An open letter to the Rt Hon David Cameron MP

Ric

Well said, Melanie! This is what Netanyahu should have said to Cameron when they met.

roe

Wow....what a great article! Thank you for your honesty and strength by not falling into political correctness

Mjolnir de Jersiaise

Even now Mr. Cameron is probably consulting his PR consultants in order to arrive at the most politically expedient way to answer this letter...

Truthtriumphs

An excellent letter.... can you make an on-line version that we can all sign and get it sent to the PM?

I have every confidence that Cameron will be replaced by Gove, in the not-too distant future, and than we will be in safe hands.

David

Spot on as usual, Melanie. But will he read it? Eagerly look forward to his reply.

gary ashton

brilliant melanie, although i find it hard to digest that britain is a really friend of israel, in fact that's just a lie.

Truthtriumphs

PS.
Perhaps you could remind him of Churchill's famous put-down to Chamberlain, in 1939, when the latter returned from his meeting with Hitler, bearing his infamous piece of paper...peace in our time.

"You were given the choice between war and dishonour.
You chose dishonour, and you will have war".
As true now as it was then.

Jerry

Melanie, if you never write another piece in your lifetime, this one would suffice for all times. I am in unreserved awe of your eloquence. You have helped to write indelible Jewish History. Thank you!

Lurker

Melanie, that is an extremely relevant and accurate letter. The political blindness regarding Israel is uncanny and almost inexplicable. What is it that causes our political leaders to be such hypocrites? I fear for the Jews as this sick old world reels further and further into madness.

Dennis L.

Bravo! Your comments clearly describe the situation. The Prime Minister has a choice: face the realities of the Middle East and acknowledge the genocidal intent of Hamas et al or become the Neville Chamberlain of the 21st century who would place Israel in the role of pre-WWII Czechoslovakia. The only difference is that Israel will not willingly offer its neck to an executioner.

Dave Koret

It was england that objected to the name Israel when Israel was elected to join th u.n. I'm not sure what/which name england had selected for Israel to become. Remember Mr Cameron your own country is no longer Great & no longer United. So Mr Cameron the demise of of your country is happening as you play your violin.

Nick C

Great letter Melanie!
I've personally lived in Israel, among the Jewish people and from personal experience I can state unequivocally, that it is the self proclaimed Palestinians who are the aggressors in this conflict. Sadly, British foreign policy seems to be drawn up by ignorant fools who have more than likely never visited the region and who seem to have a resentful, bigoted attitude towards the Israeil people simply because they are a strong nation who stand up and fight for their beliefs and their heritage. Israel is fighting a battle against people who are brought up on a diet of intolerance and hatred by political entities, made up of nothing more than a bunch of genocidal maniacs, intent on the destruction of a sovereign nation.

Robbo

Bravo!

Grumpy true Zionist

Kol HaKovod Melanie Phillips

britain (cameroon), along with france (little napoleon), think they can indulge their dysfunctional child (hamas/plo), but this menage a'trois will fall to pieces (explode in their faces) notwithstanding their threats (to Israel)

WHY......because the palistinians, firstly will never miss an opportunity...to miss an opportunity, and second being arabs, their natural inclination will be to inevetably, start squabbling amongst themselves (in the absence of an Israel, hamas and plo would be happily murdering each other on a daily basis)

this of course cameroon, could'nt figure out for himself (as we like to say here down in the deep deep south....the man could'nt find his a.se, using both hands, and with the lights on)

you Mel, however, are one gutsy broad!

J. Isaacs

Great letter Melanie Phillips. Also, is any chance of the PM making any of those Foreign Office Arabists part of his forthcoming programme of swingeing cuts. Moreover, how about throwing a few more Londonistan-resident jihadi apologists in the clink, especially those mentioned below by Mordecai Kedar of Bar Ilan University:

http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=52229

Roy

Well put, Melanie. Just hope it manages to arrive within his gaze. Stabilizing there long enough for him to put into gear a thought process to handle it in a positive way.

Reuven

Why is Britain such a quirky nation? I watch charming Prince William on the Travel Channel in Africa so dedicated to wildlife, and saying - quote - "We [humans]think we are the top dogs, but it is really all about the Animal Kingdom", and then I think of him out with sweet Kate, guns in hand, and carrying dead birds they have shot. There is a parallel here, methinks, with Cameron and his potentially life-threatening statements against Israel, his "unshakeable friends". Did I say quirky? - try shizophrenic.

Ros

Yes!

*Punches air with fist.

Merlyn

Agree with Truthtriumphs.
Please can we also sign this letter?

spotter

If the evidence for British complicity in some of those historical riots and killings is based on the 'colourful' writings of the noted ornithologist Colonel Richard Meinertzhagen (and he seems to be the only original source one reads about in connection with these allegations) then, through this letter, I think you may have rather shot yourself in the foot, so to speak.

Raymond

Just what is it with our Political leaders ? Are they so ignorant?. Words honestly fail me. Who to vote for eh, when all parties seem so spineless and Leaders like Cameron prevail.

Jez

Watch the time line Melanie.

There seesm to be a plan about foot..... Cairo meeting, Gaza border, Abbas / Hamas unity, Obama / Powers looking to create an Independant PA in the fall, the peace flotilla.

I honestly think that if Libya had've fallen immediately to the Islamists then you would have had a far larger focus on this by the media, Western governments (centralist / liberal) on this right now.

Cameron can smell there's a hostile policy toward Israel coming from the White House. He is an opportunist of the lowest order (the coalition for instance).... that may be the grandstand attitude on all this now.

Could i also say though Melanie, if it wasn't for the British Desert Rats in 1942 halting Rommel then there would most probably been a tradegy along the lines of the EinzatzGruppen actions in the Ukraine/Belorus etc, etc.

I have many atlas's from the last century/early 20th Century... as a interest point i'm going to scan the Pre-Balfour Palestine (Ottoman control) and attempt to super-impose the origional 1948 UN agreement Israel borders on there. I think this would be far stronger an argument for the Pro-Israel groups, as it has no association with Colonial stigma that Balfour does. This is used as a weapon aginst you by the Liberal Left.

Although i haven't done it yet but i predict that the area awarded to the Jewish community inn 1948 would still be a fraction of the Palestinian controlled areas, Jordan seems to be brought south to accomodate the Port of Al Aqubah (in Lawrence of Arabia).

You need to barter with Cameron's ilk. You don't have oil- they need to see somthing in it for them.

There's Billions and Billions in Libya just sat there.

Dangle the carrot and he'll come creeping.

Sandra in Accounts

Melanie,

You should know by now that rusty Dave is as shallow as a puddle in the Sahara at midday.

He has no principles or actual beliefs - apart from staying in power.

Cameron will sell out Israel to Hamas in a New York minute if there was a short term advantage for him - look how he sold out Great Britain & in particular the English to the corrupt edifice of the EU for his own short term advantage with the Lib Dems.

Rusty Dave is, afterall, the heir to Blair & the sooner we get a real Conservative PM the better.

Blue Labour out.

David

What a load of rubbish.

Both sides can share the honours of being aggressors and victims, and the PM is perfectly right to point out to the Israeli government that it needs to act correctly if it wants its friends to. Screaming "Judeophobia" at rightful criticism makes you look intorlerant and bigted.

Your definition of friendship is craven acceptance with zero criticism. That's not a definition I or anyone sane recognises.

Davieboy

A wonderful letter Melanie, laying things out exactly as they are. Thanks for being the eloquent voice of reason.

Would love to be able to peek into an alternative reality, where the Arabs accepted Israel back in '48 and they subsequently worked together - Arab oil money and Israeli technological know-how could have made a real paradise, with good education for all. Could it still ever happen?

James

Melanie. Thank you for writing and publishing your clear and eloquent letter. I would love to read the Prime Minister's reply.

Portmanteau

David
May 6th, 2011 10:06am
(There are other Davids)

I wouldn't be so quick to call myself sane, if I were you. That's for others to decide.....

Adam B.

Let's not forget Cameron went to Turkey, of all places, where journalists languish in prison for writing about the Armenian genocide, and whilst Turkish warplanes bomb Kurdish villages in Iraq, and called Gaza a "prison camp" (couldn't quite bring himself to say concentration camp) - simply to tell the Turks what they wanted to hear.

I lost all respect for him then.

Truthtriumphs

I re-produce a comment written by a different kind of non-Jew, from a different perspective from that of the PM, which succeeds in conveying, in a short space, the essence of the I/P dispute.
It was written as a comment, in a response to an article about Israel, in the "Independent" newspaper, three days ago.

“The Arabs have 22 countries and the Jews have one. A 23rd Arab country is of questionable value to humanity. A Jewish nation is of unquestioned value. The Arabs launched several wars of overtly proclaimed genocidal attempt against the Jews and deserve far greater defeat than the preposterously restrained Jews dealt them. The recent, anti-Semitic, Islamist, Arab-Nationalist and Soviet propaganda “sphere of influence” inspired Palestinian identity and label arose in 1964 and gradually thereafter and has as its purpose, foremost, Israel’s destruction, rather than the creation of anything in particular. The Jews’ ties to Israel are among the longest-standing, best documented, best evidenced and deepest felt of any peoples’ ties to any land. The Jews’ claims are the most modest of any nationality in terms of territory size and, prior to the Jews’ development of the land, value. The Jews’ contributions to the world exceed those of any nation, as measured by Nobel prizes, ethics, law and many less important fields that, by themselves, would be deemed important anyway. The world needs more of this. Time to let the Jews realize their full potential. Time for the Arabs to cry foul over losing their genocidal attempts despite Israel’s offers to coexist. Time for the world to stop creating Original Sin myths against this extraordinary people to justify their destruction. I am a proud Philosemite and I proudly decry Arab and Islamic imperialism and attavistic European Jew-hatred and I see both clearly for what they are. “

Adam B.

David, if Israel started pontificating about Britain's role in northern Ireland, the Falklands, Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan, you of course would accept it all graciously and your hackles wouldn't rise at all, would they?

Cameron is duplicitous - and he most certainly is not a "friend" - unless that term has ceased to have any meaning.

RoMo

Very good Melanie. But an answer from him? As likely as Abbas convening negotiations with Israel.

Okey

Many in Britain have never abandoned their animosity towards Zionists, and Jews in general, for having been among the first people to throw off British imperial rule: India did it in 1947; the Zionists achieved it in 1948.
Cameron's sole "virtue" in the matter is his sense of humour, reflected in his hilarious assertions about Britain's supposed enduring "friendship' with Israel.
The USA once elected a former film star to the presidency, and he proved to be an outstanding leader; Britain elected a clown.

Stephen Rothbart

A great letter, but probably, if you want someone like the PM to actually read it, the personal put-downs in it could perhaps have been ommitted.

I am sure the PM will probably never read it himself, but the letter should go out in an email form from everyone that agrees with it to everyone they know.

The newspapers will never push the message, the broadcasting companies are in the pockets of Arab money, and the pols are watching the Muslim vote, safe in their comfort zone that the few liberal Jews that they meet within their circles are probably in agreement with their own position.

Excpet Geral Kaufman, who is probably right in the Hamas camp.

I am going to circulate this to everyone I know. If everyone does the same and encourages the recipient to contact ten people they know etc. like chain mail, then this will act like a ripple on a lake and if everyone does the same, then perhaps people will take note.

The only concern I have is that no Brit believes their country acts with such dishonour, and drawing attention to the treatment of the Jews by Britain is probably not going to win friends to this cause.

But better to send something this good than nothing at all.

Gale Dixon

Marvellous and the letter could not have come at a better time to put the spotlight on the present government whose understanding of the Islamic threat to the world is about zero. (Actually the last Labour government's policies were actually as bad, if not worse) He will have to spend time with advisers on a reply - quite a problem as they also probably know very little about the Middle East, let alone Islam.
Just to remind readers of what has been going on recently which they might have missed. A look at our Overseas Aid Development website will show that we have invented an entirely new country on this planet alongside all the others we 'help', described officially as the 'Occupied Palestinian Territories'. We have earmarked £273 million for them and only recently, a Minister on a visit to their 'government' handed over an immediate payment of £18 million. I would suggest that might have gone,say, to helping our students now beset with big fee increases. We now have the preposterous idea that imams are to be invited to sit in the House of Lords - weird people whose sole aim is the overthrow of our way of life in this country and to replace it with an Islamic Caliphate. In the Daily Telegraph report (24Apr) a senior Tory said: 'The idea of imams in the House will upset some, but we must have a spiritual element to the Lords...' . These people are prohibited from swearing allegiance to the Queen. All they care about is the destruction of our society and the establishment of the long termn goal of an Islamic Caliphate in this country.

We have the Foreign Secretary visiting Israel and then going to have talks with those in East Jerusalem whose sole object is to destroy Israel. Would we be happy if the Foreign Minister of Egypt went to N.Ireland specifically to negotiate with Republicans , hell bent on destroying the legitimate government ?
It is indeed fortunate that we have someone of Melanie Phillips' fame and calibre who can take up the stick on our behalf and continuously try and force our Government not to 'sell this country down the river' by their dreadful and continuing appeasement of Islam.

Heather andrew

Your letter is clear and truthfully chilling. We will reap what we sow, and If we don't turn away from the road we are travelling along we will suffer the consequences. It is only God who can save us, but will we turn to Him - or just mock Him?

IsCameronWrong

Could we please have a reliable source backing up the claim: "which the PA says it will declare – a state in which Mr Abbas has repeatedly declared that not one Jew will be allowed to live -- but which you have now threatened to support?" Look forward to seeing it.

Raymond in DC

If one wants to see how a true "friend" treats Israel, Cameron needs only look west to his Conservative counterpart in Canada, Stephen Harper, newly reelected this week with a solid majority. They offer no moralistic chiding about what Israel "must" do, nor do they abstain (or worse, not show up) when Israel is subject to yet another UN condemnation. They vote No. That's what a real friend does, especially given the obvious injustices Israel faces.

And given that Britain is very big on symbolism, one also sees the vacuous nature of Britain's "friendship" with the fact that the Royals have never set foot in Israel in any official capacity. William and Kate are also expected to abide by the FCO's strictures against such a visit.

What's behind that? Perhaps it's over oil, or the fact that the Arabs outnumber Israel's Jews by more than 40:1 (while Muslims outnumber Jews about 100:1), and therefore Jews and Israel are deemed, in the end, expendable. Well, they're not, and they certainly won't go quietly. Or maybe it's because Israel's Jews exposed Britain's perfidy and betrayal before driving them out.

Penny

Adam B - I believe it was also in Turkey that, after condeming Israel for the Mavi Marmara incident, Cameron called for inquiry.

What kind of leader condemns immediately and publicly - and *then* calls for an inquiry? What a massive display of stupidity from an educated man.

What kind of leaders - and Press come to that - make more of an issue about passports than they do when one of their citizens - Mary Jane Gardner - is killed by a bomb in Jerusalem? A bomb planted by the same people they appear to be toadying up to. Shameful.

The more I hear of the government's attitude to Israel, and its studious whitewashing of Palestinian terrorists, the more I fear for my country as a whole.

As for Mel's letter - brilliant and I join with others who are asking if it is possible to sign this. Its truth and eloquence is such that I'd hate to see an opportunity wasted.

roger

Interesting to note that Arabs prefer living in Israel and
if their neighborhood became part of Palestine, 40 percent said they would likely move to Israel. Apparently, the occupation isn’t that bad after all!

Daniel

Thankyou Melanie! This letter should be read by all western leaders, and all others seeking the truth. I admire you!

Marci

Has anyone forgotten that in the Palestian/Israeli region there were Christians, Jews and Moslems living in relative peace until the US, Britain and other allies supported the Balfour declaration?

Now, admittedly the Jews were in severe need of someplace to regroup after the Holocaust. But the way the state of Israel was set up, using the argument that the old testament gave them a land grant, was not a very diplomatic way to help anyone, Jews, Christians or Moslems.

I think that the US felt guilty about not having gotten into the war sooner which might have prevented the severity of the Holocaust, but again, you can't undo what you didn't do right in the first place. Heck, I feel guilty that 1/4 of my family emigrated from Germany well before WWI. But I can't change the past.

There were people living there who considered that land their home and had no direct contact with the Egyptians of old who routed the Israeli's who decided that flight was better than fight.

And, instead of being truly diplomatic in the entire process of resettling the Jews, the former allies unilaterally backed Israel. Moreover, we have ravaged the Middle East in our insatiable appetite for fossil fuels.

We created this mess and it is about time we did something to make it right for everyone in the region. If some strong arm came along and said we are going to take half of the US or Britain or France and resettle Chinese or African or Martians, you better believe that most of us would fight for what we consider our homeland.

I do not support terrorism, but this is what ensues when nothing else has worked and one feels that one has nothing else to lose.

Heaven help us all if the Plutocrats continue to widen the gap between the rich and the poor. Already the buffer of the middle class is diminishing. If this trend continues, all hell will break lose which will make the continuing crisis in the Middle East look like a Sunday School Picnic.

David Adeola

A timely warning to Cameron which should be heeded! There are dire consequences for going against Israel!

Another Joshua

A good letter Melanie. Clear and to the point. Will we ever get a response?

David Cameron and William Hague produce of pro and anti Israel statements almost simultaneously. Predictably therefore, the next statement hopefully should be pro, to be fair. British Foreign Policy at its best?

David

That letter has more information and questions than Cameron's light weight political 'skills' can comprehend. Dont hold your breath for anything like a decent repsonse. He is an appeaser.

John the Writer

Thanks Melanie. I have just read revelation the answer is there.

Herzen

I'm often told off here for talking about "ancient history", about Mandates and treaties and international law, of only "theoretical" interest, of no "relevance" to the current conflict. Yet here again is a travesty masquerading as "history" in defence of the indefensible. I take it that, if I agree with this "history", I can talk about it, but, if I expose it as a travesty, then it is all ancient history of no practical relevance etc. etc. It is in truth an embarassing tirade. Why would any Prime Minister be expected to take the time to read it?

Jill

Well, it is Britain, home of the Anglican Church, one of whose Archbishops (ie Williams) promotes Islam and many of whose units promote and support BDS. prince Charles himself and the Royal Family don't visit Israel (as far as i know), but boy, those Arab States get a lot of visits!!

Why would they want to help the Jews?

By the way, does Cameron actually read your column?

Bill

Melanie,
brilliant letter. Please produce an internet version which we can all sign and send to Cameron.

JIll

Well, that lasted all of what three minutes!! The PM's office doesn't like political letters on his FB page!!

Truthtriumphs

Herzen
May 6th, 2011 5:30pm

"I'm often told off here for talking about "ancient history", about Mandates and treaties and international law, of only "theoretical" interest, of no "relevance" to the current conflict. Yet here again is a travesty masquerading as "history" in defence of the indefensible".

Because you are wrong, because everything you write is a distortion, and because we can all go to the original documents and see them for ourselves, and because the real reason for your revisionism is your embarrassment of a Jewish state, living as a Jew in the UK.
A bit like Finkler.

Augustus

Herzen - If you're such a marvellous historian you should know that the land which was where the UN established Israel in 1948 was also colonised by Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan.
It was territory which had belonged to Turkey for 400 years, and the Turks weren't Palestinian or even Arabs. The Arabs themselves rejected the offer of peace and a state on the West Bank from the start in 1948 when the UN offered it to them, and then continued to do so. Despite all that it is the Arabs who enjoy far more rights in Israel than any Jews or even Arabs themselves enjoy in any Arab state. I would say that you are the travesty in this neck of the woods. You convince nobody!

Raymond in DC

Marci is clearly in need of a history lesson. She claims, "in the Palestian/Israeli region there were Christians, Jews and Moslems living in relative peace until the US, Britain and other allies supported the Balfour declaration?"

That of course is nonsense. the Jews and Christians were deemed to be second-class citizens, and only tolerated or "protected" (dhimmi) under Muslim authority. The main synagogue in the Old City's Jewish Quarter was nicknamed the Hurva (meaning "destruction") because it was twice destroyed by the Muslims during those years of "peace" and only recently rebuilt.

Gilbert Belwether

If I might make a suggestion, Melanie, it would be helpful to state what policy you think Israel and its friends should pursue instead. You identify a problem (rightly or wrongly) but propose no ideas for solving it. It's getting increasingly hard to take anything you say seriously when we don't know whether you're for a two-state solution, a one-state solution, population transfer, indefinite continuation of the status quo, or what.

Kevin Dunn

Deasr Melanie, There is another point to be made which I think you should emphasise. The Government controls the protocol of all Royal vicits. How come there has nerver been a Royal visit to Jerusalem, and how many have been made to Jordan and other of the Arab countries surrounding Israel? This is surely a matter of public record asnd Cameron could be put on the spot over it.

Augustus

Herzen - What are you rambling on about? You seem to delight in denying the Jews their historic ties to Israel which go back many thousands of year. And the land which the UN sanctioned for the Jews in 1948 had been colonized before that by, amongst others, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and Jordan.
This was land which had belonged to Turkey for 400 years. And the Turks aren't Palestinians, or even Arabs. So what exactly is your point?

Santorum

Mafia protection racket. Coalition for genocide. Victim/aggressor.

This is not the language of a dispassionate, cogent or knowledgeable commentator on the middle east.

What's your solution?

HairyNoddy

Why would anyone put any value on anything that Campmoron ever said?

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Herzen: if International Law were applied with same passion as you seem to apply it to your per hate - Israel - to the Palestinians, and the rest of Arab and Muslem leaderships in the Middle East, the International Court in the Hague would have to open scores of affiliate Courts to handle the volume of cases.

What a twaddlemeister you are, as if twaddle was an effective mask for you bigotry.

Blimey, where are those Navy Seals when you need 'em?

sleeping dolls

I agree with many of the posters on here that Melanie should put the letter up on the internet for people to sign.

It would be useful to see just how effective Melanie's unstinting advocacy for the government of Israel is proving.

Adam B.

Penny, well said. I have also noted that Mary Jane Gardner has been largely ignored, (as has Joni Jesner), and didn't quite get to be a household name like Rachel Corrie or Tom Hurndall, did she? Then neither did any of the 19 other Israeli Rachels murdered by Palestinian terrorists in recent years.

As for Cameron's nonsensical condemnation, followed afterwards by a call for an inquiry, he knows exactly what he is doing. He thinks that if he makes a nice speech to a Jewish audience every few years, he can hammer the Jewish state the rest of the time, and no-one will notice.

Well, Mr Cameron, we do notice.

Lance

A+++ Spot on. Well done. Excellent.

Elizabeth

Melanie is brilliant.
However we need to write to Mr Cameron ourselves. Individual letters through the post to no 10 will have impact if they are in sufficient numbers We really do have to do something. It is so frustrating

Penny

Elizabeth - you are right in encouraging people to write in, but it would actually be better if numerous people signed a single letter rather than write in as indiviudals.

Making a long story short, I was once given a tip by someone in the know. That tip was that institutions find it rather easy to be indifferent when individuals complain. Even if a hundred people write in about the same issue, the institution concerned may work on the premise that none of them - being individuals - actually know that they are one of many. Thus, it is relatively easy to palm them off - make them think they're lone voices. However, when people band together they cannot be ignored.

I took this advice and it was spot on.

The only other way forward would be to write letters as individuals but a)include a common reference and b)post them all on the same day so that there's a veritable swamp of obviously linked and organised complaints.

I hope this makes sense! It's been a long day and I'm tired!

Penny

Adam - I think our government's stance on Israel should be of great concern to all - Jewish or otherwise.

I can best explain my personal feelings on this matter by quoting from Robin Shepherd's book 'A State Beyond the Pale':

"..The Israel-Palestine conflict can be seen as a test case for the West's ability to stand up for the values it claims as its own..."

If our leaders cannot stand up, be strong and assert our values then we're all in a very dim place.

MB

Wow! Great letter... i hope David Cameron will read it and understand it as well...

MB

International Law ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55GR84ITI6w

MB

You can write to the PM at the following address:
10 Downing Street,
London,
SW1A 2AA
Fax Number 10

You can fax the Prime Minister on 020 7925 0918. (From outside the UK, the number is +442079250918)

wonderer

Third attempt to post!
@IsCameronWrong
May 6th, 2011 1:42pm
'Could we please have a reliable source backing up the claim: "which the PA says it will declare – a state in which Mr Abbas has repeatedly declared that not one Jew will be allowed to live" -- but which you have now threatened to support?'

A Google advanced search using the terms: produced over a million results, though I don't know how many you would consider reliable. One example is /www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3929819,00.html>.

See also /www.thejerusalemconnection.us/blog/2010/12/30/p-a-%E2%80%99s-abbas-reiterates-%E2%80%93-%E2%80%9Cwe-won%E2%80%99t-agree-to-the-presence-of-one-israeli%E2%80%9D-in-palestinian-state.html>.

There is some uncertainty in my mind, having taken a cursory look at these, whether Abbas said no Jew could live in the Palestinian state or no Israeli. There is no evidence that Abbas thinks Israel would be entitled to exclude gentiles from the Jewish state, or should I say from the Zionist entity?

He is also quoted as saying that no Jews would be permitted to serve in any peace-keeping forces on his territory.

It sounds like apartheid with knobs on.

Ann Vee

Maybe the PM should take a course in "Principled Negotiation" as opposed to stating facts and relying on position within his own government(notwithstanding the facts are false in the first instance).

tiki

Maybe Melanie should write 'another open letter to EU foreign minister, British Barones 'Catherine Ashton, over the fact that the EU is giving an EXTRA 85 million EU taxpayers money to PA//Hamas.

Israel just announced it's
'temporary withholding PA tax money (being afraid that the money is landing with HAMAS, buying more weapons & rockets pointing at Israeli citizens), and before ending the sentence, the EU (under auspicien of Ashton) is 'jumping in with the money, without any debate or consent of the EU taxpayer, who doesn't have a clue. Just like that, free and without any conditions.

The EU is constantly undercutting Israel, and should not be surprised why Abbas & friends don't come to the negotiating table. Why should they. They get everything they want from Israels 'staunch friends.

When (not if) the next War between Israel & its neighbours will break out, Europe is the main culprit with it's one sided, blind & dumb, dangerous & anti semitic politics.

Since the end of WW2, NOTHING has changed in Europe.

Adrian Glasspole

This is an amazing piece, Melanie! I have sent the link to everyone in my address book. Every person with a brain, a conscience or both will whole-heartedly agree with you, andf you have put into a few words almost everything we all want to say - but you say it so much more eloquently!

logdon

As Melanie state's. Cameron should heed history a bit more.

It's not only our atrocious anti-semitism of the Thirties which, as today was quite fashionable amongst the consequence free left leaning dilettante's of the era (remember Oswald Mosely was a Labour Front bencher before forming his British Fascist Party). It works in other ways also.

I've just reread three milestone books, two of which pinpoint specifics and one on the general era. They are Antony Beevor's Stalingrad, and Berlin and Nial Ferguson's War of the World.

As anyone will know Judaism and the ultimate anti-semitism of the Holocaust is inextricably intertwined within Hitler's evil psyche. What many overlook and pointed out in these books is the dearth of knowledge engendered by the wiping out of so many minds. In effect the Nazi's were hobbling by extermination many of the finest intellects of the age and thus lost the technological race.

I read now of many Jews in Sweden, France and to our everlasting shame, Britain contemplating the evolving scene, taking note of antecedents and taking the high road to Israel.

That this is an appalling tragedy on all levels must be a given. That this will lead to a weakness in innovation and scientific and digital progress can only be measured by what happens when states become Judenrein. They stultify.

That's our side. Here's the view from Israel's Arutz Sheva site.

Netanyahu in Britain, Hears Threats to
Recognize PA State

by Hillel Fendel

Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu is paying an official, three-day
visit to Britain and France – whose leaders are now said to be
threatening to recognize a Palestinian state.

Greeting Netanyahu on Wednesday at 10 Downing Street, England’s Prime
Minister David Cameron said, “Britain is a good friend of Israel and
our support for Israel and Israel's security is something I have
described in the past, and will do so again, as unshakeable. We are
strong friends of Israel.”

Freudian Slip

“We think, though,” he added, that “now there is a real opportunity -
with the end of Bin Laden, with the Arab Spring, with all that's
happening in the world - we think this is a moment of opportunity… to
push forward the process of peace between Israel and Palestine.”
Palestine, of course, does not exist – the Oslo Accords recognize the
Palestinian Authority – but this “slip” was apparently a harbinger of
true British intentions to recognize a unilaterally-declared
Palestinian state this coming September.

The Guardian reported yesterday that British government officials are
holding this threat very distinctly over Israel’s head. The paper
quoted a “diplomatic source” implying a self-righteous British position
of, “This will hurt me, but I may have no choice.”

Gentle Threat

The source’s exact words were: “Britain's clear and absolute preference
is for a negotiation to take place between Israel and the Palestinians
which leads to a two-state solution which everyone endorses. But at
this point Britain is not ruling anything out. The more Israel engages
seriously in a meaningful peace process, the less likely it is that
this question of unilateral declaration would arise.”

Regarding the expected PA bid to secure recognition at the UN General
Assembly in September, the source said that if Netanyahu refuses to
join substantive talks with the PA, “Europe would be asked a very
difficult question and we don't know yet what the answer to that
question will be.”

Netanyahu has long called for direct talks with the PA, which has
refused to agree unless Israel formally stops all construction in Judea
and Samaria – a step that Israel took for ten months, and which it
largely continues to implement de-facto.

French leaders are also expected to make a similar recognition threat
to Netanyahu.

Prior to his meeting with the British leader, Netanyahu told reporters
in London that the Fatah-Hamas agreement signed in Cairo was a
“tremendous blow to peace and a great victory for terrorism. Three days
ago, terrorism was dealt a resounding defeat with the elimination of
Osama bin Laden; today, in Cairo, it had a victory."

Netanyahu on Fatah's Agreement with Obama-Praising Hamas

As Netanyahu noted, Hamas condemned the United States for its killing
of arch-terrorist Bin Laden. He said that PA chief Mahmoud Abbas, in
signing the unity agreement with Hamas, had "embraced" an organization
that condemned the American operation against Bin Laden and called him
a "great martyr."

"When he [Abbas] embraces this organization, which is committed to
Israel's destruction and fires rockets on our cities, this is a
tremendous setback for peace and a great advancement for terror,”
Netanyahu said. “What we hope will happen is that we find peace - and
the only way we can make peace is with our neighbors who want peace.
Those who want to eliminate us, those who practice terror, are not
partners for peace."

Michael Paterson-Seymour

if the experience of an integrated, peaceful, post–Cold War Europe isn’t universalizable, then it might not be a settled accomplishment for Europe, either

logdon

I also noted in Hague's flat, mojo free and passionless speech that as well as the usual platitudinous, 'recognising two states' he talked of closer ties with Turkey.

Is he mad or was it a case of 'perfidious Albion', making nice whilst keeping the powder dry in action?

This is the real Turkey.

Turkish daily: "It’s Israel’s Turn to Panic"; "Hizballah Marches towards Israel!"

From the semi-official mouthpiece of the ruling AKP. "Islamist Press: 'It’s Israel’s Turn to Panic'; 'Hizbollah Marches towards Israel!,'" from MEMRI, May 4:

jihadwatch.org/2011/05/turkish-daily-its-israels-turn-to-panic-hizballah-marches-towards-israel.html

The radical Islamist Turkish daily Yeni Akit (formerly Vakit) had the headline “It’s Israel’s Turn to Panic” in yesterday’s issue. It wrote that millions of Palestinians were about to march into Israel from Lebanon.

Columnist Ibrahim Karagul of the Islamist Yeni Safak, known to be the semi-official mouthpiece of AKP, also wrote about the pending march under the title “Hizbollah Marches to Israel!”

Karagul wrote that a big plan was in the works in Lebanon, that would impact the entire region. He wrote that on May 15, the anniversary of Naqba, Hizbollah and its affiliated organizations would take the Palestinians along and walk towards the Palestinian lands occupied by Israel....

Adam B.

Penny, exactly so. Not being Jewish myself, I see how Europe's attitude to Israel is directly linked to its own will to survive. Robin Shepherd's book is indeed excellent in its forensic analysis of all that is wrong amongst European opinion formers.

To elaborate on your quote, the composer Shostakovich, a non-Jew, spoke of how, during the darkest years in Stalin's paranoid Soviet Union, he would regard someone's views about Jews as a test into that person's character. He wrote how even if a friend made an antisemitic comment, he would know that he could never really trust that individual. It is indeed a test of character.

gareth

here here - thank God there are writers like Mel. More people read you and agree with you than you would imagine.

Eugene

Nothing will change as long as western taxpayers remain unaware of their hard-earned - and diminishing - money going into the coffers of the corrupt Palestinian leaders and bankrolling their acts of terror.

Concerned

Excellent article. I doubt he will understand what you talking about. He is not a stateman but a young politician with no experience. He is more interested in which tie or suit to appear with.

Rick

This mix of vitriol and wilful ignorance may rouse the troops(at least, the less scrupulous among them), but a genuine effort to determine the facts or to propose a way to achieve peace would be more honest and more useful.

Britain, like the EU as a whole, depsite the hypocrisy of their public utterances, have proved obedient to the US and staunch allies to Israel, which is in effect anextra member of the EU and of NATO.

This squealing whenever you think you detect a minimal deviation from The Cause - it would be honest to admit that it is simply a way to maintain discipline and orthodoxy.

Christine J Mearns

Melanie, I applaud you for your courage and stand with you utterly in this respect. MPs everywhere and House of Lords, I call upon you to join those of us who are taking a stand against anti-semitism and genocide in the name of relgion, as I and many others consider that Britain's future and wellbeing hangs in the balance on this issue alone.

Tony

Well said. An excellent letter. The one thing this government is inept in is foreign policy. It's tragic, really, as they are so strong on most other issues.

Herzen

My point was quite simple. If the Official Version of history is recited for the umpteenth time here, untruths and all, then it is taken seriously and discussed at length. If anyone questions the Official Version of history, then discussion of it suddenly becomes otiose, purely theoretical, of no relevance to current affairs, purely malicious.

Jean Vercors

Excellent Melanie

British Diplomacy is very similar to the French

Hypocrite , nothing else

AY

"..Gaza's Islamist rulers Hamas on Saturday broke up a Salafist protest against the killing of Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden..Dozens of Salafists.. gathered in Gaza City's main square holding up posters of bin Laden and chanting "We warn you America, we warn you Europe." (Reuters)

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4065757,00.html

Meanwhile, in London, the same type of "protest" was conducted under protection of British police.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1384353/Osama-bin-Laden-mock-funeral-Fury-erupts-outside-US-Embassy-London.html

Which speaks for itself - UK is more pro-jihadi than even Hamas.

Just ask yourself Melanie, - is it time to write letters to shrimps?

Elihu

Living within missile-reach of Gaza, I would like to add just one small comment to the excellent letter and the many comments other people have made.
We in Israel promise to hold the fort for the rest of the world - until you reverse your policies and turn the tables on the enemies of humanity. We are not afraid and we are quite sure of success. Perhaps we and you may suffer a few billion casualties, but don't worry, the Moslem Dementors (or Death-eaters) will fail to bring on the world-wide Caliphate. And as Bush said once, if you're not with us, then your against us. Decide now whose side you are on!

Anne K

Excellent letter! Let's just hope that Cameron reads it.

Mike

Wow, hitting below the belt, no fair using the truth. I am so glad to have found your blog and have read about 10 other articles, with joyous celebration after each causing quite a ruckus. I am envious of your wit, writing ability and mostly your grasp of truth in a world that has gone insane.

A Christian who says 'Pray for the Peace of Jerusalem'

God Bless and shelter you,
Mike

margaret bailey

well said,i dont get the impression he is a friend to israel.i will bless those who bless you,curse those who curse you.its a pity someone dosnt give cameron a history lesson,they know nothing,and run the country.

Steve Acre

Bravo Melanie
I couldn t have written this better myself. God Bless you
Steve Acre
Canada

Major Plonquer

Don't you just hate it when Melanie sits on the fence?

Joe

Brilliant letter. I wish some institutions like the BBC will get the facts right for a change.

Nemia

From Israel - a heartfelt thank you and the commentators. Sometimes it feels as though we are all alone in a world of hostility and aggression. I can't tell you how your clear, truthful words made this day a better day for me.

Toda, toda raba mi-kol ha lev.

Truthtriumphs

Herzen
May 7th, 2011 4:36pm
"My point was quite simple. If the Official Version of history is recited for the umpteenth time here, untruths and all, then it is taken seriously and discussed at length. If anyone questions the Official Version of history, then discussion of it suddenly becomes otiose, purely theoretical, of no relevance to current affairs, purely malicious".

In exactly the same way that discussion of the "truth" of the Holocaust would be.

Carry on Finklering away, Herzen, no-one is listening.

Herzen, might I suggest to you that for a little divertissement, you start researching the legality of the creation of the other Mandated territories, like Syria, lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, as well as the creation of Saudi Arabia?
Then, when you come up with some sense, we might actually listen to you.

Kai B. Isnes

Well spoken indeed!
It's so similar to what the "official" Norwegian pliticionss express (the left wing government).
Recently the Norwegian TV station TV2 had an exclusive interview with Simon Peres who expressed concern and surprise about the fact that Norwegian politics apparently has changed since the Oslo accord. This accord requiered mutual recognition which Israel did right away, but PA has failed to do so. And now they even accept HAMAS to be a "honorable" part of negotiation with Israel. And the same as in Britan, Israel is forced to negotiate with PA/HAMAS, no matter what. Norway will also recognize a Palestinian state - even without an agreement with Israel. The Norwegian Government is as you know, the only western government that right away recognized HAMAS as winner of a democratic election in Gaza.
My only conclusion would be that they are anti Zionists.

As far as I know, a muslum can never, according to the Koran, engage in a PERMANENT peace treaty with a non-muslim country.
Anyway, PA shows their real intention by showing maps with no Israel, and HAMAS has not erased the part from their charter that Israel will be totally destroyed.

It's also saddening to more and more understand how much the British Government has mistreated the Jews from long before the UN recognition of a sovereign state in May 1948.

Kabi

Stephen Rothbart

Herzen, it does not matter what the "truth" is anymore. There is no "truth" there are only opinions, backed up by whatever selection of facts the pros and the antis choose to support their own point of view.

The question is for now. That is why I get so tired of the endless repetition of who did what to whom and when.

The question now is that a UN registered state is being "asked" to sit down with a bunch of religious bigots and murderers who refuse to recognize her right to exist, and who insist on dividing the city of Jerusalem and having about 5 million of their people, most of whom never lived in Israel, given the right of return.

No nation in the world would be expected to do this.

So your point of Jew v Arab 60 years ago is hardly relevant to the fact that Britain and France might recognize a Palestinian state in which part of its leadership is an ardent supporter of al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, and Israel is being forced to make any deal with them by September.

Of course the Palestinians have a cause. Israel has recognized that cause. Israel is ready to make some adjustments to accommodate that cause.

Hamas is not, and nor frankly is Abbas and Fatah.

That's it. That's all. So why is Britain and France pushing Israel to make a deal with a party that has no intention of putting a deal it can accept on the table, and is busy re-arming itself to start a new war, egged on by Egypt's new "liberal democrats" and their cosy relationship they are nurturing with Iran?

There is the problem. That is what the UN and the EU and the UIs should be focusing on. So should you. So should Cameron and Sarkozy.

william weatherall

Much of the impetus for a Jewish homeland came decades before the holocaust from British evangelical Christian leaders, who understood the prophetic statements in the Bible indicating a regathering of Jews to Israel. Unfortunately what we seem to have have now is a virtual absence of such leaders with political influence. Instead we have among our leaders atheism, nominal Christianity,and plain ignorance of Israel's history, not to mention the Bible. Above all we have among evangelical Christians Replacement Theology, the lie whereby the Church has completely replaced the nation of Israel in God's purposes.

blue_&_white_avenger

Melanie - tremendous letter.

I took the liberty of sending it on, unabridged to the Jewish News.
Regards

Eva Lowy

Melanie a brilliant but sad letter; nothing new. But why do you continue to live in Britain? Any Jews for that matter!

Louis Berk

Melanie

Good letter but you assume David Cameron can read. I think there is strong empirical evidence he can't. After all he can barely string a meaningful sentence together on any subject.

Truthtriumphs

Eva Lowy
May 8th, 2011 11:19am

"Melanie a brilliant but sad letter; nothing new. But why do you continue to live in Britain? Any Jews for that matter!"

But that does not address the problem, which is the progressive demonisation and de-legitimisation of Israel in the western democracies.
If ever that became the prevailing narrative, especially in the US, then the end of Israel as a sovereign Jewish state would quickly follow.

Mrs Snowden

Well said Melanie - every leader in the world needs to read this. Then they need to read the 400 year old King James Bible - maybe then they would have the wisdom needed and at the same time save themselves and their nations from being cursed by God. " I will bless them that bless thee and curse them that curse thee". Lets see the blessings!

Jared

Ms Phillips,
I am in awe at your letter to the PM. You seem to have a great understanding of the bystander effect to put it generally. You express what many of us feel and know, oh so articulately.
For this and everything you post, I thank you.
In reference to a comment made bellow about the world reeling into madness; I understand what is meant but the term doesn't sit comfortable with me. Many of the individuals devising their "end to the West" ploys are very intellectual people with strong influence on politics and on culture and classing them or their ideologies as "mad," suggests those people to be of a lesser mental health than the sane. They are very smart but very dangerous and have to be taken very seriously indeed.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

herzen:"If anyone questions the Official Version of history, then discussion of it suddenly becomes otiose, purely theoretical, of no relevance to current affairs, purely malicious."

Well,certainly your discussion of it, Herzen.

If you think for a moment that a state and its supporters should have an interest in some bunch of islamo fascists or those, like you, whose name one cant help spitting out, espousing it's lack of existential legitimacy - then, you would like think that that a Hamas is a libertarian Party and there are no gays in Iran.

In other words, Herzen, dont be a silly billy.

Robin Davies

Superb. Thank you so much.
God bless you.

Robin

Richard P Baiey

The single best article I have read on this subject. Thank you Ms. Phillips.

Herzen

Stephen Rothbart
May 8th, 2011 9:55am
As you possibly picked up, it was Melanie Phillips who here resorted to "history" (!) to support her case. I am merely asking why it is allowed for one side, but not the other.

"...it does not matter what the "truth" is anymore. There is no "truth" there are only opinions, backed up by whatever selection of facts the pros and the antis choose to support their own point of view." - "Relativism" is used here on this site, somewhat oddly, as a term of abuse directed at those who criticise Israel. Yet what you say is as clear an example of (naive) relativism as one could imagine - a form of relativism that I would hae thought very difficult to justify.

Truthtriumphs
May 8th, 2011 9:18am
As you have been told before, the legal basis for each of the mandates, including Palestine, was pretty much the same.

Jerry

Wow!Wow!Wow!was just talking to my pastor this morning about the very same things and it seems that it fell on stoney ground! You write so well it would be impossible to better what you have said. I am in awe of you.May the Lord bless you my friend. I pray this will open the eyes of those who need to see the truth and bring real action to the support and love of Gods people.

Ehoop

What Melanie Phillips has written needed to be written. Cameron and Hague fall down on the facts time and again, whether regarding Gaza or in appearing to blame Israel for not negotiating on the demonstrably spurious grounds that building is again going on within existing towns on the West Bank. Here, in fact, it is Abbas who refused to negotiate for virtually all of the duration of Netanyahu’s 10 month construction moratorium, and since, having previously negotiated with Olmert, as the Wikileaks papers showed, while construction progressed. Sure, Abbas feels disinclined to negotiate thanks to Obama’s reneging on a presidential undertaking given to the Israeli government and demanding more of Israel than Abbas was, himself, demanding. But is that reason for Cameron to spread disinformation about a friendly state and favour an openly racist gang (and that’s just Abbas’) whose friendship has been bought but never tested?
And doesn’t morality count for anything? Just how few days is it between Cameron’s endorsement of Hamas’ governing partnership with Hamas and Hamas’ targeting an Israeli school bus using a Kornet guided anti-tank missile? It’s only about 60 days since the Libyan rebels whom we, the EU, NATO and the UN support sold Ghadaffi’s remaining stocks of nerve gas shells in Benghazi to Hamas and Hezbollah. It’s not as if this government doesn’t know what those whose interests it serves are up to.
One might hope that the Conservatives’ coalition partners might, with their seeming concern for social justice, put Cameron and Hague right on a few points here, but one will hope in vain. Clegg’s sustained reluctance to discipline the suicide bombers’ cheerleader, Jenny Tonge, means that social justice is unlikely to come from that quarter, either.

Barbara Fraser

I hope that Mr. Cameron reads this and repents of this evil.

Malcolm Wood

Great to hear straight talk and I agree with you except I think the position of Britain is misrepresented inasmuch as it was historically the will of the Government to support the establishment of Israel but individuals undermined it. There are those in Britain who wish to see Israel supported, but oil and mid-east politics have always over-ridden UK foreign policy. This has backfired through Islamic Jihad and will get worse yet in my estimation - but please do justice to Britain's role in the re-establishment of Jews in their biblical homeland. We need to stand up for Britain as well as justice for Israel

A J Scott

In the country of the blind...here, we have two one-eyed champions who will never submit to the rational and unemotional analysis of even the most objective and careful judge.
God (whichever you choose) help them both; they are beyond this human's understanding.

Truthtriumphs

Herzen@ 4.58pm.

Truthtriumphs
May 8th, 2011 9:18am

"As you have been told before, the legal basis for each of the mandates, including Palestine, was pretty much the same".

In that case, why do we only hear from you about the supposed illegality of the only Jewish state?
Why are you not exercised as to the legality of the other 4 sovereign Arab states that were created at the same time as the Jewish state?

Truthtriumphs

Stephen Rothbart.

"Of course the Palestinians have a cause. Israel has recognized that cause. Israel is ready to make some adjustments to accommodate that cause".

Their "cause", openly stated, has been the elimination of the Jewish state, and the harassment of her citizens.
Israel has been forced to "accomodate" the terrorism inflicted upon her in the name of this "cause".

Paul

Can I echo Ric, brilliant.

Kwanini

Thank you, Ms. Phillips,
You are the only one that sees the situation clearly. Israel is here forever.

Ray Davis-Chamberlain

Melanie Phillips shows clearly that David Cameron needs to be a Man of conviction.
He needs to speak to the Canadian Prime Minister.

On Monday, voters in Canada gave a fresh, large mandate to the Conservative Party and incumbent Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Against all expectations, the previous minority government was replaced by a large majority for the Conservatives, which will ensure that no new elections will be necessary for a full four years. Harper has been a steadfast friend of Israel, and his new government is expected to continue that tradition. "We must be relentless, relentless and uncompromising in exposing this anti-Semitism for what it is," Harper said recently in Toronto, "We will always stand by [Israel]."

Deborah Pitt

Brilliant, Melanie. Another in-depth, coherent analysis regarding the threats faced by the state of Israel, this time from our own government. I hope and pray that eyes are opened.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

AJ Scott: what is it you dont understand re Israel, AJ? Not so hard to understand, really.

kepha

A great post, Melanie.

Now, I admit that I'm of the mind that the Zionist enterprise was a pretty foolish idea--as if the Dar-ul-Islam would acquiesce in a Dhimmi people asserting its independence and dignity! But, it would be adding injustice to folly to displace 5-6 millions at this stage of the game.

But you have nailed a lot of nails right on the head.

Freedomlover

For Abbas' statement that no Jews will be permitted to live in a Palestinian state, and everything else PA/PLO/Fatah/Abbas/Fayyad have to say for themselves - in their OWN words - see web site Palestinian Media Watch. Read/see/hear Team PA/Abbas, what they tell their own people vs what they tell the US/West. Its political/media rhetoric and curriculum of hate and violence: 1) encouragment to murder Jews 2) incitement to terror and adulation of terrorists 3)promise of endless war, never peace, with Israel 4)delegitimization of Israel claiming Jews have NO historical connection to the land - even Tel Aviv is taught to be rightfully "Palestinian". Palestinian Media watch - it's all "in their own words".

Besides sending Cameron Ms. Phillips' letter, we all need to copy our "favorites" from Palestinian Media Watch web site and send to No. 10 and to Foreign Secretary's office. PA/PLO/Fata/Abbas/Fayyad are not "moderate". They are stealth jihadis, using political means to destroy Israel. Its objective is exactly the same as Hamas, Hezbolleh, Al Qaeda and Iran.

PM Cameron: If you do not want to be remembered as Chamberlain II, it is time to end the willful blindness and appeasement.

Micha

Thank you for remind us of the truth.
We strengthen you, keep writing

Kermack

Melanie on this our 63rd birthday I'd like to thank you for your support....

èåãä çâ ùîç

Herzen

Truthtriumphs
May 8th, 2011 6:02pm
As you know, the Mandate did not establish a "Jewish state". The Jewish state was established with the UDI and war of 1947-8.

Ursula

Well said, Melanie.

Margaret Jones

Well done again Melanie. You have eloquently said what so many of us have not the ability to put into words. May David Cameron read and heed this warning for he has been deceived and is bringing his country Britain ( no longer Great because of our treatment of the Jews) to certain destruction. God cannot sit back and allow this to continue for ever.

Emet

Melanie, I met you at the Honest Reporting conference in Jerusalem in the summer and was bowled over by your honesty and eloquence. May you continue to state the truth as it is. This was another brilliantly written piece honing in on the hypocrisy of self-seekers.

DSime

I agree with the idea of an online letter which people can sign and support. Is this possible please?
Mr. Cameron, please read Melanie's letter with an open mind. Thank you.

Derek BLADES

Piffle from start to finish.

Palestinians are the victims not the Israelis. They lost their homes and are now bombed, rocketed and under a brutal occuption. A double whammy if ever there was one.

Terry in Oz

I wonder if he'll listen. I wonder if he'll hear.

Not if the Foreign Office and BBC can help it, for sure.

Am Yisroel Chai

Terry in Oz

IsCameronwrong

Just Google abbas Jews in Palestine. Why ask Melanie for proof of something you can get with a simple Google search? Or maybe you don't want to hear about arab apartheid?

Leonard

Melanie Phillips should run Natanyahu's PR and maybe the world would see the true picture. I doubt Mr Cameron will respond point by point or at all

Gershon

@Herzen May 9th, 2011 9:50am

"As you know, the Mandate did not establish a "Jewish state". The Jewish state was established with the UDI and war of 1947-8."

Herzen,

On this, Israel's Memorial Day, I find your remarks totally disgusting. Either you are being deliberately mendacious or you are totally ignorant.

The basis for the state of Israel was resolution 181 (II) of the UN General Assembly. The UK, as the mandatory power, accepted the resolution but refused to enforce it as it was "not acceptable to both sides". The UK then unilaterally declared that the end of the mandate would be May 14th, 1948. It is into this vacuum that the State of Israel declared its independence and not how your rewriting of history would have it.

Augustus

Kai B.Isnes- You are certainly right about Norway. It is disgraceful how many anti-Israeli cartoons are published in Norwegian dailies and weeklies. Some are similar in message and venom to the worst anti-Semitic caricatures published in Nazi Germany. Israeli prime ministers are shown as Nazi types, or with the features of animals or the Devil. Aftenposten is a particlar culprit dressing up the most extreme anti-Semitic views as anti-Israelic. Norway has an image of a peace-loving country, yet many Jewish kids get harrassed in schools, Jewish graves are desecrated, and there was even a shooting at the Oslo community synagogue.

Holland is another country where
anti-Semitism has exploded in recent years. Normally regarded as a tolerant, liberal, and even somewhat permissive society, Jews with skull caps or distinctive garb are often attacked, affronted or spat on.
About 130,000 Jews were deported
to the death camps during WW2, and many of them were children.
When recently an outdoor commemoration ceremony took place for the last transport which took place of 3,000 Jewish children deported during the Holocaust, the ceremony during the recitation of Kaddish
was interupted by a group of bikers shrieking 'Heil Hitler!'
at the top of their voices. There is also the sad fact that
throughout Europe many teachers,
possibly a third of them, have difficulty in relating facts about the Holocaust because of the hostile response from Muslim students and their parents. It seems that the lights really are going out all over Europe.

Hinda

BRAVO! Finally someone having the guts to state what is exactly wrong. No more appeasement!!!

Stephen Rothbart

Derek Blades:

"Piffle from start to finish."

That aptly describes your next paragraph. Well done! We agree on something.

"Palestinians are the victims not the Israelis. They lost their homes and are now bombed, rocketed and under a brutal occuption."

Where are Palestinians being bombed and rocketed right now?

And don't run away from the question as you usually do. Be specific. Where are the Palestinians being bombed and rocketed right now?

The only rockets and bombing is coming out of Gaza. By Palestinians. Or Libyans, at other Libyans, or at Syrians by other Syrians.

"Brutal occupation..." is Israel occupying Gaza?

Again, be specific. Is Israel, or any Jewish entity for that matter, occupying Gaza? If not then why are they sending rockets into Israel?

The area of contention is thus the West bank. Are the Israelis bombing and rocketing the West bank right now?

Are you getting a special news broadcast from the BBC that tells you, and no one else, Israel is bombing and rocketing the West bank right now?

"Lost their homes" well, some solf them and some lost them by running away, and some lost them because some Jewish settlers stole them, but mostly those that truly lost them lost them because they went to war with the Jews and lost, just like the 35,000,000 European refugees after WW2.

In 1948, the Arabs took Jerusalem and kicked them out and destroyed their synagogues and homes. Even after Israel was a state, they could never set foot in parts of Jerusalem. And they did not give them back out of the goodness of their hearts either. It was because they lost another war they started, nearly 20 years later.

So when you accuse, I assume, Melanie Phillips of piffle, I suggest you take a deep breath and look in the mirror.

We know your bias, that's OK, but accusing someone of piffle when everything in your comment is factually wrong, is not OK.

aelle

Ms Phillips writes :

" It was the British who, out of sheer breathtaking malice against the Jewish people, first incited the ( hitherto mainly benignly disposed ) Arabs against the Jews returning to their ancestral homeland in Palestine in the early years of the 20th century. "

This would of course be the same British whose Foreign Secretary, Arthur Balfour, momentously declared his government's "sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations" in November 1917 and " view(ed) with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."

At the same time Balfour gave the proviso that " nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine."

No evidence is given of the
" breathtaking malice " of the British against the Jewish people.

It seems to me a disgraceful slur against a nation that lost a thousand or more soldiers and civilians whilst administering the Mandate which terminated in the creation of the State of Israel.

Looking today at the fate that befell the former Arab majority population of Palestine a dispassionate observer might conclude that the British carried out their mandate, but forgot about the proviso.

For myself, I would hesitate before lecturing an Oxford First on history, let alone ethics.

Augustus

Derek Blades - Having swallowed the fact that Egypt and four other Arab states decided to attack Israel and lost, perhaps yoyu could turn your attention to the reason why after 63 years those half million
Arabs who fled Israel, and who through the decades mysteriously morphed into more than five million displaced refugees, weren't re-housed decades ago with all the billions of aid they received from around the world, instead of being kept as political pawns in
refugee camps. Any answers?

wonderer

@Derek BLADES
May 9th, 2011 12:30pm
Amazing how you KJL have made mascots of the Arabs when they have spent over 60 years tearing scabs off self-inflicted wounds.

Aubrey Isaacson

Brilliant. An accurate and totally approrite analysis of the situation

aelle

Augustus

As the brave - and heavily outnumbered Mr Blades - might need some assistance in dealing with the missives or missiles sent in his direction, might I suggest that amongst the reasons that perfectly innocent Arab Palestinians caught up in hostilities subsequent to Israel's unilateral declaration of statehood have not been " re-housed " is the undisputable fact that the State of Israel deprived them of the opportunity to return to homes which, by then, had , in any event, been occupied by Jews.

Any comment?

Louise McLeod

It is an incredible brave and truthfull description of events, past and present. It must be given as wide a publicity as possible.

Herzen

Gershon
May 9th, 2011 1:58pm
The General Assembly resolution was a recommendation only. (And you should take a look at the tactics needed to get it passed.) The General Assembly requested the Security Council to determine how to implement its recommendation. The people of Palestine rejected partition. It was their right to do so (unfortunately the UN had enshrined the principle of self-determination in its Covenant). In the absence of consent, the Security Council had no authority to enforce implentation. The resolution was a dead letter. The UN looked instead at the possibility of a temporary UN trusteeship. Civil war had already broken out several months before, with the Zionists by May 1948 very much in the ascendancy. Britain washed its hands of Palestine as threatened. The Zionists unilaterally declared independence. The declaration had nothing to do with the UN or any resolution...Which part of that was "totally disgusting"?

Polly

Please put it on the net so we can all sign. Delighted to read something so knowledgeable and sensible about the situation

Augustus

aelle - firstly, I don't think that Derek Blades needs any assistance, like all Israel-bashers he cannot be assisted out of his idee fixe regarding the history of Arab lies and propaganda. Any comments? Yes, I would have thought that, at the time, Israel had enough to cope with taking in the odd three-quarters of a million Jews
who had been brutally turned out of their own homes by Arab states in reprisal for having failed to destroy Israel at birth, with five countries attacking it in the culmination
of what can only be described as
decades of irrational religious
hatred by very nasty and Nazi-loving leaders.

Carole

Wonderful article!
Melanie is spot on and I have nothing but admiration for this letter she has sent to our Prime Minister!
I sincerely hope he listens and changes his tack for Israel and the world!

Chris M

IsCameronWrong
May 6th, 2011 1:42pm
Could we please have a reliable source backing up the claim: "which the PA says it will declare – a state in which Mr Abbas has repeatedly declared that not one Jew will be allowed to live -- but which you have now threatened to support?" Look forward to seeing it.
You will say "This isn't the PA's aims", but it is - read the Hamas Manifesto, listen to Ahmadinejad's speeches, and he is Hamas', Hezbollah's and the PA's paymaster! So they agree with his goverment's aims and ecourage the teaching of Jewish genocide to 5 year olds. Just check out the Palestine Media Watch website (www.palwatch.org), then ask for the 'proof' you seek. None so blind as those who wish NOT to see, none so deaf...

Penny

Let's look at this matter of 1948 and Palestinian rights from another perspective.

When Egypt, Jordan, Syria et al attacked Israel in 1948 what was their motive? Care and concern for their fellow Arabs, the horror of a Jewish state in their midst or the rosy anticipation of annexation? As indeed, Jordan did on West Bank for 19yrs - when, incidentally, there seemed to be no call for an independant Palestinian state.

Looking back over time and the way in which the Arabs have treated the Palestinian people from the get-go it would take a real leap of imagination to believe those five armies attacked in support of the relatively few Arabs living in the tiny state of Israel at the time.

Of course, we will never know but I would suggest that once Egypt, Syria and Jordan had had their spoils, there wouldn't have been a state ruled by today's Palestinians anyway.

TrueToo

aelle,

Very early on in the Mandate to help establish a Jewish National Home in Palestine, the British began to backtrack on their obligations and sided with the Arabs. A clear example of this bias was the drastic restricting of Jewish immigration while allowing some 200 000 Arabs to enter the territory in the course of the Mandate. Even as the Holocaust began, the British tightened the restrictions. I refer you to the infamous White Paper of 1939.

Some Arabs who left Palestine around 1948 were driven out by the Jews and some left of their own accord, convinced by their leaders that they could return once the invading Arab armies had driven the Jews into the sea.

Some left in fear of their lives, convinced that the Jews would do to them what they would have done to the Jews had the situation been reversed. Many were urged by the Jews to stay and many did, now constituting Israel's 1,3 million Arabs.

How to disentangle this and decide which of those Arabs who left (they were not calling themselves Palestinians then) have a valid claim to return to their homes (assuming they are still standing) in Israel? About 4000 Palestinian Arabs fought on the side of the invading Arab armies in 1948. Do they have a valid claim for compensation? And what about the 200 000 who were not native to the area?

In stark contrast, the Arab states forcibly dispossesed and expelled their Jewish citizens by means of discriminatory laws and, in many instances, pogroms. The Jewish population of the Arab world has been reduced to less than one percent of its pre-1948 numbers. They were loyal and productive citizens of those countries and they were driven out with only the shirts on their backs. Most Arab countries are now completely free of Jews.

These Jewish refugees did not set up an aid agency at the UN devoted to assisting and feeding them for all eternity. Neither did they agitate for sanctions against the Arab states or campaign against them. And they didn't establish terrorist organisations to infiltrate those states and murder their citizens. They just got on with their lives in Israel and elsewhere.

Arab countries, on the other hand, have made it a policy to deny the Palestinians citizenship and continually fan the flames of the Israeli-Arab conflict by means of war and terrorism against the Jewish state.

Elizabeth Lauder

Excellent, he speaks out of total ignorance of the Scriptures and will bring ruin upon the nation. He needs to spend time learning from you and more important to reading the Bible, particularly since we are in the end days. Thank you for being so forthright. Blessings

Chris M

"Marci
May 6th, 2011 4:33pm
There were people living there who considered that land their home and had no direct contact with the Egyptians of old who routed the Israeli's who decided that flight was better than fight."

Marci, check your history. The Hebrews were taken into exile by both the Babylonians and the Assyrians and EVERY time they were allowed to return to Judah, and Greater Israel, after a while (these thing are recorded in the Bible and confirmed by archaeology from ancient Assyria and Babylonia)! It was in 70AD that the ROMANS, not the Egyptians, who removed the Israelis from Judah, destroyed Jerusalem, and renamed it 'Aelia Capitolina', when rebuilt, and Judah 'Palestina', a ROMAN Province, NOT an arab country! The Jews fought the Romans to nearly a standstill before that happened and were taken out of the country, a Roman punishment to stamp their authority on a rebellious nation that they, The Romans Empire, had invaded and conquered. The Jews did not 'run', but many retreated to Masada and elected to committ suicide, rather than fall to the hands of revenge-minded Romans, who would have crucified the men, or killed them in the arena, and enslaved the women and children, who, would have been killed the moment they rebelled! Nomadic arabs, and a few itinerant Jews lived in a devastated 'Palestina' for nearly 2000 years, unable to little but scratch a living in the country - if in doubt to what the Romans did to the land, see what happened to the Carthagians, a nearly as powerful empire when they fell to the Romans! The OT limits of Old Israel extended from the Egyptian border over to southern Saudi Arabia, up to Babylonia to nearly Northern Syria. But New Israel barely has 10% of that, and has done more for the world, since 1946/8, for the land (4 harvests a year), and for all. including the muslims, who live in Israel, full benefits, protection and citizenship, freedom of worship and, mostly, travel (apart from the checking of arabs coming INTO Israel for possible terrorist threats) - what sort of life would Israeli Arabs have under Hamas/Hezbollah rule, as it is they who have victimised the Gazan and Palestinian Arabs, not Israel?! All of this a matter of record. Also, for the record, Ms Phillips is absolutely correct, and I would also endorse and sign an copy of this open letter as an e-letter!

Stephen Rothbart

Aelle, Augustus can answer for himself your question.

Let me instead ask you what you think the relevance of that question is given the subject of the piece Melanie wrote.

Israel is Israel, Palestine is...well an idea.

Palestinian Arabs are led by Hamas in Gaza, who probably hate their new friends in Fatah as much as they hate the Israelis.

Hamas and Fatah, in a shotgun wedding, have decided to join together to make a new Palestinian State they will declare in September.

Hamas is considered a terrorist organisation by Britain and France and refuses to recognise Israel. It is not an occupied land but still fires rockets at civilian targets in Israel anyway.

Israel is being asked to make a peace treaty with such an organisation under the implied threat that both Britain and France will recognise this state, even if it run by an organisation that is counted by those same governments as a terrorist organisation.

The last time such a thing happened, Germany recognised Croatia and broke up Jugoslavia.

Because part of Jugoslavia did not want to be broken up, an ethnic war broke out, and it took the Americans under Clinton to sort it out.

Tens of thousands of people died.

If Britain, France and the EU recognise Hamas as a legitimate government of a Palestinian state, the liklihood is that hundreds of thousands will die in a bloody war, many of them the innocent Palestinians caught up in this mess.

It is totally irrelevant to the topic as to whether the Palestinian Arabs or the Palestinian Jews, or the diaspora Jews who had already lost their homes and their families in Europe, did what to whom and when.

Britain and France created this mess, after WW1, and now they are about to make it even worse, in the misguided belief that pushing Israel into a meaningless treaty that will satisfy no one, and will not last 5 minutes after the ink has dried, even if they could write one, is somehow necessary.

Well if you want to appease Iran, I guess it is necessary.

Otherwise there is absolutely no purpose to it, unless Cameron and Sarkozy also threaten the Palestinians with dire consequences if they don't make concessions too.

Can you tell me what Hamas has been told to do to make peace, that they have actually done? Or Abbas, since Obama opened his big mouth about settlements?

I can. Nothing.

Derek BLADES

wonderer puzzled me with the following comment addressed to me: "Amazing how you KJL... (blah, blah, blah)"

What is a KJL please?

mick

we are begining to realise cameron says what he thinks the person he is talking to wants to hear the fact that he is an arsehole should be taken into taken into account when listening to him

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Obama is pinning his hopes on The Muslim Brotherhood, the cornerstone of his brave new Middle Eastern alliance.

What he assumes, I guess, is that the ethos of the so-called Arab Spring is sufficiently of a genuinely liberal kind to mitigate the tendency to mitilitant zealotry of that organisation.

And so, the US will unleash this bunch throughout the region - the great new hope for western policy in the region.

This man will have alot to answer for....as more blood will be flowing than the our very worst fears. It is a policy of pernicious, cynical, folly.

wonderer

@Derek BLADES
May 9th, 2011 8:06pm
2nd attempt to post.

"What is a KJL please?"

Knee jerk left

wonderer

@mick
May 9th, 2011 8:14pm.
Wait a minute. Did Cameron say what he thought Netanyahu wanted to hear - re the "State of Palestine"?

Leon Schimmel

Thjis letter is a magnicent probe of courage and profoud knowledge of both histories about the attitude of British Policy towards the Jews from the beginning on of the 20th century and the Jewish monumental endeavour to reestablish a jewish home in the land of their ancestors.

bri

Wise words make sense to the wise people, but wise words make no sense to fools. And these are wise words.

aelle

Mr Rothbart,

I could not agree more that in the second decade of the 21st century what matters most is what is happening now and in the future, not what happened 50 or 100 years ago.

You are right to say that Britain and France, the European powers that defeated the Ottoman Empire, made a hash of the region they inherited - not, it should be said, without a fair amount of assistance from the assortment of Arab tribes and imported European Jewry that now dispute the territory.

The reason why Western administrations in both the United States and Europe continue to press for an agreed and peacful solution to the problems in the area is because the potential destructive impact of a 21st century conflict is too awful to contemplate.

The truth is that, in order to achieve the peace that both the citizens of Israel and a future Palestinian state deserve, people have to take the chance of sitting around a table with those for whom they have no liking or perhaps respect.

The only way to discourage religious or political extremism is to engage with the society that is desperate enough to create these movements.

I am not talking about appeasement or naivete - that is not how Carter brokered the peace between Egypt and Israel -
Peace can only be achieved from a position of strength, but it requires a willingness on both sides to make concessions, and , above all it will never come about if the parties to the dispute refuse even to meet and speak with each other.

When I was a lot younger I thought the Berlin Wall would last forever, I never thought the Iron Curtain would simply melt away, I thought the Apartheid regime in South Africa would fight a bloody rearguard action to hang on to power. It does seem that time can change many things.

The Arab people of what is left of Palestine deserve to have more than a dream - they deserve to be allowed to create their own State, no less than Israel deserves to be left in peace to live and worship in the State they have laboured so long and hard to create and preserve.

It has already been spelt out to the Palestinians - both Fatah and Hamas - that support for their State is conditional on their renouncing violence and recognising the existence of Israel.

Nobody is suggesting Israel adopt unilateral disarmament as a policy, nor is any realistic peace feasible unless Israel can be re-assured that the Palestinians will respect a long term cease-fire.

What is clear is that Israel cannot simply continue to occupy the West Bank in perpetuity, steadily pursuing a policy of "settlement" expansion and harassment of the Palestinians designed to alter the population mix of the area so that it can be incorporated into someone else's dream of a Greater Israel.

Israel and the West have an opportunity to support the first signs of democracy that have been seen in the Middle East outside of Israel.

What is needed now is a statesman with the courage to make this happen.

Whether Bibi Netanyahu is such a man is another question.

Truthriumphs

Gilbert Belwether
May 6th, 2011 7:14pm

"If I might make a suggestion, Melanie, it would be helpful to state what policy you think Israel and its friends should pursue instead".

The answer is childishly simple.

The western powers and Israel must DEMAND that the Arab states, as well as the non-state actors, stop their vile anti-Jewish and anti Israel propaganda, in the media,in the mosques, in what they teach their children, in university material,and that they end their calls for martyrdom and jihad.
Then they must publicly accept and welcome the sole Jewish state in their midst, instead of insisting that their ultimate goal is "Palestine from the river to the sea".

Until such time, Israel should refuse to negotiate.
Why should Israel be expected to negotiate her demise?
No other country would.

Peace Dove

Dear Melanie,

thank you so much for being the truth courier- specially in our time, when the liberal European and unfortunately some Israel parties lost their common sense and humanist approach regarding Jews and Israel.

There's a street wisdom that says much about the peace process:
Take all weapons from the Arabs and we well get a peace in the middle east- Take all the weapons from Israel, and they diminish it.

it's about time that others will be aware about this point.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Israel should unilaterally declare its formal boarders and leave the Palestinians - the love match between hamas and fatah - to declare its own Independence, as they oh so courageously threaten to.

Now that the Gaza is no longer under seige, given the opening of the Egyptian boarder and the Egyptian miltary and the Obama Admin laying down the red carpet for the Moslem Broherhood, let them take responsibility for building the great Palestinain nation under the guidance of the Islamists.

It will be interesting, then, to see how the US reacts when the new Palestinian Government becomes collectively responsible for unequivocal Crimes Against Humanity - as it continues to target Jewish civilians deliberately in its ongoing war of genocide against Israel ('cause it will not stop with the declration of independence, of course)

And what will become of the notorious Hamas Charter? Will it form the nub of the text of some new Paletinian Constitution? Will Obama consult on the finer points of Islamic imperialsim contained therein and spin this as the document of moderation which can guide the new pan Arab and muslim Spring (including the Syrian one - ha, ha -not to mention that of Iran?

The phenomenon will be studied in the classrooms of politics and history for many generations: how Jeffersonian liberalism married Islamic fundamentalism - all in the name of of the new millenium of freedom and democracy in the Islamic world. John Locke meets Sayyid Qutb and both strip naked and frolic into the fresh waters of freedom with the half caste leftist movement, the hybrid skin tone palette defined by the the kinder face of wefarism and self- determination mixed with the genocide of Leftist icons like Stalin. David Lean (Obama), you can imagine, all the whilst sitting in his director's chair - flanked by his his terrified gofers - Cameron and Sarkozy, walkie talkies dutifully in hand - on the beach, contemplating the epoch defining scene, of those motley bums bouncing up and down in the waves to whoops of joy - spontaneous celebrations of all that is quintessentially good.

We live in one mad, mad, world, people... and the only sign that there is truly a God out there, I'm afraid, is that the Jews likely have a nuclear arsenal so that if they are truly threatened by this club of maniacs, we will all be forced to cavort with the vestels on high.

I can't wait, can you?

Gershon

@Herzen May 9th, 2011 5:37pm

"The people of Palestine rejected partition." Now I know that you are not ignorant but deliberately and willfully mendacious. The correct way to write this sentence is at best "Some of the people of Palestine (the Arabs) rejected the partition."

What is so "totally disgusting" is that you tell lies all the time.

Stephen Rothbart

Aelle, thanks for your reply.

In principle, I agree with almost everything that you wrote.

But I also once thought Communism was a good idea too.

The way to go forward is not to pressure Israel to make a Peace with a bunch of religious extremists and gangsters that currently rule Gaza and now effectively run the West Bank, after this Palestinian Pact.

The pressure should come from the UN, the EU and the Arab League that Hamas must first recognize Israel as Jewish State, that Jerusalem must remain an open city, and that the Right of Return for 5 million Arabs is withdrawn.

Then they must renounce violence. Teach tolerance to Jews and Christians in their schools and stop sending suicide bombers into civilain targets.

Free elections should be held by the parties as a precondition for Peace in which candidates should be allowed to stand for 1. All of the above: 2. Some of the above: 3. None of the above.

The government that emerges from this election would then be the true representative of Palestinian intentions.

If Hamas and their mandate, emerge as winners, then we can forget Peace with Israel.

Depending on the make up of the other options, it is then up to Israel to decide if they can live with whichever Palestinian Government emerges.

The new Palestinian government should be told that in the event that a Peace Treaty is signed, UN and EU (don't hold your breath for the Arab League) will provide massive donations to the new government to help build their State.

In the event they renege on their Peace Treaty, all further aid is withdrawn.

Now if I heard something like that coming from any of Israel's supposed friends, that might make me change my mind.

But they never say this. They are completely in the Palestinian myth and moment and this is why they are in danger of bringing a terrible catastrophe to the Middle East.

Suky Bright

Well done Ms Phillips! You have put into words what many of us know in our hearts but cannot express with the pen. As a christian lover of the people of God - His chosen nation- I cann assure you that many thousands of Christians across the UK agree entirely with what you have written to the P.M and we can endorse your summary of his legacy should he continue this "double-mindedness" toward Israel. TFurthermore a growing number of us are praying fervently for the PM and government to stand with the nation of Israel.

The destiny of our nation can lie with those who are in authority over it-indeed the UK WILL be judged by our actions and intentions toward Israel. FACT.

I sincerely trust and hope that the PM reads and takes on board your word of warning and good counsel. thankyou for standing up and being a very eloquent voice for the Jews not only in UK or Israel but across the globe.

Yours most sincerely,

Suky Bright,
Leicester

aelle

Truthtriumphs,

Your " childishly simple " (sic)
formula for the Middle East peace process : "No negotiation"
recalls the Rev. Ian Paisley's apocalyptic thunderings of
" No surrender ".
The Palestinians - and other Arab or Islamic regimes - must indeed be made to understand that they need to renounce the use of violence and warfare in pursuit of their aims.

They are, in any event, significantly weaker militarily than Israel - nor would the United States or Europe countenance any attempt to destroy the sole democracy at present existing in the Middle East.

Plenty of radical clerics from Pakistan to Palestine proclaim in public their virulent hatred of the West. So what.

The answer is to marginalise the extremists, starve them of popular support by giving the people of these countries a taste of open government, a measure of self-respect and some of the material benefits of 21st century civilisation.

The mullahs will slowly wither on the vine.

Insisting on maintaining a military occupation of Arab areas and refusing to negotiate until the occupants voluntarily kiss Israel's proverbial can only prolong and perhaps intensify the pain on both sides.

How many of the long-suffering inhabitants of Israel - as opposed to those who are at some cosiderable distance from the front line - are content with that?

Herzen

Gershon
May 10th, 2011 9:30am
Two thirds of the population. Under what definition of self-determination would their wishes be ignored? And what "lies" would you be talking about?

TrueToo

aelle, You say:

"The answer is to marginalise the extremists, starve them of popular support by giving the people of these countries a taste of open government, a measure of self-respect and some of the material benefits of 21st century civilisation."

Interesting observation. Not too long into the current revolt in Egypt, there were murmurs about "tearing up" the peace treaty with Israel. Then the gas pipeline from Egypt to Israel (and beyond to Jordan and Syria) was sabotaged. And lately it has been blown up again, with the result that no gas from Egypt is reaching Israel.

Over the years the state media of this "peace partner" of Israel has pumped out anti-Semitic material to rival that of the Nazis and allowed the smuggling into Gaza of weapons and explosives for the murder of Israeli civilians. And Egypt is among the most "moderate" of the Arab states. Is the situation there likely to now be more conducive to peace in the area? I doubt it, what with the ascendancy of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose leader unashamedly advocates the murder of Jews.

There is in fact not the slightest evidence that the "Arab Spring" dawning on the Arab world will reduce Arab hatred of Jews and Israel in the slightest. It is much more likely to exacerbate it.

To assume that throwing material goods at the Arabs will lead to an atmosphere conducive to peace with Israel is a dodgy proposition at best. The hatred is too firmy rooted in the Arab psyche. Israel has numerous NGOs, media and "peace" organisations which oppose the government practically to the point of treason. The Palestinians have few if any comparable organisations. Perhaps if they are able to develop them there will a real chance for peace.

aelle

Mr Rothbart,

Not for nothing have I chosen to respond to you and your -understandably partial but far from unreasonable - proposals, whilst passing over in silence the more hysterical agitators of the blue and white banner.

I agree with you entirely that at this point in time, with the US having dealt a massively symbolic blow to Islamic terrorism, amid the first signs of the Arab world shaking off repression and dictatorship, there is an opportunity to extend a hand from the West - and that plainly includes Israel - to encourage the Arab world to move into the 21st century.
And, of course, that hand needs to be firm, armour-plated even.

The conditions you suggest are exactly those to be expected from an Israeli negotiator and they are not to be argued with.

Only to the extent that negotiation works best as a two-way street is there anything missing from your catalogue.

Is it really so unreasonable to suggest that, even if for a stipulated period to begin with, Israel might put a stop to the continued expansion of the evidently provocative and controversial settlement programme?

If the Palestinians cease their rhetoric and violence, and Israel ceases its territorial expansion maybe neutral observers might start to believe that both parties have a serious interest in a peaceful solution.

I am praying to my -Christian - God that they do.

Nofia Vered Shem Tov

@Jez
For bargaining power, Jez, you obviously have not been watching the news. Not only does Israel now have oil and propane, discovered in the last two years, but we got enough to support ourselves for a century! AND on top of that, when Lebanon tried to claim it for themselves, the maps they pulled as their arguments to take the liquid gold from us ended up giving us even MORE of the refinable riches than they thought!

Peggy Knapp

Thank you Melanie for hitting the nail on the head!!

Peggy Knapp

Thank you Melanie for hitting the nail on the head!!

TrueToo

aelle, you say:

"Mr Rothbart,

Not for nothing have I chosen to respond to you and your -understandably partial but far from unreasonable - proposals, whilst passing over in silence the more hysterical agitators of the blue and white banner."

I've seen no hysteria here from anyone. But of course you can choose who you want to respond to. But Internet forums have this strange twist to them: if you choose not to respond, it's often seen as having no answer to the points raised. Labeling those who raise them as "hysterical agitators" hardly advances your own argument.

Chris

Can we expect anything better from the Brits?
After all, they are Church of England, Anglican. Always been Jew haters.Read history of the British anti Semitism.

The kings borrowed money from Jews to build their magnificant Cathedrals, but did not repay the Jews. Rather, expelled the Jews.

Since Elizabeth became queen, she has visited Arab/Islamic countries, but has never once put her foot into Israel.
Neither have any member of the British Royal family, except when Prince Phillip went to visit his mother's grave once, and that was not an official Royal visit. Any how, it is time for Brits to throw those useless Royals out and make them earn a living, instead of waving at crowd.
How many billions is the Royal family costing the British people who are stupid enough to worship those who are taking money which could have been used for housing and creating jobs.

England should become a Republic with a president.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Aelle: "Insisting on maintaining a military occupation of Arab areas and refusing to negotiate until the occupants voluntarily kiss Israel's proverbial can only prolong and perhaps intensify the pain on both sides."

Where does one start with you, Aelle? There is surely too much thinking to unbundle here.

If I have understood you correctly, you seem to think:

- Islamic zealotry is a mere marginal affair, caused in the main by Israel's arrant imperialism and desire to expel indiginous populations from their native lands

- Israel's unreasonable intransigence - refusing to negotiate because it is committed to its natural predisposition to expand its territory and laud it over its neighbours for the sake of it (could be a Jewish thing, I guess)

- that the Palestinians will - like the Irish - see that violence is a dead-end game (hee hee) - especially if Israel withdraws from occupied territory. You do not specify that if such a withdrawal will satisfy and Palestinians, not to mention those who fund them and furnish them with arms, but we can guess you think it will at least make 'em all warm and fuzzy...and the mullahs, as a result, will surely wither on the vine.

Are you of sound mind, aelle, or have you no experience whatsoever of this reason and read nothing about it at all??

Nothing at all in the history of Middle Eastern Islamism - forget the virulent and very long history of anti semitic propaganda n the Middle East would make one easily convinced that suddenly all would dissipate o insignificance as long as Israel returned to the Green Line. Nothing.

How do seriously think that Iran, Hams, Hizbollah and all the othe rjihadi groups will accept something that was not even in existence when they nevertheless branded Israel as an "occupier" in 1948? What do you believe will stop these people sanctioning Crimes Against Humanaity - crimes committed with repulsive regulaity at least since 1920 against them.

You are one of millions who are part of the School of what I call the Chronic infantilism International Relations.

Obama and his team seem very much part of the School, too, thugh they are particularly dangerous because they couple these faux beliefs in the greater good, coupled with total misreadings of the players they think they can rely on to achieve their goals - as well as a military resource that they can weald to destroy whatever they may want. Not a healthy combo, I fear.

Not sure what to recommend to you, Aelle. Perhaps do some reading. Always a good start..A good start would be "The Flight of the Intellectuals" by Paul Berman.

Elsa

Very well argued, very well backed.

Stephen Rothbart

Aelle, now I am going to upset a few of my allies here, especially Truthtriumphs, but the settler movement is not a simple problem to solve.

I am not a fan of most of the settlers, especially those driven my biblical motives to expand Israel into its "Rightful" place.

But I am not one who denies Israelis to settle where they like, legally and lawfully, in Jerusalem and other strategic areas that help defend the more vulnerable ones (let's call them "buffer zones").

Unfortunately, even the so-called, and now, for all intents and purposes, ex-leader Abbas, wants all that stopped and Jerusalem to become a divided city again.

Until he recants from this viewpoint, you are in a potential state of war and you need to keep "buffer zones" in place.

Every nation in the world has done that, especially Britian and the Allies after WW1 and WW2. And that was even after peace with Germany. Israel has no peace treaty with the Palestinians.

Now even if the Israelis are willing to give some or all of their settlements up, they know they will face a minor civil war with the settlers.

Evacuating Gaza showed how painful this was to Israelis to see the army having to manhandle women and children off a home or business, in order to make peace with the Gazan Palestinians.

And the result of all that pain of NOT occupying Gaza anymore was Hamas firing rockets for 2 years at Israel.

Do you really think that a politician is going to go down that route of even discussing such an action while Hamas is in charge of the Palestinians, or even sharing the government of its fledgling state? Before even a deal was on the table?

And just to put that state of mind in focus, are you aware that just before the signing of the Palestinian "reconciliation" pact in Cairo last week, the Hamas authorities in the Gaza Strip announced the execution by firing squad of Abdel Karim Shrair, 37, on charges of "collaboration" with Israel.

That a few days later in the West Bank, Palestinian gunmen believed to be members of Fatah, murdered Mohammed Khawaldi, 32, who had also been accused of "collaboration" with Israel.

Hamas had previously refused to sign the unity accord with Fatah, demanding an end to all forms of collaboration with Israel. Including Fatah's. Not spying. Collaborating.

In the end, under Egyptian pressure, Hamas agreed temporarily to drop its condition, but how long would you bet your family's life that will last?

What conclusion is there to be drawn about the decision to execute Shrair hours before the signing ceremony in Cairo? Perhaps proof that Hamas sees any collaboration with Israel as a very serious matter.

Why then do the world's leaders and people with your own views expect Israel to agree to do anything for people like this?

Even the British government made it a condition of accepting Sinn Fein representatives into Parliament that the IRA should disarm, and that was even knowing that Gerry Adams was de facto leader of both.

And the IRA was not wishing every Brit in the UK dead.

But these same leaders expect Israel to handover their defensive lines to a people who murder...I am sorry, execute anyone who tries to reach out to Israel. And now Abbas does the same thing.

Oh! Not on the BBC so it did not happen. But it did.

The problem, aelle, is that as a Christian you look upon this with a certain dispassionate point of view, while us "blue and whites" look for the real news that the main media outlets do not bother with, because no one is supposed to break the myth of the Palestinian as victim. Not PC.

I do advise you to check in to Tomgrossmedia.com.

Just like Melanie, Tom has stories there that would give you a different perspective, not because he is selective in his information, that tag belongs to the main media, but because he looks for the stories no one else will tell.

For example it was Tom who broke the story about the Gazan shopping centres and luxury hotels, that eventually even the Guardian had to acknowledge was true, even though, to the best of my knowledge, there are usually no shopping malls and luxury hotels in a "Prison camp" which is what Cameron believes Gaza to be.

Expand your reading sources and then you will see why we blue and whites get a little hot under the collar!

I just wish Cameron would. Might do him a world of good.

aelle

Mr Rothbart

It is indeed bold of you to risk incurring the wrath of both the settlers and Truthtriumphs - I'm not sure which is the more scary of the two.

Contrary to some opinions I am not under the impression that anything at all related to Israel's position in the Middle East is either easy or straightforward - and that includes those negotiating, or refusing to negotiate, on both sides of the wall or whatever the latest boundary line is taken to be.

I have read enough Voltaire to know that optimism is not all that it's cracked up to be, and I was introduced to Israel from North to South by the family who owned Dan Hotels and had been part of the struggle to achieve statehood. They left no doubt in my mind how important their country and their security was to them, and I saw for myself the transformation in the land brought about by the efforts of the first generations of the new Israel.

I grew up in the shadow cast by the unsuccessful attempt by the Nazis to achieve dominion over the world, together with their allies in Italy and Japan - I don't even want to think about the somewhat ridiculous Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.

The next global bogeyman lurked behind Churchill's iron curtain, and even though I was raised by my parents on a diet of Socialism and The Red Flag, I pretty soon realised that this was never going to be an ideology to conquer the world.

Nor do I believe today that the loudly trumpeted Clash of Civilisations will in the long term prevail over the fundamental desire of most people in most places in the world to live their lives with their families in peace and as much prosperity as they can muster.

That said, only the strong and courageous will survive.

Israel - and its friends, need to be both strong and courageous - one of those two is not enough.

I appreciate the sincerity of your arguments and I assure you I will supplement my reading of Ha'aretz and Dahlia Scheindlin with your Mr Gross. Just don't ask me to stomach Daniel Pipes, Geert Wilders or Lars Hedegaard.

But then, something tells me you wouldn't.

Julie M.

How does one post this on Facebook?

Rick

Gershon

Further to Herzen's comments, what proportion of the Yishuv were in fact citizens of Palestine at the time the time the General Assembly recommended partition? - It becomes even less of a puzzle that the much less than a third of the population would accept over a half of the territory (including much the best land) in pursuit of their ultimate and hardly secret goal of taking over the whole of Palestine for their "Jewish state". What then is it you think "totally disgusting"?

arnold powell

Bravo Melanie Phillips. One historical fact you missed out is that amongst the world's nations, the UK uniquely permitted entry to Jewish children in 1938 and 1939. The reason the UK has appeared to foster relations with the Arabs is OIL. Well written Melanie.

Patricia Grey

Wow, so spot on!!
I hope he read it!!!!!!
and took note.

c. snowdowne

~I totally endorse this letter High time that the whole truth
be made known, starting with the PM. I would like him to explain why he described Gaza as a 'Prison Camp' last Summer, implying that Israel is to blame-what about HAMAS?

Okey

Well, Rick, you clearly are a person who believes that it is equitable for the Arab nation (living inside states with artificially drawn boundaries-by imperial Britain and France-) to exercise self-determination in 99.9 % of the Middle East, but quite wrong for the Jewish Nation to enjoy this in the remaining minuscule part, which is only a fifth of what international law in 1922 determined as the future Jewish nation-state?
Is that known as socialism or marxism or Christian fairness?

By the way, how often do you take up the cudgels on behalf of the populous Kurdish Nation, that lives in subjection to Arab and other foreign rule in Turkey, Syria and Iraq? Now there's an opportunity for you to demonstrate your humanitarian credentials.

Okey

It was Britain's first High Commissioner in The Land of Israel who created the post of High Mufti, and appointed to it the notorious "Palestinian" Arab cleric, Haj Amin al-Husseini, who became Hitler's friend and adviser on Jewish affairs. Husseini shared his genocidal mania with Hitler, and he injected nazism into "Palestinian" Arab hearts and minds.
His legacy lives on today.

Pauline

Brilliant article Melanie! Thank you for writing about the truth so eloquently,passionately and courageously. You speak for so many of us. Kol hakavod!

Trow

Bravo Melanie,
PM Cameron needs to know the truth.
Truthtriumph's 11.58 reply states truth and facts,but the world has fashioned her own god which is folly.
What the world needs isTRUTH,theWORD of GOD IS TRUTH
The world is jealous of Israel becauseher people answer the call of help in times of crisis,splendidly listed in May'SISRAEL TODAY where the world stands by, as PM Cameron is seeming to do, he seems to be a manpleaser, he will be seen for what he is, IT WILL NOT DO! do you hear Mr C, ISRAEL IS THE APPLE OF GOD's'EYE
and God has a purpose for our Nation,and you Mr C need to know it before it is too late,
Thankyou for your forthrightness, you speak on behalf of people who care for His Land and People.
The Best is yet to come if we trust in His Truth

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Aelle: Forget Haaretz. Read Paul Berman and Robin Shepherd.

wonderer

@Rick
May 10th, 2011 5:27pm
You say "including much the best land". Most of the land allocated to the proposed Jewish state under the UN Partition Plan was the Negev Desert.

Adam B.

aelle, why did you refer to north London as "occupied territory"?

Please explain.

Truthtriumphs

Stephen Rothbart
May 10th, 2011 2:25pm

"Aelle, now I am going to upset a few of my allies here, especially Truthtriumphs, but the settler movement is not a simple problem to solve".

You really need to sort out the confusion under which you are labouring.
The Israeli inhabitants across the Green line are no more settlers than are those behind it.
They are Israeli citizens of equal legal status.
The Green line, as you should know, is merely an armistice line without any legal significance.
The word "settler" is one that is usefully maintained by Israel's enemies and detractors, to undermine their absolute right to the land upon which they live.
As you must by now realise, the legal position is determined by the Mandate for Palestine document of 1922, as the last legally binding document relating to the status of the area, a status which, btw, has been endorsed by other judgements, such as that of Stephen Schwebel with regard with the WB, which itself had been illegally occupied by Jordan in 1948.
The Mandate called for "close settlement by Jews" of the whole area WEST of the Jordan river.
Jews were not allowed to settle on the East bank.
The area west of the Jordan, ie present day Israel and the WB comprises just 19% or thereabouts of the historic geographical region known as Palestine.
I suggest you ponder on how it came about that the oldest and holiest cemetery in Judaism is in East Jerusalem, how Hebron, the 2nd. holiest place in Judaism with its continuous Jewish presence there, except between 1948 and 1967, is on the West bank etc. etc.
In fact, everyone on the planet is a settler somewhere, and the history of mankind is of migration and conquest, and of indigenous populations being moved on and re-settled elsewhere.
It so happens that the Jews' claims to the Holy land are are amongst the longest-standing, best documented, best evidenced and deepest felt of any peoples’ ties to any land.
In addition, your naive trust that the surrender of the "settlements" would make an iota of difference to the chances of peace defy all the evidence. You misunderstand the raison d'etre of Islam, which is an uncompromising expansionist creed with no place for "the other" except in dhimmitude. Just look at the map to see the reach of Islamic conquests across the globe.
As we have seen, surrender of territory has given the Arabs appetite for more, and pushed peace further away.
Even if Israel were reduced to the size of the Tel Aviv central bus station, that would not satisfy the Arabs.
They say so themselves, so why do you persist in inhabiting the cul de sac of wishful thinking....does it give you the illusion of reasonableness?

Truthtriumphs

aelle.

"Is it really so unreasonable to suggest that, even if for a stipulated period to begin with, Israel might put a stop to the continued expansion of the evidently provocative and controversial settlement programme"?

It did.
Abbas made every excuse not to negotiate.

"If the Palestinians cease their rhetoric and violence, and Israel ceases its territorial expansion maybe neutral observers might start to believe that both parties have a serious interest in a peaceful solution".

Territorial expansion?
When did you last look at a map of the Middle East?
Israel covers an area one sixth of one per cent of the Arab lands.
Still too much for you to grant the Jews, is it?

Penny

Aelle - I'm afraid it's late and I don't have time to read all your posts so perhaps what I have to say has already been mentioned.

You speak of expanding your reading and, as has been suggested, I would endorse Robin Shepherd's 'A State beyond the Pale'. It is an excellent book, well written and very comprehensive.

Might I also suggest you visit YouTube and search for Palestinian TV progrmas; specifically those for children. Here you will see the indoctrination of young minds into hatred, violence and martyrdom. Palestinian culture is now mired in the glorification of the shahid(a). It is difficult to understand how, even if a peace deal was signed tomorrow, the reversal of this indoctrination would see an immediate change in the region.

I would also like to mention one very important point that is seldom considered by Westerners when discussing this conflict. That point is our tendency to believe that our Western values, logic and mindset can be extrapolated across the globe and are true for all people and all cultures.

Because we have this kind of benign arrogance, we simply take it for granted that when presented with situation 'x', we need only apply solution 'y', then outcome 'z' will naturally follow. This, in my view, it is not remotely helpful to the Israel / Palestinian conflict.

Whilst Israel does share our value system, it is evident that Palestinian culture is quite different. It may not be instantly assumed that because their 'rhetoric' sounds like sabre-rattling to us, it is not to be taken very seriously. If they express the aim of killing and/or driving all Jews from the region, why do we apply our values and declare it to be just hot air? We dismiss it because we are applying our values to their intent and, because we find a mis-match, we automatically revert to the more benign view that 'they don't mean it'.

We try to step into the shoes worn by the Palestinians and in doing so, empathise and then lecture Israel on the right and proper way to deal with this conflict. The problem, then, also lies with us, because the shoes we imagine we are stepping into may not be quite the fit we imagined.

My husband is Egyptian - a Jew, forced from his country with 48hrs notice - so I do have some insight into a Middle Eastern culture. I believe we in the West have done the 'extrapolation' thing again with the Arab Spring. We have taken Tahrir Square to be representative of 80 million Egyptians. We have assumed that 'democracy' means the same thing across the globe. If I had a penny for every person I've heard speak of Egypt as if it was now a budding France or Italy, I'd be able to afford a half decent holiday!

Egypt will arrive at a democracy that is representative of its values -and they may be rather different from our own. Thus was the case with the Palestinians in Gaza when they democratically elected the Hamas.

To return to the Israel/Palestinian issue. We may better help those involved in this conflict if we accept that perhaps the Palestinians do not share our values and that approaching the situation from our *logical* perspective only may not be the only way.

Ann Colenutt

An amazingly clear and explicit analysis and history of our sad decline. Thank you Melanie

Dana

As an Israeli just wanted to say thank you !! it does look like the european leaders has decided to yield terrorists for oil or simply because they are afraid to face the extremest muslims in their countries. so thank you so much!

Rick

Okey
May 10th, 2011 7:56pm
The imperial carve-up produced a state called Trans-Jordan and a state called Palestine among all the rest. The Mandate Power was to facilitate a "Jewish National Home" in the latter as well as look after the interests of the inhabitants before deigning to allow them self-determination. International law did not determine anything should be a "Jewish nation state".

You appear to think the word "nation" has magical powers. Call the inhabitants of Palestine part of the "Arab nation" and they no longer have any right to self-determination. Call the Jews a "nation" and they have the right, not just to emigrate to Palestine (which is fair enough), but to establish a state against the wishes of the inhabitants of Palestine. I had thought this dangerous 19th century European romantic idea of the nation and the Folk had gone the way of other delusions that were put into practice in the 20th century and found to have unfortunate consequences.

It is curious that the Kurds are suddenly a concern once Turkey has begun to misbehave, just as they became a concern once Saddam stopped being "our" thug. In the 1990s, when the US was providing Turkey with the arms to quell its Kurds, there was a very loud silence about their fate. The Kurds in Iraq did not fair much better until the first Gulf War. And yet throughout this period non-persons like Noam Chomsky were working tirelessly to publicise the atrocities committed against Kurds. Spare me your righteousness.

Truthtriumphs

Penny.

"I would also like to mention one very important point that is seldom considered by Westerners when discussing this conflict. That point is our tendency to believe that our Western values, logic and mindset can be extrapolated across the globe and are true for all people and all cultures".

Exactly...and that lies at the heart of the problem, as I have said many times.
An excellent post!

Truthtriumphs

aelle.

"Insisting on maintaining a military occupation of Arab areas and refusing to negotiate until the occupants voluntarily kiss Israel's proverbial can only prolong and perhaps intensify the pain on both sides".

I suggest you read this before you sound off again.
You might learn something about the "concessions" the Arabs have ever agreed on.
Here's the link.

http://www.danielpearl.org/news_and_press/articles/dialogue_of_deaf.html

As I'm sure you know, Judea Pearl is the father of Daniel Pearl, who was so cruelly butchered in Pakistan, for the crime of being Jewish, by Muslims, the cheerleader of whom was educated here in the UK in one of our finest universities.
Judea Pearl himself is a distinguished professor of computer science in the university of California, and a man without a trace of vengeance.
You might learn something from him!

Stephen Rothbart

Truthtriumphs, thanks, and I do understand the rationale behind the settler movement.

To be clear, there are degrees of Settlers. Jerusalem is, for me, off the table for discussion.

I know there are holy sites for Jews all over the place, but if Israel is to be different from the Arabs, it has to compromise on its Holy sites.

Therefore expansion of settlers into parts of ancient Judea and Samaria simply because of a religious imperative, are for me, personally, something that should be given up, and I believe it would be if a true partner for peace was ever found on the other side.

Yes, why not have an Jewish ghetto in Palestine where Jews who want to live there can be near their spiritual home? But to call it Israel, I think is wrong, and to expect the IDF to protect the people who choose to live there is also wrong.

I can only express my opinion, as do others on this site.

If we all agreed there would be no point in contributing.

We would all write "Yes Melanie!" and that would be it.

The debate can be vigorous and insults are bound to fly, but everyone, even Derek Blades, is entitled to their opinons, no matter how misguided we may feel them to be, or how you feel mine to be.

I have learned things from you, and I hope others have too, and that would never have happened if aelle and Herzen and Blades had not contributed their own views.

I am continually struck by the fact that in watchng the terrible events happening in the Arab Middle East how ramshackle and under developed are the nations of Syria, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya etc. and anyone who has visited Israel and seen the way the Arab villages look compared to the Israeli ones, will understand that for the Middle East, there are the rich and the very poor, and for years the very poor did not seem to mind because they were sustained by their religion.

As Penny has so eloquently pointed out, there is a huge difference in mindset between the Arab world and the western mentality.

A people so focused on sustaining a mythic religion as their focal point in their lives cannot possibly view the modern world the way we, as a largely secular pople do.

If you put your religion before everything, family, friends, state, Life, then that is what defines you.

David Cameron cannot understand that, not can Sarkozy, which is why they will probably make the biggest mistake of their lives if they recognize a Palestinian State run by Hamas/Iran.

All we blue and whites can do is keep trying to repeat that until someone finally understands, and who can make a difference.

But as aelle says, there has still to be compromise, and religiously inspired settlers living in their own religious dogma must make way for Public Opinion in Israel, which is also against them.

Rick

Stephen Rothbart
May 11th, 2011 10:21am
You say you understand the rationale given by Truthtriumphs for the settlement of the West Bank. I think I do too. Doesn't make it any more accurate in its historical justification or legal under international law (despite what Mr. Schwebel, Stone, Lautepracht, Grief...may say - and despite the undoubted eminence of Profs. Stone and Lautepracht).

Jerusalem is for you off the table for discussion. "Jerusalem" is now five times larger than it was in 1967. It extends well into the West Bank and will fortuitously constitute one of the barriers cutting off the Palestinians from each other, confining them in little cantons.

Why should "Jerusalem" be off the table? Give Israel long enough, on this principle, and Greater Jerusalem will soon enough incorporate everything worth incorporating.

Adam B.

Rick

You are quite wrong that the imperial carve up produced two states, Transjordan and Palestine. It produced one - Transjordan, which is an exclusively Arab state with not a Jew to be seen. The remaining one fifth of the land remained the British mandate of Palestine - it was not a state, nor had it ever been, except as a Jewish one.

It is worth noting that the Israelis and the Kurds have had close connections for a long time.

Adam B.

Rick

Answer me this. Should the Jewish and Armenian quarters of the Old City of Jerusalem, which includes the holiest site of Judaism on earth, be given to the Palestinian Arabs? If so, on what precedent? You seem keen that Israel, as a Jewish state, should discuss giving up its holiest sites.

I could really imagine that happening in reverse.

Rick

Stephen Rothbart

"... the way the Arab villages look compared to the Israeli ones, will understand that for the Middle East, there are the rich and the very poor, and for years the very poor did not seem to mind because they were sustained by their religion..."

Is this not presumptuous? One of the causes of the uprisings is economic. The people are protesting about their poverty and the kleptocrats who keep them in poverty.

Opinion polls for the last sixty years have shown consistently that the main reason people in Arab states dislike the US is because they know that it keeps in power regimes whose policies impoverish their people but further the interests of the US. In other words, Arabs are as rational as the rest of us. (And, yes, they are as rational as the rest of us also when trapped in regimes the US doesn't like.)

I am no scholar of Islam, and no enthusiast for religion generally, but your characterisation of it also seems to me presumptuous. Any of the "great" religions has accumulated good and bad features.

Rick

Adam B.
May 11th, 2011 11:10am
I think, if you read the mandates for Iraq, Syria, Palestine, that you will find you are mistaken. Each mandate was different and was implemented differently. Transjordan was included in the mandate for Palestine. Implementation of the mandate for Transjordan was finally completed in 1928 (I think) with a treaty between Britain and Transjordan. Britain's administration of the Mandate was approved at every stage by the League. Palestine was provisionally recognised as a state (and Britian concluded treaties on its behalf as a state distinct from Britain). Palestine was not a part of the Empire or a protectorate. It was a separate state temporarily administered by Britain as a Mandate Power appointed by the League. (The trustee of a trust does not own the trust.) You will find that staunch Zionists are of the same opinion. This much should not be controversial.

I would be surprised if Israel aided the Kurds of Turkey while Turkey was its main ally in the region. I would be surprised likewise with the Kurds of Iraq while Iraq was being envouraged by the US to wage war on Iran. I would not be suprised if it helped the Kurds in Iran. Israel and the US have long provided funding and weapons to "freedom fighters" (what in other circumstances would be called terrorists) in Iran. But perhaps you tell me otherwise.

Truthtriumphs

Stephen Rorhbart.

"But as aelle says, there has still to be compromise, and religiously inspired settlers living in their own religious dogma must make way for Public Opinion in Israel, which is also against them."

That's the point, the compromise has been a one way street, from the Israeli side only.
Please do read the article by Judea Pearl...I sent the link to aelle, and then talk to me about compromise.
Islam is where it is, having invaded and colonised vast areas of the globe, because "compromise" is an alien idea.
I have no objection to people expressing different views, but for goodness sake, let them be based on facts and consistency, not emotional responses to populist clap trap.
Maybe it's because I'm a science based person, that I tend to go back to first principles, rather than take on board the "mode du jour" or the prevailing zeitgeist, without thinking it through first.

What I have learned from you is how easy it is to dissemble to well-meaning people desperate for peace, and how successful is the repetition of malign propaganda.

"I know there are holy sites for Jews all over the place, but if Israel is to be different from the Arabs, it has to compromise on its Holy sites".

That remark terrifies me in its naivete, and illogicality.
There aren't holy sites all over the place, as you put it, and Hebron is the number two in Judaism, a place which has been lived in continuously by Jews since biblical times, except when they were ethnically cleansed from there for a short period of time.
To give it up, would send the message to the Arabs that if they persist long enough, they will get everything, Jerusalem included.
It's people like you who reinforce that idea, and push peace further away, whatever the nobility of your intentions.

sylvia dyson

Dear Melanie
congratulations on your brilliant clarity and boldness to express the absolute truth ... ... both for Britain the World.... There is nothing I want to share more right now than this letter....

Truthtriumphs

Rick
May 11th, 2011 10:57am
Stephen Rothbart
May 11th, 2011 10:21am

"You say you understand the rationale given by Truthtriumphs for the settlement of the West Bank. I think I do too.
Why should "Jerusalem" be off the table? Give Israel long enough, on this principle, and Greater Jerusalem will soon enough incorporate everything worth incorporating".

How about having everything "on the table" up for discussion?
Then it must include all the lands conquered by the ruthless march of Islam over the centuries, and stolen from the indigenous inhabitants who were forcibly converted or put to death?
Why are the Muslims immune to dicussion of establishment of ownership, according to your criteria?
If they were, you would find that Judaism's claims to that tiny sliver of land is stronger by every criterion, than are the Arab nations to theirs.

truthtriumphs

Rick
May 11th, 2011 11:25am
Stephen Rothbart

"... the way the Arab villages look compared to the Israeli ones, will understand that for the Middle East, there are the rich and the very poor, and for years the very poor did not seem to mind because they were sustained by their religion..."

What gibberish are you talking....I've seen some fabulous ones that put many Jewish areas to shame, like Mea Shearim?
Remarks like that are OK for the uneducated/primitive and gullible.
Everyone else will laugh in your face at your cheap propaganda.

Augustus

After a great deal of military build up against Israel in 1967 Israel struck the first defensive blow; it conquered the Golan Heights from Syria, The Sinai and the Gaza Strip from Egypt, Samaria and Jerusalem
from Jordan. Israel was being threatened with a second Holocaust and there were very few people at the time who disagreed with Israel's motives. Nobody was talking about a Palestinian state, and certainly not about a Palestinian population. Many in the legal profession accepted Israel's right to 'occupy' her historic homeland, and to settle there, because the area had been illegally occupied by Arab lands since 1948.
But one organization thought differently,
however, and that was the International Red Cross in Geneva. From the early 1970s onwards they were the ones who used post-WW2
doctrines devized by The Hague Convention to
protect innocent civilians such as those in Europe who had suffered under Nazi rule, and unilaterally twisted both The Hague Convention and the fourth Geneva Convention
to devise a weapon of illegality against Israel. And that is how the subsequent Israeli occupied territories became 'illegal'. Nothing more than an IRC
con. They didn't follow precedent, they invented the whole thing.

Adam B.

Rick - none of which backs your claim that Palestine was a state. It patently was not, and was administered entirely by the British. In addition, when the League of Nations referred to "Palestine", it was not defined as being Jewish or Arab. And subsequent UN declarations clarified the matter. Is this an attempt, as we have seen here before, to pretend that an Arab "Palestine" was recognized as a state before Israel was re-established? What is your motive for this purely academic and theoretical discussion?

The Kurds and Israel have long been friends. The Kurds have recently suffered terribly at the hands of Syria, with around 300,000 being forced into camps in the south (with ne'er a peep from the obsessives who bash Israel), with mass arrestst and torture the order of the day (all occurring before these uprisings). But you need to investigate this - Israel and the Kurds go back a long way - they have both been victims of Arab aggression and intolerance. And both are the most enlightened and progressive societies in the Middle East.

Adam B.

Ricj, perhaps you would respond to my question about Jerusalem?

ILoveBooks

Well put Melanie! Bravo! Hoorah!

Now, will it make a difference. I certainly hope so. More people need to be so brave as to publicly take to task our public servants and deplore hatred and bigotry.

Let us know if you get a response - not likely I know, but would be good to know.

Rick

Adam B.
May 11th, 2011 11:14am
I have had fair warning of your odd notion of how honest debate works.

What have holy sites to do with the steady expansion of "Jerusalem" eastwards?

Adam B.
May 11th, 2011 2:15pm
Your account here is hopelessly garbled. Can I suggest you go back to the historical evidence from which both Zionists and anti-Zionists have concluded that the League of Nations provisionally recognized Palestine as a state.

Syria, of course! I knew there was one I had missed. So, Israel helped Kurds in Syria and Iran, and ignored them in Turkey and Iraq until Turkey and Iraq turned from, - if not goodies", then our "baddies", - into bad baddies...which rather makes my point for me. Thank you.

Rick

Stephen Rothbart

...and you say you "learn" from Truthtriumphs?

Carol

Thank you for your coherent and courageous expression of the serious situation the country stands in.

Adam B.

Rick, you speak of "honest debate" but then simply put words in my mouth. I said nothing of the Kurds of Turkey. It is a distinction you make. The Kurds are the Kurds, spread over several countries. They are the same people, and they have been oppressed by all those countries. Israel has traditionally had good relations with them. You seem to be castigating Israel for not helping the Kurds of Turkey enough. Well, what assistance has Britian offered them? Why do you single israel out for this, when no other country has offered them assistance? Is it the responsibility of Israel alone to do so? Please elucidate.

Another disingenuous point - you say "Jerusalem needs to be on the table", but then refuse to acknowledge that the crux of the problem is indeed the holy sites. This is not about the Palestinians wanting to take control of Maale Adumim, nor is it about israel insisting on keeping some outlying Arab village which falls within the minicipal bounadries. In fact, your argument about Jerusalem expanding could be viewed as being a good argument for it to remain as part of Israel - Jerusalem has thrived under Israeli sovereignty, whereas when the Jordanians occupied it, it did not expand, and indeed became Jew free thanks to the ethnic cleansing of the Arab Legion.

So perhaps you would address what you think should be done with the Temple Mount, the Jewish Quarter and the Armenian Quarter...and why you seem to think these should be up for negotiation?

Penny

TruthTrimphs - thank you for your kind words. I wrote my comment at 4am - and it shows. It's rather muddled and a tad repetitive, but I hope I made my basic point!

I can recall many examples of clashing values, but one which stands out occurred in a post-Newsnight discussion where the speakers were three members of our intelligentsia and one Islamist cleric.

This cleric was not British-born and had arrived in the UK as a young man. He disliked Britain and its culture so would not enter into it in any way, shape or form. As a result of his dislike and lack of willingness to engage with our society he lived off benefits whilst he waited for an Islamic, theocratic state to come into being.

The intelligentsia tackled him in a very robust manner. Their arguments were, in my view, logical, moral and based very much on Western values of tolerance and freedom.

I watched as the intelligentsia became increasingly aghast, impatient and, towards the end, almost apoplectic with frustration at the cleric, whose replies appeared to them to be those of a wilful, beligerent teenager who believed the world and all those in it existed for his benefit.

Except those views were nothing of the sort. This man was being extremely honest and speaking from a conviction in his own values. He wasn't - as it seemed - attempting to wind them up, wilfully aggravate or behave in a beligerent manner.

As a result of their conflicting values, the two parties spent the entire program talking past each other.

In my view, our lack of understand that Western values are not universal is not helpful. We continually behave as if we can take each and every conflict in the world and, by applying our Western logic-based solutions, allow the warring parties to reach a swift resolution. The fact that we have tried this endlessly with the Israel/Palestine conflict demonstrates the validity of Einstein's comment that "the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result"

I don't have any answers as to how we could or should proceed. I just know that if we accept that different value systems exist, we might be able us to understand that resolving conflicts such as that in Israel/Palestine is less straigtforward than it seems.

Mary Sayer

Thank you Melanie for so clearly capturing Britain's responsibility for the shameful treatment of the Jewish people and the challenge facing our Government to do the right thing at last.

Penny

I seem to recall reading comments about some Arab areas in Israel being deprived. I'm afraid I can't recall who voiced this opinion and I haven't the time to go back over the many posts to address the exact question.

I expect there is some truth in this statement, but it equally applies to the UK. Most of us will know of an area in or near our own which is run down. And this is particularly so of inner city areas.

A friend of a friend, when the opportunity presents itself, takes to his soapbox on the issue of Arab evictions, run-down areas, etc. etc as if they were evidence for a deliberately selective and oppressive Israeli regime. He doesn't stop to think that in addtion to our own areas of deprivation, we too have planning laws which restrict individuals from building willy-nilly - and if they do their buildings may be demolished. He doesn't stop to think that we too have tenancy laws which are applied, resulting in the eviction of individuals - sometimes with the assistance of a bailiff.

But what amuses me the most is that it is this same individual, quick as you like to accuse Israel of racism, that is the first to throw a hissy fit when Travellers camp in his area. He isn't shy of lifting the phone to demand that the council, courts and police take swfit action to move them on.

He his blind to his own hypocrasy and I suspect that many who point fingers at Israel are similarly - albeit not wilfully - disposed.

But - to return to Arab towns. I have driven through many and as yet have not seen anything I would class as deprived. That's not to say that they don't exist, of course. However, what I would point out is that many Arab towns are governed by Arab councils. Some are very tribal and, when grants come in to, say, improve the water systems, the job isn't always given to the company best qualified to carry out the work, but to their own family's connections.
The net result is sometimes wasted money and faulty utility systems or buildings and, over time, towns which lack services or appear deprived.

Rick

Adam B.
May 11th, 2011 3:11pm
As I say, I had fair warning.

Kurds are Kurds. We can agree. Israel has been very selective in which Kurds it supports. It ignored the plight of those persecuted by its allies (the allies also of the US and UK, who were similarly selective).

Stephen Rothbart said that Jerusalem is off the table. Since 1967, "Jerusalem" has incorporated more and more of the West Bank. So, Mr. Rothbart's position is that more and more of the West Bank is to be off the table.

You are at liberty to ignore my point, but don't pretend to be responding to it.

It is easy enough in any case to show that "the holy sites" will have the same fortuitous consequence - Jerusalem is not on the table because of the holy sites; Jerusalem is expanding into the West Bank; any and all of the West Bank that Israel says is part of Jerusalem is off the table.

Truthtriumphs

Rick

"Palestine was provisionally recognised as a state (and Britian concluded treaties on its behalf as a state distinct from Britain). Palestine was not a part of the Empire or a protectorate. It was a separate state temporarily administered by Britain as a Mandate Power appointed by the League."

Sorry, but it never existed as a state.
It's quite amazing what you, Herzen and Ceato manage to invent.

Why don't the 3 of you get together and write the "Definitive Guide to the Invention of the State of Israel."
I'm sure you'll get advances from the very wealthy Arab lobby. (Maybe you do already).

Truthtriumphs

Truthtriumphs
May 11th, 2011 12:01pm
Rick
May 11th, 2011 10:57am

Well, what's your answer?

Rick

Truthtriumphs
May 11th, 2011 5:33pm
I'm terribly sorry, but, not for the first time, and, I'm sure, not for the last, you are simply wrong. It's quite amazing how you manage to convince yourself of your infallability - you don't even need to put in any effort.

Tilly

Truthtriumphs-

I have read the Judea Pearl article you recommend - a huge improvement on your usual offerings.

Not sure you and he wouldn't soon come to blows in a conference hall, though...

The frustration Pearl expresses over Arab refusals to countenance the legitimacy of a Jewish state would, I'm sure, be equally felt on hearing your (spookily similar) rhetoric regarding a Palestinian one.

Stephen Rothbart

Well I thought I would upset some people and it looks like I succeeded.

Rick, I am not talking down at the poverty of the majority of Arab states, especially those without oil. I am observing what anyone can see if they look beyond their PC sensibilities.

Yes, the people are protesting against poverty, but Israel also has no oil, and is thriving.

There is little poverty there.

Why?

And which comes first? Brutal dictators who supress their people to make them poor, or who supress them because they are poor?

Look at the background pictures of the CNN and BBC broadcasts of Yemen, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Libya, Tunisia etc.

Ramshackle and poorly maintained buildings and shops that look like third world slums. And that is because, largely they are.

Yet on every broadcast, thousands of young men demonstrating or marching through the streets to carry the coffins of their dead.

Massive unemployment and no prospects for improvement.

No re-investment in infrastructure. No job creation.

Well the Hasids in Israel and the US and Europe also have similar circumstances. Living off handouts and oblivious to their material circumstances, so its also true of some Jews. I am not being supremist.

What do these people share in common? A blind adulation and devotion of their religion, so that it takes over everything else.

Who wants to invest in a country where its religion requires its people to stop working 5 times a day to worship and pray?

Penny's illustration of the Islamic cleric's ability to see no shame in taking handouts from a society that he abhors sums it all up.

And yes if you go to Israel you CAN tell which are Arab villages and Jewish ones, just by looking at them from afar.

Did the West or Israel cause this state of affairs? No.

Did the fact that these Arab states were poor and bankrupt mean that to keep them stable, strong men took over and ruled with a rod of iron to keep the peace? Maybe.

And did these dictators steal what little wealth there was, and the West, preferring a stable Middle East to one constantly at war with itself, paid the dictators to do it?

Probably.

Look at Hamas. A terror gang that has done nothing to advance the prosperity of its people.

Despite the attempts to hide it, there are luxury goods and hotels and restaurants in Gaza, and want to bet who owns and controls them?

The tunnels that Hamas dug and "licensed" to people to operate for cash. That is the Gazan economy, handouts from the EU, the UN and Iran and Mafia like protection gangs.

Corruption is endemic in the Middle East.

That is why there is turmoil. No jobs, no prospects and nothing will change this until radical Islam is eliminated and people become competitive in producing something other than tourism and terrorism based on Islam.

This is not elitism, this is fact.

The oil rich states are not much better, but why do the Gulf States have to import workers from the Philippines and Thailand when there is so much unemployment in other Arab states?

Because those people work and for little money, and probably don't all go off and pray 5 times a day.

Truthtriumphs, it is impossible to argue with you if you think that every nation in the world is entitled to go back to square one to establish whether its people can rightfully live there. There is a connection for Jews to the land of Israel, but the legitimacy of its creation were various acts taken by Britain and the UN.

Saying the Arabs have no right to live where they do becasue they themselves stole land is ridiculous.

On that basis half the population of England should go back to Scandinavia and France, and the Welsh should all move back to replace them.

Yes, Jews have always lived in the Middle East, and yes, we all invoked Jerusalem at prayer, but what gives Israel legitimacy is the UN edict and the Balfour Declaration not wishful thinking.

The history of mankind is one of wandering, nomadic existence, with wars and conquests thrown in.

The FACT is that Israel was established with a vote by the UN in 1948. They were attacked, and prevailed in subsequent wars and thus expanded their territory the way every victor at war does, pending a peaceful resolution.

In other words Israel behaves much like any other nation in the world, but is the only one that is treated like a pariah for doing so.

That's it. Nothing more. Now a new state run by gangsters and terrorists and backed by Iran is in the process of being set up, and our stupid government is likely to back it.

That is the point. Not a 2,000 year old history.

Andrew

Jez,

Your intention is good, but as for 'Palestine' under the Ottomans there wasn't one. The geographical name, of course, was in use, but that had no defined extent. There was no administrative unit of that name, i.e. there would not be a lot to superimpose on.

Andrew

I am not going to praise Melanie, because I prefer avoiding to state the self evident.

Guy

We recently learned that Israel sought to assist Argentina against Britain during the Falklands Conflict. Cheers guys.

Truthtriumphs

Stephen Rothbart.

"The FACT is that Israel was established with a vote by the UN in 1948
That is the point. Not a 2,000 year old history."

What really upsets me are opinions based on lazy ignorance (your case) as well as malevolence (Herzen et al).

Go and read what Churchill said was the raison d'etre of the re-establishment of the Jewish state.
Your posts are getting tedious.

Herzen

Truthtriumphs
May 11th, 2011 5:33pm
I might be able to help you with some quotes.

The first is from a M. Orts, who was chairman of the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations, and therefore something of an authority on the interpretation of the Mandates: "Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the Mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them on her behalf, in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship."

Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne: "Turkish subjects habitually resident in terriotry which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred."

William Ormsby Gore (under secretary to the Colonial Office and UK representative to the Permanent Mandates Commission and signatory of many of the British documents from 1919 and through the Mandate): "HMG conceived it as of the essence of such a mandate as the Palestine mandate, an A mandate, and of Article 22 of the Covenant, that Palestine should be developed, not as a British colony permanently under British rule, but as a self-governing State or States with the right of autonomous evolution."

Palestine had a population, a territory, a government in effective control of the territory and with the capacity through the mandatory power to enter into international relations with other subjects of international law, and was treated as such both in theory and in practice.

You appear to have been bamboozled by the fact that Palestine was not straightforwardly a state like any other, but fell within the novel category of mandatory state, in which sovereignty was deferred (as Howard Grief expressed it).

Rick

Truthtriumphs
May 11th, 2011 5:38pm
Tell me what it is you want me to reply to. Is it the suggestion that everything should be on the table and we should acknowledge that Zionists, and before them the British, Turks, Arabs, Romans, Greeks, various Mesopotamians, Jewish tribes, Canaanites, any number of tribes in the iron age...in the bronze age...in the stone age...

Rick

Stephen Rothbart
May 11th, 2011 6:22pm
Your comment shows an admirably open mind, a breathtaking faith in unexamined prejudice, profound ignorance, genuine decency...I simply do not know how to respond.

Can I just ask you to clarify one point before I stagger off, dazed and bemused: are you saying that Palestinian Israeli citizens live in poor villages while Jewish Israeli citizens live in affluent villages because Palestinian Israeli citizens adhere to a barbaric religious faith?

Roy

Melanie your letter is absolutely right & we need more of our leaders to speak out in this way to get the correct message across to our government
I hope David Cameron reads it.

Truthtriumphs

Tilly
May 11th, 2011 6:16pm
Truthtriumphs-

"I have read the Judea Pearl article you recommend - a huge improvement on your usual offerings.
The frustration Pearl expresses over Arab refusals to countenance the legitimacy of a Jewish state would, I'm sure, be equally felt on hearing your (spookily similar) rhetoric
regarding a Palestinian one".

Except that there are twenty two Arab states and just one Jewish state. Slight difference.
True to form, Tilly.
Sanctimonious and stupid in equal measure.

Adam B.

Guy

We "learned" nothing of the sort. A book has been published which made this allegation.

It is also rather hypocritical to get on your high horse, as Britain has consistently armed countries at war with Israel, and even provided officers for the Arab Legion which ethnically cleansed Jerusalem of Jews.

Cheers yourself.

Adam B.

Rick, it really takes the biscuit to level accusations about how people engage in discussion, and then you studiously refuse to reply directly to a reasonable question.

Jerusalem, if you knew anything about the "peace" negotiations, is on the table precisely because of the holy sites. It is absurd to imply that the religious sites are a mere sideshow to the more important question of a miniscule proportion of the West Bank. That is why we have seen a steadfast refusal from the Palestinian leadership since Arafat, and including Abbas, to acknowledge the importance of sites like the Temple Mount, and the Western Wall, to Judaism. To claim that this is not the central reason why Jerusalem is on the table is preposterous - and you must surely know it. But I am asking YOU what you think should be done with these sites, and the areas of the city which are the Jewish and Armenian Quarters. Should they be given to the Palestinian Arabs, and if so, on what precedent? It is a reasonable question, in order to gauge your personal opinion. So often, people come here to attack Israel, hurling endless tirades, but give nothing away about what they themselves think.

Furthermore, I am intrigued as to your accusation that Israel hasn't done enough for the Kurds of Turkey - a bizarre position, considering that no other country seems to have leapt to their defence either. Why are you castigating Israel, and Israel alone, for not doing something no-one else has done either? Turkish warplanes are bombing Kurdish villages in northern Iraq, Kurds who have received Israeli aid and assistance. Israel is in a position to help because of the semi-autonomy that the Kurds of Iraq enjoy (and use to excellent effect - if only the Arab world could model itself on them). I remain perplexed as to how you think Israel should help the Kurds in Turkey. Should they send aid, bypassing Turkish official channels, and thus possibly provoke a war with Turkey, or send military assistance? What exactly would be enough to satisfy you?

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Penny: well said (all your posts).

Who can understand the hysteria against Israel over Operation Cast Lead, for example, versus the relative silence over the Syrian regime killing even more civilians - and, in this case, its very OWN, not even the putative enemy beyond one's boarders who is sworn to annihilate you and tries to do just that almost every day. The Syrain killing of civilians is 100% unequivocally deliberate, as opposed to israel who at least has a case that it was not doing so, even according to Judge Goldstone - until recently a Palestinian and lib-left luvvie.

Who can understand the lack of demonstrating i the streets of Western capitals about Gaddafi, or the Taliban or Iran, or the Palestinian murdering of children etc etc etc?

WE cant. These people are different to us in fundamental ways. The game in play - in too many respects - is a zero sum one. There can never be what we would recognise as a meeting of minds/cultures so the future can evolve in a way all parties recognise as beneficial. At best, the Arabs and muslims pay lip service to our ethical concepts (they are "democrats"; the yearn for "freedom", "equal rights", "self-determination"...) but they actually share precious few of them. Sure they want food on the table, blah, blah..but apart from those basics, we 're in the land of the inexorable divide.

From the Nazi-loving Al Husseini and his mate, Hassan al-Banna (still the greatest intellectual influence on the Moslem Brotherhood which Obama seems so in love with) - to the apparently liberal/moslem "reformist" ( a bigger charlaton would be hard to find) like Tariq Ramadan (Banna's grandson) - we have example after example of the extent to which this difference to us is simply "in the blood". It was the same with Hitler. The difference was mutally exclusive. Him or us.

This leaves one option: ongoing conflict of one kind or another.It is not only Israel that must resign itself to the fact (which, no doubt, it has) but the entire non muslim world. Obama, for whatever reason, thinks he is different and can transcend these differences and bring peace. Sounds honourable indeed, but will end up being more perfidious than a strategy based on the zero sum premise.

obama will marry the Bortherhood, but I have no doubt will end up having his metaphorical genitals mutilated and cause alot of the world to suffer a similar fate.

..and even if the likes of herzen realised their dream and could cause Israel to be simply decomissioned - to allow for millions of of so-called palesintians to return to their native land and for the Jew not to ddetermine - any longer - any political outcomes in the region, if not disappear totally, the murder would and mayhem and totalitarianism would still define these peoples. Sring is already turning to Autumn, as the Aarab world gives carte blanche to iran and Syria as they kill their own poeple, as the Egyptian military use the Jew and alliance with Islamism to cement its future psoition, as "moderate" Palestinie becomes subsumed by the zealots....

The West should hang its head in shame. It allows for our kids to come back in body bags fighting this scurge, whilst permitting and even encouraging its growth.Opportunism generates the most horrific paradoxes, for sure...It is the flowing of blood which seems most often to be the the one element of consistency...

shella barth

very interesting and well informed .....gets right to the point...hope it gets to P.M.

Rick

Adam B.
May 12th, 2011 12:25am
This is curious. I make a specific point. You reply to a completely different point. And then you insist I address the issue!

"A miniscule proportion" of the West Bank is it? Look at the maps as the settlements have developed over the last forty years. Look at the distance between the settlements that extend Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley. Then address the question why in principle Jerusalem should be off the table when it is being used to encroach yet further on occupied territory.

Holy sites are not the main issue. Whatever the final settlement of the conflict, there will have to be free access, even if both sides have to go back to the UN proposal of an international presence to ensure it. A brief look at the Palestinian Papers will show you that it is not the Palestinians who have been obstructive.

I am intrigued at your difficulties over the Kurds. I believe it was Okey used the now standard rhetorical trick of demanding why those who criticise Israel's treatment of the Palestinians aren't concerned with the fate of the Kurds. You jumped in with the useful information that Israel has long been very close to the Kurds. I pointed out the hypocrisy, which Israel shares with its sponsor and its sponsor's faithful servant. I am also intrigued that you think Israel incapable of diplomatic representations to Turkey on behalf of the Kurds until Tureky stopped being Israel's friend.

Tilly

Truthtriumphs -

Yes, I can just see it now ...

Dialogue on Palestinian website:

El-Tilly: Jews are entitled to a state of their own no less than we are.

El-Truthtriumphs: Nonsense! There are countries all over Europe, not to mention the USA, where Jews have lived for centuries. Let them make their "state" in one of those!

El-Tilly: Oh dear, you sound just like a certain Zionist extremist whose post I was reading the other day, saying Palestinians had 22 Arab states to choose from and should go live in one of those...

El-Truthtriumphs: Don't be so stupid and sanctimonious!

Guy

Adam B.

How you interpret my comment as getting on my "high horse" is beyond me. Oh well.

The point is, as with the use of fake British passports by Israeli agents on assasination missions, that the interests of Israel and Britain are not identical. Israel is of course perfectly entitled to pursue her interests as she sees fit, but then so is Britain. And if these interests conflict Britain is entitled to purse policies contrary to Israeli interests. Just international politics really.

Stephen Rothbart

Rick, can you firstly define what you mean by a Palestinian Israeli?

All Israelis are Palestinian, because Palestine is a region in which Israel sits, along with Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Gaza.

If you mean Arab Israelis then yes to a large extent that is correct, and not because you put the words in my mouth of accusing all Muslims of following a barbaric religion.

They come from a more relaxed culture, where time and the making of money is not so important. Israelis are more often coming from the US or Europe or Russia and thik differently.

It is a bit like our own views about people from the Mediterranean regions having siestas and where the word "manana" was considered a national characteristic. We are not all alike, and thnk goodness for that.

Interestingly, though, last night CNN showed a program on Afghanistan in which young boys are educated in school to learn only about their religion.

They cannot do maths, learn history - other than what their imam tells them, economics or languages.

They are told to hate infidel and especially Americans.

Osama bin Laden is their idol. Their one ambition is to grow up and kill Americans. The program also focused on how some imams are recruiting boys as young as 9 to be suicide bombers, and they put a scroll of verses from the Koran around their necks to give them faith in their mission.

While this is an extreme situation, in some of the more radical Islamic States, and in Pakistan and Iran, this is certainly the kind of education many young boys are being given.

Girls are not encouraged to have any worthwhile education.

What is the possible result of this kind of teaching in a modern technological world?

Draw your own conclusion.

As you seem to have ignored the fact that I also included religiously indoctrinated Jews into the same category, I will not be drawn into a Jew v Arab culture competition. It was not the intention to deal with this at that level.

There are many wealthy and successful Arab and Muslims all around the world. Many no longer live in the Middle East and one has to wonder if the wealthy ones that do would have been quite so successful if they had not been sitting on massive oil and gas reserves.

But if you can tell me what technological discoveries, multi-national industries, car or machine manufacturing industries have come out of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan or Iran in the recent years, or even the Gulf and Saudi states please do.

It's not just about religion.

It's about culture.

Making money is not everything, and there is nothing wrong in spending your life in worship of your God if that is what you choose to do.

But if your mission is also to export your religion, supress those that don't agree with you, and kill those that want to leave your religion, then something is not well with that life style. Christianity went through the same process, but I think we have all out grown the Crusades.

And if religion is everything to a person's life and dictates how they live and at what level, then this will have an affect on their living standards, whether they are Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu or Muslim.

Look around the world and you will see the nations where religion plays a dominant part in the culture of their society, there is poverty.

And if that religion teaches you to hate the other's religion to the point of feeling it your duty to kill, sanctioned by your God, then yes, that is barbaric.

Do all Muslims do that? No. Do some? Yes. Does the Koran incite violence? Yes. Does it incite violence aginst Jews? Yes.

So if you are a devout Muslim and take the Koran literally, you may harbour the same kind of anti-Semitic inclinations the Gospels taught the Christians when it blamed the Jew for the death of Jesus.

Mostly Christsianity has grown up and away from this hatred, although a visceral anti-Semitism is certainly still in evidence at many levels.

But where society has modernised, and people have something important to do with their lives, religious dogma has faded.

I think no greater illustration of my point can be made than in Iran.

Under the Shah of Iran, the country was trying to modernise, women were empowered, and education was being introduced across all walks of society.

But there were elements within Iran that, due to religious beliefs, were against all this and the Shah was forced to put down constant rebeliion and insurrection in a violent and brutal way, which appallled people around the world.

Eventually his regime fell. The result was the reign of the Ayatollahs, and Iran took a step back into the Middle Ages.

Women who were in business and even practicing law, were relegated to inferior and minor positions in favour of men.

Forced to wear their black costumes and cover their hair, living in fear of the religious enforcers.

Without oil, Iran would be broke. It produces nothing of consequence, but is now exporting its terror and religious dogma.

One place it is now exporting its religion to is Gaza and to Hezbollah and now to West Bank Palestinians.

This is my point. Now tell me who is Israel being coerced to peace with? Rational people with a will to live side by side in mutual harmony, or a religiously dominated gang of thugs who teach their children hatred and death and are backed by a regime that slaughters its own citizens in the streets of Iran and Syria?

Perhaps the answer lies in the example of what Hamas did when the Jewish settlers left Gaza.

The greenhouses for tomato and fruit growing were pulled down and destroyed.

Gaza was supposed to be starving, but Hamas pulled down food processing equipment rather than have something made by a Jew in their land.

Says it all really.

Adam B.

Guy, of course everyone has their own interests, but did you not read Melanie's article, which demonstrates a breathtaking hypocrisy on the part of the PM?

In addition, the furore of the passports was not matched when Russian aganets were found to have done exactly the same thing a few months later. You could hear a pin drop. And as for the SAS arriving in Libya with a range of different passports on Hague's ill-fated mission...

That is rank hypocrisy, Guy.

Adam B.

Rick, you seem confident in your assertion that Israel has never made representations on behalf of the Kurds to Turky. Can I ask on what evidence you base this assertion?

In addition, can you direct me to any information regarding any other country making representations on behalf of the Kurds to Turkey? Why are you judging Israel to a different standard to anyone else? Why is it Israel's sole responsibility to stand up for the Kurds, (which it has done more than most others?)

You assertion that negotiations about Jerusalem are not about the holy sites are simply laughable.

It's ALL about the holy sites.

Adam B.

Rick, you refuse to be drawn on the topic of what you yourself think should happen to the holy sites, save to say that there should be "access for all." You will be pleased to learn that, under Israeli sovereignty, such a situation already exists. This is in stark contrast to when Jordan occupied the holy sites; the ancient synagogues were dynamited, the Mount of Olives Jewish cemetery desecrated, and every last Jew expelled or killed. There was no access to Judaism's holiest site during Jordan's 19 year occupation.

Why should the Jews give up their holiest site? Would the Muslims give up Mecca? And would you ask them to?

Miriam

So true and to the point. Thank you Melanie

Rick

Adam B.
I can only assume, as I am charitable, that you have not read what I wrote. Others have come up against the same problem in debating you. It is bizarre, but beyond my control, and possibly beyond yours.

Read what I wrote. Respond to what I wrote. Do not respond, as you habitually do, to what I did not write. Perhaps then we can move on.

Otherwise, feel free to think you have triumphantly refuted something, anything.

Rick

Stephen Rothbart
May 12th, 2011 12:51pm
Okay, this time the open mind and essential decency are less in evidence.

This kind of broadbrush prejudice supporting ignorant geopolitical and economic conclusions was quite the thing in our Empire days. Less so recently. It never led to rational policy. It did make it easier for us affluent people to live with the impoverishment of those whose resources we used, and those who were just plain backward. They even feel pain less. So shooting them once in a while was necessary to promote better discipline, and was the only way to respond to their barbaric and violent mind-set (one wouldn't go so far as to call it "culture").

Sylvia L. Morgan

Well said Ms. Phillips. I only wish I was as articulate. As a Conservative I would like to read a reply from the Prime Minister himself.

C.Gee

“You appear to have been bamboozled by the fact that Palestine was not straightforwardly a state like any other, but fell within the novel category of mandatory state, in which sovereignty was deferred (as Howard Grief expressed it).”

Are you trying to bamboozle readers as to Grief’s argument?

To repeat: insofar as Palestine was to be a state, it was intended to be a state for the Jews. The British misrepresented the documents which mandated them to hold sovereignty over Palestine in trust for the Jews. They bamboozled the world into believing that Arabs also had rights to self-determination, which became sovereign rights equal to the Jews, which became a right to a state, which became further distorted (by the anti-Zionists) to mean that Mandatory Palestine(where Arabs were a majority) was an Arab state - Arab Palestine - albeit held in trust for the Arabs, which the British allowed to be usurped by the Jews and now the Palestinians request only a sad remnant of their former state, which the rapacious Jews refuse to cede.

Howard Grief explained that the Mandatory power held sovereignty in trust for the Jewish People. He summarizes the British tactics that “evaded the ‘solemn international obligations’ imposed on them by the Mandate. The report of the Palestine Royal Commission exhibits this deliberate bamboozlement:

“Inasmuch as the Mandate for Palestine never mentioned the local Arab inhabitants by name in connection with it, representing a deliberate omission, and inasmuch as the Mandate for was drafted in 1919 and 1920 by the Zionist Organization jointly with officials of the British Foreign Office for the purpose of giving effect to Jewish national rights to all of Palestine (the first drafts originated with the Zionist Organization before a common draft was formulated), it should have been obvious to the Palestine Royal Commission that the reference in the Mandate to Article 22 of the League Covenant, having due regard to the Mandate’s overall context and preparatory works as well as its object or purpose, was meant to apply to Jews only as the national beneficiary - those already inhabiting the country and those expected to come in large numbers in the years ahead. It was immaterial to the framers of the Mandate for Palestine that the local Arabs then outnumbered Jews by a relatively wide margin, because they felt that the ratio would be gradually reversed by waves of Jewish immigration and the close settlement by Jews on the land, in accordance with Article 6 of the Mandate. Thus, it was a fundamental misconception of the terms of the Mandate and the assumptions upon which this document was drafted to believe, as did the Royal Commission, that the Arabs of Palestine were as much entitled to self-determination as the Jews in regard to this territory, a misconception that could have been easily dispelled or discerned, had the commissioners taken the time to study the relevant text of the Smuts Resolution of January 30, 1919 and its background, upon which Article 22 was based. The Smuts Resolution, in referring to “Palestine” in its text, did not mean what is today falsely denoted as the “nation” of Arab “Palestinians”, but rather the Jewish People, as is evident from three preceding documents or agreements, namely, the Balfour Declaration, the Lloyd George-Clemenceau Agreement and the Weizmann-Feisal Agreement.” (Grief, Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law, p. 398)

Grief goes on to say that the Commission’s Report formed the “pseudo-legal framework for the infamous White Paper of May 17, 1939, by asserting the fictitious notion that the Arabs of Palestine had the same national and political right to a state of the own in Palestine as the Jewish People had.”

C.Gee

“This kind of broadbrush prejudice supporting ignorant geopolitical and economic conclusions was quite the thing in our Empire days. Less so recently. It never led to rational policy. It did make it easier for us affluent people to live with the impoverishment of those whose resources we used, and those who were just plain backward. They even feel pain less. So shooting them once in a while was necessary to promote better discipline, and was the only way to respond to their barbaric and violent mind-set (one wouldn't go so far as to call it "culture").”

This is a list of insults, disguised as an argument. You wish it to be known that to be for Jewish sovereignty is to be: “Imperialist”, “Backward”, “Irrational”, “Capitalist exploiter”, “Grinder of the poor”, “Racist”, “Fascist”.
This is a kind of broadbrush prejudice originating in the distortions of geopolitics and economics by a German ideologue of the nineteenth century.

Stephen Rothbart

Er..Rick, it seems to be the only ones doing the "shooting" once in a while are the impoverished ones. At us.

You have not once addressed any of my points to argue with them.

Just attacked me personally for holding my views.

So tell me where I am wrong, then attack me for my views.

Even Europe and the US are in danger of an economic collapse because we pay ourselves too much and have too many people depending on handouts from our governments, and yet we do have industry and innovation.

But the Eastern economies of China and India are pushing all this down due to their hard work and cheap labour.

What does the Middle East live off, if not oil? What do they produce?

Economic slumps in the past have produced Communism and Fascism and repressive, brutal totalitarian regimes.

The Middle Eastern states without oil have no economic powerhouses to drag them through the fact that they have massive unemployment, a young population that sees no future in the current status quo, and which wants change. So they are susceptible to the same tendancies.

Except with them it is not Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini or Franco they are seduced into barabaric acts by, it is their God.

If they have nothing much to do all day but sit around, they are vulnerable to all sorts of malign influences.

And those malign influences are in many of the mosques and madrasses that spiritually guide them.

This is nothing to do with racial prejudice. It is all there for the eye to see.

Am I generalising? You bet. But so is everyone else when talking about a subject as complicated as this.

In the Corruption Perception Index, where the UK is 17th in the world, the UAE is 30th. and Israel is 32nd.

Jordan is 49th. Egypt is 111th. Syria is 126th. Lebanon is 130th. and Iran is 166th.

Does that not tell you something?

Corrupt societies stop international business investment. That leads to joblessness. Add aggressive Islamism to the mix and you have a toxic situation. Just like you get in some of the more northern cities of the UK.

So sorry if I have offended you, but the evidence is there.

Malcolm D. Powell

Wow! I couldn't have put the current situation vis-a-vis the Muslim/Jewish antagonism in the near east better if I had written it myself - not that I am much of a writer! Although I must say that the letter put the situation in a better light than reality by NOT calling a spade a spade in many cases. As a proud British subject, I am ashamed at the actions of our governments over the last 100 years nearly, in its treatment of the Jews. Having been given the mandate to create a Jewish homeland in, what was then called "Palestine," by the League of Nations in 1922, endorsed by the UN,(once great) Britain from that time on proceeded to abrogate the responsibility laid upon us! We should all hang our heads in shame.

Herzen

C.Gee
May 12th, 2011 6:07pm

This is careless, but not uncharacteristic.

I cited Grief in evidence that both Zionists and anti-Zionists could agree that Palestine was provisionally recognized by the League of Nations as a state whose sovereignty was deferred and held in trust temporarily by the Mandate Power.

I'm minded to leave the rest of your contribution without comment. It shows the contortions Grief has to go to in order to convince himself, and apparently you, that Britain and the other Allied Powers drafted and signed and implemented treaties, yet in doing so somehow betrayed the Zionists. They did what they said they would do. The Mandate Commission monitored what they did, and approved it. All very public. All above board. There is no betrayal. This is the childish insult the Zionists apply to everything they don't like if they don't get their way. "The Smuts Resolution" is amusing - Smuts would be flattered to have his plan promoted thus. And perhaps it would be better to read up about what Feisal had to say. But, in general, I think it best to let it come from Grief himself. If this is the best that the Zionists have to offer...

Guy

Adam,

Of course it's rank hypocrisy! Take but the briefest glance at any international history relating to any country you care to choose and you'll have to agree! The Brits are hypocrites (among the worst, admittedly), the Israelis are hypocrites ("only democracy in the Middle East" blah, blah), the Americans are hypocrites and let's not get started on the French...

The point of the article was that Britain should take a particular interest in Israeli concerns. Yeah, right...like it's our problem...

Since when has Israel contributed to the British treasury? since when have Israeli citizens been Britain's responsibility? etc, etc.

If supporting Israel is no longer in British interests, Britain will "throw Israel under the bus". Britain's historical interests (see Palmerstone, and before) are in trade, and if support for any particular country conflicts with this, that country can expect to chew rubber.

Thomas

C.Gee
May 12th, 2011 6:07pm
As far as I am aware, no-one accuses the distinguished historian, Zara Steiner, of having an axe to grind on the question of Palestine. As it happens, I have been reading her "The Lights that Failed". Could you read pp100ff, and tell me how Mr. Grief's account of an understanding between Lloyd George and Clemenceau on a Jewish state in Palestine can be made consistent with the other evidence. I ask because I am currently without a copy of Mr. Grief's book and cannot find out for myself what in particular he is referring to. Thank you.

wonderer

@MB When I clicked on the URL you mentioned for international law I got:-
The video you have requested is not available.

If you have recently uploaded this video, you may need to wait a few minutes for the video to process.
Sorry about that.

Are you sure you entered it correctly?

Thomas

C.Gee
May 12th, 2011 6:07pm
Reference is also made to the agreement between Feisal and Weizman. I would be interested in Mr. Grief's opinion of its legal status; and why he thought the Zionists and British so keen to get Feisal's agreement. I suggest that the agreement should be read in conjunction with the Sherif's instructions to his son, Feisal's reservation attached to the agreement, the memorandum referred to therein, his public statements while in Britain, and his statement before the Great Powers at the Paris Peace Conference. I think you will find he was very willing to welcome Jewish immigration into Palestine, but absolutely rejected a Jewish state.

Why does this agreement warrant a mention, but not the British reassurances to the Arabs transmitted in the Hogarth message, or the Anglo-French declaration (you know, the one that says that Britain and France are "as one" in wanting to establish "national governments and administrations deriving their authority from the initiative and free choice of the indigenous population.")

It is clear that the common thread throughout all these declarations and agreements, including the Balfour Declaration, is that Britain somehow thought that it could meet its commitments to both the Palestinian Arabs and the Zionists. Grief's strenuous efforts produce no evidence to the contrary.

Rick

C.Gee
May 12th, 2011 6:38pm
I am not sure Stephen Rothbart would want to stand in for everyone who is "for" "Jewish sovereignty" (a Zionist state in Palestine). I take him to be expressing his own opinions and it is his views reminded me of the old handlebar moustaches of my youth. As I understand it, there have been Zionists from every political quarter - left, right, centre, extreme right, extreme left...

You should by now understand that the two insults you use in your efforts to best your opponents are unlikely ever to work. We are not all Marxists. And we are certainly not anti-semites. If you must rely on insults, try to come up with relevant ones.

Adam B.

Guy, I find your view of the world not only tragic and profoundly cynical, but completely wrongheaded. If Britain does indeed regard Israel in such terms, it is a great mistake. Israel is one democracy in the Middle East (in the true sense, with free and fair elections, a free press, an independent judiciary). Israel also co-operates with britain on a range of issues, but more important than this, is the shared values. If Britain has made a strategic judgment that this doesn't matter, and that it is better to throw in our lot with despotic tyrants who do not share our values, then not only does it demonstrate that we don't care about these values abroad, it demonstrates that we care a little less about having such values ourselves, in our own society.

That is an enormous danger - that we in the West simply no longer believe in ourselves, or our civilization.

One thing I promise you; if Israel goes under, we will be the next in line.

for what it's worth, I don't consider that we are "amongst the worst" - we are not. We are amongst the best. It's a pity that you think so little of us.

Adam B.

Rick, on the question of Jerusalem, you wrote this:

“Holy sites are not the main issue”

This is a patently absurd statement. Anyone with any familiarity of the negotiations, let alone what makes both sides of the conflict tick, will know this to be utter drivel.

You then wrote
“I am also intrigued that you think Israel incapable of diplomatic representations to Turkey on behalf of the Kurds until Tureky stopped being Israel's friend.”

I made no such statement, which makes a mockery of your indignant protestations that I am not replying to you. You made a specific allegation here, (the fact that you provide no evidence of any other country making such representations seems to pass you by as well) and I asked you on what evidence you made it. You have failed to reply. So please don't weasel out of your own unsubstantiated statements by pretending that it comes down to a misunderstanding.

C.Gee

Rick:

I am encouraged that you believe "Marxist" and "antisemite" to be insults. It points to some shared cultural assumptions.

Derek BLADES

Stephen Rothbart notes that Israel is thriving despite having no oil.

Quite correct. The reasons include Israel's highly educated labour force, privileged access to American and European markets, cheap Arab labour for Israeli farms and factories, and annual handouts from the United States and Europe.

Note that Israel's high GDP growth rate is generated by secularly educated engineers and scientists - not by the religious students who have a purely parasitical role in the state. In the poor Arab countries, on the other hand, secular education is hard to come by and religious nutters hold sway.

There’s a lesson there, certainly. But it has nothing to do with settling the Israeli-Palestine problem.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Derek Blades: " In the poor Arab countries, on the other hand, secular education is hard to come by and religious nutters hold sway.

There’s a lesson there, certainly. But it has nothing to do with settling the Israeli-Palestine problem."

:) Really, Derek?

...and the dish ran away with the spoon...

Rick

Stephen Rothbart
May 12th, 2011 7:09pm
"Er..Rick, it seems to be the only ones doing the "shooting" once in a while are the impoverished ones. At us."

Er...meanwhile on planet earth...

Adam B.

Blades, "handouts from Europe"?

Please explain.

pakistan gets more handouts, but i don't see it thriving.

Rick

C.Gee
May 13th, 2011 12:50am
Oh, you got me there with your razor wit.

No, of course, "Marxist" is not an insult. I assume we're all adult enough to study his role in the history of thought along with other philosophers, economists, etc.; and adult enough to study the practical perversions of his thought for lessons in what not to do; all without calling anyone we disagree with a "Marxist". Even if you were to stumble upon a Marxist for once, merely labeling him would surely not absolve you from showing why you think his arguments wrong.

Sheryll

Brilliant - just a pity Cameron won't take notice of it - and I doubt he will respond - to much of a coward to speak out against Islam!

Lenny1970

Her letter fails to mention the two Islamic States already in Palestine, e.g., Jordan & Gaza; which to me is the strongest argument not to shrink the size of Israel any further.

Richard

Well done Melanie for writing, and exposing the truth, about this PM and the way Britain treats Israel - God's chosen people.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Rick: "You should by now understand that the two insults you use in your efforts to best your opponents are unlikely ever to work. We are not all Marxists. And we are certainly not anti-semites"

Jew hater or not, yours, Herzen's, Thomas's and Tilly's et al's obsession with rolling back history based on your international legal expertise is, at best, otiose - unless you want to continue posing as experts in international Law for the sake of enjoying some pedigree of "jollies" which is hard to fathom.

I suspect your aim is merely to contribute to the campaign to deligitimise Israel as much as possible but only in order to further the case for a Palestinian state with no definition of boarders nor a defined solution to the refugee issue nor recognition of Israel per se, or as a Jewish state. As a result, you are contributing nothing to any peace process and merely adding fuel to the fire which animates and even intoxicates so many anti Zionists - not least an overwhelming section of the Palsetinian leadership as well that of Iran, Hizbollah etc i.e. the call for Jewish genocide.

What on earth do you hope to achieve? You think you're being oh so clever??

Keith Lee

I think that this was right to the point, and very honest. Mr Cameron spoke like the true fork tongue of an Englishman.I hope you will get a reply from him it will say he was miss quoted.

Adam B.

Rick "No, of course, "Marxist" is not an insult"

It should be.

Adam B.

Rick "And we are certainly not anti-semites. "

We? For whom do you speak? I have met Israel haters who have shown that they are indeed antisemites.

Ernest S. Geskin

There is not that many such honest and streightforward analysis of the British diplomacy. It is difficult to believe that it is no Chrcill words. Thank you Melanie.

Thomas

Adam B.

In your discussion with Rick, I think I have detected him in a mistake; but you have displayed persistent evasion.

You were ostentatiously puzzled what Israel could do for the Kurds in Turkey: "I remain perplexed as to how you think Israel should help the Kurds in Turkey. Should they send aid, bypassing Turkish official channels, and thus possibly provoke a war with Turkey, or send military assistance?"

His response was, "you think Israel incapable of diplomatic representations to Turkey on behalf of the Kurds until Turkey stopped being Israel's friend.”

He should simply have asked, You think Israel incapable of making diplomatic representations?

You then asked him to show that Israel has not made representations (which suggests your previous puzzlement was not genuine). You asked him to prove a negative, which is no doubt a neat way to shut him up. The poor dear is probably even now going through every Israeli diplomatic document in the public domain for the last thirty years.

He would be better just to point out that any diplomatic noise from Israel before Turkey ceased to be its best ally in the region was kept very quiet (while its military aid and cooperation was very close). I heard little. He appears to have heard little. Did you hear anything?

You ask in aggrieved tones why he picks on Israel alone.

Someone earlier used the recent propaganda ploy of asking why support the Palestinians and ignore the Kurds. It gets its force, this ploy, from the ethical principle - if it is wrong in the one case, it is wrong in the other.

And you joined in with the information that Israel has long been a friend of the Kurds.

So Israel in relation to the Kurds would appear to have been introduced by you and whoever it was introduced the ploy here.

Rick pointed out that it has been lefties like the Devil incarnate aka Chomsky who have been consistent in championing the cause of the Kurds.

And Rick pointed out that Israel's support for the Kurds has not been principled in the same way, but selective.

And rick pointed out that its selective support of the Kurds has demonstrated the same ethical flaw supposedly shown by critics of Israel - Israel and its supporters are now keen to publicise the plight of Kurds in Turkey, but are keen not to have the plight of Palestinians publicised.

And he pointed out that in respect of the Kurds and Palestinians Israel has been acting very much like its sponsor and the UK. In other words he did not single out Israel. He pointed out the hypocrisy of Israel's supporters.

We have the same evasive rigmarole with holy sites.

Holy sites are indeed of great importance to the faithful. Why should Jews give up access to the Temple Mount? Why should Muslims give up access to Al-Aqsa Mosque? Of course they shouldn't. Does access to holy sites necessarily have anything to do with negotiations over territory? No. If the parties can't trust each other, they can turn to third parties.

Of course, Israel is in possession of Jerusalem, and so will be difficult to shift. The fact is that it acquired it, west and east, by military conquest. Its legal claim to it is no better than the Palestinians', and arguably worse. Holy sites have no bearing on this, but are used as a pretext to stop all discussion of sovereignty.

Holy sites are crucial to any peace deal because of their importance to the faithful. They need not be what stops a deal being done.

And your indignation about holy sites has somehow allowed you to avoid any discussion of the point Rick was actually making, namely, that taking Jerusalem off the table, as Mr. Rothbart said it should be, merely allows Israel to continue its creeping annexation, this time in the guise of urban development - which has nothing to do with holy sites.

Adam B.

Thomas I have neither the time nor the inclination to go through your propaganda point by point. I will say this:

1. Rick has made an accusation against Israel, saying that it made no representations to Turkey. This is pure conjecture on his part, and he offers no evidence for his assertion. neither do you.
2. This accusation was the basis for his "hypocrisy" accusation, because Israel is close to the Kurds. Whilst he doesn't deny this, he tries to make out that, as the Israelis are selfish so and so's, they didn't care about the Turkish Kurds. The fact that he holds Israel to a different standard to every other country on earth in this regard (can you name one country which has made representations to Turkey) demonstrates rank hypocrisy in himself - the irony of which is no doubt lost on him - and you. The thinking goes something like "Israel may be close to the Kurds, but just look when it is in their interest to be close to the Turks, they couldn't cae less!" Presumably it would be better that Israel was not close to the Kurds at all - then couldn't be called hypocrites (and who needs any evidence for that accusation either?)
3. The Muslims DO have access to their holy sites. You pretend that both sides treat each other equally in this regard. They do not. As you well know, there is free access of worship in Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty (in fact, the Temple Mount is governed, wrongly in my view, by a Muslim religious authority, and Jews are not allowed on the Temple Mount - an incredible case of a Jewish state discriminating against Jews in order to placate Arab sentiment). When the Arabs had Jerusalem, having taken it by force in 1948, they ethnically cleansed every last Jew from Judaism's holiest city, destroyed the ancient synagogues, and barred any Jews from accessing their places of worship. It was so important to the Arabs that not one Arab leader went to see it during those 19 years. So no Thomas, they aren't equivalent.

4. Of course the holy sites are the main issue when discussing Jerusalem. Anyone familiar with the negotations, or the feelings of both peoples, will know this. If you wish to discuss settlements, fine. But don't pretend, as Rick did, that this is the main issue with regard to Jerusalem.

Yoel

Excellent points.

One question:

"...causing thousands to be murdered in the Holocaust."

How about millions? Would there have been a Holocaust, had the British actually carried out the mandate to establish a Jewish homeland?

Thomas

Adam B.
May 13th, 2011 6:13pm
I have to conclude, with the more charitable of those your stonewalling exasperates, that you genuinely cannot understand what is said to you. Too long exposure to hasbara has left you capable of detecting only primary colours and slogans. "Neither the time nor the inclination" - nor, we have to conclude, the ability.

C.Gee

Herzen:

“I cited Grief in evidence that both Zionists and anti-Zionists could agree that Palestine was provisionally recognized by the League of Nations as a state whose sovereignty was deferred and held in trust temporarily by the Mandate Power.”

I actually quoted Grief at some length to prevent any misapprehension your citing of him may have given rise to that Grief believes that the state of Palestine should have ever been recognized by anyone as being held in trust for Non-Jews. Your attempt to have Zionists cede the point that Palestine was a state is a prelude to your step-wise argument that the state was for Arabs and Jews, then for Arabs more than Jews, then for Arabs only and not Jews (except, presumably, as a not-so tolerated minority).

“It shows the contortions Grief has to go to in order to convince himself, and apparently you, that Britain and the other Allied Powers drafted and signed and implemented treaties, yet in doing so somehow betrayed the Zionists. They did what they said they would do. The Mandate Commission monitored what they did, and approved it. All very public. All above board. There is no betrayal. This is the childish insult the Zionists apply to everything they don't like if they don't get their way.”

Yes, the British and other powers drafted and signed the legal documents that gave rise to Jewish sovereign rights over Palestine. In order not to implement them, they misinterpreted them - of course openly, above board, ship-shape and Bristol-fashion. A betrayal does not have to be secret. Political betrayals - especially of Jews - are done under color of law. Is pointing out a broken promise - particularly when you are told you were never actually promised anything - childish? Why do you characterize Grief or Zionists in this patronizing way? Especially in light of the Zionists’ “stuff you and your broken promises” to the British when they declared the state of Israel the moment the Mandate lapsed. The Arabs might have already had a state then, had they not childishly insisted on wanting the Jewish state gone. I have yet to read a plausible explanation of the Arab refusal of partition by the anti-Zionists who find Arab sovereign rights in the Mandate, either equal, or superior to, the Jews’.

“The Smuts Resolution" is amusing - Smuts would be flattered to have his plan promoted thus. And perhaps it would be better to read up about what Feisal had to say. But, in general, I think it best to let it come from Grief himself. If this is the best that the Zionists have to offer...”

What? Grief - who might or might not provide the best legal argument for the State of Israel - was the person from whom mention of the Smuts Resolution and Feisal came. I think it best to let Grief speak for himself too. Which is why I quoted him.

Thomas:

Are not you the person who had mislaid his copy of Grief’s work some weeks ago? May I suggest that you recover it or borrow a copy from the library? Then you can answer your questions as to what he says. He does indeed deal with Feisal’s “reservation” and the legal status of the F-W Agreement. It is gripping reading. I would not wish to spoil the ending for you.

And much as I would like to do the reading assignment of pp100ff of Zara Steiner’s excellent work, I cannot do so, as it lies just beyond reach from my desk chair. Perhaps you would summarize those pages, explain what points in the discussion they support or refute, and then, after you have researched Grief to see whether he agrees with her, inform me of the state of play. No hurry.

P Woods

What a letter to David Cameron. Well done Melanie. You left not a stone unturned. It would be my wish that there was less truth but your accuracy was not in doubt. I will continue to pray that this government
execute a turn-around. Perhaps Israel's oil discoveries will have an interesting change in attitudes!!

Adam B.

Thomas, it does you and your Israel bashing fellow travellers no credit to pretend that you are simply misunderstood, whilst you deny what is said to you without being able to disagree substantively on any of the points put to you. In fact, your silence, faced with facts, exposes the vacuity and prejudice of your witterings.

The hypocrisy is Rick's in demanding of Israel what he does not demand of anyone else. His broad assumptions and unsubstantiated allegations cause you no concern, and ridiculous statements alleging that the holy places are of no consequence in the negotiations are simply laughable. You express no problem with these. That is not someone interetsed in truth, or fairness, or even solution to the conflict. This is just a blame game for you.

BUTSeriously

Moses was the first Zionist.

Judea, not any Islamic or Arab land, was the first Palestinean state anointed in 70 CE.

Jews have never stolen another peoples' land in all their 4000 year history. The reverse applies to Israel's accusers.

avi levin

Iadmire your ability to explain things the way they really are,bravo.Iam interrested to see the reply from the P.M

Tim Gibbs

This letter is proof that Melanie Phillips is a clear headed and brave journalist in the top league.

Herzen

C.Gee
May 13th, 2011 10:00pm
This is possibly careless again, and again characteristic.

What you say would appear to confirm my point: the state of Palestine was held in trust either for "world Jewry", if you are a Zionist, or for the people of Palestine (including immigrants who took citizenship), if you are not.

Your "step-wise" whatever is your own invention and reflects nothing I have ever said, and nothing good about your methods of arguing.

It is not good enough simply to assert that the various treaties promised sovereign rights to "world Jewry". The wording of the treaties says no such thing, and the documents containing the deliberations of those who drafted and signed the treaties explicitly say otherwise. No betrayal, but a failed attempt to fulfil promises both to the existing population of Palestine and to the Zionists on behalf of "world Jewry".

You are astonished that two thirds of the population (a greater proportion if you count only citizens of Palestine) declined to see more than half of their homeland given over to immigrants. They exercised their right to self-determination in declining to accept the recommendation. The puzzle is why anyone is puzzled that they declined.

The Smuts "Resolution" was a draft plan or proposal he drew up, which formed one preliminary part of HMG's efforts to draft a mandate system to give diplomatic cover to its pursuit of the Empire's strategic interests. It provides no authority on the interpretation of the relevant treaties.

If you, or Grief, deign to read the evidence relating to Feisal's visit to Britain and France and his submissions to the various governments as well as his conversations with Weizman, you will find that he provides no authority for Grief's contentions.

TrueToo

Well, I guess that the Israelis could have done more to assist the Kurds of Turkey. They could have sent a flotilla of ships filled with aid for the oppressed Kurds and then used metal bars to badly beat up Turkish commandos who stopped them.

Any of the anti-Israel crew here keen on speculating on what the Turks would have done next and how the "International Community" would have reacted?

TrueToo

Herzen,

It's smoke and mirrors from you. By the time of the UN Partition proposal - 1947 - Jews were a majority in the area proposed for the Jewish state. And though that area was largely desert, the Jews accepted partition while the Arabs rejected it, confident that they would be able to oust the Jews by means of violence.

Well, we all know how that plan worked out.

The British reneged on their Mandate to help establish a Jewish National Home in Palestine. In fact, on the ground they began to renege on it practically from the very beginning, culminating in the infamous 'White Paper' of 1939, which drastically limited Jewish immigration and denied desperate Jews fleeing the Holocaust the one sanctuary they had, or should have had.

The British destroyed many of the documents that would most likely have proven their complicity in siding with the Arabs against the Jews. The latter-day anti-Israel revisionists such as yourself are trying to do the same thing by different means. It's transparent.

John Bradford

The causus belli is not that Abbas's people will never accept Israel as a Jewish state, but the refusal of Israel to implement many UN resolutions - withdrawal from the occupied territories, right of return, etc etc. The Israelis are not the victims, but the perpetrators. It is the Israelis who have instituted a reign of terror over the whole region with their brutal military occupation. Israelis the victims? I don't think so.

Derek BLADES

BUTSeriously thinks that "Jews have never stolen another peoples' land in all their 4000 year history."

The original seizure of the land of Canaan must have looked a bit like theft to those whose land was taken. And has BS noticed the ongoing land theft by Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank? All settlements are illegal under international law and even Israel’s mickey-mouse Supreme Court agrees that many of them are on stolen land.

As I write, Jews are stealing more and more Palestinian land with a view to creating a greater Israel stretching from the sea to the Jordan River. That, BS, is why Hamas has concluded that negotiations with Israel are pointless. And they could be right.

Thomas

C.Gee
May 13th, 2011 10:00pm

You are afflicted with sarcasm.

Steiner, available in any city library, provides a standard history of the diplomacy of the Great Powers. In her account of the negotiations between Britain and France over the Middle East, she does talk of an alleged verbal agreement between Lloyd George and Clemenceau, of which there was no written record, and which, if it existed, broke down in squabbling within days. I thought it possible that Mr. Grief provided a more detailed account of these negotiations.

You appear to think that the minutiae of my life for some reason stop you from helping me out. I borrowed a copy of Mr. Grief's book from a visiting friend. He has since left, and the book with him. The libraries do not have a copy. The book costs something like £60-80. You appear to have ready access to it or to have memorised your favourite bits. It would have cost you less effort to help me with the information than to indulge your sarcasm.

Of course, it may be with this, as with every other document called in evidence by Mr. Grief that you have cited, that the document or verbal agreement does not bear the interpretation he wishes to place on it.

Thomas

Adam B.
May 14th, 2011 12:01am
On the contrary, I think it very much to our credit that we persevere for so long, patiently explaining the points you fail to grasp. I am not convinced that you even refer back to the comments you have misunderstood to assure yourself of their meaning.

Adam B.

No Blades, Hamas has not "concluded" that negotiations with Israel are pointless, because Hamas has rejected the very notion of negotaitions from the beginning. The Hamas founding document explicitly states that all negotiations, even if successful in reaching a peace deal, are pointless, because jihad is the only true path to victory over the infidel world. Indeed, the very notion of talks with the infidel are resoundingly mocked. In addition, Hamas remains committed to its openly declared commitment to commit genocide and kill every last Jew on earth, whether Israeli or not.

Perhaps this may have something to do with it.

As for the ancient Israelites, well, the entire region (and the whole of North Africa) is a result of the Arab conquests of the 7th century and onwards.

Adam B.

John Bradford

Here is a classic example of the ignorant mantras of the Israel haters. Firstly, I assume you are referring to Resolution 242, which calls for Israel to withdraw from "territories" as part of a wider peace agreement with the Arab countries. The Arab countries have a number of obligations placed on them for such a withdrawal to happen, which they have not implemented. Israel has withdrawn from some of the territories, but is NOT required by the resolution to withdraw from ALL territories. This is a common misconception. Consequently, Israel is not in breach of Resolution 242, whilst most of its Arab neighbours are. It may also help if you learn the difference between Chapter 6 resolutions and Chapter 7 resolutions. (It is also worth noting that the UN has an automatic bias against Israel, with a voting block of 40 Islamic states, almost all a mixture of police states and brutal dictatorships, all of whom reflexively vote against Israel).

Israel has a presence in the territories because it was attacked from those territories. Perhaps if the Arabs had not attacked Israel in the first place (which is indeed contrary to international law), such an "occupation" would not have occurred in the first place. I wonder if you are worked up about the Jordanian occupation of the West Bank and Jerusalem in the period 1948-67, and Egypt's occupation of Gaza during that same period, during which time there were no calls for a "Palestinian state".

I think you need to do a bit more research before spouting such ignorant and unrefined conclusions.

GaryL

"All settlements are illegal under international law"

That's a load of rubbish. No internationally recognised court has ever tried such a case. If you reckon it has been then please supply the name of the court, and a reference where we can read it online.

Thomas

GaryL
May 14th, 2011 4:46pm

Is it a legal principle that nothing will count as a law until it has been tested in court? How does the court determine what is a law? Is it not the legislature's job?

And, as I'm sure you know, the ICJ, in giving an opinion on the security/annexation wall, unanimously found the West Bank and Gaza to be occupied territories - which makes Israel's actions in them illegal.

Adam B.

Sure Thomas, it's all a misunderstanding. And your failure to deal with facts and substantive points put to you is all a misunderstanding as well. It seems you can only engage when you are accusing or blaming.

The only perseverence here is the relentless nature of the demonisation of the Jewish state.

Thomas

TrueToo
May 14th, 2011 12:53pm
Some footnotes to your remarks addressed to Herzen:

The figures from the Mandate Power differ from those of UNSCOP. They include Bedouin oddly missed by UNSCOP. On the Mandate Power's figures, Jews were in the minority even in the territory designated to them in the partition recommendation.

The territory designated to the Jews included the main cities, the main access to the sea (i.e. teh thriving ports), and much of the best agricultural land.

In the circumstances, it is unsurprising that the Zionists accepted the recommendation, as the next step towards their avowed goal of a Jewish state in the whole of Palestine.

Britain as Mandate Power did not renege on its obligations under the mandate treaty, as the League of Nations confirmed annually. It did try to balance its obligations to the Zionists and the other inhabitants of Palestine, with its own national interest. It failed. It is difficult to see how anyone could have succeeded.

There is enough shame to go round on the failure to help refugees from the Nazis. Britain and the US surely bear the most blame. It may interest you to read some of the Zionists' thoughts - for example, on Roosevelt's Evian conference.

Herzen

Adam B.
May 14th, 2011 3:56pm
Thank you for opposing the anti-Israeli mantra with the pro-Israeli mantra on 242.

It is my understanding that the various parties (i.e. the various states, who all studiously avoided any question of Palestinian rights) agreed in principle (through the US ambassador to the UN) to small mutually acceptable amendments to borders if required.

Is this your understanding?

American Rebel

Very impressive letter. Melanie Phillips has put on paper, something that millions of us in America would agree with as well and in the end the truth will prevail.

GaryL

Thomas

The reason the ICJ called it an opinion is because the knew it was only an opinion. Courts are very careful with their words.

Adam B.

Herzen

My understanding comes from the resolution itself. Your post seems to indicate that you disagree with the resolution. If so, that really takes the biscuit. One Israel hater tries to attack Israel because of his faulty interpretation (ignorance of) the resolution, then when his fault is pointed out, another complains that the resolution didn't include what it should have.

Try reading it.

C.Gee

“You appear to think that the minutiae of my life for some reason stop you from helping me out.”

Well, Thomas, it seems to me that it is the minutiae of your life that are stopping you from helping yourself out.

We all have minutiae, some more minute than others, but it is not the minutiae - and thank you for vouchsafing them to me - of your visiting friend’s (how nice for you) having gone (back to Sydney?) and taken with him his HG tome (can’t you phone your friend with your questions or ask him to scan and email to you the pages concerning Lloyd George and the old wag Clemenceau, Feisal’s maneuverings, etc., or is he now incommunicado? Not your friend Feisal, but your friend with the tome), and your not being able to find a copy at your library ( Don't libraries order in books requested anymore? I did suggest earlier that you borrow it back from your well-travelled friend, but perhaps he needs it for the Sydney History Club meeting), and your unwillingness to fork out for your own copy of said tome (perhaps a micro-loan?), that are stopping me from helping you out. I just happen to be one of those sarcastic people who does not believe in “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” So sorry. Though good job on some rather creative needing. And as it must cost you some effort to tell your sad frustrations, let me discourage you from sending any more minutiae of your life. (Though I would be interested to know what your friend has to say about HG). No matter how many minutiae are preventing you from satisfying your curiosity as to what lies within the HG tome covers, I will not be moved to help. Never. And also, I cannot help you, as my dog is trained to eat homework.

“It would have cost you less effort to help me with the information than to indulge your sarcasm.”

Not at all. No effort at all in indulging in what you call my sarcasm. Nary a bead of sweat raised on my unfashionably stiff upper lip.

“Of course, it may be with this, as with every other document called in evidence by Mr. Grief that you have cited, that the document or verbal agreement does not bear the interpretation he wishes to place on it.”

There you go, then. No need to bother with the old tome, anyway. HG always gets it wrong. Stick with books easily available in libraries which give interpretations you agree with, old bean. Much better, all round. So, you really didn’t need my help anyway, do you? What-ho. Regards to your Australian friend.

Derek BLADES

@ GaryL

The Wikipedia page under “Israeli Settlements” states unequivocally that “The International Court of Justice and the international community say these settlements are illegal”

In support of this statement Wikipedia refers to the UN General Assembly resolution 39/146, 14 December 1984; the UN Security Council Resolution 446, 22 March 1979; and the International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion, 9 July 2004.

Wikipedia also notes that the Israeli government does not accept that the settlements are illegal and cites the official Israeli position as given in "Israel, the Conflict and Peace: Answers to frequently asked questions". Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. November 2007 "Are Israeli settlements legal,”

Please read it if you like a good laugh. Otherwise I suggest you find something more useful to occupy your time than contesting the obvious.

GaryL

"On the Mandate Power's figures, Jews were in the minority even in the territory designated to them in the partition recommendation."

Minority rule is pretty common in the Middle East. Alawite rule in Syria. An imported monarchy in Jordan. Iranian Shia backed rule in Lebanon. It's also pretty common that minorities in the Middle East live under supression. But never mind - let's only talk about those factors for Israel, as though it's an exception.

Susan Mann

I sit here today, Nakbar, in Israel. Your article seems so self evident, yet no one seems to grasp the concepts you and others bring forth.
Evil has turned to good and vice versa..and here we all sit, waiting for the for the end to begin.
It's horrifying and angering, leaving us with a sense of doom and wondering exactly how this can all be happening again.

TrueToo

Thomas,

The British backed the Arabs in Palestine as part of their desire for continued hegemony in the Middle East, against competitors such as France. The Jews had no oil and there was also a good deal of old-fashioned anti-Semitism amongst the British. To ignore these facts is to ignore the entire history of the Mandate period.

Tilly

Susan Mann -

You write from Israel, 2011: "Here we all sit, waiting for the end to begin."

These exact same words might very well have been written by a Palestinian woman in a diary or letter to a relative in 1948...

But I guess you wouldn't know about that because "Nakba" never happened, did it? Otherwise you would have learned about it in school - and your Hebrew-language history textbooks didn't even give it a passing mention.

So here's what eight- and nine-year-old Arab children in Israeli schools were allowed to know but you weren't:

"The Arabs call the [1948] war the Nakba - a war of catastrophe, loss and humiliation - and the Jews call it the Independence War."

Hardly earth-shattering stuff, is it? Merely a brief account of two different perceptions of a historical event. But quite "unsuitable" for Jewish children who might - God forbid - ask an awkward question or two.

Ah, well, at least the educational playing field is now being leveled, with that controversial passage excised from textbooks written in Arabic too.

From henceforth, the democratic, freedom-loving state of Israel has decreed, ALL its children should be left to bask in a state of blissful ignorance (or what some awful people might call "denial") - only worrying that on May 15th each year a load of crazies seem to march about, angrily shouting about something that never occurred.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Love 'em hate 'em, you surely have to get some inkling of an idea of why Israel is somewhat dubious re the prospects for "negotiations".

Just take a glimpse at the array of attcks/"opinions" of the Israel-bashers:

You have those who scream that the Jews have always plotted to take over all of Palestine. This is why there is a settlement policy and such a policy is ILLEGAL! The implication (or at least one significant one) is that if only Israel behaved LEGALLY and returned to the '67 "boarders", there would be Peace on Earth.

Then you have those who say: move back to the '67 "boarders" and let 5-6 million refugees back to places within those boarders.

The you have those who say that Israel actually should move back to the Partition Lines, not the Green Line.

Then those who say the Partition lines were actually unfair and should be redrawn.

Then those who say Israel has no right to exist at all.

Then those who say the `Jews have no right to exist at all and should all be massacred in the name of Islam.

Then those who believe in a democratic, secular Palestinian state.

Then those who want a state governed by Sharia Law and, in fact, a state which is the first step in the restitution of the caliphate.

Then those, like Hamas, who mourn Bin Laden's extra juridical assassination.

Then those who hail the killing of Jewish babies, school kids and women, just because they are Israelis or would-be Israelis...

Then those who want the Jewish state anihilated because the jews are capitalist pigs who rule the world and the main perpetrators of capitalist imperialism...

Close to those who might be involved in negotiations, just today you have Hamas Prime Minister, Ismail Haniyeh, speaking to Muslim worshipers, telling them to pray for an end to Israel.

"Palestinians mark the Nakba with great hope of bringing to an end the Zionist project in Palestine," Haniyeh told 10,000 people at Gaza City's al-Omari mosque, AP reported.

"To achieve our goals," he continues, "in the liberation of our occupied land, we should have one leadership,"praising the recent unity accord between Hamas and Fatah.

Mmm..makes one really warm and fuzzy with optimism re negotiations, I know...

Then you have Hamas's new "wife" in the new marriage - Senior Fatah official, Saeb Erekat
also today, saying: "Your title is the State of Israel, and that is how we recognize you. It's none of my business to determine who you are. I want to hear the numbers 1-9-6-7 from Netanyahu. Until we don't hear that, we're not going to waste our time."

This is the voice of UNITY!!! The voice of clarity of intention and purpose re negotiations for those wicked old Jews in Palestine!

...and all this truly horrible mishmash of BS when there is not ONE example of any state or significant non state actor in the Arab and/or Muslim Middle East, which has not shown time and time and time again an overwhelming tendency to totalitarianism and racism and a passion for the subjugation of rights which form the the cornerstone of Western societies.

NONE of these Israel bashers - NONE of them - wastes a word - when condemning Israel as a murderous, imperialistic, inhuman, inveterate breaker of International Law- not a single ONE - on condemnation - or even analysis - of what the other Arab and muslim state and non state actors are doing in terms of these values so valiantly upheld by the Israel bashers - and have done in the history - modern and/or ancient - in the Middle East.

NOT A WORD. They cant discuss context, you see. That may just make a mockery of their Israel bashing...reducing it to the bigotry which at best it always - ALWAYS - becomes. This is not to say that Israel is beyond criticism at all. Dont waste your breath on that cheap, puerile riposte. It means that the values that these people accuse Israel of betraying i.e those values which they - by implication - support are the same principles which those whom they support care a fig about.

Rhetoric and twaddle has now defined the narrative of this conflict more than ever.

Israel shoots one arab in a violent demonstration, they are Nazis. Assad kills 750 of his own civilians and his an Arab brother.

The Egyptians rebel against tyranny but continue their age old sectarian murdering against the Copts..Not even worth a passing comment, even in the errifying light of the military junta now openly supporting Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

It is this intellectual and moral malaise which will not only ensure there cannot be meaningful negotiations, but also ensure - especially when one considers the influence on the equation of the unholy mix of ideology. military power, and rank opportunism - of the US and Europe (nothing unusual per se, of course, but one has to see the direction it is taking) - almost certainly a regional military conflagration in the short to medium term.

Are you dizzy, folks??

Are you confused?

You bloody well should be..and the Thomas's, Blades, Herzens et al should realise that for those on whom peace depends, the Horn of Plenty which is their BS will do no good whatsoever for anyone, least of all those they purport to support.

Herzen

Adam B.
May 15th, 2011 12:00am
Not for the first time, I am left wondering whether you read/misunderstood/twisted what was said to you.

Fantasies on the definite article in English and in French, or whether two clauses require to be observed simultaneously or in sequence, etc. etc. were not what I was asking about.

Is it your understanding that the various states were willing to contemplate minor mutually acceptable amendments to borders?

arthurro

This should be posted in Telegraph and New York Times to reach the eyes and ears of those who don't see it. As long as people who read this article are mostly the people who agree with the ideas, it misses the point.

Adam B.

Tilly, who complains about the education children receive in Israel, is apparently unaware of the racism and antisemitism taught to Arab children both in the Palestinian areas, whether under Fatah or Hamas, and in the wider Arab world. Jews are portrayed as "monkeys and pigs", and killing Jews is praised and glorified. Such "teaching material" has even been found at Saudi funded schools here in the UK.

No comment from Tilly.

Jim McNeill

This all needs saying and saying now, but correct me if I'm wrong, the painting of Britain as the author of all Israel's woes is overdone and something that many Israelis would not agree with?

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Tilly: Jeez, Tilly, I cant wait for your exegesis of Arab education about Jews...

You really are shameless...

Guy

Adam B

Firstly, sorry for the delayed response. You have made a series of considered posts that deserve answers.

Secondly, I take no pleasure in taking such a view of the world, I merely see it as I find it. Remeber the so-called "ethical foreign policy"? Well, that went in the dustbin of history, didn't it? However, I would question your use of the present perfect tense in your consideration of current British policy; I would use the second conditional here (unreal conditional). British policy and indeed American policy towards (and toward!) Israel could change in the future. Britain wil act on its own terms, as she always has done (hence "Perfidious Albion").

I hope it doesn't happen and I'm no Israel hater - just it's difficult for me to see a long term future for Israel. The Arabs won't make peace because they think they will win. But if a scientist, an Israeli perhaps, finds a way to replace oil the Arabs won't have anything to offer...

If Israel does go under it will still take a while before the same happens to Britain, due to distance if nothing else.

Tilly

Adam B -

I can hardly fail to be aware of the "pigs and monkeys" lessons taught in Hamas schools since you and/or others trot out this piece of information at least once a week.

What's your point? That Hamas brainwashing is "crude" while Israel's is "subtle"? Or maybe that the Hamas school curriculum is "aggressive", while the Israeli one is "defensive"?

Come on, Adam, be the first in your hasbara class to recite the "moral equivalence" mantra or some such hypocritical tripe - or else just stick to your main area of expertise of "name calling".

Whatever you do, though, don't EVER admit Israel is anything but a model of perfection, or you'll quickly find yourself tarred and feathered with the "anti-Semite" brush and made to stand in the "Marxist" corner.

Linda Rivera

To Jim McNeill:

It is very tragic that it is not just Britain. It is also Europe and America. For many years, America has financed, armed, and given constant, ongoing, advanced military training to the Palestinian Authority Security Services (army). One of the U.S. trained terrorists, told journalist, Aaron Klein, that all of the American military training is used against Israel. It is unforgivable and a huge crime against humanity. Where are the human rights organizations to protest such terrible evil? Why are they silent?

Tilly

John Roosevelt -

You are wrong about a lot of things in your lengthy "analysis" of Israel's critics. But I'll confine my response to just one point.

When talking about the lines between countries, the correct word to use is "borders". If you wrongly refer to "boarders", there is a grave danger people will think you are talking about warlike sailors invading other people's ships, or (perhaps more pertinently) temporarily occupying certain property until such time that their leases expire and they either leave quietly or are evicted.

Thomas

GaryL
May 15th, 2011 8:29am
I don't know if you just haven't read previous entries. Someone told off another contributor for talking about what a two-thirds majority of the people of Palestine wanted, and asserted that in the territory notionally asigned to Jews in the proposed partition Jews formed a majority. I simply pointed out that they did not, according to British statistics.

In addition, you appear to argue that it is okay for a Jewish minority to determine the fate of a Palestinian Arab majority because after all minorities have ruled in Arab states. This is a curious argument to make.

There are indeed those here, like C. Gee, who recommend this form of "democracy", where the Jews vote (hence, democracy) and govern "Arabs" (who don't vote). Are you one of these?

Also, you should maybe read up on the rules that govern the ICJ. That it was asked for an opinion on the annexation wall does not make its judgement on occupied territories any less authoritative (and Israel would have ignored it anyway).

T. Jay

Fabulous! Thank you Melanie for this most accurate and timely challenge to Mr. Cameron's statesmanship and moral courage.

Adam B.

Herzen, let me correct you. It is not a "fantasy" to talk about the definite article, and if you were acquainted with the background to the resolution, you would know that its authors have put on record, that they specifically left "the" out. It makes all the difference to any interpretation of the resolution. I note that you are now trying smokescreens and diversions to avoid looking at the resolution head on. John Bradford made a false accusation against Israel, based on this faulty understanding of the resolution. It would be nice if you were able to admit that. my "understanding" or your "understanding" are utterly irrelevant. The Resolution is there in black and white. It's apity Israel bashers immediately summon UN resolution to back their case, then, when their false accusations are exposed regarding these resolutions, they avoid acknowledging their mistake and try another approach.

Adam B.

No Celato, not "mystefying". It is however a modern day miracle that Israel has managed to survive and thrive, despite the repeated attempts by its neighbours to obliterate it through genocidal wars, and the current campaign to delegitimize and demonize her.

C.Gee

I posted this on the wrong thread, so I repeat it here:

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 has access to that version of the truth.

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 claims to 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”.

GaryL

"In addition, you appear to argue that it is okay for a Jewish minority to determine the fate of a Palestinian Arab majority because after all minorities have ruled in Arab states. This is a curious argument to make."

I didn't argue whether it's right or wrong at all. I simply pointed out that it's not an unusual situation and that no-one seems to comment as much on the other similar cases. It's odd how the word "Israel" attached to something brings certain types of comment and analyis out of the woodwork.

GaryL

"In support of this statement Wikipedia refers to the UN General Assembly resolution 39/146, 14 December 1984;"

The GA is notorious for the number of dictatorships with no respect for their own populations which vote as a bloc against Israel's interest, whatever the circumstance. Their decisions are definitely not based on an impartial objective appraisal. I hope no-one considers that as a decent method of deciding international legalities.

"the UN Security Council Resolution 446, 22 March 1979;

It was based on the application of the Fourth Geneva Convention about forcable transfer of populations. Israel disputes the application of this Convention because their population wasn't forcibly transferred.

"and the International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion, 9 July 2004."

The ICJ and the UN GA that requested the opinion had declared their views before any enquiry was conducted or evidence presented. Again, similar to the GA decisions, how could any reasonable person respect this sort of travesty of "impartial" procedure.

Allowing partizan votes and pre-judged opinions to determine law is a sure way to set anarchy as the determinant of all value judgements. I have no respect for anyone who supports that.

Derek BLADES

In his latest, overly long and spittle-flecked comment, John Roosevelt sets out to "take a glimpse at the array of attcks/"opinions" of the Israel-bashers"

He omits the opinion of the United States, United Kingdom, and the European Union. Thjis is that Israel should respect the 1967 borders, dismantle the illegal settlements, negotiate a fair solution on the right of return and respect a new Palestinian state as a sovereign country.

That "opinion" does not involve the destruction of Israel but it does require that Israel refrain from furtheer land-theft in the occupied West Bank and behave there like a civilised nation.

That is an opinion that I for one can go along with. But I did not see it anywhere mentioned in Roosevelt's list.

Steve Sattler

Well said!
It is particually disgusting that while the Nazi machine was killing Jews-in their millions, the British were trying very hard to stop any Jews getting to safely in their historic homeland!

Herzen

Thomas,
On page 37 of his book, Grief writes:

"The Mandate for Palestine was committed to Britain in accordance with a previous unwritten understanding reached between Clemenceau and Lloyd George on December 1, 1918."

This sounds like the agreement you say Steiner describes.

It is worthy of note that here Grief says only that it was an agreement that Britain would be Mandate Power for Palestine. Nothing about a Jewish State.

Do not be too hard on Grief. He is an advocate, not an historian. He is doing what he was trained to do.

Another good example.

Grief has summarized his argument in all its naked majesty in an article. The basis of the whole is the assertion what the British cabinet defined "Jewish National Home" to mean. In his article, Grief writes, "The term “Jewish National Home” was defined to mean a state by the British government at the Cabinet session which approved the Balfour Declaration on October 31, 1917."

In the circumstances, it is as well to check the original:

"As to the meaning of the words 'national home', to which the zionists attach so much importance, he (the Foreign Secretary) understood it to mean some form of British, American, or other protectorate, under which full facilities would be given to the Jews to work out their own salvation, and to build up, by means of education, agriculture, and industry, a real centre of national culture and focus of national life. It did not necessarily involve the early establishment of an independent Jewish State, which was a matter of gradual development in accordance with the ordinary laws of political evolution."

Whatever else this is, it is not the definition of "Jewish National Home" as "Jewish State" and it is not an undertaking to help establish a Jewish state.

It is worth reading the minutes of the cabinet meeting in full. It is the last item on the agenda. The minutes reveal the motivation in terms of propaganda and an attempt to influence both Russia and the US.

An interesting demonstration that I had not known about of HMG's commitment to the Zionist project: at the very same time it issued the Balfour Declaration, it was trying to detach Turkey from its alliance with the Central Powers; one of the inducements was continued sovereignty over Palestine.

As for C. Gee, do not expect him to look too closely into the reliability of his Oracle.

(Is it worth spending £60, or waiting for inter-library loan - only a few weeks, after all - or turning your friend into an e-mail amanuensis? No. The crux is this cabinet meeting.)

Herzen

Adam B.
May 15th, 2011 11:10pm
For one who relies on the trick of repeating, Answer the question, this is very curious.

I said set aside 242 for a moment, and your certainty as to what its deliberately ambiguous terms might mean, and your faith in what a select few participants might have said they mean.

Set it aside just long enough to consider a perfectly straightforward question about the "background", as you call it, to the resolution - the negotiations and understandings reached. Was it understood that the parties to the negotiations would consider mutually agreed minor adjustments to borders?

Set aside your blind faith that the Israeli exegesis of 242 is the one true exegesis. Set aside your indignation with Mr. Bradford for his summary of forty years of UN resolutions. Focus, however briefly, on the question.

Herzen

Derek BLADES
May 16th, 2011 5:10am
Please do NOT encourage him.

TrueToo

Jim McNeill
May 15th, 2011 6:31pm

You wrote:

"This all needs saying and saying now, but correct me if I'm wrong, the painting of Britain as the author of all Israel's woes is overdone and something that many Israelis would not agree with?"

Britain was not guilty of all Israel's woes but exacerbated them. A detailed study of the history will make that clear.

Tilly
May 15th, 2011 8:49pm

You respond to John Roosevelt's comprehensive and accurate comment with this:

"You are wrong about a lot of things in your lengthy "analysis" of Israel's critics. But I'll confine my response to just one point."

That's Internet code for "You have won the debate and I can't come up with any argument against you but I'll pretend I can by attacking a minor aspect of your comment."

Poor show.

Those who complain bitterly about the "pro-Israel" interpretation of UNSC Resolution 242 should actually read it.

Len Grates

Thanks for having the courage to speak the TRUTH - Mr Cameron PLEASE listen!

Jane

Wonderful letter. Thank you for writing it.

C.Gee

“...It did not necessarily involve the early establishment of an independent Jewish State, which was a matter of gradual development in accordance with the ordinary laws of political evolution." (Howard Grief)
Whatever else this is, it is not the definition of "Jewish National Home" as "Jewish State" and it is not an undertaking to help establish a Jewish state. (Herzen’s reading of the Grief statement.)
Herzen, if this is the way you read, I shall not be recommending books to you in the future. No “definition” was being attempted, Grief is bringing out evidence of interpretations of the meaning of phrases (that is what legal scholars do), and, on the face of this one sentence from the paragraph you selected to quote, it is apparent that the issue was timing for an independent state, not that there should not be one. Contextually and semantically, you get it wrong.
No, all in all, I think it better that you resign from the position of being internet amanuensis to poor Thomas. There is no way he can know how reliable you are, or how reliable Grief is, without getting the text, which he will not do, and thinks is sour anyway.
I shall be using these exchanges for a post-structuralist thesis: Coming to Grief: Misreadings of the Unread: the Signification of the Missing Text.

Adam B.

Herzen, if by "select few participants" you mean the authors of the resolution, yes. Interesting turn of phrase you use.

In answer to your question, you ask me something which neither I nor you were party to. You say "it was understood" - in what forum? Where was this "understanding" laid out? The resolution itself, as I understand it, calls for mutual agreement. I also don't know where you get "minor adjustments" - and who defines what constitutes "minor"?

In short, no, that is not my understanding, because I do not know whence such an understanding was defined. Personally, I have no problem with such a definition, if it led to a viable peace. However, I think peace will never come - because the hatred and bigotry against Jews in the Middle East in endemic, and the conflict was never about these territories, or their precise borders, in the first place. You will note that the conflict not only predates the '67 war, when there were no "occupied territories", it predates the rebirth of Israel itself, with pogroms against Jews throughout Palestine and the wider Middle East.

Interesting, too, how you show your hostility to me, yet clear falsehoods as expressed by Mr Bradford give you no problems.

Paul Caplan

Thank you.

Please refer to article at.

http://jewishturnaround.com/?p=1749

Herzen

C.Gee
May 16th, 2011 5:47pm
Oh, come, come.

Mr. Grief quotes the minutes of the cabinet meeting and then asserts that the cabinet agreed that "national home" meant "state". The minutes say explicitly that it means something in the nature of a protectorate. That is what Britain undertakes to help establish. Balfour then goes on to say that, if did not necessarily mean the early establishment of a state, which will be "a matter of gradual development in accordance with the ordinary laws of political evolution." - which is certainly politician speak, but certainly not a promise to set up a state for the Zionists.

The whole basis for the Zionists case then rests of the weasel words of the Foreign Secretary in a propaganda effort to keep Russia in the war and to encourage the US to come the Britain's aid - propaganda whose premiss is an anti-semite's exaggerated estimate of Jewish influence in Russia and in Wall St. and Washington.

So, special pleading, again. And this before we get to the deliberations on the drafting of the various treaties where the term is explicitly determined NOT to mean a Jewish state. But when the evidence against the Zionist interpretation becomes too obvious to deny, it becomes "betrayal". Either we accept Zionist special pleading or it is betrayal.

No, I think we should not share your blind faith in Mr. Grief's bona fide.

Herzen

Adam B.
May 16th, 2011 10:57pm
It was understood by President Johnson, the US State Dept., and Ambassador Goldberg, who gave assurances to King Hussein both about withdrawal and mutual adjustments to borders and about Israeli agreement (see Noring and Smith "The Withdrawal clause in UN Security Council Resolution 242." and Neff "Warriors for Jerusalem".) There are also reports from meetings between the King and the President that the US expected withdrawal within six months.

I think we should study the detail of the process that produced 242.

I think you should also look at the history of UN resolutions in subsequent decades. And at the ICJ's legal reasoning.

The retrospective reinterpretation by Rostow and Goldberg is contradicted by statements by Rusk and Kissinger and by the fact that King Hussein accepted 242 which he would not have done had Goldberg told him it allowed Israel to take territory from the West Bank.

As late as 1983, Secretary Schulz set out the US position to King Hussein, "the President believes, consistent with Resolution 242, that territory should not be acquired by war. He believes, as well, however, that Resolution 242 does permit changes in the boundaries which existed prior to June 1967, but only where such changes are agreed between parties...the US considers Jerusalem part of the occupied territories."

It is only in later years that US connivance with Israel becomes blatant.

The question then is, if Israel knew, as it certainly did, that the occupied territories were to be given back as part of any peace between it and its neighbours, what did it think it was doing building settlements? Did it understand that these settlements would pass to others? Or did it intend the settlements as a means to annexe the territory it knew not to be its, in defiance of 242? Certainly, Israel's attorney general and cabinet knew the settlements to be illegal when the first began their construction (although legal ingenuity has been applied to the problem since).

Rick

C.Gee
May 16th, 2011 5:47pm
"No “definition” was being attempted, Grief is bringing out evidence of interpretations of the meaning of phrases (that is what legal scholars do), and, on the face of this one sentence from the paragraph you selected to quote, it is apparent that the issue was timing for an independent state, not that there should not be one".

I have had a look at the article where Grief summarizes his argument:

"The term “Jewish National Home” was DEFINED to mean a state by the British government at the Cabinet session which approved the Balfour Declaration on October 31, 1917."

Striking that the foundation of the alleged international commitment to fulfil the Zionists' plan to force a Jewish state on the people of Palestine should be this Balfour Declaration and this summary of a cabinet meeting.

Balfour wanted to help the Zionists to a state. So did the then Prime Minister. What did they produce?

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine..."

What do the cabinet minutes tell us?

A "Jewish National Home" is defined as "some form of British, American, or other protectorate, under which full facilities would be given to the Jews to work out their own salvation, and to build up, by means of education, agriculture, and industry, a real centre of national culture and focus of national life." (Pretty much what churchill said in his White Paper after all the "betrayals".)

"It did not necessarily involve the early establishment of an independent Jewish State, which was a matter of gradual development in accordance with the ordinary laws of political evolution."

This from the man who wanted to promise the Zionists a state: he would provide them with some form of protectorate or other. And a state would be "a matter of gradual development in accordance with the ordinary laws of political evolution."

The ordinary laws of political evolution! Whatever their subsequent propagandists and the faithful might be willing to assert or believe, the Zionists who had to get the job done knew that this was not what they had been looking for, but was sufficient for their purposes - the ordinary laws of political evolution are: if you can make it happen, it will happen, if you can't make it happen, it won't.

And Balfour was forced to include, "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine..."

Civil rights include political rights. There are those who try to brush this aside by saying, Oh, the political rights just meant they could vote - Palestinians who would have opposed a Jewish state have been a majority in Palestine, since before the Declaration was made, up until the present day. Their civil rights would indeed be prejudiced by a Jewish state. Some were willing to acknowledge that they would not be prejudiced by a Jewish National Home.

Balfour gave them all he was able to. What he was able to give them was enshrined in the various treaties. Not a Jewish State.

Grief appears to have dug out every Declaration, Agreement, Resolution and Treaty he could find, and deliberately distorted each and every one.

Pieter van Rooyen

So Mr. Prime Minister, when may we expect your reply? The Bible says in Genesis 12:3 "I will bless those who bless Israel, and I will curse those who curses Israel; and in Israel all the nations of the earth shall be blessed."

Rick

Adam B.
It should be remembered that the UN does not have the power or authority to dispose of territory. Also, that no territory is to be acquired by force. Also, that any acquisition has to be agreed by both sides. 242 could not mean other than that Israel withdraw from the occupied territories - ALL of them, unless the other parties agreed to Israel keeping any. There is a legitimate question about the ambiguity over the proposed sequence of events: Israel would not consider giving back the territory without peace; and the Arab states would not consider offering peace without the return of teritory. However, the question then becomes even more glaring - what did Israel think it was doing building settlements on territory acquired by force which it would have to return if it wanted peace?

C.Gee

Herzen:

Once again, I understand that you are not persuaded by Grief’s legal arguments as to the intended meaning of the Balfour Declaration through his discussion of the interpretations put upon its words. But merely to dismiss it as “special pleading” - which has a technical meaning of its own - or to mock Grief’s use of the term “betrayal” for the deliberate obfuscation of documents to dilute, if not nullify, the original intent behind the terminology of “home” - is not itself persuasive, nor is it a counter-argument.

Once again, Grief’s analysis reveals that Britain changed its stance with respect to the Jewish State. The tangled web woven by Britain is untangled by him. In order to untangle it, Grief has to show the errors of their thinking. This is not “special pleading”. He is arguing that the sovereign rights granted to the Jewish people were legitimately granted, and that there was no “relevant difference” (the principle offended by special pleading) by which the Jews should have been denied them in favor of the Arabs. In other words, the special pleading was by the British on behalf of the Arabs. His legal argument is that interpretations of documents denying full Jewish sovereign rights over all of Palestine fell foul of the doctrine of estoppel and acquired legal rights. It is a bold move. Your picking out quotes - from Grief ! - to emphasize the argument in a way that Grief does not, will not do the hard job of refutation.

You mischaracterize the thrust of Grief’s argument in your emphasis on the the Cabinet Meeting of October 31, 1917 as the “crux”. Yes, in the very brief summary of his argument in the article you cite, Grief says the phrase “national home” was “defined” to mean a state at this meeting. In the context of the article, and in his book, “defined” is short-hand for “intended to mean”. You have jumped on this word and performed a technical analysis upon the sentences in which they occur. Because the sentences do not explicitly define the meaning, you argue that there was no intention that the phrase “National Home” be understood to mean a state. What seems to be lost on you, is that that meeting was one of many sources of current official thinking by which Grief establishes the understanding behind the words “national home”. And that understanding of “national home” is part of his legal gloss on the terms of the Mandate. And the Mandate itself is part of the documentary “pillars” supporting Jewish statehood under international law. You believe that you have found the brick that when pulled out will cause the whole edifice to collapse. Not so.

But yes, the idea that the Jews were to grow their state over time, did become the excuse for distorting the Mandate into a protectorate for Arab political rights. Grief deals with this very thoroughly in his book.

Herzen

C.Gee
May 17th, 2011 7:14pm
I don't think you will be persuaded by this yourself on further consideration.

Grief says that Britain was under a legal obligation only once it signed the various treaties incorporating the Balfour Declaration.

I say that it was under an obligation to do what it and the other signatories had agreed to in drafting the treaties. This is customary in the law of treaties.

I and others have quoted from the documentary record showing that the signatories were explicit in not obliging Britain to facilitate a state.

Grief says that, whatever the signatories agreed, they must have placed Britain under an obligation to facilitate a state, because that is what the original Balfour Declaration was intended to do.

The meaning to be attached to the Declaration is for Grief crucial.

As Grief says, the Declaration had no legal force. Such authority as it had came from its endorsement by the cabinet. This is why Grief is so particular about the precise cabinet meeting at which the Declaration acquired its authoritative meaning.

As I and others have shown, the authoritative interpretation endorsed by the cabinet is not as Grief says.

(To be clear, no-one is disputing that Lloyd George and Balfour wanted to promise a state and used the terms they knew to be those the Zionists used to refer to a state. However, it is the cabinet agreement that gave the Declaration any authority it had, and the cabinet were not asked to agree to promise the Zionists a state.)

The crucial moment for legal obligation is the signing of the treaties. At this moment, the meaning of the terms in the treaties is not as Grief says.

The crucial moment for Grief's argument that the meaning assigned by the signatories to the treaties should (I suspect uniquely in the history of diplomacy) be null is, as he says, the cabinet meeting in October 1917 when the cabinet endorsed the Declaration. What they endorsed is not what Grief says.

Grief has done us a service in gathering so much of the historical record in one volume. He has done us a disservice in his tendentious interpretation of that record.

randall williams

well-said and not before time

Adam B.

Herzen, all of which proves what exactly? Is it your final point that all this is was leading to? If so, there's a very simple response. The settlemets can either be incorporated into another state, or they can be dismantled, as Israel has, on numerous occasions, shown itself willing to do, both in the Sinai and in Gaza (the question as to why its fine for 1.2 million Arabs to remain in Israel but every last Jew must be removed from territory under Arab control doesn't seem to enter your conscience at all).

Furthermore, all this background means nothing regarding the text of 242 - or is it all a lengthy footnote added later?

Adam B.

Rick, you are incorrect. The authors of 242 have repeatedly and explicitly stated that they did not envision Israel withdrawing from all the territory.

Furthermore, this whole discussion is a complete irrelevance in the current climate. Both Syria and Iran espouse a genocidal impulse against the Jews in Israel. Most Egyptians now favour ripping up the peace treaty, whilst 97% of Palestinians, Jordanians and Egyptians espouse antisemitic views.

I suppose you are as worked up about the fate of Prussia? The expulsion of the ethnic Germans, and the taking of territory through force? Would you say that Poland should immediately withdraw and return this land to Germany? (Who would Israel be giving this land to - those they took it from, namely Jordan?

Rick, if the Arab states had won the war, would we be having this conversation of the Arab states taking land by force? Why was it OK for Jordan to occupy the West Bank and Egypt to occupy Gaza for 20 years, with no calls for a Palestinian state?

This is sheer hypocrisy. And you know it.

Herzen

Adam B.
May 17th, 2011 11:36pm
It is standard practice to try to ascertain what those who drafted a treaty or resolution meant by it. As you know, 242 was deliberately ambiguous. However, even those whom dfenders of the Israeli interpretation like to cite, like Caradon, confirm in retrospect what the contemporaneous documentary record shows, that Israel was to withdraw from the territory it had conquered except for mutually agreed adjustments at the border.

You charge Rick with hypocrisy. Are you really claiming that Israel will withdraw from all the settlements? Why has it invested so much of its and AMerica's money in building what it will have to dismantle or abandon? Or do you think minor mutually agreed adjustments to borders should allow Israel to incorporate the ever expanding settlement blocs? Does that not suggest creeping annexation justified with casuistry ("the" omitted, adjustments to borders - planting Israeli settlers all over the West Bank is therefore allowed by the UN!)

Rick

Adam B.
May 17th, 2011 11:46pm
The authors of 242 have repeatedly made clear they meant what I have said they did.

The Arab states, the Muslim states, the whole world except Israel and the US, have advocated a two-state solution based on the Green Line as set out in 242.

The expulsion of ethnic Germans I think was the last great crime of WW2. Those who survived expulsion probably preferred exile to life behind the Iron Curtain - but, as with the destruction of the Jewish communities in Arab countries, I think it was criminal and a tragedy.

I don't think Germany is looking to redraw the borders now.

The Arab state trying to stop the founding of a Jewish state in Palestine I don't think had large territorial ambitions, except Jordan - with Zionist and British connivance as far as the West Bank was concerned(which is why the rest didn't trust it, including the Palestinians). Had they attempted to take the whole of Palestine by force, the UN I think would have intervened (but who can now tell?). The USSR had been willing, apparently, to join the US in policing Palestine under a UN trusteeship, but the US did not want the USSR anywhere near.

I do not think it okay for Jordan and Egypt to take bits of Palestine, even if they claimed to be holding it until Palestine could be reformed. Jordan and Israel both put much effort into suppressing any political organization among the Palestinians. It is not surprising that their claim on their homeland was barely heard until the PLO was formed.

Rick

C. Gee
I'm only providing back-up for Herzen, I know, but there is one point I made you didn't cover, and I'd be interested in what you think. - The proviso that the rights of other inhabitants should not be prejudiced by the Jewish National Home - if civil rights included the right to vote, how could the civil rights of the majority be consistent with imposing a Jewish state? In other words, what interpretation do you think is to be given to the proviso by those who support the Zionist case?

Adam B.

No Herzen, it is standard practice to use the text of the resolution, not to add "interpretations" of what the authors meant to say. Try that in a court, citing what the darfters of any particular law "meant to say". You'd be laughed out. In any case, the authors have made clear that they did not envision Israel withdrawing from all the territories, back to the "Auschwitz lines".

Israel has repeatedly shown that it does dismantle settlements in pursuit of peace (that worked out well in Gaza, didn't it?) And you are quite incorrect to say Israel spends American money on settlements. In fact, that is a complete falsehood. Israel receives military assistance from the US, not housing assistance.

Adam B.

Herzen, what concessions are the Arabs offering for peace?

Name one.

Herzen

Adam B.
May 18th, 2011 11:58am
242 reaffirms that territory cannot be acquired by force; it requires Israel to withdraw from territories occupied in the recent conquest; it urges the parties to agree secure and recognized borders.

Work through the implications of all three combined. It is not necessary to take a position on the vexed definite article.

A jurist, I think from Scotland, has pointed out that the ambiguity is not so great anyway (unless we do violence to the English language and customary usage). I think I got this from Wikipedia, of all places, via a university law school website. - "Dogs must not foul the paths" is not directed at just some dogs, but at all dogs that use the paths. Perhaps you think the analogy would be "Dogs must not foul paths" - but again this does not allow dogs to foul some particular paths, but not others, it forbids the fouling of all relevant paths (e.g. if the sign is in a park, then all paths in the park).

This example also shows that any ruling has to be interpreted in context according to common usage.

Read the full record of what the various participants said at the time and subsequently (and not just Messrs. Goldberg and Rostow).

I do not know who you refer to by "Arabs". As Rick has said, "The Arab states, the Muslim states, the whole world except Israel and the US, have advocated a two-state solution based on the Green Line as set out in 242".

The Palestinians have done likewise. The Palestine Papers will refresh your memory on what the PA has been reduced to conceding.

I am not sure what you think the point of your question is.

Adam B.

Rick, what do you mean by "Zionist case"? Whether Israel can exist or not?

Thomas

Adam B.
May 18th, 2011 11:58am
"No Herzen, it is standard practice to use the text of the resolution, not to add "interpretations" of what the authors meant to say. Try that in a court, citing what the darfters of any particular law "meant to say". You'd be laughed out."

If you were right about this, lawyering would be a lowly job, and there would be no need for such a thing as a supreme court. As it is, lawyering is a profession which can accrue significant wealth to its better practioners, and the supreme court is the highest court in the land.

Thomas

C. Gee,

Why you were snotty - it's come to me! I am slow!

It is you, is it not, I offended by quoting Quigley verbatim without a citation. This was just after it had finally emerged that your lengthy lucubrations had for long been taken from Howard Grief.

This is a good example of a double standard at work:

You refused to stoop to a consideration of any of Quigley's arguments or evidence, because he was an "anti-Zionist". Yet you insist Herzen et al. treat Grief's arguments and evidence with great respect, although (or because) he is a pro-Zionist. They're not allowed any levity. They're not allowed to remark on the Zionist "betrayal" complex.

To his credit, Herzen has patiently set out why Grief's arguments fail.

You have not bothered to set out why you think Quigley's arguments fail. You have not even bothered to say why you think Grief's arguments succeed. On the face of it, they are tendentious at best. Yet you merely refer to them, as if that is enough to elicit full acquiescence.

I suppose you are under no obligation to fight cleanly.

It is you that told us Hagana shooting up peasants to make them leave their property and shooting them up if they tried to return constituted legal transfer of property rights. It was, wasn't it?

It is you who, as a stickler for due process, was more willing to accept the anonymous and medically impossible testimony of someone on the internet rather than the testimony of witnesses present on the Trukish vessel, including the purported victim, and of footage.

It is you advocates that any Arabs in territory to be illegally annexed would be denied a vote - and call it democracy,even liberal democracy (I suppose 19th century Britain was a democracy - so you can call it "liberal"; ancient Athens was a democracy despite its population of slaves - so you can call it a democracy; so, fair enough - a democracy where in principle more people will be without the vote than with.)

Quite a track record.

Rick

Adam B.
May 18th, 2011 1:39pm
Here's another good example of where context and the author's intentions might help you to understand what is going on. "Zionist cause" in the context of the Balfour Declaration. "Zionist" was what the little lobby group called themselves, who persuaded Balfour to produce his declaration in favour of their "cause". Hence, "Zionist cause".

Adam B.

Thomas, you miss the point. One interprets the law as it is written. One does not "interpret" what the intentions of those who wrote the law might be.

Understand the difference?

Adam B.

Rick, your reply is complete gobbledegook. I suggest you look up what Zionist means. It is not confined to a small group and the Balfour declaration.

Zionism is Jewish nationalism, and one who supports the re-establsihment of the Jewish homeland is, by definition, a Zionist.

Rick

Adam B.
May 18th, 2011 7:19pm
I will remain polite. You asked what I meant by the Zionist case (not "cause" as I mistakenly wrote last time). I told you I was discussing with C. Gee the Balfour Declaration and its interpretation (or rather piggy-backing on a discussion between C. Gee and Herzen). C. Gee has cited Howard Grief as the best advocate of the case for the Zionists' interpretation. Herzen and others have been providing evidence they think tells against the case for the Zionists' interpretation. (The Zionists were at the time a small group claiming to represent the world's Jews.) I was asking C. Gee how he and other supporters of the Zionist interpretation, like Howard Grief, interpret the proviso to make it consistent with their contention that the Declaration promised a Jewish state. It is a reasonable question. I ask it because (I admit this with trepidation) I do not have a copy readily available of Grief's magnum opus, which I am sure will provide what I ask for in great detail - I am asking C. Gee just for a brief summary. There is nothing here to take exception to.

Penny

I notice some discussion of the meaning of Resolution 242

The link below is to a letter written by one of its authors, Eugene Rostow.

In it he sets out what Res 242 was intended to mean.

It's from the horse's mouth.

Herzen

I'm trying to find your comment to me! There are so many posts I am struggling!

When I do, I will respond.

http://www.tzemachdovid.org/Facts/islegal1.shtml

Adam B.

Rick, thank you for your explanation. However, I note that you use the term as if it is a dirty word.

Are you an anti-Zionist? If so, are you against self-determination of the Jewish people?

I have to say I regard your view that the Germans got a raw deal at the end of WW2 as not only absurd, but also morally bankrupt. It explains your view that aggression should never have a negative impact on those exercising it.

Rick

Adam B.
May 18th, 2011 11:20pm
I do not use "Zionist" as a dirty word. I use it to refer to those who advocated a Jewish state in Palestine. I think Zionism was misguided. I am confused by the notion of self-determination for ethnically diverse co-religionists living in many different countries around the world. (I can't imagine the world's catholics descending on Rome and demanding Italy as their state expressive of their right to self-determination). Zionism has produced a state that now exists like any other and should be treated like any other. Its ideology produces features which should make anyone who supports liberal democracy uncomfortable, but there is nothing to stop the state evolving.

Your comments on the ethnic Germans of Eastern Europe suggest ignorance about their history and their treatement in 1945. They also suggest support for collective punishment, which is an abhorrent doctrine.

Rick

Penny
May 18th, 2011 11:05pm
Rostow and Goldberg produced retrospective accounts which are not consistent with the diplomatic record of what was said and done at the time. Caradon has also provided a retrospective account. He explains what those who participated in the drafting who wanted "the" omitted intended by the omission - namely, that no territory could be acquired by conquest, but that minor adjustments to borders, mutually agreed, should be allowed to create secure borders. The omission of "the" was intended by no-one to allow extensive settlement by Israel of land occupied by force.

I like Herzen's example (I seem to be his faithful acolyte!) of dogs fouling the path.

It is a stretch for the omission of "the" to bear the weight of interpretation Israel wants it to.

Penny

Hi Rick

I've read a rather different account in an interview with Goldberg - as opposed to, say, a quotation on a third-party document. In the interview he completely supports Rostow.

Can you provide a source /link for your version of 'Goldberg'? I will attempt to find one for mine!

It was rather a long time ago and the devil of it is that I posted it here on Mel's blog but didn't save it simply because it echoed Rostow's account.

If memory serves me well, he condensed the argument of the '67 line down to just a few, very logical statements.

I'll see if I can track it down, but time may not be on my side today.

C.Gee

“I ask it because (I admit this with trepidation) I do not have a copy readily available of Grief's magnum opus, which I am sure will provide what I ask for in great detail - I am asking C. Gee just for a brief summary. There is nothing here to take exception to.”

For goodness sake, ask Thomas to ask his Australian friend to provide a brief summary and email it. It would be easier all round if the friend would enter into the debates here directly, from his lap-top while traveling. He travels with the HG tome, so should be able to do the research quite easily while on those long Qantas flights.

Rick

C.Gee
May 19th, 2011 4:23pm
I am so blinded with tears of laughter at your wonderfully amusing intervention (oh, you are a one!) that I cannot see your answer to the question. Not to worry. A pattern emerges, both in Grief's efforts and yours.

Adam B.

Rick, it is disturbing that you have such a problem with Jewish self-determination - indeed, your honesty in this regard demonstrates the motivation for your general hostility to Israel, whatever the set of circumstances Israel finds herself in. If you don't believe she and her people should even be there at all, it is difficult to engage with you about any specific point of policy. I wonder who else on this planet you have this problem with. Indeed, why is Jordan a separate country from saudi Arabia, or Syria? Why is the United Arab Emirates' existence, a phony country if ever there was one, perfectly legitimate, but Israel's isn't?Isn't that bigotry?

Your confusion (your own word) about Jewish nationalism stems from a complete lack of understanding, or indeed basic knowledge, about the Jewish people, or the Jewish faith, which is inextricably linked to the land. Comparisons between Jews and Catholics expose this ignorance.

Jews are not just a religious group - they share a common ethnic heritage as well. Catholics do not. Do you understand this?

Your "collective punishment" quip is unfortunately a fashionable, and ultimately meaningless term. War itself is "collective punishment". Everyone suffers. And to be squeamish about the treatment of Germans after the war (when they had, overwhelmingly, been supportive participants of the genocides of various peoples, including the Poles who lost a sixth of their entire population, and took Prussia from Germany) is simply utterly misplaced. That's what happens when you start wars of aggression, and indulge in the odd spot of genocide. You don't get to keep eveything you had before, as if nothing had happened. The victims get compensated, and the perpetrators lose out.

And why aren't you campaigning with the same vigour for the ethnic Geramns of the Sudetenland and Prussia? You rather dismissed the notion that no Germans want them back. That's just not true. There are several far right groups who do, and have been campaigning on these issues for years. Why are their claims to be ignored, but the claims of Palestinians (who actually never had the land they claim in the first place) to be trumpeted?

Isn't that a little inconsistent Rick?

C.Gee

“I like Herzen's example (I seem to be his faithful acolyte!) of dogs fouling the path.”

Rick and Thomas, brainwave! Ask Herzen for a summary of HG. He claims to have read the book. The three of you blur together in my mind. For all I know, you are a triunity.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Rick:"The Arab states, the Muslim states, the whole world except Israel and the US, have advocated a two-state solution based on the Green Line as set out in 242."

Rick, your ignorance or historical amnesia are breathtaking. When it was drafted, Israel actually accepted Res 242. The Arabs rejected it.

Stop being a ninny. Perhaps leave that to Tilly, she's gets better responses which we enjoy more (thinks, Mr Gee).

Tilly: you answer to my post was much appreciaed. Its detail and incisiveness were breathtaking.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Rick: " Zionism has produced a state that now exists like any other and should be treated like any other. Its ideology produces features which should make anyone who supports liberal democracy uncomfortable, but there is nothing to stop the state evolving."

But Israel is NOT treated like any other state, Rick, especially by people like you.

You also don't seem to get that despite your implied support for liberal democracy and the basis on which you and those like you should feel "uncomfortable" with the "features" its "ideology" "produces", your views give succour to many millions who do not believe in liberal democracy at all.

using the word 'ideology' as anyone who has one necessarily has to be opposed to liberal democracy, one can only put down to some kind of irritable bowel intellect...and it really wont do. You need to get some control over the movement of your thinking.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Penny: and another quote from Robin Shepherd's book:

"..if the principles, standards and values applied by bien pensant Europe to Israel were retrospectively applied to Europe itself in 1930’s and 1940’s it is, in all seriousness, difficult to escape the following conclusions: the editorial pages of liberal newspapers across the continent would portray the Nazi Party as a ‘grievance’-based organization ‘radicalised’ by Western injustice; Nazi Germany’s ‘alleged’ anti-Semitism would be dismissed by BBC journalists as the rhetoric of the oppressed and would be censored out of the reporting; Amnesty International would denounce the Royal Airforce’s bombing campaigns as ‘disproportionate’ since German civilian deaths outnumbered British civilian deaths by 25 to 1; the European Parliament would condemn the targeted assassination of Rheinhard Heydrich in Czechoslovakia as an ‘extra-juridical execution’; and Winston Churchill would be indicted for a long list of ‘war crimes’ by the International Criminal Court in The Hague…Contemporary European values negate the possibility of contemporary European realities. Today’s Europe could not have been built on the basis of the value system now being argued for by the large numbers of the continents own opinion formers. The Allies would have lost WW11."

Penny

John R

Well, quite!

There are many wider implications to this bizarre attitude the West has taken to Israel that we may one day regret.

I don't think one has to be a supporter of Israel per se to see those implications - self-preservation should do the trick. Preserving our dignity as a nation is another, but I won't delve into that now!

In condemning Israel for defending itself - even in the smallest way - we are setting certain standards.

The concern I have - and I believe this is also one of Robin's - is that we might be painting ourselves into a corner as those standards we now apply to Israel may one day become expected of us, too.

Actions can have a nasty habit of turning around and biting you on the bum!

Yerusha

David and HErzen, you call David Cameron's 'threat' to Israel as 'criticism' from a friend? You two must enjoy a life of normality that is absent of terrors so far (unless I'm assuming wrongly). Those all over Asia and AFrica who have experienced terrorism and constant persecution first hand daily, will call the Palestinian ways with Israel as 'terror of the most cowardly sort'. And don't you dare put Israel defensive effort in the same category as the constant bombings year after year,plus frequent suicide-bombers sent to kill the innocent in Israel. The rest of the world may get sucked in by your arguments and constant propaganda of many, but people who know their land/ and possession, and are under constant danger of death by terrorism of PA will never get sucked in by such blatant lies. Just like a woman who has lived with a monster who continues to beat her and abuse her knows and stands by the fact that the monster is not the saint people persistently claim him to be.

Rick

C.Gee
May 19th, 2011 6:52pm
Yet more hilarity! Oh, you do us all good.

Rick

Adam B.
May 19th, 2011 6:38pm
Er...thank you, I suppose, for the lesson in myth-history.

Do study some European history before showing off your humanity by-pass scars.

And enough already with the "Palestinians never had the land they claim". Every hasbara trope comes round again and again in your remarks. No doubt you'll respond with some travesty of Ottoman law and assertions about what a "Nation" is and what sovereignty.

I've heard them all before. Save yourself the trouble and use it to study something other than hasbara.

Pat Greenfield

Well done Melanie - any chance of you standing for Prime Minister?

Adam B.

Rick, maybe it helps you to pigeonhole people by simply putting the word "hasbara" in front of any point they make. You can therefore unthinkingly dismiss anything they say, without actually having to address any substantive points put to you.

You say you don't regard Zionism as a dirty word, by hasbara is obviously absolutely filthy to you (incidentally, I first heard the term "hasbara" about a month ago - and frankly, what is your problem with it?)

I really don't need lessons about humanity from someone who denigrates both the Jewish race, as you have here, and Jewish self-determination. Please continue with your endless outpourings of humanity for the Nazi populations of the Sudetenland, and keep bashing the Jews. Clearly, humanity is on your side.

Adam B.

In fact Rick, your last two posts managed to contain no substance at all, other than to say "I disagree".

Try to tell us why.

Adam B.

John Roosevelt, Robin Shepherd truly is masterful in that book. I wish Rick/Thomas would read it.

Penny

Adam and John

One of the reasons I liked Robin's book is that he has taken a step back and has looked at the issues through a wide lens. His concerns are as much for the UK and the West in general as they are for Israel.

After reading it I was reminded of pantomimes, specifically those times where, as the villian is sneaking up behind the unsuspecting hero, the audience calls out:

"He's behind you!"

True to pantomime tradition, we are responding with;

"Oh no he's not!"

The sad fact is, though, that this isn't pantomime and its not terribly funny.

Incidentally, I enjoy reading both your posts. Thanks!

Adam B.

Thanks Penny, although very few reach your level of erudition!

Couldn't agree more - Robin Shepherd's book provided a whole new outlook for me. It demonstrated that such anti-Israel bigotry and hypocrisy is not just part of a neo anti-Semitic movement, (although that is a large component) but part of Europe's lack of belief in itself, and its failure to defend its own values or interests. As most Europeans don't think their own societies are worth defending anymore (the statistics provided regarding the pacifism of most European societies was illuminating), they can't understand Israel's refusal to simply give up, as they themselves have done.

Mr.Mrs. G. Hardy

I agree with Truthtriumphs, to sign an endorsement of this letter to the PM is what is needed. David Cameron & co. need to know how we feel stongly about this, and our concerns for Israel.

Jascha Kessler

. It is, for Arabs, not a question of peace (now or ever); rather the denial of the existence of an Israel.

I hold in my hand a video recorded from a rare, even lost 14-minute interview by NY Times correspondent Bruno Shaw in 1947 at the UN. Shaw asked several persons whether they would agree with the impending plan to end the Mandate in 1948 by dividing Palestine between two new States. The Zionist representative immediately accepted as a future homeland for Jews an amount of hectares no larger than, and certainly smaller than Los Angeles. Emir Feisal, the Arab delegate, shouted one word only, “Never!” Beside him stood Mufti Husseini, who expostulated angrily at length, repeating the same Never!

Never it was before Israel existed. Never it remains, as PA’s Abbas declared in Cairo last November, and again loud and clear these past weeks. Meanwhile nearly 64 years have passed during which the West’s leaders have failed to face this elemental, all-determining reality. Does no one have a dictionary from which may be learned the meaning of Never!

Steven

Jez:

Don't worry. In a little more than 17 months here in the United States we'll vote that other appeaser out as well.

Ian Brearley

Melanie Phillips, when I read this sort of comment from you, I just want to give you a huge hug and say "well done". You could not be more spot-on if you tried. Go for it Girl!

Miggy

Wonderful article. I add that even primary school Palestinian children are taught to hate Jews, Christians and the West. If Israel falls so do we as we would be next and the only place that Christians are free in the whole middle East is in Israel.

John Allsop

An outstandingly splendid and pertinent open letter to the P.M. of 5 May in the Spectator. Let us hope H.M.G. responds positively and rescues England for the shame to which we are running in our treatment of Israel.

Michael Greengard

My favorite comment by PM Cameron was his condemnation of the so-called Gaza blockage, as if Britain hadn't invented the naval blockade and used it against civilians in enemy nations for hundreds of years.
Perhaps the PM is angry at Israel for using a naval blockade against civilians without paying Britain a fee for the intellectual property rights to the idea, which unquestionably belong to Britain.

Rhoda

Mr Cameron, read, learn and take action. Is there a position as adviser to the Foreign Office for Melanie Phillips?

John (a kiwi)

A lesson for the british government in its own history. The palestine mandate was the worst example of british colonial administration ever.

Gerald Gotzen

Apologies for the delay in responding to this tremendous article. During May I was in Ethiopia with a Medical Outreach
with some of the remaining Jews.
Your letter to the PM is in the
style of the Biblical prophets.
If possible please contact me about my good friend Dr Omer is
the chairman of the Somali-Israel Friendship Society and is also the special adviser to the
President of Somaliland. He lives in Beckanham Kent and I could arrange an interview with him. This coming Saturday I shall be speaking at Westminster
Chapel in London about the people in Somaliland who love Israel.

George Martin

What a letter and how true so much truth. Israel is a Sovereign nation and who are we to interfere in her affairs. Who's land is it anyway.
God created, so it is His land, and He gave it to the apple of his eye. The most peaceful, Most caring people, they even mended the Arabs who attacked them,Cameron, leave well alone before you get your fingers burnt.

Simon Parker

Wonderful article, Mrs. Phillips!

However, I must object a little to your notion that the British are behind Arab Judeophobia. The most anti-Jewish of the early Palestinian nationalists was Yasser Arafat's uncle, Mohammad "Haj" Amin al-Husayni, who was both anti-British and anti-Zionist, leading him to seek and, ultimately, to find an alliance with the Nazis.

Clearly, the PLO and Hamas would murder Englishmen if we still had the Empire; the Israeli intelligence services are pro-Russian, but -- overall -- Israeli Jews are far more Westernised than the Mohammedans.

Laura G.

Brilliant. And look at the comments. This has generated more feedback than any article I've seen in a long time (something any media outlet would want, especially nowadays). But no, as thought-provoking and relevant as her articles and commentaries obviously are, Melanie was pushed out...another example of just how much people hate the truth. One day these Hamas-supporters will get what they want. And then who will help them...and who will they blame...?

Brenda Glaves

My comment to Mr. Cameron is I think this country will be ruined soon. As a 76 year old widow who worked all her life until she was 70 I now find I have to sell the home we worked for as I can't afford the running costs. then I hear on the news the ceo of rbs is to get a bonus of obnoxious size. He couldn't work any harder thanI did paid by a government grant and didn't know what a bonus was! Why are the energy companies allowed to make hugh profits whilst charging us high prices and why aren/t the rich people made to pay more tax and let us poor people off paying tax at all. I am so disgruntled and realist as you are a millionaire yourself you could not possible know what its like. I REALLY would like a reply about what you and the government are going to do about our economy.