton's last minute realization is I think the one and only time the US has diverged from the "peace process" since the 1970s. It was shortlived.)

Israeli security confirmed that the intifada that followed Camp David was not organised by Fatah, but a spontaneous protest by the people exasperated by the confirmation at Camp David of what the "peace process" was about. Israel's response to the first days of protest was grotesque (I have seen figures for the amount of ordnance used on unarmed protestors).

I said that Arafat was incompetent and venal. This is perfectly consistent with the above. He connived in the subversion of the Madrid conference to ensure that the exiles prevailed over those in the occupied territories. At Oslo, his negotiators conceded point after point simply to re-establish Fatah in Palestine. I think Arafat was genuine in believing that a Palestinian state would follow and not just the confederated ghettoes the Israelis had in mind. The Israeli negotiators at Oslo, who were of course professional in the extreme and very well prepared, have said since that they were astonished at the shambolic amateurism of Arafat's negotiators, who conceded without apparently realising the significance of what they were conceding. As I said, Shehadeh and Said analysed the failings of Oslo at the time (so it is not hindsight that shows it to have been part of the "peace process".

On the League of Nations and the Mandates. I have said that it was an imperial carve-up. I have also said previously that whether we like it or not the settlement post WW1 is the basis for subsequent international law. This is not what we disagree on. We disagree on the interpretation of the treaties. They did not decree a "Jewish state" in Palestine.

Another Joshua

@Herzen
You insist on saying that Arafat was incompetent and venal. I add, and a liar too.

You cannot do deals with liars. I wouldn't call it incompetence, but even his co-negotiators and Prince Bandar found it quite unacceptable what he he was doing. The Taba talks set out a deal that was squandered, and my clip of Bari Atwan talking about Arafat's strategy makes it quite clear, that on a number of occasions Arafat told Atwan, what he had in mind all along.This is another Naqba of immense proportions, because since 2000 another of 11 years of conflict and no clear solution in sight, the PA have not secured a state , nor does Israel have peace. The rest is detail.

Herzen

Another Joshua
May 11th, 2011 1:25pm
This is not good enough. Politicians are liars. If you believe the Israeli account of Camp David (and Dennis Ross et al.), you are believing deliberate lies. So this does not distinghish the Palestinians from the Israelis.

If you think the Palestinians were not sincere in negotiating, one way to call their bluff would have been to continue the negotiations at Taba. Israel walked away. Or respond to the Geneva Accord. It is too easy for Israel to offer the Palestinians a deal they can't possibly accept (as Clinton finally realised) and then condemn them for not accepting it. It's all too easy to rail against the faults and follies of the Palestinians (there are plenty), pretending that the Israelis are honest and pure in intent. The "peace process" was all along a charade to achieve Israeli and American ends - consolidation of Israeli occupation of the annexed territories it wanted, and the Palestinians confined to their discrete cantons. No amount of indignation about the perfidious Palestinians changes this. Any serious negotiation was detrimental to Israeli and US policy - Madrid, Taba, Geneva, the Palestinian Papers all point to this conclusion.

I have to conclude that, when you said I contradict myself and arrive at outrageous conclusions, you meant simply that you disagree with me, which is fair enough, not that I am incompetent at reasoning, which of course I may well be - I would just like the evidence.

Another Joshua

@Herzen You say:"We disagree on the interpretation of the treaties. They did not decree a "Jewish state" in Palestine."

Everything about the terms Mandates, Jewish National Home and so on was new.Unprecedented. So was WW1 with many many millions dead. The antecedent discussions on Palestine are full of conflicting accounts. Details have come out since, which may add colour to the times but they do not alter the terms reached, and there isn't much scope for interpretation today. "Jewish NATIONAL Home" means a State.

What has the Emir of Mecca really got over Palestine? Did he live there. Did his tribe live there? What rights did HE have? Was he a major contributor to the Central Power's defeat? He was in Mecca for prayers,for heaven's sake and not in Jerusalem.

How I see it, is that for many years these treaties have largely been ignored. Israelis and Arabs have tried to build on a new platform "new" thoughts and ideas to go forward, which puts the facts of the distant past on the back burner. Israel did not assert its legal position in any argument as it has been allowing itself to accomodate an idea of a 2 State outcome. If it signs up an agreement today,that would be it. No more argument. Game over. The Arabs don't want Jews on their land -remember, so a 2 state solution is on offer. Wars have cost it too much and the desire for a peaceful settlement has overriden the legal sovereign rights issue except on issues like Jerusalem. But the Arabs have once again made it a legal issue and so here we are discussing it.

You say that the Arafat camp was not well organised. I don't think that this is a reason for the breakdown, as I have said before. The opportuniies presented themselves before Arafat; in 1947; in 1949; even at Lausanne in 1950 (where the Israelis discussed the return of 100,000 refugees in return for a full peace treaty;before on deciding to go to war in 1967, since the 1949 Armistice line would probably have become the border, but for the war; after 1967 but for Khartoum; UN Resolution 242.... Abba Eban said it right. The Arabs never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

Arab would not even sit with an Israeli in a radio or TV studio at one time. Israel is not on the Arab maps.No recogntion. None whatsoever.

Why Herzen?

So what did the Arabs want and what do they want now? To go back to 1920 and reinterpret the Treaties?

I don't think so.

Another Joshua

@Herzen,
Bari Atwan makes it clear who was going to screw up the taba meeting. I am sure that Palestinian negotiators were sincere. The problem is that Arafat was on their team!

Many politicians start with the intention of doing good. Sometimes they are misguided and can't keep promises. Some are incompetent and some are both. Very few come out uncriticised. Arafat however was a terrorist.That's the difference.

Herzen

Another Joshua

i will take the lazy way out and refer you to another contributor on this thread, who makes it clear that the term "Jewish National Home" as employed in the treaties we are discussing does not have the meaning you insist on:

"Thomas
May 6th, 2011 12:13pm
Truthtriumphs
May 5th, 2011 10:41pm
On the Mandate (again). Wording from the Balfour Declaration was incorporated at the insistence of the British over the strong objections of the other Allied Powers, who required that the guarantees of the inhabitants' rights be made more explicit. British intentions are therefore crucial to understanding the Mandate.

Here is the Palestine Commission, "It was agreed that they (the Zionists) had no claim, whatever might be done for them on sentimental grounds; further, that all that was necessary was to make room for Zionists in Palestine, not that they should turn it, that is the whole country, into their home."

Here is Curzon to the Cabinet deliberating on HMG's position, "It was pointed out 1. that, while the Powers had unquestionably recognized the historical connection of the Jews with Palestine by their formal acceptance of the Balfour Declaration and their textual incorporation of it in the Turkish Peace Treaty drafted at San Remo, this was far from constituting anything in the nature of a legal claim, and that the use of such words might be, and was, indeed, certain to be used as the basis of all sorts of political claims by the Zionists for the control of Palestinian administration in the future, and 2. that, while Mr. Balfour's Declaration had provided for the establishment of a Jewish National Haome in Palestine, this was not the same thing as the reconstitution of Palestine as a Jewish National Home - an extension of the phrase for which there was no justification, and which was certain to be employed in the future as a basis for claims to which I have referred...Mr. Balfour, who interested himself keenly in (the Zionists') case, admitted, however, the force of the above contentions, and...suggested an alternative form of words which I am prepared to recommend. Para 3 of the Preamble would then conclude as follows 'whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine, and to the grounds for reconstituting their National Home in that country...'"

Here is Churchill in his White Paper, "The status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status."

Zionist propagandists have tried to portray the words as confirming their claim and at the same the interpretation of the words by those who drafted them as a betrayal. The words and their interpretation are clear. They form the legal basis for the state of Palestine and for the status of its inhabitants.

On the term "national home". Scotland has long been considered the national home of the Scots. It has been several kindoms, a unified kingdom, part of a united kingdom, and may yet be independent again. "National home" is not synonymous with "nation state". It is customary for the words in treaties to be taken in their common usage unless explicitly defined otherwise. The Zionists should not have used code. Treaties are not written in code."

It is not good enough simply to reiterate that National Home MUST mean nation state.

What did the Emir have to do with Palestine? Perhaps the people of Palestine should have been asked.

Your paragraph on the two-state solution I do not understand. Sorry.

You list "missed opportunities" for peace. You mix up Paletinians and Arab states as if there is no difference. Jordan, Egypt et al. were happy in practice to ignore the Palestinians.

To give you some idea that history may not support your interpretation of some of these missed opportunities, here are the remarks of the US delgate at Lausanne (we can go into more detail, if you wish):

"If there is to be any assessment of blame for stalemate at Lausanne, Israel must accept primary responsibility...Israel's refusal to abide by General Assembly resolution, providing those refugees who desire to return to their homes etc., has been the primary factor in the stalemate. Israel has failed even to stipulate under what conditions refugees wishing to return might return; she has given no definition of what she regards as peaceful coexistence of Arabs and Jews in Israel and she consistently returns to the idea that here security would be endangere; that she cannot bear the economic burden and that she has no responsibility for refugees because of Arab attacks upon her. I have never accepted the latter viewpoint. Aside from her general responsibility for those who have been driven out by terrorism, repression and forcible ejection...Israel's attitude toward refugees is morally reprehensible and politically short-sighted. She has no security that does not rest upon the basis of peace in the Middle East. Her position as conqueror demanding more does not make for peace. It makes for more trouble."

The notion that the history of the last hundred years has been about Palestinians turning down reasonable offers is another self-serving myth.

"What did they 'Arabs' want?" - Self-determination, as they thought they had been promised.

"What do they want now?" - The two-state solution that has been agreed by the whole world community except the US and Israel for four decades now. That would surely be a good first step towards peace and prosperity for all in Palestine.

Truthtriumphs

Herzen
May 11th, 2011 4:56pm

"i will take the lazy way out and refer you to another contributor on this thread, who makes it clear that the term "Jewish National Home" as employed in the treaties we are discussing does not have the meaning you insist on:"

Who, of any importance, said that?
And please don't quote the anti-semite Curzon, or Bevan, for that matter.

Herzen, sadly for you, none of your prolific scribblings here stand up to any respected academic scrutiny.

Herzen

Another Joshua
May 11th, 2011 3:59pm
"Many politicians start with the intention of doing good. Sometimes they are misguided and can't keep promises. Some are incompetent and some are both. Very few come out uncriticised. Arafat however was a terrorist.That's the difference."

Oh, now hypocrisy is kicking in. At least two Israeli Prime Ministers were terrorists in their youth. At least one was a war criminal who would have been prosecuted if Israel weren't America's bestest friend.

Let's not play this game.

Herzen

Truthtriumphs
May 11th, 2011 6:03pm
Why should I pay attention to the anti-semite Curzon? I assume you pay attention to the anti-semite Balfour because he was one of the authors of the Balfour Declaration. I pay attention to the anti-semite Curzon because he was responsible for the incorporation of wording from the Balfour Declaration in the treaties relevant to the setting up of the mandate for Palestine. What he set before the cabinet, with Balfour's agreement, is what represents HMG's authoritative interpretation of those treaties, as agreed with the other signatories. I trust that answers your question.

And what would YOU call respected academic scrutiny?

Herzen

Truthtriumphs
May 11th, 2011 6:03pm

P.S. I think you'll find that respected academic scrutiny will reveal that it is not Bevan you intend.

Rick

Now, here's a puzzl. Why did Weizman keep trying to insert the words "Jewish State", and why was he disappointed each time when he got instead "Jewish National Home"?
Perhaps not such a puzzle after all.

Adam B.

Rick, explain the difference.

I take it ou also reject a "Palestinian state"?

Another Joshua

@Herzen

You seem to gloss over Bari Atwan's comment about Arafat and the whole Oslo process that I asked you about. One thing at a time. Here's what he said:
"When the Oslo Accords were signed, I went to visit
[Arafat] in Tunis. It was around July, before he went to Gaza. I said to
him: We disagree. I do not support this agreement. It will harm us, the
Palestinians, distort our image, and uproot us from our Arab origins. This
agreement will not get us what we want, because these Israelis are
deceitful.

He took me outside and told me: By Allah, I will drive them crazy. By Allah,
I will turn this agreement into a curse for them. By Allah, perhaps not in
my lifetime, but you will live to see the Israelis flee from Palestine. Have
a little patience. I entrust this with you. Don't mention this to anyone.
Always remember this. Sometimes, when I would criticize him strongly, he
would say to me: Do you remember the promise I made, Abd Al-Bari?"

And your answer to this Herzen is......(?)"

(Nothing here about Bantustans, or it was not fair to Palestinians. Pure poisonous double-crossing.)

Another Joshua

@Rick
From a paper by Avi Shlaim. He says:
"Not all British officials, however, adhered to this interpretation. Balfour and Lloyd George, for example, admitted in 1922 at a meeting with Winston Churchill and Chaim Weizmann, that the Balfour Declaration “had always meant a Jewish State.”

If some thought they had agreed to something different,like Lord Curzon who I believe may have not wanted himself to be associated with what in fact had been agreed, I think explains his behaviour.This pretty much squares the circle.A Jewish National Home was and is meant for all 14 million Jews at the time and it is hard to see what other possible meaning could be given. Article 6 of the Mandate also seals the room from any other interpretation.

Herzen

Another Joshua
May 12th, 2011 10:56am
Oh dear, oh dear. You are so very trusting of the virtue and good faith of the Israeli politicians, and so keen to concentrate on one set of statements from the perfidious Palestinians. Arafat is also on record as hoping for a confederation with Israel. And goodness knows what else. Politicians lie. It is perfectly possible Arafat thought he was doing something terribly clever and devious. He was as competent in this as the negotiators he entrusted Oslo to. The Oslo agreement was precisely what Israel wanted. There is no way it could have become what Arafat allegedly said it could be. So Arafat was devious and dishonest. Get over it. I am sure you saw the footage of Netanyahu saying how Israel had signed Oslo but he would wreck it - and, indeed, Israel ignored its obligations and took from Oslo what it wanted. Whose dishonesty proved more effective in scuppering peace? Whose dishonesty proved more effective in grabbing territory and neutralising opponents? Politicians lie. All of them, including Palestinians, including Israelis. This is beside the point, which is what deal can they all be persuaded to sign that can also be enforced. Israel is quite clearly the bigger problem, not because ISrael is more perfidious, but because Israel is more powerful.

Rick

Adam B.
May 12th, 2011 9:59am
It is quite straightforward. "State" means state. "National Home" does not mean state in English, only in Zionist code.

The state was called Palestine. Its citizens were called Palestinians. To quote Churchill's White Paper, "The status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian."

I hope this helps with your rather surprising confusion.

Rick

Another Joshua
May 12th, 2011 11:50am
I should leave this to Herzen, since its his debate.

But OF COURSE Lloyd George and Balfour said the Declaration used "Jewish National Home" to mean "Jewish State". "Jewish National Home" was Zionist code for a Zionist state. Lloyd George and Balfour were intent on using the Zionists, so naturally used Zionists terms (although even the Declaration was made more ambiguous in the drafting). Balfour and Lloyd George did indeed support a Jewish state (insofar as Lloyd George supported anything other than what advanced his and Britain's interests).

As I think you agreed earlier, it is not the Declaration that has legal force, but its incorporation into the various treaties. What is relevant here is not the opinions of individual politicians, but the decision of HMG and its allies. Balfour's opinion is only significant, or Curzon's, as it informed the decision of HMG. Thomas quoted from the deliberations that led to the drafting and signing of the treaties. This is what has legal force, not what Balfour or Lloyd George intended in drafting the Declaration.

Churchill provides a good illustration of the difference between what the politician might think and what the legal documents say. When he became Colonial Secretary, he wrote, "If, as well may happen, there should be created in our own life time by the banks of the Jordan a Jewish State under the protection of the British Crown...an event will have occurred in the history of the world which from every point of views would be beneficial and would be especially in harmony with the interests of the British Empire." - Now read his White Paper.

(It is interesting that, even when declaring his support for a Jewish state, he uses the conditional "if" and "well may happen".)

Remember that the Zionists were disappointed with the wording of the various treaties and with the White Paper. But they saw that the wording provided them with the leeway they needed to pursue their project. Those who insist that "Jewish National Home" clearly and unambiguously had to necessarily mean "Jewish state" are simply taking at face value the spin the Zionists put on their partial victory. The Zionists were astonishingly successful diplomats and politicians. They were expert in the art of spin. That was part of their job. This does not mean that, all this time after, we have to accept their spin as truth.

Are you sure you picked the correct Article of the Mandate? Article 6 clinches nothing.

Another Joshua

@ herzen

"So Arafat was devious and dishonest. "

And he, Arafat was in charge answerable to no one.

Netanyahu was not in charge and was answerable, when he was. At Taba he wasn't.

Nice try Herzen. We are now seeing the true Herzen at play. Netanyahu is butter to Arafat's margerine. They are both a pair. Begin is as bad as Arafat. No. Worse. The Zionists conned the Arabs. The Arabs made silly shambolic innocent mistakes. The Zionists were far far too clever for them. Herzen - utter bull!

Another Joshua

@Rick

The point regarding "reconstitution" of a Jewish National Home also tilts the meaning of these words towards State, in so much as the historic rights of an ancient claim is being recognised - No?

Article 6:

The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.”

Art 6 of the Mandate reads:

The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall FACILITATE JEWISH IMMIGRATION under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.”
(my emphasis)

Quite clearly here, this is taken to mean that it was not to grant a state immediately but until there was a majority in Palestine of Jews, to allow for a state to be able to function. Britain's obligations were clear enough.

Rick

Another Joshua
May 12th, 2011 3:35pm
No-one has denied that Britain was to facilitate the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish National Home. No-one has denied that this would require immigration. No-one has denied that the immigrants would have to be settled in Palestine, and, after they had met the criteria, would be eligible for Palestinian citizenship. None of this tells us that Britain was to help establish a Jewish state. Nothing in what you have quoted says anything about a Jewish state. This is an odd way to respond to all the evidence and argument that has been presented to you to the contrary.

Rick

Another Joshua
May 12th, 2011 3:35pm
For obvious reasons, the law does not recognize territorial claims from centuries back.

As has been discussed, the Allied Powers were to an extent able to re-write the rules to suit themselves; but not entirely - if you read the detail of their treaty-making, they were highly constrained by existing law; so the Allied Powers were able to put into their treaties their "recognition" of the connection between Jews and Palestine, based on their Biblical myths and religion; the Allied Powers could allow Jews to "reconstitute" their national home in Palestine regardless of the wishes of the population. They could not give a claim to sovereignty based on a version of ancient history legal force. Again, talk of reconstituting a national home says nothing about establishing a sovereign nation state.

Herzen

Another Joshua
May 12th, 2011 2:11pm
So this is it? This is what I have waited patiently for? This is the evidence that I contradict myself and arrive at outrageous conclusions?

Netanyahu is "answerable". Of course, Israel is a democracy. Whoever is elected is ultimately answerable. As many Israeli analysts fear, in practice that means answerable to the IDF. That is always the risk in a fortress state.

In the comments I referred to, Netanyahu was talking about his first term in office, when he was indeed "in charge" and "answerable". He was boasting about how he took from Oslo what Israel wanted and scuppered the rest.

At Taba, the Palestinians and the Israelis negotiated and made progress. Ehud Barak pulled the plug, not Arafat.

Netanyahu and Barak were butter to Arafat's margarine? or whatever. Well, no. They had the power. They could stall. They could take what they wanted and leave the rest. He had fallen into the trap set for him. No loss, you might say - but it was for the Palestinians, and to a much lesser extent the Israelis (although the settlers continued to benefit).

Begin is on a par with Arafat? No, as you say, he is worse. In his terrorist days, Begin was probably his equal. As Prime Minister of a state contemptuous of international law, and in possession of one of the most powerful armies in the world, he was much worse. And when he allied himself to a thug like Sharon there is no contest.

The Zionists conned the Arabs, you say. If you mean the Palestinians and you are referring to Oslo, then Yes. Again, you might say, Arafat and his cronies deserved no better. But the Palestinian people do.

The Palestinian negotiators made shambolic mistakes - Yes. Innocent? - No. Should they have done better? - Yes. Did the Israelis exploit their incompetence and venality? - Yes (who wouldn't be tempted?). The Zionists were too clever for them? - Yes, for Arafat and his negotiators, although there were plenty of other Palestinians and outside commentators who saw clearly enough what was going on.

It is disappointing that, when I respond to any of your points, you resort to a discreet silence, while you cast around for another point you think might do the trick. You have yet to offer a coherent defence of your position. You have yet to provide the evidence that I contradict myself and arrive at outrageous conclusions. After patiently rebutting what you have to say for so long, I think I may reasonably draw my own conclusions about your accusations and about the strength of your case.

Another Joshua

@Herzen

I am right about you, only there is now absolutely nothing to discuss. You have your views based on your potted version of events and prejudices. Your rationale that Begin then was as bad as Arafat later is your personal prejudice. We see that Begin was capable of making a peace deal with a former enemy. Arafat never made such a deal, as being just one very obvious detail and plenty of others to distinguish them, and all your other equivalences.

I am not here to answer each and every point. I have other commitments and time does not permit me always to deal with so many. That's basically the reason. If you can summarise a few of the most important ones, I'll have a go, or others can have a go later.

Herzen

Another Joshua
May 13th, 2011 11:09am
"Prejudice" means before looking at the evidence. The evidence on Begin's career as a terrorist is indisputable and he at least made no secret of it.

We could of course discuss how Israel came to make peace with Egypt, and how it used this peace to attack the Lebanon.

And, regrettably, Arafat did sign the Oslo Agreement.

You say you are "too busy" to substantiate your allegations about me (but not too busy to make them). If you cannot substantiate allegations, don't make them.

Adam B.

Herzen "indisputable"? Does that mean everyone has to think like you?

Where did begin say he himself was a terrorist? And why do you have a problem with him, but not the leadership of fatah or Hamas?

Another Joshua

@Herzen
OK, Biased, if you prefer.

Begin signed and delivered.Arafat did nothing of the sort and got a Nobel Peace Prize.

Your comments are loaded with bias herzen and requires filleting. You write points that take a long time to discount. Yo introduced Begin. You introduced Sharon. I've been focusing largely on the treaties and on Arafat and his credibility.

The bare bones of your rather biased conclusions can be found in the response to the questions that are shown aboe and pasted below for ease of refernce:

"The Palestinian negotiators made shambolic mistakes - Yes. Innocent? - No. Should they have done better? - Yes. Did the Israelis exploit their incompetence and venality? - Yes (who wouldn't be tempted?). The Zionists were too clever for them? - Yes, for Arafat and his negotiators, although there were plenty of other Palestinians and outside commentators who saw clearly enough what was going on."

I'm sure you have heard of the expression damning someone with faint praise. In this case you have made the Palestinian team innocent by praising with faint damns.You have accepted the notion that the Palestinians were walking into a trap set up by "clever" Zionists. A lamb , albeit stupid, to the slaughter. I'm sorry that is nonsense despite what others may have said about this. Arafat was all the things you can think of, but stupid he wasn't.

Herzen

Another Joshua

I note that you are still too busy to produce the evidence that I am contradictory and outrageous, but not too busy to be indignant on Begin'a behalf.

You say I introduced Begin and Sharon. Recall:

"Many politicians start with the intention of doing good. Sometimes they are misguided and can't keep promises. Some are incompetent and some are both. Very few come out uncriticised. Arafat however was a terrorist.That's the difference."

You sought to distinguish Arafat by calling him a terrorist. I pointed out the hypocrisy.

You sought to praise Begin for finally agreeing to what Sadat had been offering since he took power - a peace Israel planned to use to finish off the PLO in the Lebanon. Begin the great statesman launched a war of aggression on the state of Lebanon, allowing the murderous thug Sharon to indulge his grandiose geopolitical plan to re-order the Middle East (he published a blueprint, so this is public knowledge). How many thousands died as a result of the great peacemaker's actions?

You have been focussed, not on the treaties, but on avoiding my evidence and arguments on the treaties. You have been focussed on Arafat, it would appear, in order to blame him for not accepting Israel's Generous Offer (which you still seem unable to understand despite the evidence from Israeli sources).

The Israelis were certainly cleverer than Arafat, although not, as I pointed out, than many other Palestinians and outside commentators. He made the mistake of thinking Oslo was the first step to a state. Since he did not have many cards to play and was up against Israel and the US, we should not be surprised that he lost.

What we should be surprised about is how unquestioning such as you are in retailing the official spin about Israeli intentions and actions. Israel like any other state lies about what it is doing. It is the first rule in studying the behaviour of states and politicians that you do not believe what they tell you. You have to go looking. (And yes the same applies to such as Fatah.)

You appear happy to accept whatever Isarel says - and anyone who questions it, however good the evidence, is guilty of, at best, bias. What they say can be dismissed as "nonsense" because it does not agree with the Israeli version.

C.Gee

Tilly,

Perhaps you would feel less bitter and twisted if you were to refresh your memory as to context for the Ministry’s decision : http://www.adl.org/ADL_Opinions/Israel/20070827-Oped.htm. Recall, too, that the Palestinian Authority has its own textbooks, and that non-government schools - Jewish, Christian and Islamic, secular - may use whatever texts they wish. You should comfort yourself knowing that Nakba theory is the core of university teaching in Israel, the leftist media’s approach to history and the platform of Arab Knesset members. The Nakba internet sites are not blocked. One way or another, the population of Israel and the world is cognizant of the nakba.

But the government has a point when it comes to government text-books. The term “nakba” is not merely the Arab word for “catastrophe” : it also code for the Palestinian narrative - the whole smear which delegitimates the State of Israel. Use of the term is part of the intentional appropriation of the Holocaust by the Arabs and the turning of Jews into genocidal nazis. The Arab propaganda industry seeks for “nakba denial” the same moral revulsion as “holocaust denial” at the very same time as it attempts to legitimate holocaust denial: the Jews are nazis, but were not the victims of nazis, and are now conducting the genocide they claim was inflicted upon them, upon the Palestinians.

Leftist Israelis may think it right for eight-year old Israelis - Jew and non-Jew - to be told that there are two equally valid views as to whether their country is a legitimate state, and that the view you take depends on your ethnicity, not with reference to a body of facts, because each side has different facts. Leftists may think it pedagogically sensible to bewilder Jewish-Israeli children into despising themselves as Israelis, and Arab- Israeli children into believing that they should not want to think of themselves as Israelis. But then leftist Israelis, like their counterparts in America and European nations, are ideologically ambivalent to nationalism, and advocate policies which undermine national identity and sovereignty in the name of universal rights. Where American schools can teach the “Native American” point of view - that the white settlers conducted a deliberate genocide - and the Native American schools may simply teach that point of view as the truth - there is no ongoing war between America and Native Americans. In Israel’s case, I do not think the state can afford financially or ideologically to follow the paternalism of leftist Americans. Affirmative action, social programs, even versions of “native” reservations are feasible for Israel. But given the difference in proportional size of aggrieved population in America and Israel, validating the grief of a large percentage of the population as the basis of claim of a human right to overthrow the state is not a feel-good policy promoting dialogue, outreach, peace and justice, but a green-light for insurrection and civil war: another “nakba”.

C.Gee

“You appear happy to accept whatever Isarel says - and anyone who questions it, however good the evidence, is guilty of, at best, bias. What they say can be dismissed as "nonsense" because it does not agree with the Israeli version.”

But Herzen, the strange thing is, as I’m sure you’ve noticed, that those who question the Israeli version, seem to produce an argument identical to the Palestinian version. And anyone who questions that, however good the evidence, is guilty, of, at best, bias towards genocide, so what they say can be dismissed as “lies”.

As you yourself have stated, you write here for the purpose of having Israel - by proxy of its supporters here - admit to its illegitimacy. (Sure, you do, like Hamas and Fatah, allow that it does exist.) You believe that this admission will cause Israel (how, or why, you will not say) to sign on to the API. You believe that the API is a bone fide offer, and that if both sides accept it, there will be two states abiding by the treaty.

Your ends are fantasies of wishful thinking, your reasons for wanting them morally dubious, and your means to achieving them a theoretical bubble which is about to pop. Upon declaration of a Palestinian State (September, 2011), Resolution 242 dies, land for peace is off the table - in fact the negotiating table is vaporized. The “resistance” and demonization continue without the obstacle of the peace process. As a believer in Palestinian sovereign rights to the West Bank and Gaza, you should wholeheartedly endorse the declaration of Statehood based on the Green Line. Is it not an exercise of the right to self-determination?

But what has changed since 1947 - when the Arabs exercised their right of self-determination by refusing the offer of self-determination ? Oh yes, it must be the robust state institutions and infrastructure put in place in Gaza and the West Bank.

C.Gee

Whoops. My comment to Tilly is on the wrong thread. Apologies.

Another Joshua

@C.Gee
Well said.

Herzen

C.Gee
May 16th, 2011 12:05am
What a confusion of untruths, half-truths, and wilful distortions. A good indication of the strength of your case.

Another Joshua
May 16th, 2011 11:10am
How lucky for you. Someone else provides the less-than-honesties. All you have to do is utter Hear Hear as you slip away from the fray. Dignified. Disguises (from you at least) your complete rout.

Another Joshua

@C.Gee

You say of Herzen:
"As a believer in Palestinian sovereign rights to the West Bank and Gaza, you should wholeheartedly endorse the declaration of Statehood based on the Green Line. Is it not an exercise of the right to self-determination?"

I don't think Herzen is ultimately interested in this. If his argument theorising that the foundations of the state of Israel based on the Treaties and Mandate is seriously flawed for the reasons he gives,he must conclude that the Jews are not entitled to be there at all, other than those who were there in 1919.

He concedes points for the sake of argument,which might give the impression that he does support a right for Israel to continue,and he does say so, but he also reverts to the earlier default position, because his concessions would have to a degree accept that his version of events is wrong, which he is loath to do.That's why he does not do it

Another Joshua

@Herzen,
I'm not arguing further as I have lost the thread. You say one thing and argue another. The points you make about Begin for example, according to you are incontravertible.I can't discuss that with you. You don't think i can. The legal basis for Israel is wrong. Everyone has it wrong, except you. We don't like Arafat, but you call him stupid and powerless to make a deal and the Zionists are all too clever.

It's all a bit much and it boils down to a core issue: what does Herzen see to be the right position: the "return" of 5-7 million Palestinians, the transfer of ownership of property to the dispossessed and for the Jews who live there, some theoretical nonsense of having to accept it all.Sorry mate...