I think the author had the opposite intention, but the piece made me feel more anti-Israel even though I am generally sympathetic to it. Good, well written, balanced article. Thanks.
I thought it's intention was whether one approves or disapproves of the actions of the Israeli state, it is here and everyone needs to deal with it as it is, not some romanticized half truth which strips away any complexity, and that the Corbynite tendency is to do just that and for suspect reasons too.
I've always had great sympathy for the Palestinians. Despite the threats Israel faces, which are very real, they are the ones with the most power in the dynamic after all. But it is disturbing how many people, even generally sensible people, seem to believe you cannot criticise Israel, which many do, and start pulling out very shady tropes, and it's hard to ignore that.
"But it is disturbing how many people, even generally sensible people, seem to believe you cannot criticise Israel, which many do"
Really ? Corbyn places a wreath allegedly on the graves of terrorists [ who apparently were never buried or buried in Libya - in 1972 Tunisia had a very pro-western government ] and is criticised . A mention of Menachem Begin , the Irgun terrorist becomes an anti-semitic slur.
That response has nothing whatsoever to do with my post. .
Even if, let's say, Corbyn is unfairly attacked, what has that to do with my demonstrably true point that Israel can be criticised? Depending on that criticism they might criticised back, and that criticism itself might not be fair, but plenty manage to criticise just fine.
You , very cleverly, muddied the waters. I was criticised as anti-Semite because I brought up the name of Menachem Begin, the Irgun terrorist who killed 28 Britons and a total of 91 people in just one atrocity.
I didn't muddle anything, let alone cleverly. I made the point that people are wrong if they claim Israel cannot be criticised. That point is true. If you have been unfairly criticised for your criticism then I'm sorry, but many many people express many criticisms of Israel all the same, without the fear of being labelled an anti Semite. Criticism, fair or not, that you received doesn't erase the fact that plenty do criticise it without being shouted down or facing whataboutery. That doesn't mean it's fair if someone faces, er, unfair criticism, but it's not some great taboo that people struggle to overcome. And there's no need to fall into anti Semitic tropes to make the criticism, which some, not all, do. And some use that as cover.
Another odd omission in PB is Saudi Arabia, the UAE , Kuwait are never criticised.
Must be beacons of democracy ?
Actually a great many people criticised the Saudis after they bombed that school bus. But you may not have noticed as I have observed you have a tendency to skate over posts by posters who challenge your views.
Edit - PBers may be amused to learn that just after I wrote that I observed Skawkbox's editor(?) is back on the site - and I jumped over his post!
What is Skawbox ?
No idea.
But if you mean 'Skawkbox,' it is a sort of left-wing answer to Breitbart, but (a) rather less truthful in its reporting and (b) run by a single person.
Mr. kle4, if someone considers their position to be a moral good, then the alternative must be evil. It's why wrapping politics up in morality (including all the nonsense of 'never kiss a Tory' t-shirts) is just dumb. You can't concede points because the debate is between evil and good, not reasonable but differing perspectives.
Another odd omission in PB is Saudi Arabia, the UAE , Kuwait are never criticised.
Must be beacons of democracy ?
Actually a great many people criticised the Saudis after they bombed that school bus. But you may not have noticed as I have observed you have a tendency to skate over posts by posters who challenge your views.
Edit - PBers may be amused to learn that just after I wrote that I observed Skawkbox's editor(?) is back on the site - and I jumped over his post!
What is Skawbox ?
No idea.
But if you mean 'Skawkbox,' it is a sort of left-wing answer to Breitbart, but (a) rather less truthful in its reporting and (b) run by a single person.
You think he/she writes here in PB ? By the way, I just looked it up on the internet. Had a quick glance - does not look like a pleasant place.
Another odd omission in PB is Saudi Arabia, the UAE , Kuwait are never criticised.
Must be beacons of democracy ?
Actually a great many people criticised the Saudis after they bombed that school bus. But you may not have noticed as I have observed you have a tendency to skate over posts by posters who challenge your views.
Edit - PBers may be amused to learn that just after I wrote that I observed Skawkbox's editor(?) is back on the site - and I jumped over his post!
What is Skawbox ?
No idea.
But if you mean 'Skawkbox,' it is a sort of left-wing answer to Breitbart, but (a) rather less truthful in its reporting and (b) run by a single person.
You think he/she writes here in PB ? By the way, I just looked it up on the internet. Had a quick glance - does not look like a pleasant place.
At one time I thought it was just a rather unbalanced and unpleasant person who read the site and regurgitated its reports.
However, I was puzzled to observe a couple of posts on here making the claims before they went live on Skawkbox's website.
It may be coincidence, but since on investigation the claims in question proved to be made up it doesn't seem likely.
And yes, it is an unpleasant place. That's why I skip over the posts in question.
Edit - just to be absolutely clear, it wasn't you I was accusing of being Wilson,or the Jezziah, or BJO (who is an SB reader as well). I disagree with all of you on many things but I'm in no doubt of your sincerity or integrity (one rather flippant joke a couple of years back that I regret making aside.)
He has. It's a very good example of how they differ. I shouldn't think they disagree on the issue. JC feels one shouldn't compromise on the right to discuss controversial issues affecting oppressed people. JM thinks one should shut up if it's politically wise.
In theory we all approve of honesty and saying what you really think. In reality few politicians do, because it gets them into constant shitstorms. However, it does mean that what you see is probably what you get. I feel reasonably sure in outline what JC would do as PM. I'm less sure what JM would do, and I don't mean that in a sinister way, but more like other conventional politicians - e.g. one could never really tell what Tony and Gordon would come with.
Domestically, I found this the core of David's piece:
"Again and again, the cycle repeated: immigration as an alien presence within a guest country, marginalisation, restricted rights, success despite these oppressions, envy, violence, and finally expulsion or exile through intimidation."
What angers me to the core is that one of our two large political parties - on the most generous interpretation - is turning a blind eye to those in its midst who are stirring up a state of hostility to British Jews, such that they feel they are facing expulsion or exile through intimidation. THAT is unacceptable on any level, and much more so than whether you are Remainer or Brexiteer, should be the dominant issue in domestic politics.
An outstanding piece, thank you David.
Agree with you on the domestic aspect of this and in all the justified criticism of Israel by the Corbyn supporters this aspect is overlooked.
One other point which I think David overlooks is the extent to which the anti-semitism we are seeing is also powered by by a far Left view of Jews as capitalist oppressors which has little or nothing to do with the Israel question.
On the Israel/Palestine question I would favour a two-state solution but it is very hard to see how we get there without trust being built. And it is hard to see that trust being built when on the Palestinian side they are still calling for Israel’s destruction and on the Israeli side they are still building settlements and passing laws like this latest nationality law. What I am clear about is Corbyn cannot act as a honest broker because he is so partisan and has made little effort to understand the Israeli mindset.
That is why - if he were a bigger man than he appears to be - he would now make an effort to do so, to accept Israel’s invitation to visit, to understand their concerns. It would not undermine his pro-Palestinian stance but it would show that he understands that (a) Palestinians are not and have not always been innocent victims but also have been capable of great violence; (b) Jews in Israel and elsewhere have also been the victims of such violence; and (c) the issue is rather more complex than he seems to think. It is a pity that he does not do so and his stubborness in refusing to grow beyond his rebellious backbencher mode evidences one aspect of his unfitness to be PM.
One final point: it is notable that the more recent stories are focusing less on Corbyn being seen with anti-semites and more on being seen with actual terrorists. That brings - potentially - a risk for him. Voters may not care about the Israel question but they do want a PM who will protect them from terror not consort with those who perpetrate it. The first photo of him with someone who supports recent Islamist terror against Britons and not just Israelis is what should worry Labour suppporters.
One final point: it is notable that the more recent stories are focusing less on Corbyn being seen with anti-semites and more on being seen with actual terrorists. That brings - potentially - a risk for him. Voters may not care about the Israel question but they do want a PM who will protect them from terror not consort with those who perpetrate it. The first photo of him with someone who supports recent Islamist terror against Britons and not just Israelis is what should worry Labour suppporters.
It should. But if the photos of him posing with the IRA didn't resonate, will it really resonate with terrorists who commit atrocities in faraway lands of which most people know nothing and care less?
I love the trotting out of 'democracy' in an area of dictatorships when Lebanon and Iraq are both democracies, and certainly much more so than Israel if you take into account the occupied territories and the increasingly racist nation laws being passed.
Egypt was also a democracy for a brief time, and Turkey has long been a democracy, though admittedly that looks less safe than it did in that regard. Iran is also fairly democratic, again once you take into account Israel's complete disenfranchisement of huge numbers of people that it has control over, certainly no less than Israel.
The making the barren rocks of Palestine bloom bullshit is pretty cloying cobblers too. Its always been an area with plenty of agriculture (indeed a nice neck of the woods), as tragically displayed by the endless bulldozing of ancient Palestinian-owned olive groves by settlers and the IDF.
Yes Israel has religious fundamentalists in its government. Yes Israel acts harshly. Yes Israel continues to expand its borders against international law. None of these are good. But the context can't be ignored - Israeli citizens continue to be terrorised, Israel had to repel invading forces on multiple fronts on multiple occasions. And Israel was born out of the wholesale slaughter of Jews where international law didn't save them.
Do I sympathise with the Palestinians? Yes. But they aren't trying to reclaim their state because they never had one. 5m "refugees" born generations later than the people displaced by the Israeli state? Please... A two state solution is called that because it needs to create the second of the states - the 1947 option rejected at the time by an Arab leadership pledged to the destruction and removal of the Jewish state. Is it any wonder Israel takes a hard line on those threatening it?
A viable functioning Palestine is still achieveable. They have to actually want it, and put the onus back onto Israel to explain to the world why it objects if it does so. Until then, whilst I have huge sympathies for the Palestinian cause, the idea that they are the entirely innocent party is absurd.
"Israeli citizens continue to be terrorised" - yeah, children throw stones, and then the F34 goes in and kills 58 civilians.
A teenage girl slaps an Israeli soldier and gets 8 months in prison. An Israeli soldier murders a Palestinian and gets 9 months in prison. Israeli justice ! But there are many supporters here.
I'm not talking about stones. I'm talking about rockets and mortars. 174 fired into Israel from Gaza on 14th July. 8 rockets fired on Sderot on 8th August. You dont think that rockets and mortars being dropped on you creates terror? Is the Israeli attack into Gaza heavier? Yes it is. The alternative? Should Israel fire its own indiscriminate mortars? Invade?
(Snip)
Now now, you must get it right. According to one of Corbyn's most strident defenders on here, they aren't rockets. They're 'fireworks'. He later amended that to a meaningless 'advanced fireworks'.
And fireworks can't be bad, can they? They're pretty, and make people go "ohh, and ahh". In fact, they Palestinians are doing the Israelis a lovely favour by launching all those fireworks (end sarcasm).
I think the author had the opposite intention, but the piece made me feel more anti-Israel even though I am generally sympathetic to it. Good, well written, balanced article. Thanks.
I thought it's intention was whether one approves or disapproves of the actions of the Israeli state, it is here and everyone needs to deal with it as it is, not some romanticized half truth which strips away any complexity, and that the Corbynite tendency is to do just that and for suspect reasons too.
I've always had great sympathy for the Palestinians. Despite the threats Israel faces, which are very real, they are the ones with the most power in the dynamic after all. But it is disturbing how many people, even generally sensible people, seem to believe you cannot criticise Israel, which many do, and start pulling out very shady tropes, and it's hard to ignore that.
What threats does Israel face? From Jordan Lenanon Iraq Yemen Egypt Lybia Tunisia Syria the UAE Saudi Arabia Gaza Iran Kuwait Turkey.......the trouble with these hackneyed sayings is that it paints a picture which is deliberately designed to mislead
Of course Israel is firmly allied with that least democratic and most dangerously religiously extreme country in the region (and possibly in the world), Saudi Arabia, heart of global wahabi terrorism (and best friend of the Tory establishment).
One final point: it is notable that the more recent stories are focusing less on Corbyn being seen with anti-semites and more on being seen with actual terrorists. That brings - potentially - a risk for him. Voters may not care about the Israel question but they do want a PM who will protect them from terror not consort with those who perpetrate it. The first photo of him with someone who supports recent Islamist terror against Britons and not just Israelis is what should worry Labour suppporters.
It should. But if the photos of him posing with the IRA didn't resonate, will it really resonate with terrorists who commit atrocities in faraway lands of which most people know nothing and care less?
It won't. I'm not in the least bit skeptical of that.
Mr Surby, How different, how very different from the responses on our own dear site.
Well, I think we can all live with the occasional vituperative outburst (I would be a hypocrite, for instance, if I claimed never to have done so myself), it's when that's the bread and butter that it's hard to live with.
I think the author had the opposite intention, but the piece made me feel more anti-Israel even though I am generally sympathetic to it. Good, well written, balanced article. Thanks.
I thought it's intention was whether one approves or disapproves of the actions of the Israeli state, it is here and everyone needs to deal with it as it is, not some romanticized half truth which strips away any complexity, and that the Corbynite tendency is to do just that and for suspect reasons too.
I've always had great sympathy for the Palestinians. Despite the threats Israel faces, which are very real, they are the ones with the most power in the dynamic after all. But it is disturbing how many people, even generally sensible people, seem to believe you cannot criticise Israel, which many do, and start pulling out very shady tropes, and it's hard to ignore that.
What threats does Israel face? From Jordan Lenanon Iraq Yemen Egypt Lybia Tunisia Syria the UAE Saudi Arabia Gaza Iran Kuwait Turkey.......the trouble with these hackneyed sayings is that it paints a picture which is deliberately designed to mislead
The threat level may well have diminished, and are part of why Israel's responses to things are criticised as disproportionate, but that doesn't make the threat non-existent, historically or otherwise particularly in such a volatile region, or to be dismissed as a hackneyed saying. Flippantly dismissing the idea of threats out of hand is, I would suggest, far more misleading.
One final point: it is notable that the more recent stories are focusing less on Corbyn being seen with anti-semites and more on being seen with actual terrorists. That brings - potentially - a risk for him. Voters may not care about the Israel question but they do want a PM who will protect them from terror not consort with those who perpetrate it. The first photo of him with someone who supports recent Islamist terror against Britons and not just Israelis is what should worry Labour suppporters.
It should. But if the photos of him posing with the IRA didn't resonate, will it really resonate with terrorists who commit atrocities in faraway lands of which most people know nothing and care less?
I'll admit I'm sceptical.
I’m very specifically not talking about photos of terrorists who commit atrocities in faraway lands of which we know nothing or ones who committed them decades ago.
I am talking about terrorists who commit atrocities now in our land, in concert halls and bars and on our streets here. Should there be any link between those sorts of people and Corbyn I think the reaction may well be different. I would hope so.
The other danger is that some loon, inspired by some of the hateful anti-Jewish language used by some of his supporters decides to attack Jewish targets in Britain. Then the phrase “words have consequences” used against the likes of Boris could and will be used against Corbyn.
I think the author had the opposite intention, but the piece made me feel more anti-Israel even though I am generally sympathetic to it. Good, well written, balanced article. Thanks.
I thought it's intention was whether one approves or disapproves of the actions of the Israeli state, it is here and everyone needs to deal with it as it is, not some romanticized half truth which strips away any complexity, and that the Corbynite tendency is to do just that and for suspect reasons too.
I've always had great sympathy for the Palestinians. Despite the threats Israel faces, which are very real, they are the ones with the most power in the dynamic after all. But it is disturbing how many people, even generally sensible people, seem to believe you cannot criticise Israel, which many do, and start pulling out very shady tropes, and it's hard to ignore that.
What threats does Israel face? From Jordan Lenanon Iraq Yemen Egypt Lybia Tunisia Syria the UAE Saudi Arabia Gaza Iran Kuwait Turkey.......the trouble with these hackneyed sayings is that it paints a picture which is deliberately designed to mislead
The threat level may well have diminished, and are part of why Israel's responses to things are criticised as disproportionate, but that doesn't make the threat non-existent, historically or otherwise particularly in such a volatile region, or to be dismissed as a hackneyed saying. Flippantly dismissing the idea of threats out of hand is, I would suggest, far more misleading.
Israel is a NUCLEAR POWER. That is deliberately not mentioned. All the "threats" are bunkum.
I think the author had the opposite intention, but the piece made me feel more anti-Israel even though I am generally sympathetic to it. Good, well written, balanced article. Thanks.
I thought it's intention was whether one approves or disapproves of the actions of the Israeli state, it is here and everyone needs to deal with it as it is, not some romanticized half truth which strips away any complexity, and that the Corbynite tendency is to do just that and for suspect reasons too.
I've always had great sympathy for the Palestinians. Despite the threats Israel faces, which are very real, they are the ones with the most power in the dynamic after all. But it is disturbing how many people, even generally sensible people, seem to believe you cannot criticise Israel, which many do, and start pulling out very shady tropes, and it's hard to ignore that.
What threats does Israel face? From Jordan Lenanon Iraq Yemen Egypt Lybia Tunisia Syria the UAE Saudi Arabia Gaza Iran Kuwait Turkey.......the trouble with these hackneyed sayings is that it paints a picture which is deliberately designed to mislead
The threat level may well have diminished, and are part of why Israel's responses to things are criticised as disproportionate, but that doesn't make the threat non-existent, historically or otherwise particularly in such a volatile region, or to be dismissed as a hackneyed saying. Flippantly dismissing the idea of threats out of hand is, I would suggest, far more misleading.
Israel is a NUCLEAR POWER. That is deliberately not mentioned. All the "threats" are bunkum.
We're actually managing a sensible and even-tempered discussion on one of the most explosive controversies around. It's a credit to PB and to David for setting the tone.
"Indeed, even the two-state solution is unworkable because two states means two armies, two sets of security forces and a full international border. For diplomatic reasons, this fact isn’t currently be acknowledged but it’s true all the same, and is the reason why Israel does not treat the Palestinian Authority as a foreign power. Ultimately, the only permanent option for Palestine-Israel is a one-state solution: the question mark is over the extent of devolved powers to Arab autonomous regions."
So the only future for the Palestinians is life in an Apartheid Bantustan in the occupied territories, denied the rights of other peoples to self rule?
What is your solution, and how would you get there?
What matters are the people, whether Israeli, Palestinian, Jew, Muslim, Christian, or whatever. People deserve the opportunity to live and thrive in a peaceful environment that their 'leaders' (on all sides) are unable to provide them.
That is what all the peoples of the ME should get - and which, perversely, Israel provides the best at the moment.
I don't think Britain can contribute to a solution because of our own history during the Palestine Mandate.
I would like to see a two state solution based on the 1967 borders, with the settlements in the West Bank removed. Israel is however continuing to expand these.
The question for the Holy Land is much the same as it is in other parts of the world such as Kurdistan, Arakan, or even Scotland. To what extent should a self defined nation have a national state? Or is it possible for multiple distinct communities to leave peacefully and respectfully alongside each other?
How your twisted mind could possibly equate Scotland with any of this is mind boggling.
I think the author had the opposite intention, but the piece made me feel more anti-Israel even though I am generally sympathetic to it. Good, well written, balanced article. Thanks.
I thought it's intention was whether one approves or disapproves of the actions of the Israeli state, it is here and everyone needs to deal with it as it is, not some romanticized half truth which strips away any complexity, and that the Corbynite tendency is to do just that and for suspect reasons too.
I've always had great sympathy for the Palestinians. Despite the threats Israel faces, which are very real, they are the ones with the most power in the dynamic after all. But it is disturbing how many people, even generally sensible people, seem to believe you cannot criticise Israel, which many do, and start pulling out very shady tropes, and it's hard to ignore that.
What threats does Israel face? From Jordan Lenanon Iraq Yemen Egypt Lybia Tunisia Syria the UAE Saudi Arabia Gaza Iran Kuwait Turkey.......the trouble with these hackneyed sayings is that it paints a picture which is deliberately designed to mislead
The threat level may well have diminished, and are part of why Israel's responses to things are criticised as disproportionate, but that doesn't make the threat non-existent, historically or otherwise particularly in such a volatile region, or to be dismissed as a hackneyed saying. Flippantly dismissing the idea of threats out of hand is, I would suggest, far more misleading.
Israel is a NUCLEAR POWER. That is deliberately not mentioned. All the "threats" are bunkum.
It was mentioned in the header. Britain is a nuclear power. We still face a threat from terrorism. As does Israel. Israel also faces a threat that some of its neighbours and non-state groups supported by them wish to eliminate it, whether using violence, political pressure or a combination of the two. Nuclear power is a last resort not something you can use to deal with terrorists.
Rather than dismiss the existence of the threat, it would be better to find ways to diminish it. But often those who are opposed to Israel do the opposite then use Israel’s understandably defensive response as a justification for their hostility.
Yes Israel has religious fundamentalists in its government. Yes Israel acts harshly. Yes Israel continues to expand its borders against international law. None of these are good. But the context can't be ignored - Israeli citizens continue to be terrorised, Israel had to repel invading forces on multiple fronts on multiple occasions. And Israel was born out of the wholesale slaughter of Jews where international law didn't save them.
Do I sympathise with the Palestinians? Yes. But they aren't trying to reclaim their state because they never had one. 5m "refugees" born generations later than the people displaced by the Israeli state? Please... A two state solution is called that because it needs to create the second of the states - the 1947 option rejected at the time by an Arab leadership pledged to the destruction and removal of the Jewish state. Is it any wonder Israel takes a hard line on those threatening it?
A viable functioning Palestine is still achieveable. They have to actually want it, and put the onus back onto Israel to explain to the world why it objects if it does so. Until then, whilst I have huge sympathies for the Palestinian cause, the idea that they are the entirely innocent party is absurd.
"Israeli citizens continue to be terrorised" - yeah, children throw stones, and then the F34 goes in and kills 58 civilians.
A teenage girl slaps an Israeli soldier and gets 8 months in prison. An Israeli soldier murders a Palestinian and gets 9 months in prison. Israeli justice ! But there are many supporters here.
I'm not talking about stones. I'm talking about rockets and mortars. 174 fired into Israel from Gaza on 14th July. 8 rockets fired on Sderot on 8th August. You dont think that rockets and mortars being dropped on you creates terror? Is the Israeli attack into Gaza heavier? Yes it is. The alternative? Should Israel fire its own indiscriminate mortars? Invade?
Both sides need peace. Security. And that means all sides disengaging. Egypt. Iran. The various Syrian groups. The extra-national terrorist groups. Sound like I am defending Israel? Yes I am, because they deserve to be defended. As do the Palestinians. There will have to be disengagement by Israel from many of its settlements in the West Bank. As they had to in Gaza. But there also needs to be disengagement from the other side. Too many people still think Israel has no legitimate right to exist. It does, and it ian't going away. The sooner regional players get that into their skulls the better.
"Rockets and bombs". Exactly how many Israelis have actually died compared to how many Palestinians Israel has killed ?
Israel also has the NUCLEAR BOMB. So let's not be too worried about its security. It can more than defend itself.
An excellent piece by David H for which as always many thanks. As usual, there are parts of it with which I don't agree. I'm much less pessimistic about the "two states" solution. It requires people of courage and principle to break the deadlock - from the Arab side, a recognition of the state of Israel, from the Israeli side, a recognition the Palestinians are a nation and should be treated as such.
International and regional guarantees for both states as to their sovereignty oiled as always by fistfuls of money. Pouring billions into the Gaza and West Bank would be a huge step forward - it's an old maxim that if people are busy making money they are too busy to make trouble.
I'm not a man of the Right but I embrace the potential of capitalism to create, aspire and motivate. Getting people working, building, re-building, getting infrastructures working will do far more for peace in the Middle East than any amount of rhetoric.
I also saw Orla Guerrin's traumatic report of the aftermath of the airstrike on the school bus in Yemen.
As I said yesterday, foreign policy and relations are often conducted on the basis of "my enemy's enemy is my friend" - we tried to be ethical once but that went nowhere as too many vested and powerful interests make money from the current disorder. It also makes the decision to invade Iraq in 2003 all the more perplexing and staggering. If you wanted to hold back the expansion of Islamic Iran having a strong secular power on its border might help yet we invaded, destabilised the area and have allowed Iranian and Iranian-backed influence to spread.
An absolutely tragic and incomprehensible error since in the Cold War we were happy to prop up dictators every bit as odious as Saddam.
I think the author had the opposite intention, but the piece made me feel more anti-Israel even though I am generally sympathetic to it. Good, well written, balanced article. Thanks.
I thought it's intention was whether one approves or disapproves of the actions of the Israeli state, it is here and everyone needs to deal with it as it is, not some romanticized half truth which strips away any complexity, and that the Corbynite tendency is to do just that and for suspect reasons too.
I've always had great sympathy for the Palestinians. Despite the threats Israel faces, which are very real, they are the ones with the most power in the dynamic after all. But it is disturbing how many people, even generally sensible people, seem to believe you cannot criticise Israel, which many do, and start pulling out very shady tropes, and it's hard to ignore that.
What threats does Israel face? From Jordan Lenanon Iraq Yemen Egypt Lybia Tunisia Syria the UAE Saudi Arabia Gaza Iran Kuwait Turkey.......the trouble with these hackneyed sayings is that it paints a picture which is deliberately designed to mislead
The threat level may well have diminished, and are part of why Israel's responses to things are criticised as disproportionate, but that doesn't make the threat non-existent, historically or otherwise particularly in such a volatile region, or to be dismissed as a hackneyed saying. Flippantly dismissing the idea of threats out of hand is, I would suggest, far more misleading.
The threat level from another country is negligable to non existent and by repeating the nonsense you diminish the real threat to several of those surrounding countries which is from Israel itself.
I've been staying at the Mariott Beirut when we were evacuated as Israeli bombers blew up an electricity supply station nearby killing five electricity workers. It was not uncommon in Lebanon but would you describe these neigbours as 'under threat' when in fact the only and ever present threat was Israel?
Domestically, I found this the core of David's piece:
"Again and again, the cycle repeated: immigration as an alien presence within a guest country, marginalisation, restricted rights, success despite these oppressions, envy, violence, and finally expulsion or exile through intimidation."
What angers me to the core is that one of our two large political parties - on the most generous interpretation - is turning a blind eye to those in its midst who are stirring up a state of hostility to British Jews, such that they feel they are facing expulsion or exile through intimidation. THAT is unacceptable on any level, and much more so than whether you are Remainer or Brexiteer, should be the dominant issue in domestic politics.
An outstanding piece, thank you David.
Agree with you on the domestic aspect of this and in all the justified criticism of Israel by the Corbyn supporters this aspect is overlooked.
One other point which I think David overlooks is the extent to which the anti-semitism we are seeing is also powered by by a far Left view of Jews as capitalist oppressors which has little or nothing to do with the Israel question.
That is why - if he were a bigger man than he appears to be - he would now make an effort to do so, to accept Israel’s invitation to visit, to understand their concerns. It would not undermine his pro-Palestinian stance but it would show that he understands that (a) Palestinians are not and have not always been innocent victims but also have been capable of great violence; (b) Jews in Israel and elsewhere have also been the victims of such violence; and (c) the issue is rather more complex than he seems to think. It is a pity that he does not do so and his stubborness in refusing to grow beyond his rebellious backbencher mode evidences one aspect of his unfitness to be PM.
One final point: it is notable that the more recent stories are focusing less on Corbyn being seen with anti-semites and more on being seen with actual terrorists. That brings - potentially - a risk for him. Voters may not care about the Israel question but they do want a PM who will protect them from terror not consort with those who perpetrate it. The first photo of him with someone who supports recent Islamist terror against Britons and not just Israelis is what should worry Labour suppporters.
Being close to terrorists etc never did much harm to many Tory leaders, so why harm Corbyn. We support many still today as government policy. Delusion does not come into it.
BBC News has a video of an ex-cop saying the far right are infiltrating politics. He may be right. But it's hard to worry about that when the far left are squatting on the Labour front bench and one good election result away from Number Ten.
I also think the establishment are much more comfortable worrying about the far right than either the far left or Islamic extremism/terrorism (the far right also, of course, having potential to go that far). No concerns about 'cultural sensitivities' to worry about, and almost all the membership are white.
The lack of coverage on the broadcast news (apparently it was on the radio a lot) of the Huddersfield rape gang, 31 strong, being convicted is alarming/depressing in equal measure.
That said, I would give kudos to the BBC for their recent Manchester mosque segment. We'll see where that leads (Manchester police are seeing if the recording indicates any laws were broken).
It seems that at the moment the far right are more likely than the far left to engage in terrorist acts.
Evidence?
When was the last far left terrorist act in Europe?
I remember the Red Army Faction, and the Baader Meinhof gang, but nothing much recently.
Excluding IS, etc is simply disingenuous.
IS, the most right wing ideologues, are leftists ?
Yes Israel has religious fundamentalists in its government. Yes Israel acts harshly. Yes Israel continues to expand its borders against international law. None of these are good. But the context can't be ignored - Israeli citizens continue to be terrorised, Israel had to repel invading forces on multiple fronts on multiple occasions. And Israel was born out of the wholesale slaughter of Jews where international law didn't save them.
A viable functioning Palestine is still achieveable. They have to actually want it, and put the onus back onto Israel to explain to the world why it objects if it does so. Until then, whilst I have huge sympathies for the Palestinian cause, the idea that they are the entirely innocent party is absurd.
"Israeli citizens continue to be terrorised" - yeah, children throw stones, and then the F34 goes in and kills 58 civilians.
A teenage girl slaps an Israeli soldier and gets 8 months in prison. An Israeli soldier murders a Palestinian and gets 9 months in prison. Israeli justice ! But there are many supporters here.
I'm not talke better.
"Rockets and bombs". Exactly how many Israelis have actually died compared to how many Palestinians Israel has killed ?
Israel also has the NUCLEAR BOMB. So let's not be too worried about its security. It can more than defend itself.
You are incredibly dismissive of threats which cannot be dealt with adequately through launching a nuclear bomb. As has been noted many many times, Israel holds a lot more of the power in the dynamics in the region, which is one reason why so many are sympathetic to the Palestinians, who have so much less. I don't quite see why someone cannot hold the view that Israel does hold more of the power, and there is responsibility that comes with that, while acknowledging the threats around it (and the threats people wishes they could inflict but cannot) that, even if not as high as it once was, is not nothing even if it does not excuse disproportion.
'It's more complicated' is, admittedly, a reasoning which can trotted out a bit dismissively at times, but this really doesn't seem like an issue which can be described as anything other than 'It's more complicated than that' if people perceive a point on one side as requiring that the other side must have no points - see Roger for an example.
Yes Israel has religious fundamentalists in its government. Yes Israel acts harshly. Yes Israel continues to expand its borders against international law. None of these are good. But the context can't be ignored - Israeli citizens continue to be terrorised, Israel had to repel invading forces on multiple fronts on multiple occasions. And Israel was born out of the wholesale slaughter of Jews where international law didn't save them.
A viable functioning Palestine is still achieveable. They have to actually want it, and put the onus back onto Israel to explain to the world why it objects if it does so. Until then, whilst I have huge sympathies for the Palestinian cause, the idea that they are the entirely innocent party is absurd.
"Israeli citizens continue to be terrorised" - yeah, children throw stones, and then the F34 goes in and kills 58 civilians.
Both sides need peace. Security. And that means all sides disengaging. Egypt. Iran. The various Syrian groups. The extra-national terrorist groups. Sound like I am defending Israel? Yes I am, because they deserve to be defended. As do the Palestinians. There will have to be disengagement by Israel from many of its settlements in the West Bank. As they had to in Gaza. But there also needs to be disengagement from the other side. Too many people still think Israel has no legitimate right to exist. It does, and it ian't going away. The sooner regional players get that into their skulls the better.
"Rockets and bombs". Exactly how many Israelis have actually died compared to how many Palestinians Israel has killed ?
Israel also has the NUCLEAR BOMB. So let's not be too worried about its security. It can more than defend itself.
Murder of civilians , women and children is fine when it is the Tories pals or business partners doing it , only bad when Russians or someone they don't like/do business with are involved.
I think the author had the opposite intention, but the piece made me feel more anti-Israel even though I am generally sympathetic to it. Good, well written, balanced article. Thanks.
I thought it's intention was whether one approves or disapproves of the actions of the Israeli state, it is here and everyone needs to deal with it as it is, not some romanticized half truth which strips away any complexity, and that the Corbynite tendency is to do just that and for suspect reasons too.
I've always had great sympathy for the Palestinians. Despite the threats Israel faces, which are very real, they are the ones with the most power in the dynamic after all. But it is disturbing how many people, even generally sensible people, seem to believe you cannot criticise Israel, which many do, and start pulling out very shady tropes, and it's hard to ignore that.
What threats does Israel face? From Jordan Lenanon Iraq Yemen Egypt Lybia Tunisia Syria the UAE Saudi Arabia Gaza Iran Kuwait Turkey.......the trouble with these hackneyed sayings is that it paints a picture which is deliberately designed to mislead
The threat level may well have diminished, and are part of why Israel's responses to things are criticised as disproportionate, but that doesn't make the threat non-existent, historically or otherwise particularly in such a volatile region, or to be dismissed as a hackneyed saying. Flippantly dismissing the idea of threats out of hand is, I would suggest, far more misleading.
The threat level from another country is negligable to non existent and by repeating the nonsense you diminish the real threat to several of those surrounding countries which is from Israel itself.
Believing Israel faces threats in no ways means I diminish threats to any other nations. That you've taken that away from what I've said is absurd. This isn't a game where you have to pick a side and if you support side X you are an enemy of side Y.
"Indeed, even the two-state solution is unworkable because two states means two armies, two sets of security forces and a full international border. For diplomatic reasons, this fact isn’t currently be acknowledged but it’s true all the same, and is the reason why Israel does not treat the Palestinian Authority as a foreign power. Ultimately, the only permanent option for Palestine-Israel is a one-state solution: the question mark is over the extent of devolved powers to Arab autonomous regions."
So the only future for the Palestinians is life in an Apartheid Bantustan in the occupied territories, denied the rights of other peoples to self rule?
What is your solution, and how would you get there?
What matters are the people, whether Israeli, Palestinian, Jew, Muslim, Christian, or whatever. People deserve the opportunity to live and thrive in a peaceful environment that their 'leaders' (on all sides) are unable to provide them.
That is what all the peoples of the ME should get - and which, perversely, Israel provides the best at the moment.
I don't think Britain can contribute to a solution because of our own history during the Palestine Mandate.
I would like to see a two state solution based on the 1967 borders, with the settlements in the West Bank removed. Israel is however continuing to expand these.
The question for the Holy Land is much the same as it is in other parts of the world such as Kurdistan, Arakan, or even Scotland. To what extent should a self defined nation have a national state? Or is it possible for multiple distinct communities to leave peacefully and respectfully alongside each other?
How your twisted mind could possibly equate Scotland with any of this is mind boggling.
The only solution is a two state solution [ ultimately even Hamas will accept it ] on the 1967 borders with Jerusalem as the joint Capital. East Jerusalem will go to the Palestinian state.
Let's not be too hung up on the security issue. Israel is a nuclear power.
"Israeli citizens continue to be terrorised" - yeah, children throw stones, and then the F34 goes in and kills 58 civilians.
A teenage girl slaps an Israeli soldier and gets 8 months in prison. An Israeli soldier murders a Palestinian and gets 9 months in prison. Israeli justice ! But there are many supporters here.
I'm not talking about stones. I'm talking about rockets and mortars. 174 fired into Israel from Gaza on 14th July. 8 rockets fired on Sderot on 8th August. You dont think that rockets and mortars being dropped on you creates terror? Is the Israeli attack into Gaza heavier? Yes it is. The alternative? Should Israel fire its own indiscriminate mortars? Invade?
Both sides need peace. Security. And that means all sides disengaging. Egypt. Iran. The various Syrian groups. The extra-national terrorist groups. Sound like I am defending Israel? Yes I am, because they deserve to be defended. As do the Palestinians. There will have to be disengagement by Israel from many of its settlements in the West Bank. As they had to in Gaza. But there also needs to be disengagement from the other side. Too many people still think Israel has no legitimate right to exist. It does, and it ian't going away. The sooner regional players get that into their skulls the better.
"Rockets and bombs". Exactly how many Israelis have actually died compared to how many Palestinians Israel has killed ?
Israel also has the NUCLEAR BOMB. So let's not be too worried about its security. It can more than defend itself.
I think the author had the opposite intention, but the piece made me feel more anti-Israel even though I am generally sympathetic to it. Good, well written, balanced article. Thanks.
I thought it's intention was whether one approves or disapproves of the actions of the Israeli state, it is here and everyone needs to deal with it as it is, not some romanticized half truth which strips away any complexity, and that the Corbynite tendency is to do just that and for suspect reasons too.
I've always had great sympathy for the Palestinians. Despite the threats Israel faces, which are very real, they are the ones with the most power in the dynamic after all. But it is disturbing how many people, even generally sensible people, seem to believe you cannot criticise Israel, which many do, and start pulling out very shady tropes, and it's hard to ignore that.
What threats does Israel face? From Jordan Lenanon Iraq Yemen Egypt Lybia Tunisia Syria the UAE Saudi Arabia Gaza Iran Kuwait Turkey.......the trouble with these hackneyed sayings is that it paints a picture which is deliberately designed to mislead
The threat level may well have diminished, and are part of why Israel's responses to things are criticised as disproportionate, but that doesn't make the threat non-existent, historically or otherwise particularly in such a volatile region, or to be dismissed as a hackneyed saying. Flippantly dismissing the idea of threats out of hand is, I would suggest, far more misleading.
The threat level from another country is negligable to non existent and by repeating the nonsense you diminish the real threat to several of those surrounding countries which is from Israel itself.
I've been staying at the Mariott Beirut when we were evacuated as Israeli bombers blew up an electricity supply station nearby killing five electricity workers. It was not uncommon in Lebanon but would you describe these neigbours as 'under threat' when in fact the only and ever present threat was Israel?
It can only be a threat if Israel is at the receiving end.
But it is worth reading what international organisations say about the rocket attacks: they cause not just deaths, but a population who live under fear and who frequently have to run to cover. It is as much psychological warfare as it is physical.
It's fair enough to say that Israel causes suffering to the Palestinians; however the suffering caused by the rocket attacks (in some years thousands have been launched) in Israel should not be downplayed.
Both sides are being shits. To get peace, both sides should stop.
"Israeli citizens continue to be terrorised" - yeah, children throw stones, and then the F34 goes in and kills 58 civilians.
A teenage girl slaps an Israeli soldier and gets 8 months in prison. An Israeli soldier murders a Palestinian and gets 9 months in prison. Israeli justice ! But there are many supporters here.
I'm not talking about stones. I'm talking about rockets and mortars. 174 fired into Israel from Gaza on 14th July. 8 rockets fired on Sderot on 8th August. You dont think that rockets and mortars being dropped on you creates terror? Is the Israeli attack into Gaza heavier? Yes it is. The alternative? Should Israel fire its own indiscriminate mortars? Invade?
Both sides need peace. Security. And that means all sides disengaging. Egypt. Iran. The various Syrian groups. The extra-national terrorist groups. Sound like I am defending Israel? Yes I am, because they deserve to be defended. As do the Palestinians. There will have to be disengagement by Israel from many of its settlements in the West Bank. As they had to in Gaza. But there also needs to be disengagement from the other side. Too many people still think Israel has no legitimate right to exist. It does, and it ian't going away. The sooner regional players get that into their skulls the better.
"Rockets and bombs". Exactly how many Israelis have actually died compared to how many Palestinians Israel has killed ?
Israel also has the NUCLEAR BOMB. So let's not be too worried about its security. It can more than defend itself.
But it is worth reading what international organisations say about the rocket attacks: they cause not just deaths, but a population who live under fear and who frequently have to run to cover. It is as much psychological warfare as it is physical.
It's fair enough to say that Israel causes suffering to the Palestinians; however the suffering caused by the rocket attacks (in some years thousands have been launched) in Israel should not be downplayed.
Both sides are being shits. To get peace, both sides should stop.
So 26 compared to 2,600 , shall we say ? To you, that is fair balance, I am sure.
BBC News has a video of an ex-cop saying the far right are infiltrating politics. He may be right. But it's hard to worry about that when the far left are squatting on the Labour front bench and one good election result away from Number Ten.
I also think the establishment are much more comfortable worrying about the far right than either the far left or Islamic extremism/terrorism (the far right also, of course, having potential to go that far). No concerns about 'cultural sensitivities' to worry about, and almost all the membership are white.
The lack of coverage on the broadcast news (apparently it was on the radio a lot) of the Huddersfield rape gang, 31 strong, being convicted is alarming/depressing in equal measure.
That said, I would give kudos to the BBC for their recent Manchester mosque segment. We'll see where that leads (Manchester police are seeing if the recording indicates any laws were broken).
It seems that at the moment the far right are more likely than the far left to engage in terrorist acts.
Evidence?
When was the last far left terrorist act in Europe?
I remember the Red Army Faction, and the Baader Meinhof gang, but nothing much recently.
Excluding IS, etc is simply disingenuous.
IS, the most right wing ideologues, are leftists ?
No. But it is curious that the Left does seem to support those who excuse or justify the likes of IS - see for instance:- - the way that CAGE (which is notably pro-IS killers such as Jihadi John) is lionised by some on the Left. - And it was the Corbynite Left which refused to condemn IS violence against the Yazidis. - Corbyn has said in the past that those expressing support for IS should not be prosecuted for “expressing a political point of view”. - And he has also argued for opening up diplomatic back channels to IS.
So it is understandable why some see IS as something which is not quite as abhorrent to some on the Left as it ought to be.
But it is worth reading what international organisations say about the rocket attacks: they cause not just deaths, but a population who live under fear and who frequently have to run to cover. It is as much psychological warfare as it is physical.
It's fair enough to say that Israel causes suffering to the Palestinians; however the suffering caused by the rocket attacks (in some years thousands have been launched) in Israel should not be downplayed.
Both sides are being shits. To get peace, both sides should stop.
So 26 compared to 2,600 , shall we say ? To you, that is fair balance, I am sure.
That's just from rocket attacks; Ms Free provided a more comprehensive link below for general deaths. But as many international organisations point out: it isn't just the deaths, it's the psychological effects of the rockets that, if anything, cause more harm.
To extend Jezziah's analogy: imagine how we would react as a country if a neighbour was launching thousands of rockets against us in a year. Except in a way we don't: the IRA was a smaller threat, and our reaction to it was not always positive, or to our credit. But that does not make the IRA saints.
But it is worth reading what international organisations say about the rocket attacks: they cause not just deaths, but a population who live under fear and who frequently have to run to cover. It is as much psychological warfare as it is physical.
It's fair enough to say that Israel causes suffering to the Palestinians; however the suffering caused by the rocket attacks (in some years thousands have been launched) in Israel should not be downplayed.
Both sides are being shits. To get peace, both sides should stop.
So 26 compared to 2,600 , shall we say ? To you, that is fair balance, I am sure.
Who said it was fair and balanced? But terrorism is creating terror in the minds of the victims. Israelis are terrorised by rockets and mortar shells raining down on them. Just as Palestinians are terrorised by fighter planes bombing them. Both sides need to stop.
"Indeed, even the two-state solution is unworkable because two states means two armies, two sets of security forces and a full international border. For diplomatic reasons, this fact isn’t currently be acknowledged but it’s true all the same, and is the reason why Israel does not treat the Palestinian Authority as a foreign power. Ultimately, the only permanent option for Palestine-Israel is a one-state solution: the question mark is over the extent of devolved powers to Arab autonomous regions."
So the only future for the Palestinians is life in an Apartheid Bantustan in the occupied territories, denied the rights of other peoples to self rule?
What is your solution, and how would you get there?
What matters are the people, whether Israeli, Palestinian, Jew, Muslim, Christian, or whatever. People deserve the opportunity to live and thrive in a peaceful environment that their 'leaders' (on all sides) are unable to provide them.
That is what all the peoples of the ME should get - and which, perversely, Israel provides the best at the moment.
I don't think Britain can contribute to a solution because of our own history during the Palestine Mandate.
I would like to see a two state solution based on the 1967 borders, with the settlements in the West Bank removed. Israel is however continuing to expand these.
The question for the Holy Land is much the same as it is in other parts of the world such as Kurdistan, Arakan, or even Scotland. To what extent should a self defined nation have a national state? Or is it possible for multiple distinct communities to leave peacefully and respectfully alongside each other?
How your twisted mind could possibly equate Scotland with any of this is mind boggling.
The only solution is a two state solution [ ultimately even Hamas will accept it ] on the 1967 borders with Jerusalem as the joint Capital. East Jerusalem will go to the Palestinian state.
Let's not be too hung up on the security issue. Israel is a nuclear power.
Off topic for me, my wonderment is how he could try to say Scotland was similar to Kurdistan , Arakan etc. Need to be seriously not right in the head to try and equate Scotland to be similar.
"Israeli citizens continue to be terrorised" - yeah, children throw stones, and then the F34 goes in and kills 58 civilians.
A teenage girl slaps an Israeli soldier and gets 8 months in prison. An Israeli soldier murders a Palestinian and gets 9 months in prison. Israeli justice ! But there are many supporters here.
I'm not talking about stones. I'm talking about rockets and mortars. 174 fired into Israel from Gaza on 14th July. 8 rockets fired on Sderot on 8th August. You dont think that rockets and mortars being dropped on you creates terror? Is the Israeli attack into Gaza heavier? Yes it is. The alternative? Should Israel fire its own indiscriminate mortars? Invade?
Both sides need peace. Security. And that means all sides disengaging. Egypt. Iran. The various Syrian groups. The extra-national terrorist groups. Sound like I am defending Israel? Yes I am, because they deserve to be defended. As do the Palestinians. There will have to be disengagement by Israel from many of its settlements in the West Bank. As they had to in Gaza. But there also needs to be disengagement from the other side. Too many people still think Israel has no legitimate right to exist. It does, and it ian't going away. The sooner regional players get that into their skulls the better.
"Rockets and bombs". Exactly how many Israelis have actually died compared to how many Palestinians Israel has killed ?
Israel also has the NUCLEAR BOMB. So let's not be too worried about its security. It can more than defend itself.
I’m sure a nuclear bomb really helps protect an 80 year old man from being hacked to death with an axe.
I do not know if there is an equivalent listing of Palestinian fatalities with real names, dates and details.
Whatever one’s views it is important to remember that these are real people, loved and mourned.
I did not see a list of Palestinians killed by Israeli Air Force bombings. Perhaps you missed that in your zeal.
Can’t you read? I specifically answered your question which was how many Israelis have died and that I did not know if there was an equivalent listing for Palestinians. I would be interested in one if it exists. Why don’t you go and find it?
"Israeli citizens continue to be terrorised" - yeah, children throw stones, and then the F34 goes in and kills 58 civilians.
A teenage girl slaps an Israeli soldier and gets 8 months in prison. An Israeli soldier murders a Palestinian and gets 9 months in prison. Israeli justice ! But there are many supporters here.
I'm not talking about stones. I'm talking about rockets and mortars. 174 fired into Israel from Gaza on 14th July. 8 rockets fired on Sderot on 8th August. You dont think that rockets and mortars being dropped on you creates terror? Is the Israeli attack into Gaza heavier? Yes it is. The alternative? Should Israel fire its own indiscriminate mortars? Invade?
Both sides need peace. Security. And that means all sides disengaging. Egypt. Iran. The various Syrian groups. The extra-national terrorist groups. Sound like I am defending Israel? Yes I am, because they deserve to be defended. As do the Palestinians. There will have to be disengagement by Israel from many of its settlements in the West Bank. As they had to in Gaza. But there also needs to be disengagement from the other side. Too many people still think Israel has no legitimate right to exist. It does, and it ian't going away. The sooner regional players get that into their skulls the better.
"Rockets and bombs". Exactly how many Israelis have actually died compared to how many Palestinians Israel has killed ?
Israel also has the NUCLEAR BOMB. So let's not be too worried about its security. It can more than defend itself.
I’m sure a nuclear bomb really helps protect an 80 year old man from being hacked to death with an axe.
I do not know if there is an equivalent listing of Palestinian fatalities with real names, dates and details.
Whatever one’s views it is important to remember that these are real people, loved and mourned.
I did not see a list of Palestinians killed by Israeli Air Force bombings. Perhaps you missed that in your zeal.
Can’t you read? I specifically answered your question which was how many Israelis have died and that I did not know if there was an equivalent listing. I would be interested in one if it exists. Why don’t you go and find it?
Too busy inferring your [supposed] motives, which is more fun of course.
But it is worth reading what international organisations say about the rocket attacks: they cause not just deaths, but a population who live under fear and who frequently have to run to cover. It is as much psychological warfare as it is physical.
It's fair enough to say that Israel causes suffering to the Palestinians; however the suffering caused by the rocket attacks (in some years thousands have been launched) in Israel should not be downplayed.
Both sides are being shits. To get peace, both sides should stop.
One a lot more shit than the other due to having the upper hand and exploiting it big time.
I think the author had the opposite intention, but the piece made me feel more anti-Israel even though I am generally sympathetic to it. Good, well written, balanced article. Thanks.
I thought it's intention was whether one approves or disapproves of the actions of the Israeli state, it is here and everyone needs to deal with it as it is, not some romanticized half truth which strips away any complexity, and that the Corbynite tendency is to do just that and for suspect reasons too.
I've always had great sympathy for the Palestinians. Despite the threats Israel faces, which are very real, they are the ones with the most power in the dynamic after all. But it is disturbing how many people, even generally sensible people, seem to believe you cannot criticise Israel, which many do, and start pulling out very shady tropes, and it's hard to ignore that.
What threats does Israel face? From Jordan Lenanon Iraq Yemen Egypt Lybia Tunisia Syria the UAE Saudi Arabia Gaza Iran Kuwait Turkey.......the trouble with these hackneyed sayings is that it paints a picture which is deliberately designed to mislead
The threat level may well have diminished, and are part of why Israel's responses to things are criticised as disproportionate, but that doesn't make the threat non-existent, historically or otherwise particularly in such a volatile region, or to be dismissed as a hackneyed saying. Flippantly dismissing the idea of threats out of hand is, I would suggest, far more misleading.
The threat level from another country is negligable to non existent and by repeating the nonsense you diminish the real threat to several of those surrounding countries which is from Israel itself.
Believing Israel faces threats in no ways means I diminish threats to any other nations. That you've taken that away from what I've said is absurd. This isn't a game where you have to pick a side and if you support side X you are an enemy of side Y.
No but the reason Israel acts with impunity is because several of its friends most notably the US believes it's a plucky little country surrounded by enemies bent on its destruction. It is this fallacy that is behind much of Israel's overreaction and the cycle of hatred which it engenders.
But it is worth reading what international organisations say about the rocket attacks: they cause not just deaths, but a population who live under fear and who frequently have to run to cover. It is as much psychological warfare as it is physical.
It's fair enough to say that Israel causes suffering to the Palestinians; however the suffering caused by the rocket attacks (in some years thousands have been launched) in Israel should not be downplayed.
Both sides are being shits. To get peace, both sides should stop.
So 26 compared to 2,600 , shall we say ? To you, that is fair balance, I am sure.
Who said it was fair and balanced? But terrorism is creating terror in the minds of the victims. Israelis are terrorised by rockets and mortar shells raining down on them. Just as Palestinians are terrorised by fighter planes bombing them. Both sides need to stop.
The question is not just how many have died but how many would die were Palestinian terrorists given the opportunity. Remember the suicide bombings before the wall went up.
Now, as I've said, Israel does have a tendency to overreact and it doesn't do itself any favours when it does. That said, I also understand why it has that tendency.
"So what’s changed in those seventy years? What’s changed is the perception of Israel. No longer are the Jews there an oppressed minority but the majority community in an expansionist, wealthy and nuclear weapon-equipped country. It’s Israel which is oppressing Palestinians in the West Bank and particularly Gaza – ‘the world’s largest open prison’ – and Israel which has raided and occupied neighbouring countries."
The words of David Herdson. Totally correct. David's articles are always a good read.
You do realise that that's my parody of the Corbyite Left's analysis, and one that I go on to explicitly say that while the "critique is not superficially implausible, ... it’s wrong, all the same [and that] it’s wrong because it fails to understand both what Israel is and also the world within which it sits."
Indeed, that critique is itself tainted with antisemitism: it's those damn Jews using their power and wealth to oppress others again. How dare they work so hard and efficiently? It must be exploitation / some secret conspiracy etc.
Sorry. I don't agree with the last bit. Yesterday, Dame Hodge said she felt the letter from the Labour Party was equivalent to what Jews must have felt in Nazi Germany. Excuse me ?
Now, if anyone else had used comparisons with Nazi Germany, that would immediately have been condemned as anti-semitism , an expression whose meaning has now been hijacked to mean anti-Jewish when for centuries [ Oxford Dictionary ] it meant anti-people who spoke a Semite language, the most populous one being Arabic.
Hodge's comparison was excessive and unfortunate, because it's distracted from her legitimate complaint.
"Israeli citizens continue to be terrorised" - yeah, children throw stones, and then the F34 goes in and kills 58 civilians.
A teenage girl slaps an Israeli soldier and gets 8 months in prison. An Israeli soldier murders a Palestinian and gets 9 months in prison. Israeli justice ! But there are many supporters here.
I'm not talking about stones. I'm talking about rockets and mortars. 174 fired into Israel from Gaza on 14th July. 8 rockets fired on Sderot on 8th August. You dont think that rockets and mortars being dropped on you creates terror? Is the Israeli attack into Gaza heavier? Yes it is. The alternative? Should Israel fire its own indiscriminate mortars? Invade?
Both sides need peace. Security. And that means all sides disengaging. Egypt. Iran. The various Syrian groups. The extra-national terrorist groups. Sound like I am defending Israel? Yes I am, because they deserve to be defended. As do the Palestinians. There will have to be disengagement by Israel from many of its settlements in the West Bank. As they had to in Gaza. But there also needs to be disengagement from the other side. Too many people still think Israel has no legitimate right to exist. It does, and it ian't going away. The sooner regional players get that into their skulls the better.
"Rockets and bombs". Exactly how many Israelis have actually died compared to how many Palestinians Israel has killed ?
Israel also has the NUCLEAR BOMB. So let's not be too worried about its security. It can more than defend itself.
I’m sure a nuclear bomb really helps protect an 80 year old man from being hacked to death with an axe.
I do not know if there is an equivalent listing of Palestinian fatalities with real names, dates and details.
Whatever one’s views it is important to remember that these are real people, loved and mourned.
I did not see a list of Palestinians killed by Israeli Air Force bombings. Perhaps you missed that in your zeal.
Can’t you read? I specifically answered your question which was how many Israelis have died and that I did not know if there was an equivalent listing for Palestinians. I would be interested in one if it exists. Why don’t you go and find it?
You'd have to discount the Palestinians killed by other Palestinians in their internal conflicts. Mind you, the critics of Israel sadly discount *those* Palestinian victims.
But it is worth reading what international organisations say about the rocket attacks: they cause not just deaths, but a population who live under fear and who frequently have to run to cover. It is as much psychological warfare as it is physical.
It's fair enough to say that Israel causes suffering to the Palestinians; however the suffering caused by the rocket attacks (in some years thousands have been launched) in Israel should not be downplayed.
Both sides are being shits. To get peace, both sides should stop.
So 26 compared to 2,600 , shall we say ? To you, that is fair balance, I am sure.
Who said it was fair and balanced? But terrorism is creating terror in the minds of the victims. Israelis are terrorised by rockets and mortar shells raining down on them. Just as Palestinians are terrorised by fighter planes bombing them. Both sides need to stop.
The question is not just how many have died but how many would die were Palestinian terrorists given the opportunity. Remember the suicide bombings before the wall went up.
Now, as I've said, Israel does have a tendency to overreact and it doesn't do itself any favours when it does. That said, I also understand why it has that tendency.
So just in case the Palestinians might be nasty it exonerates Israel stealing their land , shooting unarmed men , women and children and penning them in etc. Tories on here need to get a grip. I suppose you think Saudi Arabia doing same in Yemen is good for British economy and great Tory policy.
But it is worth reading what international organisations say about the rocket attacks: they cause not just deaths, but a population who live under fear and who frequently have to run to cover. It is as much psychological warfare as it is physical.
It's fair enough to say that Israel causes suffering to the Palestinians; however the suffering caused by the rocket attacks (in some years thousands have been launched) in Israel should not be downplayed.
Both sides are being shits. To get peace, both sides should stop.
One a lot more shit than the other due to having the upper hand and exploiting it big time.
Yes, I think that's right. But extending what you say: if the other side get the upper hand, do you think they wouldn't exploit it big time?
This is why, to get peace, both sides need to look towards, and make moves to, peace. The Israelis have more 'room' to make moves, but that doesn't mean the Palestinians can't make some.
But it is worth reading what international organisations say about the rocket attacks: they cause not just deaths, but a population who live under fear and who frequently have to run to cover. It is as much psychological warfare as it is physical.
It's fair enough to say that Israel causes suffering to the Palestinians; however the suffering caused by the rocket attacks (in some years thousands have been launched) in Israel should not be downplayed.
Both sides are being shits. To get peace, both sides should stop.
So 26 compared to 2,600 , shall we say ? To you, that is fair balance, I am sure.
That's just from rocket attacks; Ms Free provided a more comprehensive link below for general deaths. But as many international organisations point out: it isn't just the deaths, it's the psychological effects of the rockets that, if anything, cause more harm.
To extend Jezziah's analogy: imagine how we would react as a country if a neighbour was launching thousands of rockets against us in a year. Except in a way we don't: the IRA was a smaller threat, and our reaction to it was not always positive, or to our credit. But that does not make the IRA saints.
No matter how you try to put it you cannot justify what they are doing.
Played a couple of games a few years ago, but I don't think racing's my sort of genre (in videogame terms). However, immensely good for portraying track undulation and width. far better than TV coverage.
What threats does Israel face? From Jordan Lenanon Iraq Yemen Egypt Lybia Tunisia Syria the UAE Saudi Arabia Gaza Iran Kuwait Turkey.......the trouble with these hackneyed sayings is that it paints a picture which is deliberately designed to mislead
The threat level may well have diminished, and are part of why Israel's responses to things are criticised as disproportionate, but that doesn't make the threat non-existent, historically or otherwise particularly in such a volatile region, or to be dismissed as a hackneyed saying. Flippantly dismissing the idea of threats out of hand is, I would suggest, far more misleading.
The threat level from another country is negligable to non existent and by repeating the nonsense you diminish the real threat to several of those surrounding countries which is from Israel itself.
Believing Israel faces threats in no ways means I diminish threats to any other nations. That you've taken that away from what I've said is absurd. This isn't a game where you have to pick a side and if you support side X you are an enemy of side Y.
No but the reason Israel acts with impunity is because several of its friends most notably the US believes it's a plucky little country surrounded by enemies bent on its destruction. It is this fallacy that is behind much of Israel's overreaction and the cycle of hatred which it engenders.
The US certainly could do much more to pressure Israel into making the concessions necessary for peace. Who is going to pressure the Palestinians into doing the same?
But it’s noteworthy that the US President who probably did more than anyone to bring about peace - Clinton - ultimately blamed the Palestinian leadership for failing to take what was offered during the last serious attempt at a peace deal.
And it is not a fallacy that Israel has enemies bent on its destruction. This has been so since it was created and there are still significant countries and players in the region who want its destruction.
No but the reason Israel acts with impunity is because several of its friends most notably the US believes it's a plucky little country surrounded by enemies bent on its destruction. It is this fallacy that is behind much of Israel's overreaction and the cycle of hatred which it engenders.
Well, history does back up that view in the long term. Firstly you have the Holocaust, and then the major wars it has had with its neighbours (who wanted to destroy Israel), and the various skirmishes with surrounding nations.
There are many people in the surrounding states who are bent on its destruction: they are just powerless to do so at this time. That might not always be the case.
Good morning all. Superb article from David - it's a real treat to have two of his measured, thoughtful offerings in one week.
It's an old book ('82) but Le Carre's 'The Little Drummer Girl' is well worth a read. It really opened my eyes as to the plight of the Palestinians, while not being unsympathetic to the Israelis.
I'm going to skip PB's attempts to solve the Middle Eastern question, but my view is that the UK has little or nothing to contribute to any lasting solution, other than making sympathetic noises.
But it is worth reading what international organisations say about the rocket attacks: they cause not just deaths, but a population who live under fear and who frequently have to run to cover. It is as much psychological warfare as it is physical.
It's fair enough to say that Israel causes suffering to the Palestinians; however the suffering caused by the rocket attacks (in some years thousands have been launched) in Israel should not be downplayed.
Both sides are being shits. To get peace, both sides should stop.
So 26 compared to 2,600 , shall we say ? To you, that is fair balance, I am sure.
That's just from rocket attacks; Ms Free provided a more comprehensive link below for general deaths. But as many international organisations point out: it isn't just the deaths, it's the psychological effects of the rockets that, if anything, cause more harm.
To extend Jezziah's analogy: imagine how we would react as a country if a neighbour was launching thousands of rockets against us in a year. Except in a way we don't: the IRA was a smaller threat, and our reaction to it was not always positive, or to our credit. But that does not make the IRA saints.
No matter how you try to put it you cannot justify what they are doing.
You can't justify what the leadership of both (in fact all) sides are doing.
Frankly, there's plenty of blame on either side. Both are not only misguided tactically, but have no overall idea about how to get to the end point they want. As it happens I have read at least 3, it may even be as many as 5 newspaper articles about it. So I have come up with a policy prescription that gets round all the problems perfectly. Of course nobody is listening, but it enables me to feel superior to everyone else involved.
Good morning all. Superb article from David - it's a real treat to have two of his measured, thoughtful offerings in one week.
It's an old book ('82) but Le Carre's 'The Little Drummer Girl' is well worth a read. It really opened my eyes as to the plight of the Palestinians, while not being unsympathetic to the Israelis.
I'm going to skip PB's attempts to solve the Middle Eastern question, but my view is that the UK has little or nothing to contribute to any lasting solution, other than making sympathetic noises.
Agreed. I doubt if it will even be in a position to make sympathetic noises under a Corbyn government.
Still the way Corbyn has managed the anti-semitism issue in his party is a case study - an absolute masterclass - in how to make a problem considerably worse than it was at the beginning. It does not bode well for his skills should he ever become PM.
Where Corbyn does have my support is that it is very clear that anti-Semitism is being used as a tool to batter him by his enemies in the Labour Party.
I don’t for a moment believe Corbyn is anti-semitic. I think Corbyn would very much agree with the statements and expression of Zionism, as articulated by Einstein.
Einstein was one of the authors of an open letter to the New York Times criticizing Menachem Begin’s Herut Party for the Deir Yassin massacre likening it to "the Nazi and Fascist parties."
Notice according to the “internationally accepted definition” of anti-Semitism that Corbyn is rightly refusing to accept, drawing comparison between Israeli policy and the Nazis is now defined as antisemitism.
Einstein is now defined as an anti-Semite (along with Hannah Arendt who also signed the letter).
This is an indiction of how ridiculous and hysterical the debate has become. And some of the posters on pb.com amplify the worst aspects of this hysteria.
The hostility or instability of Israel's neighbours, and in particular Iran, who are content to use the Palestinian cause as a proxy that furthers their own regional ambitions, is the big obstacle to peace. Without their funding, Hamas and Hezbollah would be done in their current form. As for its other neighbours - Egypt had a Muslim Brotherhood government as recently as 2012, and we've seen what Assad (who gets many of his orders from Tehran anyway) is capable of. It's easy to condemn Israel's oppressiveness- and Netanyahu, appallingly, uses the situation to further his own hardline politics - but when you look at the situation, you can't have explicitly anti-Semitic, well funded quasi-militia backed by a hostile power free to cause havoc within your state whenever they wish. The cycle then of course escalates things as Palestinians get more annoyed at the restrictions they face on their rights.
Pretty much the only way the conflict gets sorted is via supranational bodies with a network of binding economic and political agreements between the various regional powers that allows enough mutual trust to develop that Israel feels able to lift the restrictions and offer reconciliation and a degree of reparations to the Palestinians, who have suffered hugely. The model would be something like the early EEC where Israel used its wealth and ability to attract inward investment, along with Iran's oil money, to mutual benefit - with structures managing and policing the inevitable flashpoints around a two state solution. But that's obviously pie in the sky when you have despots and fundamentalists who view antagonism as being in their interests in charge, who no one with half a brain, let alone the government of a country founded due to the horrible things these things lead to, would trust.
Which is one reason Corbyn's history is so reprehensible - even without the grossly offensive stuff he's done. He poses as a peace campaigner but has always been happy to shill for Iran - when its government's funding of terrorist proxies and fundamentalist hatred of Jews are probably the single biggest obstacle to Israel, the Palestinians and other players starting to climb down, apologise for past wrongs and start working towards peace. As part of that he echoes the impossibilist rhetoric of those who demand Israel in effect, unilaterally disarm in the face of those who want to wipe it out. He's a useful idiot, at best - although for those who actually want peace he's a useless one.
"Indeed, even the two-state solution is unworkable because two states means two armies, two sets of security forces and a full international border. For diplomatic reasons, this fact isn’t currently be acknowledged but it’s true all the same, and is the reason why Israel does not treat the Palestinian Authority as a foreign power. Ultimately, the only permanent option for Palestine-Israel is a one-state solution: the question mark is over the extent of devolved powers to Arab autonomous regions."
So the only future for the Palestinians is life in an Apartheid Bantustan in the occupied territories, denied the rights of other peoples to self rule?
What is your solution, and how would you get there?
What matters are the people, whether Israeli, Palestinian, Jew, Muslim, Christian, or whatever. People deserve the opportunity to live and thrive in a peaceful environment that their 'leaders' (on all sides) are unable to provide them.
That is what all the peoples of the ME should get - and which, perversely, Israel provides the best at the moment.
I don't think Britain can contribute to a solution because of our own history during the Palestine Mandate.
I would like to see a two state solution based on the 1967 borders, with the settlements in the West Bank removed. Israel is however continuing to expand these.
The question for the Holy Land is much the same as it is in other parts of the world such as Kurdistan, Arakan, or even Scotland. To what extent should a self defined nation have a national state? Or is it possible for multiple distinct communities to leave peacefully and respectfully alongside each other?
How your twisted mind could possibly equate Scotland with any of this is mind boggling.
The only solution is a two state solution [ ultimately even Hamas will accept it ] on the 1967 borders with Jerusalem as the joint Capital. East Jerusalem will go to the Palestinian state.
Let's not be too hung up on the security issue. Israel is a nuclear power.
Off topic for me, my wonderment is how he could try to say Scotland was similar to Kurdistan , Arakan etc. Need to be seriously not right in the head to try and equate Scotland to be similar.
I am not sure why you consider that. My point is that in each of these cases a substantial body of the nation considers that it should be an independent state. Obviously there are major differences in how Scotland pursues the issue compared with the other ones that I mentioned, but that is in large part a product of a different environment.
Corbyn absolutely wants peace. A unified Catholic Ireland would be peaceful (if the nasty imperialist Brits all left). A unified Arab Palestine would be peaceful (if the rich Jews just bought themselves a chunk of California and moved there).
See. A peacemaker. He always backs the right side. Even if history / facts / common decency disagree
BBC News has a video of an ex-cop saying the far right are infiltrating politics. He may be right. But it's hard to worry about that when the far left are squatting on the Labour front bench and one good election result away from Number Ten.
I also think the establishment are much more comfortable worrying about the far right than either the far left or Islamic extremism/terrorism (the far right also, of course, having potential to go that far). No concerns about 'cultural sensitivities' to worry about, and almost all the membership are white.
The lack of coverage on the broadcast news (apparently it was on the radio a lot) of the Huddersfield rape gang, 31 strong, being convicted is alarming/depressing in equal measure.
That said, I would give kudos to the BBC for their recent Manchester mosque segment. We'll see where that leads (Manchester police are seeing if the recording indicates any laws were broken).
It seems that at the moment the far right are more likely than the far left to engage in terrorist acts.
Evidence?
When was the last far left terrorist act in Europe?
I remember the Red Army Faction, and the Baader Meinhof gang, but nothing much recently.
Excluding IS, etc is simply disingenuous.
IS, the most right wing ideologues, are leftists ?
In terms of their backers here I would say yes. They are anti-western and so are the extreme left ie Corbynistas QED. this is why Owen Jones would be wise to stay well away from the tops of high buildings.
I distrust the motives of people who take a strong position on this matter. Those who criticize Israel relentlessly and exclusively as if it were a uniquely evil entity may say that they are driven by concern for the oppressed but this is hard to separate from hostility to the oppressor. And since the oppressor is Israel, and since Israel is the jewish state where almost all of the jews outside America live, that latter sentiment is a gateway to anti-semitism. Tag on some ‘jewish lobby’ and holocaust ‘context’ and you are there. These people won’t admit it but they have succumbed to racism. Then we have the other group, the hardline supporters of Israel. They abandon all reason and morality in order to justify actions taken by their loved one which they would condemn if taken by anyone else. Why do they do this? Also racism. They believe that white people are more important than brown ones. They won’t admit it either. Of course they won’t. Racists rarely do. So IMO racism lies at the heart of this on both sides. The only difference is a subtle one. For the Israel haters it is their position that drives the racism. Ken Livingstone. For the Israel lovers it is racism that drives their position. Katie Hopkins.
Corbyn absolutely wants peace. A unified Catholic Ireland would be peaceful (if the nasty imperialist Brits all left). A unified Arab Palestine would be peaceful (if the rich Jews just bought themselves a chunk of California and moved there).
See. A peacemaker. He always backs the right side. Even if history / facts / common decency disagree
In a similar way, he absolutely wants everybody to be equal, economically. That it requires a vast loss of wealth to bring it about won't matter.
(Until there is no money to fund the NHS. That might just be the moment where there is a pause for thought. Maybe.)
The comparison I should have made in the piece but didn't (because it's only just occurred to me now) is with the Sudentenland. Ideologically-driven theorists, and those out for an easy life, acquiesced with Hitler's demand for the Sudentenland because it was indeed largely Germanic and the principle of self-determination could be applied.
Supporters and opponents of Israel strangely share an interest in making Israel uniquely special, and not the mediocre, discriminatory state, not nearly as good as it thinks it is, and should be, but by no means the worst either, that it might be seen as. David Herdson and Jeremy Corbyn appear to be partisans at opposite ends of that spectrum.
Whether one agrees with his header or not, I find it implausible that David Herdson is an opposite to Jeremy Corbyn - the very fact he is capable of conceding when the other side have valid points would harm the comparison.
I am not aware of David conceding on anything? He suggests various antithetical arguments that he discusses and rejects. Rhetorically it's the case for Israel, and less, I suggest, a balanced review.
"So what’s changed in those seventy years? What’s changed is the perception of Israel. No longer are the Jews there an oppressed minority but the majority community in an expansionist, wealthy and nuclear weapon-equipped country. It’s Israel which is oppressing Palestinians in the West Bank and particularly Gaza – ‘the world’s largest open prison’ – and Israel which has raided and occupied neighbouring countries."
The words of David Herdson. Totally correct. David's articles are always a good read.
You do realise that that's my parody of the Corbyite Left's analysis, and one that I go on to explicitly say that while the "critique is not superficially implausible, ... it’s wrong, all the same [and that] it’s wrong because it fails to understand both what Israel is and also the world within which it sits."
Indeed, that critique is itself tainted with antisemitism: it's those damn Jews using their power and wealth to oppress others again. How dare they work so hard and efficiently? It must be exploitation / some secret conspiracy etc.
Sorry. I don't agree with the last bit. Yesterday, Dame Hodge said she felt the letter from the Labour Party was equivalent to what Jews must have felt in Nazi Germany. Excuse me ?
Now, if anyone else had used comparisons with Nazi Germany, that would immediately have been condemned as anti-semitism , an expression whose meaning has now been hijacked to mean anti-Jewish when for centuries [ Oxford Dictionary ] it meant anti-people who spoke a Semite language, the most populous one being Arabic.
Hodge's comparison was excessive and unfortunate, because it's distracted from her legitimate complaint.
I agree but I think that she like many other MPs is at the end of her tether.
'Missouri Republican who said ‘Hitler was right’ wins state House primary ...“Looking back in history, unfortunately, Hitler was right about what was taking place in Germany. And who was behind it,” West said on KCXL radio in January 2017, The Kansas City Star reported Thursday. He has spoken of “Jewish cabals” that are “harvesting baby parts” from Planned Parenthood, abuse children and control the Republican Party. West also has a YouTube channel on which he has made homophobic, anti-Semitic, Islamophobic and racist statements, according to The Star.'
I distrust the motives of people who take a strong position on this matter. Those who criticize Israel relentlessly and exclusively as if it were a uniquely evil entity may say that they are driven by concern for the oppressed but this is hard to separate from hostility to the oppressor. And since the oppressor is Israel, and since Israel is the jewish state where almost all of the jews outside America live, that latter sentiment is a gateway to anti-semitism. Tag on some ‘jewish lobby’ and holocaust ‘context’ and you are there. These people won’t admit it but they have succumbed to racism. Then we have the other group, the hardline supporters of Israel. They abandon all reason and morality in order to justify actions taken by their loved one which they would condemn if taken by anyone else. Why do they do this? Also racism. They believe that white people are more important than brown ones. They won’t admit it either. Of course they won’t. Racists rarely do. So IMO racism lies at the heart of this on both sides. The only difference is a subtle one. For the Israel haters it is their position that drives the racism. Ken Livingstone. For the Israel lovers it is racism that drives their position. Katie Hopkins.
You really should post more often. This is a biting and superb assessment.
I distrust the motives of people who take a strong position on this matter. Those who criticize Israel relentlessly and exclusively as if it were a uniquely evil entity may say that they are driven by concern for the oppressed but this is hard to separate from hostility to the oppressor. And since the oppressor is Israel, and since Israel is the jewish state where almost all of the jews outside America live, that latter sentiment is a gateway to anti-semitism. Tag on some ‘jewish lobby’ and holocaust ‘context’ and you are there. These people won’t admit it but they have succumbed to racism. Then we have the other group, the hardline supporters of Israel. They abandon all reason and morality in order to justify actions taken by their loved one which they would condemn if taken by anyone else. Why do they do this? Also racism. They believe that white people are more important than brown ones. They won’t admit it either. Of course they won’t. Racists rarely do. So IMO racism lies at the heart of this on both sides. The only difference is a subtle one. For the Israel haters it is their position that drives the racism. Ken Livingstone. For the Israel lovers it is racism that drives their position. Katie Hopkins.
You really should post more often. This is a biting and superb assessment.
Dislike that +1 bollox, so I shall only say I strongly agree.
I distrust the motives of people who take a strong position on this matter. Those who criticize Israel relentlessly and exclusively as if it were a uniquely evil entity may say that they are driven by concern for the oppressed but this is hard to separate from hostility to the oppressor. And since the oppressor is Israel, and since Israel is the jewish state where almost all of the jews outside America live, that latter sentiment is a gateway to anti-semitism. Tag on some ‘jewish lobby’ and holocaust ‘context’ and you are there. These people won’t admit it but they have succumbed to racism. Then we have the other group, the hardline supporters of Israel. They abandon all reason and morality in order to justify actions taken by their loved one which they would condemn if taken by anyone else. Why do they do this? Also racism. They believe that white people are more important than brown ones. They won’t admit it either. Of course they won’t. Racists rarely do. So IMO racism lies at the heart of this on both sides. The only difference is a subtle one. For the Israel haters it is their position that drives the racism. Ken Livingstone. For the Israel lovers it is racism that drives their position. Katie Hopkins.
You really should post more often. This is a biting and superb assessment.
More succinctly, as the great philosopher T. Swift puts in her opus magnum 'Haters gonna hate, hate, hate'. There are relatively few socially acceptable* targets for hate these days. Ultras on the left have Jews and Tories. On the right, lefties and Muslims.
*Assuming one dwells in a social media bubble comprising one's fellow travellers.
A header of two halves as Alan Shearer might say. An excellent and perceptive first one and a sloppy second .. It all stated to go wrong with......
' As an aside, the fact that refugee status can be inherited ' and from then on muddle followed muddle and wild passes with reckless tackles going in all over the place.
It's a complex subject where sayings like "a democracy in a region of dictatorship' is an absurdity in a country which is illegally occupying an area three times its own size and building settlements specifically for it's own Jewish population while denying the indiginous population a a vote or even a say..... South Africa might be a better parallel with the intention of creating Bantustans.
Israel started off with the best of intentions with the Kibbutz movement and quickly became corrupted. Read 'The Unholy Land". Much more informative than most of the unhinged nonsense that is written in this country these days.
Zionism is not a single strand of ideology, and has in its current form in Israel aspiration to more than a territorial state. The Zionism of Netanyahu is about remoulding the Jewish people, and creating an Israeli national identity of a particular conservative form. This is not a new phenomenon, and has supplanted the more socially liberal ideas of the kibbutzim and many of the early pioneers. We see this in the way that the settlers behave, but also in the way that the Orthodox have control of education in Israel, the use of Hebrew over Yiddish as a national language, the Masada inductions of IDF conscripts etc. This is a society being consciously moulded in a particular fashion.
There is an interesting article here on the negation of the diaspora:
Indeed, despite being a substantial community, Liberal or Reform Judaism is under threat both from assimilation and intermarriage in the diaspora, but also in Israel itself via imposition of Orthodoxy, for example in this piece:
Approx 37% of Israelis are considering emigration in this article, and approx 14 000 do each year, particularly those with higher education. Economics are a major factor but not the only one:
But it is worth reading what international organisations say about the rocket attacks: they cause not just deaths, but a population who live under fear and who frequently have to run to cover. It is as much psychological warfare as it is physical.
It's fair enough to say that Israel causes suffering to the Palestinians; however the suffering caused by the rocket attacks (in some years thousands have been launched) in Israel should not be downplayed.
Both sides are being shits. To get peace, both sides should stop.
One a lot more shit than the other due to having the upper hand and exploiting it big time.
Yes, I think that's right. But extending what you say: if the other side get the upper hand, do you think they wouldn't exploit it big time?
This is why, to get peace, both sides need to look towards, and make moves to, peace. The Israelis have more 'room' to make moves, but that doesn't mean the Palestinians can't make some.
Hard to see it ending the way both of them go about it.
Good morning all. Superb article from David - it's a real treat to have two of his measured, thoughtful offerings in one week.
It's an old book ('82) but Le Carre's 'The Little Drummer Girl' is well worth a read. It really opened my eyes as to the plight of the Palestinians, while not being unsympathetic to the Israelis.
I'm going to skip PB's attempts to solve the Middle Eastern question, but my view is that the UK has little or nothing to contribute to any lasting solution, other than making sympathetic noises.
What distinguishes this from other dreary ethnic territorial disputes is, on the one hand the US' all-in unconditional support for Israel at the expense of massive instability that acts against a top dog's interest in maintaining the current order, and on the other that 400 million Arabs and 2 billion Muslims are all convinced a historic wrong was done against their people.
I have a lot of sympathy for Ben Gurion and others who saw the opportunity to setup a Jewish state in Israel at the end of the Second World War. Israel is strong now but it in the long term it has the potential of catastrophe for Judaism, which is overinvested in a very unstable piece of territory.
But it is worth reading what international organisations say about the rocket attacks: they cause not just deaths, but a population who live under fear and who frequently have to run to cover. It is as much psychological warfare as it is physical.
It's fair enough to say that Israel causes suffering to the Palestinians; however the suffering caused by the rocket attacks (in some years thousands have been launched) in Israel should not be downplayed.
Both sides are being shits. To get peace, both sides should stop.
So 26 compared to 2,600 , shall we say ? To you, that is fair balance, I am sure.
That's just from rocket attacks; Ms Free provided a more comprehensive link below for general deaths. But as many international organisations point out: it isn't just the deaths, it's the psychological effects of the rockets that, if anything, cause more harm.
To extend Jezziah's analogy: imagine how we would react as a country if a neighbour was launching thousands of rockets against us in a year. Except in a way we don't: the IRA was a smaller threat, and our reaction to it was not always positive, or to our credit. But that does not make the IRA saints.
No matter how you try to put it you cannot justify what they are doing.
You can't justify what the leadership of both (in fact all) sides are doing.
"Indeed, even the two-state solution is unworkable because two states means two armies, two sets of security forces and a full international border. For diplomatic reasons, this fact isn’t currently be acknowledged but it’s true all the same, and is the reason why Israel does not treat the Palestinian Authority as a foreign power. Ultimately, the only permanent option for Palestine-Israel is a one-state solution: the question mark is over the extent of devolved powers to Arab autonomous regions."
So the only future for the Palestinians is life in an Apartheid Bantustan in the occupied territories, denied the rights of other peoples to self rule?
What is your solution, and how would you get there?
What matters are the people, whether Israeli, Palestinian, Jew, Muslim, Christian, or whatever. People deserve the opportunity to live and thrive in a peaceful environment that their 'leaders' (on all sides) are unable to provide them.
That is what all the peoples of the ME should get - and which, perversely, Israel provides the best at the moment.
?
How your twisted mind could possibly equate Scotland with any of this is mind boggling.
The only solution is a two state solution [ ultimately even Hamas will accept it ] on the 1967 borders with Jerusalem as the joint Capital. East Jerusalem will go to the Palestinian state.
Let's not be too hung up on the security issue. Israel is a nuclear power.
Off topic for me, my wonderment is how he could try to say Scotland was similar to Kurdistan , Arakan etc. Need to be seriously not right in the head to try and equate Scotland to be similar.
I am not sure why you consider that. My point is that in each of these cases a substantial body of the nation considers that it should be an independent state. Obviously there are major differences in how Scotland pursues the issue compared with the other ones that I mentioned, but that is in large part a product of a different environment.
Well it is a bit like saying that the UK is like Chile was under Pinochet, at the moment
"So what’s changed in those seventy years? What’s changed is the perception of Israel. No longer are the Jews there an oppressed minority but the majority community in an expansionist, wealthy and nuclear weapon-equipped country. It’s Israel which is oppressing Palestinians in the West Bank and particularly Gaza – ‘the world’s largest open prison’ – and Israel which has raided and occupied neighbouring countries."
The words of David Herdson. Totally correct. David's articles are always a good read.
You do realise that that's my parody of the Corbyite Left's analysis, and one that I go on to explicitly say that while the "critique is not superficially implausible, ... it’s wrong, all the same [and that] it’s wrong because it fails to understand both what Israel is and also the world within which it sits."
Indeed, that critique is itself tainted with antisemitism: it's those damn Jews using their power and wealth to oppress others again. How dare they work so hard and efficiently? It must be exploitation / some secret conspiracy etc.
Sorry. I don't agree with the last bit. Yesterday, Dame Hodge said she felt the letter from the Labour Party was equivalent to what Jews must have felt in Nazi Germany. Excuse me ?
Now, if anyone else had used comparisons with Nazi Germany, that would immediately have been condemned as anti-semitism , an expression whose meaning has now been hijacked to mean anti-Jewish when for centuries [ Oxford Dictionary ] it meant anti-people who spoke a Semite language, the most populous one being Arabic.
Hodge's comparison was excessive and unfortunate, because it's distracted from her legitimate complaint.
I agree but I think that she like many other MPs is at the end of her tether.
"Indeed, even the two-state solution is unworkable because two states means two armies, two sets of security forces and a full international border. For diplomatic reasons, this fact isn’t currently be acknowledged but it’s true all the same, and is the reason why Israel does not treat the Palestinian Authority as a foreign power. Ultimately, the only permanent option for Palestine-Israel is a one-state solution: the question mark is over the extent of devolved powers to Arab autonomous regions."
So the only future for the Palestinians is life in an Apartheid Bantustan in the occupied territories, denied the rights of other peoples to self rule?
What is your solution, and how would you get there?
What matters are the people, whether Israeli, Palestinian, Jew, Muslim, Christian, or whatever. People deserve the opportunity to live and thrive in a peaceful environment that their 'leaders' (on all sides) are unable to provide them.
That is what all the peoples of the ME should get - and which, perversely, Israel provides the best at the moment.
I don't think Britain can contribute to a solution because of our own history during the Palestine Mandate.
I would like to see a two state solution based on the 1967 borders, with the settlements in the West Bank removed. Israel is however continuing to expand these.
The question for the Holy Land is much the same as it is in other parts of the world such as Kurdistan, Arakan, or even Scotland. To what extent should a self defined nation have a national state? Or is it possible for multiple distinct communities to leave peacefully and respectfully alongside each other?
Of course it is possible. However, the more or les. complete disappearance of Jewish communities in Arab states over recent years is pretty strong empirical evidence that it’s not a realistic prospect in the Middle East for the foreseeable future.
"So what’s changed in those seventy years? What’s changed is the perception of Israel. No longer are the Jews there an oppressed minority but the majority community in an expansionist, wealthy and nuclear weapon-equipped country. It’s Israel which is oppressing Palestinians in the West Bank and particularly Gaza – ‘the world’s largest open prison’ – and Israel which has raided and occupied neighbouring countries."
The words of David Herdson. Totally correct. David's articles are always a good read.
You do realise that that's my parody of the Corbyite Left's analysis, and one that I go on to explicitly say that while the "critique is not superficially implausible, ... it’s wrong, all the same [and that] it’s wrong because it fails to understand both what Israel is and also the world within which it sits."
Indeed, that critique is itself tainted with antisemitism: it's those damn Jews using their power and wealth to oppress others again. How dare they work so hard and efficiently? It must be exploitation / some secret conspiracy etc.
Sorry. I don't agree with the last bit. Yesterday, Dame Hodge said she felt the letter from the Labour Party was equivalent to what Jews must have felt in Nazi Germany. Excuse me ?
Now, if anyone else had used comparisons with Nazi Germany, that would immediately have been condemned as anti-semitism , an expression whose meaning has now been hijacked to mean anti-Jewish when for centuries [ Oxford Dictionary ] it meant anti-people who spoke a Semite language, the most populous one being Arabic.
Hodge's comparison was excessive and unfortunate, because it's distracted from her legitimate complaint.
I agree but I think that she like many other MPs is at the end of her tether.
What’s this obsession with reverting back to the 1967 boundaries? From what I understand the 1967 war, Israel was invaded on multiple sides with the intention of wiping it out. Unfortunately it was better prepared than expected. It not only repelled the invaders it chased them back to the Jordan sea and then incorporated that land as their own. That’s not theft. That’s what happens when you pick a fight with someone who you think is weaker than you.
Having had my tuppance worth about why I disagree with David earlier I also want to say that I agree with those who point out (a) that this is not really our problem and (b) given our history we are very unlikely to make a positive contribution to the solution.
Which makes you wonder really why we obsess with this so much. It's not as if we don't have a lot of problems of our own that we could be getting on with.
What’s this obsession with reverting back to the 1967 boundaries? From what I understand the 1967 war, Israel was invaded on multiple sides with the intention of wiping it out. Unfortunately it was better prepared than expected. It not only repelled the invaders it chased them back to the Jordan sea and then incorporated that land as their own. That’s not theft. That’s what happens when you pick a fight with someone who you think is weaker than you.
While Israel may have been under various degrees of threat from mobilised neighbours, it struck first. Always best to be precise about these things.
What’s this obsession with reverting back to the 1967 boundaries? From what I understand the 1967 war, Israel was invaded on multiple sides with the intention of wiping it out. Unfortunately it was better prepared than expected. It not only repelled the invaders it chased them back to the Jordan sea and then incorporated that land as their own. That’s not theft. That’s what happens when you pick a fight with someone who you think is weaker than you.
Yup. The occupied territories. How did they become occupied? Did Israel invade Jordan or vice Versa? How about Egypt? Syria? That's not to say that Israel can realistically keep expanding settlements and their wall, but they're only their because their friendly neighbours who only want peace invaded them several times...
What’s this obsession with reverting back to the 1967 boundaries? From what I understand the 1967 war, Israel was invaded on multiple sides with the intention of wiping it out. Unfortunately it was better prepared than expected. It not only repelled the invaders it chased them back to the Jordan sea and then incorporated that land as their own. That’s not theft. That’s what happens when you pick a fight with someone who you think is weaker than you.
While Israel may have been under various degrees of threat from mobilised neighbours, it struck first. Always best to be precise about these things.
Depends how you define strike.
Egypt and Israel were technically at war but with a ceasefire. Egypt cancelled the ceasefire and started a military blockade. Both of which are strikes. The latter has always been a casus belli.
What’s this obsession with reverting back to the 1967 boundaries? From what I understand the 1967 war, Israel was invaded on multiple sides with the intention of wiping it out. Unfortunately it was better prepared than expected. It not only repelled the invaders it chased them back to the Jordan sea and then incorporated that land as their own. That’s not theft. That’s what happens when you pick a fight with someone who you think is weaker than you.
While Israel may have been under various degrees of threat from mobilised neighbours, it struck first. Always best to be precise about these things.
Depends how you define strike.
Egypt and Israel were technically at war but with a ceasefire. Egypt cancelled the ceasefire and started a military blockade. Both of which are strikes. The latter has always been a casus belli.
But not 'invaded on multiple sides'.
Interesting that you think a military blockade is a casus belli.
"So what’s changed in those seventy years? What’s changed is the perception of Israel. No longer are the Jews there an oppressed minority but the majority community in an expansionist, wealthy and nuclear weapon-equipped country. It’s Israel which is oppressing Palestinians in the West Bank and particularly Gaza – ‘the world’s largest open prison’ – and Israel which has raided and occupied neighbouring countries."
The words of David Herdson. Totally correct. David's articles are always a good read.
You do realise that that's my parody of the Corbyite Left's analysis, and one that I go on to explicitly say that while the "critique is not superficially implausible, ... it’s wrong, all the same [and that] it’s wrong because it fails to understand both what Israel is and also the world within which it sits."
Indeed, that critique is itself tainted with antisemitism: it's those damn Jews using their power and wealth to oppress others again. How dare they work so hard and efficiently? It must be exploitation / some secret conspiracy etc.
Sorry. I don't agree with the last bit. Yesterday, Dame Hodge said she felt the letter from the Labour Party was equivalent to what Jews must have felt in Nazi Germany. Excuse me ?
Now, if anyone else had used comparisons with Nazi Germany, that would immediately have been condemned as anti-semitism , an expression whose meaning has now been hijacked to mean anti-Jewish when for centuries [ Oxford Dictionary ] it meant anti-people who spoke a Semite language, the most populous one being Arabic.
Hodge's comparison was excessive and unfortunate, because it's distracted from her legitimate complaint.
Have you read what Hodge actually said, rather than what SKY reported?
Inevitably it was a lot more nuanced and a lot less direct.
Comments
But if you mean 'Skawkbox,' it is a sort of left-wing answer to Breitbart, but (a) rather less truthful in its reporting and (b) run by a single person.
However, I was puzzled to observe a couple of posts on here making the claims before they went live on Skawkbox's website.
It may be coincidence, but since on investigation the claims in question proved to be made up it doesn't seem likely.
And yes, it is an unpleasant place. That's why I skip over the posts in question.
Edit - just to be absolutely clear, it wasn't you I was accusing of being Wilson,or the Jezziah, or BJO (who is an SB reader as well). I disagree with all of you on many things but I'm in no doubt of your sincerity or integrity (one rather flippant joke a couple of years back that I regret making aside.)
In theory we all approve of honesty and saying what you really think. In reality few politicians do, because it gets them into constant shitstorms. However, it does mean that what you see is probably what you get. I feel reasonably sure in outline what JC would do as PM. I'm less sure what JM would do, and I don't mean that in a sinister way, but more like other conventional politicians - e.g. one could never really tell what Tony and Gordon would come with.
"does not look like a pleasant place."
Labour List seems to be going that way with some of the threads. The riposte often consists of "You smell of poo, you do."
How different, how very different from the responses on our own dear site.
Agree with you on the domestic aspect of this and in all the justified criticism of Israel by the Corbyn supporters this aspect is overlooked.
One other point which I think David overlooks is the extent to which the anti-semitism we are seeing is also powered by by a far Left view of Jews as capitalist oppressors which has little or nothing to do with the Israel question.
On the Israel/Palestine question I would favour a two-state solution but it is very hard to see how we get there without trust being built. And it is hard to see that trust being built when on the Palestinian side they are still calling for Israel’s destruction and on the Israeli side they are still building settlements and passing laws like this latest nationality law. What I am clear about is Corbyn cannot act as a honest broker because he is so partisan and has made little effort to understand the Israeli mindset.
That is why - if he were a bigger man than he appears to be - he would now make an effort to do so, to accept Israel’s invitation to visit, to understand their concerns. It would not undermine his pro-Palestinian stance but it would show that he understands that (a) Palestinians are not and have not always been innocent victims but also have been capable of great violence; (b) Jews in Israel and elsewhere have also been the victims of such violence; and (c) the issue is rather more complex than he seems to think. It is a pity that he does not do so and his stubborness in refusing to grow beyond his rebellious backbencher mode evidences one aspect of his unfitness to be PM.
One final point: it is notable that the more recent stories are focusing less on Corbyn being seen with anti-semites and more on being seen with actual terrorists. That brings - potentially - a risk for him. Voters may not care about the Israel question but they do want a PM who will protect them from terror not consort with those who perpetrate it. The first photo of him with someone who supports recent Islamist terror against Britons and not just Israelis is what should worry Labour suppporters.
I'll admit I'm sceptical.
Egypt was also a democracy for a brief time, and Turkey has long been a democracy, though admittedly that looks less safe than it did in that regard. Iran is also fairly democratic, again once you take into account Israel's complete disenfranchisement of huge numbers of people that it has control over, certainly no less than Israel.
The making the barren rocks of Palestine bloom bullshit is pretty cloying cobblers too.
Its always been an area with plenty of agriculture (indeed a nice neck of the woods), as tragically displayed by the endless bulldozing of ancient Palestinian-owned olive groves by settlers and the IDF.
And fireworks can't be bad, can they? They're pretty, and make people go "ohh, and ahh". In fact, they Palestinians are doing the Israelis a lovely favour by launching all those fireworks (end sarcasm).
I wonder if I can go down my local Tescos and buy this 'firework':
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qassam_rocket
I am talking about terrorists who commit atrocities now in our land, in concert halls and bars and on our streets here. Should there be any link between those sorts of people and Corbyn I think the reaction may well be different. I would hope so.
The other danger is that some loon, inspired by some of the hateful anti-Jewish language used by some of his supporters decides to attack Jewish targets in Britain. Then the phrase “words have consequences” used against the likes of Boris could and will be used against Corbyn.
For F1 fans, F1 2018 looks like a rather good F1 game:
https://arstechnica.com/features/2018/08/f1-2018-is-worth-buying-even-if-you-own-last-years-version/
Pleasant days to all.
Rather than dismiss the existence of the threat, it would be better to find ways to diminish it. But often those who are opposed to Israel do the opposite then use Israel’s understandably defensive response as a justification for their hostility.
Israel also has the NUCLEAR BOMB. So let's not be too worried about its security. It can more than defend itself.
An excellent piece by David H for which as always many thanks. As usual, there are parts of it with which I don't agree. I'm much less pessimistic about the "two states" solution. It requires people of courage and principle to break the deadlock - from the Arab side, a recognition of the state of Israel, from the Israeli side, a recognition the Palestinians are a nation and should be treated as such.
International and regional guarantees for both states as to their sovereignty oiled as always by fistfuls of money. Pouring billions into the Gaza and West Bank would be a huge step forward - it's an old maxim that if people are busy making money they are too busy to make trouble.
I'm not a man of the Right but I embrace the potential of capitalism to create, aspire and motivate. Getting people working, building, re-building, getting infrastructures working will do far more for peace in the Middle East than any amount of rhetoric.
I also saw Orla Guerrin's traumatic report of the aftermath of the airstrike on the school bus in Yemen.
As I said yesterday, foreign policy and relations are often conducted on the basis of "my enemy's enemy is my friend" - we tried to be ethical once but that went nowhere as too many vested and powerful interests make money from the current disorder. It also makes the decision to invade Iraq in 2003 all the more perplexing and staggering. If you wanted to hold back the expansion of Islamic Iran having a strong secular power on its border might help yet we invaded, destabilised the area and have allowed Iranian and Iranian-backed influence to spread.
An absolutely tragic and incomprehensible error since in the Cold War we were happy to prop up dictators every bit as odious as Saddam.
I've been staying at the Mariott Beirut when we were evacuated as Israeli bombers blew up an electricity supply station nearby killing five electricity workers. It was not uncommon in Lebanon but would you describe these neigbours as 'under threat' when in fact the only and ever present threat was Israel?
'It's more complicated' is, admittedly, a reasoning which can trotted out a bit dismissively at times, but this really doesn't seem like an issue which can be described as anything other than 'It's more complicated than that' if people perceive a point on one side as requiring that the other side must have no points - see Roger for an example.
Let's not be too hung up on the security issue. Israel is a nuclear power.
I’m sure a nuclear bomb really helps protect an 80 year old man from being hacked to death with an axe.
I do not know if there is an equivalent listing of Palestinian fatalities with real names, dates and details.
Whatever one’s views it is important to remember that these are real people, loved and mourned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel#Casualties,_fatalities_and_rockets_fired
But it is worth reading what international organisations say about the rocket attacks: they cause not just deaths, but a population who live under fear and who frequently have to run to cover. It is as much psychological warfare as it is physical.
It's fair enough to say that Israel causes suffering to the Palestinians; however the suffering caused by the rocket attacks (in some years thousands have been launched) in Israel should not be downplayed.
Both sides are being shits. To get peace, both sides should stop.
- the way that CAGE (which is notably pro-IS killers such as Jihadi John) is lionised by some on the Left.
- And it was the Corbynite Left which refused to condemn IS violence against the Yazidis.
- Corbyn has said in the past that those expressing support for IS should not be prosecuted for “expressing a political point of view”.
- And he has also argued for opening up diplomatic back channels to IS.
So it is understandable why some see IS as something which is not quite as abhorrent to some on the Left as it ought to be.
To extend Jezziah's analogy: imagine how we would react as a country if a neighbour was launching thousands of rockets against us in a year. Except in a way we don't: the IRA was a smaller threat, and our reaction to it was not always positive, or to our credit. But that does not make the IRA saints.
Now, as I've said, Israel does have a tendency to overreact and it doesn't do itself any favours when it does. That said, I also understand why it has that tendency.
This is why, to get peace, both sides need to look towards, and make moves to, peace. The Israelis have more 'room' to make moves, but that doesn't mean the Palestinians can't make some.
Played a couple of games a few years ago, but I don't think racing's my sort of genre (in videogame terms). However, immensely good for portraying track undulation and width. far better than TV coverage.
But it’s noteworthy that the US President who probably did more than anyone to bring about peace - Clinton - ultimately blamed the Palestinian leadership for failing to take what was offered during the last serious attempt at a peace deal.
And it is not a fallacy that Israel has enemies bent on its destruction. This has been so since it was created and there are still significant countries and players in the region who want its destruction.
There are many people in the surrounding states who are bent on its destruction: they are just powerless to do so at this time. That might not always be the case.
It's an old book ('82) but Le Carre's 'The Little Drummer Girl' is well worth a read. It really opened my eyes as to the plight of the Palestinians, while not being unsympathetic to the Israelis.
I'm going to skip PB's attempts to solve the Middle Eastern question, but my view is that the UK has little or nothing to contribute to any lasting solution, other than making sympathetic noises.
(Universally applicable to all disputes.)
Still the way Corbyn has managed the anti-semitism issue in his party is a case study - an absolute masterclass - in how to make a problem considerably worse than it was at the beginning. It does not bode well for his skills should he ever become PM.
I don’t for a moment believe Corbyn is anti-semitic. I think Corbyn would very much agree with the statements and expression of Zionism, as articulated by Einstein.
Einstein was one of the authors of an open letter to the New York Times criticizing Menachem Begin’s Herut Party for the Deir Yassin massacre likening it to "the Nazi and Fascist parties."
Notice according to the “internationally accepted definition” of anti-Semitism that Corbyn is rightly refusing to accept, drawing comparison between Israeli policy and the Nazis is now defined as antisemitism.
Einstein is now defined as an anti-Semite (along with Hannah Arendt who also signed the letter).
This is an indiction of how ridiculous and hysterical the debate has become. And some of the posters on pb.com amplify the worst aspects of this hysteria.
Pretty much the only way the conflict gets sorted is via supranational bodies with a network of binding economic and political agreements between the various regional powers that allows enough mutual trust to develop that Israel feels able to lift the restrictions and offer reconciliation and a degree of reparations to the Palestinians, who have suffered hugely. The model would be something like the early EEC where Israel used its wealth and ability to attract inward investment, along with Iran's oil money, to mutual benefit - with structures managing and policing the inevitable flashpoints around a two state solution. But that's obviously pie in the sky when you have despots and fundamentalists who view antagonism as being in their interests in charge, who no one with half a brain, let alone the government of a country founded due to the horrible things these things lead to, would trust.
Which is one reason Corbyn's history is so reprehensible - even without the grossly offensive stuff he's done. He poses as a peace campaigner but has always been happy to shill for Iran - when its government's funding of terrorist proxies and fundamentalist hatred of Jews are probably the single biggest obstacle to Israel, the Palestinians and other players starting to climb down, apologise for past wrongs and start working towards peace. As part of that he echoes the impossibilist rhetoric of those who demand Israel in effect, unilaterally disarm in the face of those who want to wipe it out. He's a useful idiot, at best - although for those who actually want peace he's a useless one.
See. A peacemaker. He always backs the right side. Even if history / facts / common decency disagree
(Until there is no money to fund the NHS. That might just be the moment where there is a pause for thought. Maybe.)
'Missouri Republican who said ‘Hitler was right’ wins state House primary
...“Looking back in history, unfortunately, Hitler was right about what was taking place in Germany. And who was behind it,” West said on KCXL radio in January 2017, The Kansas City Star reported Thursday.
He has spoken of “Jewish cabals” that are “harvesting baby parts” from Planned Parenthood, abuse children and control the Republican Party. West also has a YouTube channel on which he has made homophobic, anti-Semitic, Islamophobic and racist statements, according to The Star.'
https://tinyurl.com/ybze5tr3
Wonder if the Don will be campaigning for him?
*Assuming one dwells in a social media bubble comprising one's fellow travellers.
https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1030760267368542209
There is an interesting article here on the negation of the diaspora:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negation_of_the_Diaspora
Indeed, despite being a substantial community, Liberal or Reform Judaism is under threat both from assimilation and intermarriage in the diaspora, but also in Israel itself via imposition of Orthodoxy, for example in this piece:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/feeling-shunned-young-reform-jews-wrestle-with-loving-israel/
Approx 37% of Israelis are considering emigration in this article, and approx 14 000 do each year, particularly those with higher education. Economics are a major factor but not the only one:
https://www.haaretz.com/.premium-bye-the-beloved-country-1.5273011
I have a lot of sympathy for Ben Gurion and others who saw the opportunity to setup a Jewish state in Israel at the end of the Second World War. Israel is strong now but it in the long term it has the potential of catastrophe for Judaism, which is overinvested in a very unstable piece of territory.
But on the plus side it puts me in the right mood for a typical Israel/Palestine debate.
We saw the end of Tether some while ago.
However, the more or les. complete disappearance of Jewish communities in Arab states over recent years is pretty strong empirical evidence that it’s not a realistic prospect in the Middle East for the foreseeable future.
https://www.coindesk.com/tether-review-claims-crypto-asset-fully-backed-theres-catch/
Which makes you wonder really why we obsess with this so much. It's not as if we don't have a lot of problems of our own that we could be getting on with.
Egypt and Israel were technically at war but with a ceasefire. Egypt cancelled the ceasefire and started a military blockade. Both of which are strikes. The latter has always been a casus belli.
Interesting that you think a military blockade is a casus belli.
Inevitably it was a lot more nuanced and a lot less direct.