Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour’s antisemitism problem will always bedevil Corbyn as lo

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited August 2018 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour’s antisemitism problem will always bedevil Corbyn as long as Palestine remains a cause célèbre

If Jeremy Corbyn had been politically active seventy years ago, there’s no doubt that he would have been a vocal champion of Zionism. Few things animate him like support for a people he regards as oppressed, who are fighting against a state like Britain or the US. If that struggle involves terrorism, no big deal for him. The creation of a Jewish Israel out of Britain’s League of Nations mandate in Palestine, aided by the Irgun and Stern Gang ticks every box, in red ink and at least twice over.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    edited August 2018
    A brilliant article. Thanks, David.
    I'd quibble about one point: a 2 state solution might be feasible if all sides could be adult about things. But history shows that won't happen .

    Edit: and thirst!
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    The parallel between the Cairo and Herusalem sewer system is fascinating (bear with me!)

    The U.K. left both built to a similar design and well maintained when they left

    In Jerusalem is still functions effectively. In Cairo it wasn’t maintained and has fallen apart

    Israel, for all its faults, is a well run modern state in a sea of hostility and deserves our support
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    Interesting read though I do disagree in some areas.

    For me I would have disagreed to start with, forcing a people out to replace them with a foreign one is wrong regardless of whether it was the native Americans, the Palestinians or some fictional future hypothetical where Southern England is given away to the Kurdish people after a terrible event.

    I couldn't care less what America backs, I backed the invasion of Afghanistan (perhaps mistakenly), I backed Aung San Suu Kyi (this was definitely a mistake) I will back what I think is right regardless of who backs it. If the Democrats got a more pro Palestinian leader in I highly doubt many on the left would suddenly switch positions.

    My opposition to America in this is like my opposition to America in the Iraq war, it is based on principle or what I think will work best not some anti American crusade. Anymore than those on the more pro American side are on an anti Middle East crusade.

    I also do not believe being previously abused allows you to become abuser, anymore than I would support the Palestinians being allowed to do to the Israelis what they have done to them for decades where the situation suddenly reversed.

    The whole thing will not be resolved though. I can't talk for Corbyn but for me personally opposing the occupation of Palestine is a principle issue. Being called racist will not sway me from opposing the occupation or doing what I think is right. If anything it hardens my resolve.

    Although as you note we perhaps can't do much anyway, although a recognition of the Palestinian state and the stopping of weapon sales could perhaps have a small ripple effect. Regardless of the possible effects for me it is a principle issue.

    I suspect some or most of this is true for Corbyn or the left in general.





  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840

    As for why concentrate on Israel countries don't tend to actively steal other countries land, it is generally called war when they do. Other countries doing so does tend to provoke a bigger reaction. See gulf war one for example. My guess is the average Kuwaiti would have lived better under Saddam than the Palestinian do under Israel. Huge response.

    Russia 'took' an area where a majority of the people (I understand) are actually happy to live under Russian protection and will certainly be treated better than the Palestinians. There was a pretty big response.

    The question should really be why is Israel allowed to get away with things other countries aren't, the excuse of North Korea has a North Korean leader who isn't democratic and treats his people terribly isn't some kind of justification for the Israelis mistreating a foreign people because they treat themselves well. I'm sure you could make similar arguments back in the slave trade days about Britain being better than other countries because of its domestic circumstances so its horrible treatment of some other group of people should be ignored.

    I said (something similarish) when the recent Israel nation state law was passed, my criticism of Israel is based on its treatment of the Palestinians. Even now despite recent changes its treatment of its own population is (even the worst treated minorities) is leagues above many other countries. If Israel stopped its actions towards the Palestinian people I would probably have over 150 countries to criticise based on their treatment of their own citizens before I would criticise Israel. For one random example I know they are pretty good with LGBT rights.
  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 1,435
    I winder whether the author has ever visited the country and/or Palestinian territories? some useful analysis but it does not address some of the thornier issues such as the settlements and Palestinian international representation.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517


    As for why concentrate on Israel countries don't tend to actively steal other countries land, it is generally called war when they do. Other countries doing so does tend to provoke a bigger reaction. See gulf war one for example. My guess is the average Kuwaiti would have lived better under Saddam than the Palestinian do under Israel. Huge response.

    Russia 'took' an area where a majority of the people (I understand) are actually happy to live under Russian protection and will certainly be treated better than the Palestinians. There was a pretty big response.

    The question should really be why is Israel allowed to get away with things other countries aren't, the excuse of North Korea has a North Korean leader who isn't democratic and treats his people terribly isn't some kind of justification for the Israelis mistreating a foreign people because they treat themselves well. I'm sure you could make similar arguments back in the slave trade days about Britain being better than other countries because of its domestic circumstances so its horrible treatment of some other group of people should be ignored.

    I said (something similarish) when the recent Israel nation state law was passed, my criticism of Israel is based on its treatment of the Palestinians. Even now despite recent changes its treatment of its own population is (even the worst treated minorities) is leagues above many other countries. If Israel stopped its actions towards the Palestinian people I would probably have over 150 countries to criticise based on their treatment of their own citizens before I would criticise Israel. For one random example I know they are pretty good with LGBT rights.

    "As for why concentrate on Israel countries don't tend to actively steal other countries land, it is generally called war when they do."

    You might want to look at what happened around the world between 1900 and 1950. The map of the world isn't quite the same as it was before.

    Your position is an interesting one. You think it is pointless for the Palestinians to accept Israel's right to exist, and call the missiles and mortars they fire over 'fireworks' (in your interesting choice of words).

    What we initially need is de-escalation. There are lots of things Israel can do: repeal the nation-state law, stop building settlements, and allowing more aid into Gaza might be good initial steps.

    But the Palestinians (and neighbouring countries) can make steps as well: and accepting Israel's right to exist, and stop firing rockets are two of them - and cheap ones as well.

    If you genuinely want peace, then there has to be trust. And interestingly, Israel has previously traded territory for trust: giving the Sinai back to Egypt once a peace deal was signed is an example.
  • Excellent posting, David. Thank you.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    Thanks for posting David.
    Not sure it was the intention, but the article makese think Corbyn/the Palestinians might have a point. That's my impression on first reading anyway.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    edited August 2018
    I can't say much about this piece which is mainly about Corbyn's motivations, and I don't know enough about Corbyn to say what his motivations are. But just to pick up on one pervasive piece of bullshit, not so much because David Herdson is being exceptionally bullshitty as because it's so pervasive.

    Countries do not have a right to exist. The reason why people use this strange philosophical formulation instead of saying what they mean is because they want to hide what they're advocating. It conflates the view that a country shouldn't be invaded by its neighbours, which all liberal-minded people agree with, with the idea that discriminatory ethnic states should be preserved at the cost of the rights of people living in them, which is evil and stupid.

    States don't have a right to exist: They exist at the pleasure of their inhabitants, and if their inhabitants don't want them to exist and more, they can and should stop existing. Explicitly religious states are a dumb and dangerous idea, and the sooner their inhabitants vote them out of existence the better.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Good morning, everyone.

    Quite so, Mr. Jessop.

    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).
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069
    "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?



  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401

    A brilliant article. Thanks, David.
    I'd quibble about one point: a 2 state solution might be feasible if all sides could be adult about things. But history shows that won't happen .

    Edit: and thirst!

    In an ideal world, a two-state solution would be natural. In a world where Israel rightly fears its neighbours, it isn't.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,669

    Good morning, everyone.

    Quite so, Mr. Jessop.

    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.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    Foxy said:

    "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.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Foxy said:

    "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?



    The eventual solution must be a two state solution. It will only be possible when both sides recognise the other’s rights to a state. That looks a long way off right now and nothing Jeremy Corbyn is doing is making that time shorter.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    A brilliant article. Thanks, David.
    I'd quibble about one point: a 2 state solution might be feasible if all sides could be adult about things. But history shows that won't happen .

    Edit: and thirst!

    In an ideal world, a two-state solution would be natural. In a world where Israel rightly fears its neighbours, it isn't.
    I agree. Which is why I wittered on about 'trust' in an earlier post. Trust needs to be built up on both sides, yet sadly all sides are regressing. There are some fairly simple moves that can be done by all sides to start a process.

    I do wonder how much senior politicians on all sides are gaining monetarily (yet alone politically) from a continued crisis.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401


    As for why concentrate on Israel countries don't tend to actively steal other countries land, it is generally called war when they do. [snip]

    That's an interesting point and suggests you don't know the history of the region. There has never been a country called 'Palestine'. The area was part of the Ottoman Empire prior to and during WWI, and subsequently became the Mandate of Palestine, governed by Britain under League of Nations auspices, through to 1948. When Britain withdrew, the Mandate was divided, after the first Arab-Israeli War, between Jordan (which took the West Bank), Egypt (which gained Gaza) and Israel, which established itself in the rest. As you say, the fight over land is generally called a war and there was one. The borders were defined by it.

    The borders were then subsequently redefined in a second war in 1967, after Egypt opened the war by closing the freedom of the seas to Israel, and Jordan and Syria then directly attacked Israel. The integration of land gained in war - particularly when that land is strategically necessary and when the war was started by the losing side (and which had held it for less than 20 years anyway) - is a common theme through history. To criticise it for having been attacked and for taking measures to protect it from future attack (the next Arab-inspired war occurred only six year later), seems at best unfair.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401
    Pulpstar said:

    Thanks for posting David.
    Not sure it was the intention, but the article makese think Corbyn/the Palestinians might have a point. That's my impression on first reading anyway.

    The Palestinians do have a point. It's rare in politics, whether domestic or international, that one side doesn't have at least some legitimate claim. But the Israelis have a much stronger one, which comes out of six million deaths in the 1940s.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Song, two far right attacks spring to mind (Jo Cox's murder in 2016 and the white van attack, which I think was last year, at Finsbury Park). Shall we run through the Islamic terror attacks?

    7/7, attempted and failed on 21/7 (one would-be bomber escaping in a burqa), the Manchester bombing, the London Bridge attack, the Westminster attack, Parsons Green. That's off the top of my head on a sleepy morning.

    Broaden it to Europe generally and you've got Madrid, half a dozen at least in Paris alone, multiple in Germany and Belgium.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism_in_Europe_(2014–present)

    The far right is increasing, partly in response to identity politics (turns out attacking people for whiteness actually increases the numbers of white people who adopt their skin colour as a feature of identity) and backlash against Islamic extremism, and the threat shouldn't be ignored or diminished. But the idea it's anywhere near a par with Islamic extremism/terrorism is crackers.

    On a slightly lighter religious note, I do wonder about this:
    https://twitter.com/Humanists_UK/status/1030400625719304192

    Coherence? Have they seen how many times Christianity and Islam has splintered?

    I also quite like the idea of a religion that isn't serious. Back in the olden days, religion was more about appeasing gods with offerings and social rituals, with morality left to philosophy. There were notably fewer religiously motivated attacks/wars until monotheism really got going (although worth noting that the Imperial cult did create a kind of monotheism around the emperor).
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718
    Excellent piece, Mr H.
    Britains history in the region suggests that now, the less we meddle, the better. I don’t think anyone there sees either the UK or it’s poiliticians as ‘honest brokers’.
    Even the 'Vicar of St Abions’ as (IIRC) Private Eye use to call Tony Blair.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069
    edited August 2018

    Foxy said:

    "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?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    Mr. Song, two far right attacks spring to mind (Jo Cox's murder in 2016 and the white van attack, which I think was last year, at Finsbury Park). Shall we run through the Islamic terror attacks?

    7/7, attempted and failed on 21/7 (one would-be bomber escaping in a burqa), the Manchester bombing, the London Bridge attack, the Westminster attack, Parsons Green. That's off the top of my head on a sleepy morning.

    Broaden it to Europe generally and you've got Madrid, half a dozen at least in Paris alone, multiple in Germany and Belgium.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism_in_Europe_(2014–present)

    The far right is increasing, partly in response to identity politics (turns out attacking people for whiteness actually increases the numbers of white people who adopt their skin colour as a feature of identity) and backlash against Islamic extremism, and the threat shouldn't be ignored or diminished. But the idea it's anywhere near a par with Islamic extremism/terrorism is crackers.

    On a slightly lighter religious note, I do wonder about this:
    https://twitter.com/Humanists_UK/status/1030400625719304192

    Coherence? Have they seen how many times Christianity and Islam has splintered?

    I also quite like the idea of a religion that isn't serious. Back in the olden days, religion was more about appeasing gods with offerings and social rituals, with morality left to philosophy. There were notably fewer religiously motivated attacks/wars until monotheism really got going (although worth noting that the Imperial cult did create a kind of monotheism around the emperor).

    The far right is currently responsible for about a quarter of all terrorist activity in Britain. The Brexit right, having enabled it and motivated it, now seeks to minimise its importance.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842

    Pulpstar said:

    Thanks for posting David.
    Not sure it was the intention, but the article makese think Corbyn/the Palestinians might have a point. That's my impression on first reading anyway.

    The Palestinians do have a point. It's rare in politics, whether domestic or international, that one side doesn't have at least some legitimate claim. But the Israelis have a much stronger one, which comes out of six million deaths in the 1940s.
    Yes, along the lines of the 1947 borders.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401

    I can't say much about this piece which is mainly about Corbyn's motivations, and I don't know enough about Corbyn to say what his motivations are. But just to pick up on one pervasive piece of bullshit, not so much because David Herdson is being exceptionally bullshitty as because it's so pervasive.

    Countries do not have a right to exist. The reason why people use this strange philosophical formulation instead of saying what they mean is because they want to hide what they're advocating. It conflates the view that a country shouldn't be invaded by its neighbours, which all liberal-minded people agree with, with the idea that discriminatory ethnic states should be preserved at the cost of the rights of people living in them, which is evil and stupid.

    States don't have a right to exist: They exist at the pleasure of their inhabitants, and if their inhabitants don't want them to exist and more, they can and should stop existing. Explicitly religious states are a dumb and dangerous idea, and the sooner their inhabitants vote them out of existence the better.

    If Israel's Jewish nature was 'voted' out of existence, then what future would there be for Israel's Jews? The "suitcase by the door" is not an empty phrase; it is fully justified by history. That is what this piece is about - as well as the perhaps deliberate refusal to recognise the world as it is by certainly the far left and by too many of the centre left.

    It's fine to say "a country shouldn't be invaded by its neighbours; all liberal-minded people agree with [this]". The question is: given that the country in question *has* been invaded several times by its neighbours, and given that many within those neighbouring countries (including some governments) still do not recognise that country's right to exist, what rights does that country have to protect itself against those existential threats? Or should it just suck them up and wait for the next war?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Dr. Foxy, think the Scottish example is a bit off. It has devolution and had a referendum where the people determined their own destiny. Hard to argue that's remotely unfair.

    Mr. Meeks, people disagreeing with you in a referendum doesn't make them enablers of terrorism, any more than you disagreeing with other people makes you a traitor.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,959
    edited August 2018
    A very well-written and thought-provoking piece. I don't have much first-hand knowledge of Israel itself. I've only been once (much of which was spent suffering from food-poisoning). But from the moment you get in the airport to board the plane to Israel, there is a degree of institutionalized paranoia that some unseen players are out to get you. Security is all. And I have been to Jordan, and been driven through a maze of minefields to get to the point on the River Jordan where Christ was baptised, literally a few yards from the Israeli flag on the other side. A place which ordinarily, would be one of the great places of pilgramage on Earth. But nothing about Israel's security is ordinary. You just cannot divorce it from its history.

    There is much about Israel's actions that I find wrong on so many levels. In some ways, being a Parliamentary democracy has been a curse, with stable Government requiring the votes of a handful of religious extremists whose demands on land and settlement have greatly fuelled international opprobrium. I find the naked land-grabbing especially grotesque. But Israel's action to defend its borders can hardly be viewed as bullying, when it is surrounded by those whose stated aim is to see it expunged - and when many within your midst are at least supportive of that aim. Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

    What I can speak of with more involvement is how the Jewish population of this country is treated. DomesticalIy, 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.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401
    Foxy said:

    "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?

    Lots of people are denied the 'right' of self-rule, not least virtually every other people in the Middle East, who either have no country of their own at all, or who have to live under dictatorships of one form or another.

    In this case, yes, a genuine Palestinian state would render Israel extremely vulnerable and as such, will not be accepted by Israel. Probably the devolution option wouldn't be acceptable to the Arab sides, which would see Israel's insistence on providing the high-level security - army, border force etc - as 'occupation'.

    But like I say, Gaza is closed at the Egyptian side too - why no equivalent criticism of Cairo?
  • IcarusIcarus Posts: 885
    Charles said:

    The parallel between the Cairo and Herusalem sewer system is fascinating (bear with me!)

    The U.K. left both built to a similar design and well maintained when they left

    In Jerusalem is still functions effectively. In Cairo it wasn’t maintained and has fallen apart

    Israel, for all its faults, is a well run modern state in a sea of hostility and deserves our support

    Population of Cairo 9m+ Population of Jerusalem 900k
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842

    Mr. Song, two far right attacks spring to mind (Jo Cox's murder in 2016 and the white van attack, which I think was last year, at Finsbury Park). Shall we run through the Islamic terror attacks?

    7/7, attempted and failed on 21/7 (one would-be bomber escaping in a burqa), the Manchester bombing, the London Bridge attack, the Westminster attack, Parsons Green. That's off the top of my head on a sleepy morning.

    Broaden it to Europe generally and you've got Madrid, half a dozen at least in Paris alone, multiple in Germany and Belgium.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism_in_Europe_(2014–present)

    The far right is increasing, partly in response to identity politics (turns out attacking people for whiteness actually increases the numbers of white people who adopt their skin colour as a feature of identity) and backlash against Islamic extremism, and the threat shouldn't be ignored or diminished. But the idea it's anywhere near a par with Islamic extremism/terrorism is crackers.

    On a slightly lighter religious note, I do wonder about this:
    https://twitter.com/Humanists_UK/status/1030400625719304192

    Coherence? Have they seen how many times Christianity and Islam has splintered?

    I also quite like the idea of a religion that isn't serious. Back in the olden days, religion was more about appeasing gods with offerings and social rituals, with morality left to philosophy. There were notably fewer religiously motivated attacks/wars until monotheism really got going (although worth noting that the Imperial cult did create a kind of monotheism around the emperor).

    Religion was certainly serious for those burnt as heretics in the middle ages, but it is almost entirely incoherent
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    Abraham has 3 great^40 grandchildren. Which one has more rights ?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758
    "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."

    The problem is that isn't feasible either, as such a state on the Mandate borders would be majority Muslim, which is something the Israelis would certainly not accept.

    That may of course be why they appear to be trying to drive the Palestinians out of Gaza, which would alter the demographic balance somewhat.

    It is perhaps worth remembering that even in Israel itself, although only 20% of the population is Arabic, that figure rises to 40% outside the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv belt. Even in Israel a Jewish majority is not secure.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124

    Good morning, everyone.

    Quite so, Mr. Jessop.

    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?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069
    felix said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Quite so, Mr. Jessop.

    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.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Thanks for posting David.
    Not sure it was the intention, but the article makese think Corbyn/the Palestinians might have a point. That's my impression on first reading anyway.

    The Palestinians do have a point. It's rare in politics, whether domestic or international, that one side doesn't have at least some legitimate claim. But the Israelis have a much stronger one, which comes out of six million deaths in the 1940s.
    Yes, along the lines of the 1947 borders.
    Although I don't concede Israel's rather twisted claims that the West Bank isn't an occupied territory because the Mandate was never partitioned de jure, only de facto, there were no borders in 1947. The Green Line to which you refer was a ceasefire line where an invading foreign army was penned in.

    If we concede the status of a border to it, that unfortunately would legitimise Israel's claim to the West Bank, because it would show the West Bank was illegally annexed from them by force and they took it back in a defensive war. So be careful.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124

    Mr. Song, two far right attacks spring to mind (Jo Cox's murder in 2016 and the white van attack, which I think was last year, at Finsbury Park). Shall we run through the Islamic terror attacks?

    7/7, attempted and failed on 21/7 (one would-be bomber escaping in a burqa), the Manchester bombing, the London Bridge attack, the Westminster attack, Parsons Green. That's off the top of my head on a sleepy morning.

    Broaden it to Europe generally and you've got Madrid, half a dozen at least in Paris alone, multiple in Germany and Belgium.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism_in_Europe_(2014–present)

    The far right is increasing, partly in response to identity politics (turns out attacking people for whiteness actually increases the numbers of white people who adopt their skin colour as a feature of identity) and backlash against Islamic extremism, and the threat shouldn't be ignored or diminished. But the idea it's anywhere near a par with Islamic extremism/terrorism is crackers.

    On a slightly lighter religious note, I do wonder about this:
    https://twitter.com/Humanists_UK/status/1030400625719304192

    Coherence? Have they seen how many times Christianity and Islam has splintered?

    I also quite like the idea of a religion that isn't serious. Back in the olden days, religion was more about appeasing gods with offerings and social rituals, with morality left to philosophy. There were notably fewer religiously motivated attacks/wars until monotheism really got going (although worth noting that the Imperial cult did create a kind of monotheism around the emperor).

    The far right is currently responsible for about a quarter of all terrorist activity in Britain. The Brexit right, having enabled it and motivated it, now seeks to minimise its importance.
    Evidence ?
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Thanks for posting David.
    Not sure it was the intention, but the article makese think Corbyn/the Palestinians might have a point. That's my impression on first reading anyway.

    The Palestinians do have a point. It's rare in politics, whether domestic or international, that one side doesn't have at least some legitimate claim. But the Israelis have a much stronger one, which comes out of six million deaths in the 1940s.
    Yes, along the lines of the 1947 borders.
    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. In doing so, the rendered Czecholslovakia far, far more vulnerable to attack - an attack which inevitably came and which could not be repulsed from within, nor was international aid forthcoming.

    The irony is that while there's much post hoc handwringing about that appeasement now (the very term 'appeasement' noting the Germans' legitimate claims), the reality is that those who advocate a return to Israel's pre-1967 borders are suggesting exactly the same solution to a similar situation as 1938. And would quite possibly bring about the same result. At which point, see the final paragraph of the piece.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124
    Foxy said:

    felix said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Quite so, Mr. Jessop.

    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.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069
    edited August 2018

    Foxy said:

    "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?

    Lots of people are denied the 'right' of self-rule, not least virtually every other people in the Middle East, who either have no country of their own at all, or who have to live under dictatorships of one form or another.

    In this case, yes, a genuine Palestinian state would render Israel extremely vulnerable and as such, will not be accepted by Israel. Probably the devolution option wouldn't be acceptable to the Arab sides, which would see Israel's insistence on providing the high-level security - army, border force etc - as 'occupation'.

    But like I say, Gaza is closed at the Egyptian side too - why no equivalent criticism of Cairo?
    I agree that there is a racism of low expectations in what we as a nation expect of Arabs and their governments, but many of us are highly critical of these too.

    I quite like Israel and Jewish Culture* and believe that Israel is the only Middle Eastern country where it is safe to be Jewish, or for that matter Christian, Bahai, Druze, Athiest, LBGT, Feminist, Marxist or even Muslim. The Occupied Territories are very different though, being both oppressive and oppressed.

    *last night at a spectacular version of Fiddler on the Roof at @CurveLeicester. Well worth seeing for any PBer in the region.


    https://twitter.com/EM_Theatre/status/1029961674885869568?s=19
  • Brilliant article. Thank you.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069
    felix said:

    Foxy said:

    felix said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Quite so, Mr. Jessop.

    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 are not left wing. They are Islamist Conservative reactionaries.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401
    felix said:

    Foxy said:

    felix said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Quite so, Mr. Jessop.

    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.
    Religious terrorism cannot be fitted neatly into a right-left spectrum, though to the extent that it does fit, I suppose it's technically far-right on the basis that it's ultranationalist and extremely socially conservative. However, it's ultranationalist from a minority group, which is such a different beast from indigenous far-right activity that it ought to be defined as its own category.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069
    edited August 2018
    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Thanks for posting David.
    Not sure it was the intention, but the article makese think Corbyn/the Palestinians might have a point. That's my impression on first reading anyway.

    The Palestinians do have a point. It's rare in politics, whether domestic or international, that one side doesn't have at least some legitimate claim. But the Israelis have a much stronger one, which comes out of six million deaths in the 1940s.
    Yes, along the lines of the 1947 borders.
    Although I don't concede Israel's rather twisted claims that the West Bank isn't an occupied territory because the Mandate was never partitioned de jure, only de facto, there were no borders in 1947. The Green Line to which you refer was a ceasefire line where an invading foreign army was penned in.

    If we concede the status of a border to it, that unfortunately would legitimise Israel's claim to the West Bank, because it would show the West Bank was illegally annexed from them by force and they took it back in a defensive war. So be careful.
    The problem being that the annexed the land, but not the people of that land.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Thanks for posting David.
    Not sure it was the intention, but the article makese think Corbyn/the Palestinians might have a point. That's my impression on first reading anyway.

    The Palestinians do have a point. It's rare in politics, whether domestic or international, that one side doesn't have at least some legitimate claim. But the Israelis have a much stronger one, which comes out of six million deaths in the 1940s.
    Yes, along the lines of the 1947 borders.
    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. In doing so, the rendered Czecholslovakia far, far more vulnerable to attack - an attack which inevitably came and which could not be repulsed from within, nor was international aid forthcoming.

    The irony is that while there's much post hoc handwringing about that appeasement now (the very term 'appeasement' noting the Germans' legitimate claims), the reality is that those who advocate a return to Israel's pre-1967 borders are suggesting exactly the same solution to a similar situation as 1938. And would quite possibly bring about the same result. At which point, see the final paragraph of the piece.
    An unhappy comparison, because the final upshot of the Sudeten crisis in 1946 was the expulsion of the 3.5 million Germans so they couldn't cause future problems to the Czecho-Slovak state.
  • 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.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    “What that meant however was firstly overwhelming or forcing out the existing population, and then living among a host of Arab neighbours.”

    But this is not correct. There were and are Zionists who believed in the Jews and Arabs sharing their historic homeland as equals.

    Here are the words of the most famous individual who represents such a strand of Zionism:

    "I should much rather see reasonable agreement with the Arabs on the basis of living together in peace than the creation of a Jewish state. My awareness of the essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish state with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power, no matter how modest. I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain—especially from the development of a narrow nationalism within our own ranks, against which we have already had to fight strongly, even without a Jewish state.”

    I agree with this.

    My guess is that Jeremy Corbyn would agree with much of Albert Einstein’s words as well.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Thanks for posting David.
    Not sure it was the intention, but the article makese think Corbyn/the Palestinians might have a point. That's my impression on first reading anyway.

    The Palestinians do have a point. It's rare in politics, whether domestic or international, that one side doesn't have at least some legitimate claim. But the Israelis have a much stronger one, which comes out of six million deaths in the 1940s.
    Yes, along the lines of the 1947 borders.
    Although I don't concede Israel's rather twisted claims that the West Bank isn't an occupied territory because the Mandate was never partitioned de jure, only de facto, there were no borders in 1947. The Green Line to which you refer was a ceasefire line where an invading foreign army was penned in.

    If we concede the status of a border to it, that unfortunately would legitimise Israel's claim to the West Bank, because it would show the West Bank was illegally annexed from them by force and they took it back in a defensive war. So be careful.
    The problem being that the annexed the land, but not the people of that land.
    Who is the 'they' in this comment? The Jordanians or the Israelis?
  • saddosaddo Posts: 534
    Pulpstar said:

    Mr. Song, two far right attacks spring to mind (Jo Cox's murder in 2016 and the white van attack, which I think was last year, at Finsbury Park). Shall we run through the Islamic terror attacks?

    7/7, attempted and failed on 21/7 (one would-be bomber escaping in a burqa), the Manchester bombing, the London Bridge attack, the Westminster attack, Parsons Green. That's off the top of my head on a sleepy morning.

    Broaden it to Europe generally and you've got Madrid, half a dozen at least in Paris alone, multiple in Germany and Belgium.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism_in_Europe_(2014–present)

    The far right is increasing, partly in response to identity politics (turns out attacking people for whiteness actually increases the numbers of white people who adopt their skin colour as a feature of identity) and backlash against Islamic extremism, and the threat shouldn't be ignored or diminished. But the idea it's anywhere near a par with Islamic extremism/terrorism is crackers.

    On a slightly lighter religious note, I do wonder about this:
    https://twitter.com/Humanists_UK/status/1030400625719304192

    Coherence? Have they seen how many times Christianity and Islam has splintered?

    I also quite like the idea of a religion that isn't serious. Back in the olden days, religion was more about appeasing gods with offerings and social rituals, with morality left to philosophy. There were notably fewer religiously motivated attacks/wars until monotheism really got going (although worth noting that the Imperial cult did create a kind of monotheism around the emperor).

    Religion was certainly serious for those burnt as heretics in the middle ages, but it is almost entirely incoherent
    What far right attacks? A couple of nutters who act as individuals in response to numerous Islamic terrorist attacks? There's no organisation behind them, no visits to far right training camps to learn how to make bombs etc. It's a fake equivalence created to make the common purpose drones happy.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    Pulpstar said:

    Mr. Song, two far right attacks spring to mind (Jo Cox's murder in 2016 and the white van attack, which I think was last year, at Finsbury Park). Shall we run through the Islamic terror attacks?

    7/7, attempted and failed on 21/7 (one would-be bomber escaping in a burqa), the Manchester bombing, the London Bridge attack, the Westminster attack, Parsons Green. That's off the top of my head on a sleepy morning.

    Broaden it to Europe generally and you've got Madrid, half a dozen at least in Paris alone, multiple in Germany and Belgium.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism_in_Europe_(2014–present)

    The far right is increasing, partly in response to identity politics (turns out attacking people for whiteness actually increases the numbers of white people who adopt their skin colour as a feature of identity) and backlash against Islamic extremism, and the threat shouldn't be ignored or diminished. But the idea it's anywhere near a par with Islamic extremism/terrorism is crackers.

    On a slightly lighter religious note, I do wonder about this:
    https://twitter.com/Humanists_UK/status/1030400625719304192

    Coherence? Have they seen how many times Christianity and Islam has splintered?

    I also quite like the idea of a religion that isn't serious. Back in the olden days, religion was more about appeasing gods with offerings and social rituals, with morality left to philosophy. There were notably fewer religiously motivated attacks/wars until monotheism really got going (although worth noting that the Imperial cult did create a kind of monotheism around the emperor).

    Religion was certainly serious for those burnt as heretics in the middle ages, but it is almost entirely incoherent
    Indeed if coherence is a key criterion of what can be classed as a religion, there would be no religions.
  • I don't mind pineapple on pizza but strawberries?

    https://twitter.com/sltda_srilanka/status/1030322365597732866
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401
    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Thanks for posting David.
    Not sure it was the intention, but the article makese think Corbyn/the Palestinians might have a point. That's my impression on first reading anyway.

    The Palestinians do have a point. It's rare in politics, whether domestic or international, that one side doesn't have at least some legitimate claim. But the Israelis have a much stronger one, which comes out of six million deaths in the 1940s.
    Yes, along the lines of the 1947 borders.
    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. In doing so, the rendered Czecholslovakia far, far more vulnerable to attack - an attack which inevitably came and which could not be repulsed from within, nor was international aid forthcoming.

    The irony is that while there's much post hoc handwringing about that appeasement now (the very term 'appeasement' noting the Germans' legitimate claims), the reality is that those who advocate a return to Israel's pre-1967 borders are suggesting exactly the same solution to a similar situation as 1938. And would quite possibly bring about the same result. At which point, see the final paragraph of the piece.
    An unhappy comparison, because the final upshot of the Sudeten crisis in 1946 was the expulsion of the 3.5 million Germans so they couldn't cause future problems to the Czecho-Slovak state.
    Likewise the 5-7m Germans who were expelled or fled from Poland. Yes, it is an unhappy comparison but sadly it remains a pertinent one.

    Of course, these German refugees, unlike the 1948 Palestinian ones, do not retain any rights of return (although of course under EU law, they could now, if they wanted to).
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Cwsc, can't recall what year(ish) the Jews first arrived in what some call the Holy Land, but it was circa a thousand years before the Muslims did, and the Christians were there centuries earlier too. In a historical pissing contest, you'd have to be a Philistine to suggest the Jews don't win.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401

    “What that meant however was firstly overwhelming or forcing out the existing population, and then living among a host of Arab neighbours.”

    But this is not correct. There were and are Zionists who believed in the Jews and Arabs sharing their historic homeland as equals.

    [snip]

    We can believe in many things; it doesn't make them real or sustainable. Jews and Arabs sharing their historic homeland is a lovely ideal but not remotely realistic.
  • surbysurby Posts: 1,227
    "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.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    "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?
    Yes, I'd love to see Israel stop the growth of the settlements as a first step. They are (IMO) unsupportable and just make things worse. But then again, I think many Israelis have given up on any hope of a peace process - as have many Palestinians.

    But I do think we can help. Maybe by not being the main negotiators or instigators, but by providing support and encouraging all sides towards peace.

    And if peace does come, we can help a new Palestinian state build and thrive - but only if they show commitment to peace. And perhaps such a financial commitment will partly compensate for the mistakes we have made in the past (although it can be argued there was no good solution back then, and whatever we did would have been used by others for their own ends).

    "Or is it possible for multiple distinct communities to leave peacefully and respectfully alongside each other? "

    The history of the Middle East, and sadly Islam in that region, shows that is a vain hope. Tribalism and culture are complicating issues as well.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    edited August 2018

    Mr. Cwsc, can't recall what year(ish) the Jews first arrived in what some call the Holy Land, but it was circa a thousand years before the Muslims did, and the Christians were there centuries earlier too. In a historical pissing contest, you'd have to be a Philistine to suggest the Jews don't win.

    So what? I merely said the Jews and Arabs shared a historic homeland.

    The Welsh & the Scots arrived in Great Britain long, long before the English. Do you believe that the Welsh and Scots (in your words) “win”.

    Does this mean that the Great Britain should not be shared between us? Or that “England” is not the historic homeland of the English?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Cwsc, not really. The ancestors of the modern day Welsh were there first [although I'd say large numbers of Celts remained in areas conquered by Saxons so it's not so clear cut]. The Scotti tribe arrived more recently, forget if it were earlier or later than the first Saxons.

    More importantly, you missed my staggeringly good pun on the word 'Philistine'.
  • surbysurby Posts: 1,227

    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.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172

    “What that meant however was firstly overwhelming or forcing out the existing population, and then living among a host of Arab neighbours.”

    But this is not correct. There were and are Zionists who believed in the Jews and Arabs sharing their historic homeland as equals.

    [snip]

    We can believe in many things; it doesn't make them real or sustainable. Jews and Arabs sharing their historic homeland is a lovely ideal but not remotely realistic.
    But Einstein visited the Palestine Mandate in the 1930s & saw some of the early Jewish settlements.

    And he lived through the Holocaust.

    I think his words might be worth taking seriously. He had first hand experience of what he was talking about.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    edited August 2018

    I can't say much about this piece which is mainly about Corbyn's motivations, and I don't know enough about Corbyn to say what his motivations are. But just to pick up on one pervasive piece of bullshit, not so much because David Herdson is being exceptionally bullshitty as because it's so pervasive.

    Countries do not have a right to exist. The reason why people use this strange philosophical formulation instead of saying what they mean is because they want to hide what they're advocating. It conflates the view that a country shouldn't be invaded by its neighbours, which all liberal-minded people agree with, with the idea that discriminatory ethnic states should be preserved at the cost of the rights of people living in them, which is evil and stupid.

    States don't have a right to exist: They exist at the pleasure of their inhabitants, and if their inhabitants don't want them to exist and more, they can and should stop existing. Explicitly religious states are a dumb and dangerous idea, and the sooner their inhabitants vote them out of existence the better.

    If Israel's Jewish nature was 'voted' out of existence, then what future would there be for Israel's Jews? The "suitcase by the door" is not an empty phrase; it is fully justified by history. That is what this piece is about - as well as the perhaps deliberate refusal to recognise the world as it is by certainly the far left and by too many of the centre left.

    It's fine to say "a country shouldn't be invaded by its neighbours; all liberal-minded people agree with [this]". The question is: given that the country in question *has* been invaded several times by its neighbours, and given that many within those neighbouring countries (including some governments) still do not recognise that country's right to exist, what rights does that country have to protect itself against those existential threats? Or should it just suck them up and wait for the next war?
    If you're trying to solve the problem "how do Jews in Israel avoid being killed?", I don't think you'd go with the solution "overtly religious state trying fulfill a scriptural prophesy and take long-ago-held territory from its neighbours". That's exactly what you wouldn't do. What you'd do would be to create a secular state, premised on human rights and religious freedom, not a religious state, premised on a particular religion.

    Now, what is true is that this is one case where the alt-right line about Muslim immigration - that if you allow in a lot of Muslims who don't share liberal values, they will create a religious state that discriminates against you - may be true, and not paranoid. But this would be a much less intractable problem if the issue was how to make sure the majority supported democracy and human rights, not how to make sure the majority supported a particular religion.
  • surbysurby Posts: 1,227

    Mr. Cwsc, can't recall what year(ish) the Jews first arrived in what some call the Holy Land, but it was circa a thousand years before the Muslims did, and the Christians were there centuries earlier too. In a historical pissing contest, you'd have to be a Philistine to suggest the Jews don't win.

    So, you reckon the Australian Aborigines and the American Indians should drive out the European settlers ?
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401
    surby said:

    "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.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172

    Mr. Cwsc, not really. The ancestors of the modern day Welsh were there first [although I'd say large numbers of Celts remained in areas conquered by Saxons so it's not so clear cut]. The Scotti tribe arrived more recently, forget if it were earlier or later than the first Saxons.

    More importantly, you missed my staggeringly good pun on the word 'Philistine'.

    So the land is Welsh.

    I think if you look at the evidence of place names, it is clear that the Celtic tribes in say East Anglia must have been slaughtered. There is little traces of surviving Welshness in the place names, which suggests that an obliteration, a holocaust, took place.

    By contrast, in NEast USA, there are plenty of surviving Amerindian names, though the treatment of the Amerindians was far from gentle.
  • surbysurby Posts: 1,227
    edited August 2018

    Foxy said:

    "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?

    Lots of people are denied the 'right' of self-rule, not least virtually every other people in the Middle East, who either have no country of their own at all, or who have to live under dictatorships of one form or another.

    In this case, yes, a genuine Palestinian state would render Israel extremely vulnerable and as such, will not be accepted by Israel. Probably the devolution option wouldn't be acceptable to the Arab sides, which would see Israel's insistence on providing the high-level security - army, border force etc - as 'occupation'.

    But like I say, Gaza is closed at the Egyptian side too - why no equivalent criticism of Cairo?
    A truly independent Palestine based on the West Bank and Gaza and in conformity with UN resolutions will not be tolerated by Israel.

    However, the viscous Arab regimes [ our friends ] would be even more scared of an Independent Palestine with its rich reservoir of intellectual thought [ particularly in the diaspora ].
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    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.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    Thanks David, a thoughtful and pragmatic peice.
  • surbysurby Posts: 1,227
    edited August 2018

    surby said:

    "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.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401

    “What that meant however was firstly overwhelming or forcing out the existing population, and then living among a host of Arab neighbours.”

    But this is not correct. There were and are Zionists who believed in the Jews and Arabs sharing their historic homeland as equals.

    [snip]

    We can believe in many things; it doesn't make them real or sustainable. Jews and Arabs sharing their historic homeland is a lovely ideal but not remotely realistic.
    But Einstein visited the Palestine Mandate in the 1930s & saw some of the early Jewish settlements.

    And he lived through the Holocaust.

    I think his words might be worth taking seriously. He had first hand experience of what he was talking about.
    I do take his words seriously. And he turned down the presidency of Israel, IIRC.

    However, surely the events of 1947-9 prove that the idea of peaceful coexistence was impossible to reconcile with the scale of Jewish immigration? Arabs might well have accepted a state of Palestine providing that the Jewish population was a minority. But recent history had taught Jews that being a minority (even a sizable minority), without control of the institutions of the state, was no protection. So it was never going to happen.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Surby, I'm beginning to think my magnificent 'Philistine' joke is going to be overlooked by everyone.

    *sighs*

    I also never suggested a historical pissing contest was a good way of settling land disputes. Much as I'm saddened by the demise of the Eastern Roman Empire, trying to turf the Turks out of Istanbul to re-found it would be an act of drunken lunacy.

    Mr. Cwsc, that neglects new settlements being founded (with Saxon names), old sites being abandoned, and name changes over the millennia. The US is a few centuries old. The Saxon invasion occurred about 15-16 centuries ago. Over that period York's name changed from Eboracum to Eoferwic to Jorvik to York.

    Which Welsh places have the same names as they did in 500 AD? And how could we tell?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    surby said:

    Foxy said:

    "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?

    Lots of people are denied the 'right' of self-rule, not least virtually every other people in the Middle East, who either have no country of their own at all, or who have to live under dictatorships of one form or another.

    In this case, yes, a genuine Palestinian state would render Israel extremely vulnerable and as such, will not be accepted by Israel. Probably the devolution option wouldn't be acceptable to the Arab sides, which would see Israel's insistence on providing the high-level security - army, border force etc - as 'occupation'.

    But like I say, Gaza is closed at the Egyptian side too - why no equivalent criticism of Cairo?
    A truly independent Palestine based on the West Bank and Gaza and in conformity with UN resolutions will not be tolerated by Israel.

    However, the viscous Arab regimes [ our friends ] would be even more scared of an Independent Palestine with its rich reservoir of intellectual thought [ particularly in the diaspora ].
    That's an interesting take on Palestine. Recent history indicates that an independent Palestinian state would fall immediately into civil war between Hamas and Fatah, or their equivalents.

    It's also noticeable that the people castigating Israel for civilian deaths don't condemn those two organisations for the 600+ Palestinian civilians their little pointless civil war has killed.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069
    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Thanks for posting David.
    Not sure it was the intention, but the article makese think Corbyn/the Palestinians might have a point. That's my impression on first reading anyway.

    The Palestinians do have a point. It's rare in politics, whether domestic or international, that one side doesn't have at least some legitimate claim. But the Israelis have a much stronger one, which comes out of six million deaths in the 1940s.
    Yes, along the lines of the 1947 borders.
    Although I don't concede Israel's rather twisted claims that the West Bank isn't an occupied territory because the Mandate was never partitioned de jure, only de facto, there were no borders in 1947. The Green Line to which you refer was a ceasefire line where an invading foreign army was penned in.

    If we concede the status of a border to it, that unfortunately would legitimise Israel's claim to the West Bank, because it would show the West Bank was illegally annexed from them by force and they took it back in a defensive war. So be careful.
    The problem being that the annexed the land, but not the people of that land.
    Who is the 'they' in this comment? The Jordanians or the Israelis?
    Each, in turn.
  • Thank you, David, for an exceptionally fine piece.

    There is little I would add at this stage except to concur with one of your more important points. The current problem the Labour Party has is not so much anti-semitism as a tendency to highly selective posturing. The Gaza strip a is particularly good example. Why is criticism of Israel not levelled equally at Egypt?

    The answer is as you say. It's because Israel has the backing of that international bully-boy, the USA. Anti-US posturing is 'right-on', anti-Egypt posturing is not. It is all very childish, and extremely unhelpful.

    More anon, I hope. I have to go. Thank you again, and thanks also to the many other posters who have responded with considerable intelligence and thoughtfulness.

  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,545
    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.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069

    Mr. Cwsc, not really. The ancestors of the modern day Welsh were there first [although I'd say large numbers of Celts remained in areas conquered by Saxons so it's not so clear cut]. The Scotti tribe arrived more recently, forget if it were earlier or later than the first Saxons.

    More importantly, you missed my staggeringly good pun on the word 'Philistine'.

    So the land is Welsh.

    I think if you look at the evidence of place names, it is clear that the Celtic tribes in say East Anglia must have been slaughtered. There is little traces of surviving Welshness in the place names, which suggests that an obliteration, a holocaust, took place.

    By contrast, in NEast USA, there are plenty of surviving Amerindian names, though the treatment of the Amerindians was far from gentle.
    I don't think that it is clear that the Celts were slaughtered in East Anglia. The genetic evidence is one of continuity, as far as genetic archeology can tell. There was cultural and linguistic change, but how much population change? probably not much. See Francis Pryor on the subject in his excellent book Britain AD.

    https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.amazon.co.uk/Britain-AD-Arthur-England-Anglo-Saxons/dp/0007181876&ved=2ahUKEwiQ7_q8kfbcAhXnCcAKHQ-eCfcQFjAAegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw10jxhn7_VvPnpMAercf78J
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Anazina said:

    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.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263



    If you're trying to solve the problem "how do Jews in Israel avoid being killed?", I don't think you'd go with the solution "overtly religious state trying fulfill a scriptural prophesy and take long-ago-held territory from its neighbours". That's exactly what you wouldn't do. What you'd do would be to create a secular state, premised on human rights and religious freedom, not a religious state, premised on a particular religion.

    Now, what is true is that this is one case where the alt-right line about Muslim immigration - that if you allow in a lot of Muslims who don't share liberal values, they will create a religious state that discriminates against you - may be true, and not paranoid. But this would be a much less intractable problem if the issue was how to make sure the majority supported democracy and human rights, not how to make sure the majority supported a particular religion.

    +1. And it's important to note that this is not an antisemitic view. The right to live and thrive in peace is an absolutely fundamental one which we should expect Israelis and anyone else to defend. The right to have a state where one community or religion is dominant is a different, and frankly less important, right, even though there are all the historical reasons that David mentions for why it seems desirable to many Israelis. And when it leads to the kind of behaviour that we've seen recently by the Israeli government, it is actively harmful to the main aim of living in peace and security.

    Britain has very little influence on all this. But insofar as we do there is a legitimate case for consistent criticism of Israel as a state based on ethnic/community/religious preference. The same, of course, applies to the Islamic Republic of Iran, and don't get me started on the far more oppressive Saudi Arabia.

    The intellectual difficulty in the ILHR is that it's fine with criticising Israeli policy but the legitimacy of criticising the very basis of Israel is less clear. That's why Labour struggles with the specific example which seems to rule that out. As a pragmatist, I think we should just shrug and accept the ILHR with all examples and that the theoretical basis of Israel is something we don't discuss - there are a zillion issues that are more important for British politicians to debate. But Jeremy, much as I like him, is not a pragmatist - he doesn't like agreeing to shut up about something he cares about merely because it's politically inconvenient. That's not anti-semitic, and in other contexts it might be admirable, but right now I wish we'd just suck it up and move on.
  • surbysurby Posts: 1,227

    Thank you, David, for an exceptionally fine piece.

    There is little I would add at this stage except to concur with one of your more important points. The current problem the Labour Party has is not so much anti-semitism as a tendency to highly selective posturing. The Gaza strip a is particularly good example. Why is criticism of Israel not levelled equally at Egypt?

    The answer is as you say. It's because Israel has the backing of that international bully-boy, the USA. Anti-US posturing is 'right-on', anti-Egypt posturing is not. It is all very childish, and extremely unhelpful.

    More anon, I hope. I have to go. Thank you again, and thanks also to the many other posters who have responded with considerable intelligence and thoughtfulness.

    I don't think there is no one in the Labour Party who is pro-the Egyptian government. Al-Sisi is a murderous dictator but "our friend". He is given the honour of a state visit. Was it really necessary ? The Muslim Brotherhood [ who, by the way, is a mass movement ] and won a fair election [ according to Western observers ] was turfed out because, guess what, they were not on "our side". MB is no ISIS. ISIS was given birth by Saudi, UAE and Kuwaiti money.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Surby, Morsi lost support because he won a free and fair election by a narrow margin then started acting like he was a new pharaoh.

    One suspects the Coptic Christians were less than distraught at his departure.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281



    If you're trying to solve the problem "how do Jews in Israel avoid being killed?", I don't think you'd go with the solution "overtly religious state trying fulfill a scriptural prophesy and take long-ago-held territory from its neighbours". That's exactly what you wouldn't do. What you'd do would be to create a secular state, premised on human rights and religious freedom, not a religious state, premised on a particular religion.

    Now, what is true is that this is one case where the alt-right line about Muslim immigration - that if you allow in a lot of Muslims who don't share liberal values, they will create a religious state that discriminates against you - may be true, and not paranoid. But this would be a much less intractable problem if the issue was how to make sure the majority supported democracy and human rights, not how to make sure the majority supported a particular religion.

    +1. And it's important to note that this is not an antisemitic view. The right to live and thrive in peace is an absolutely fundamental one which we should expect Israelis and anyone else to defend. The right to have a state where one community or religion is dominant is a different, and frankly less important, right, even though there are all the historical reasons that David mentions for why it seems desirable to many Israelis. And when it leads to the kind of behaviour that we've seen recently by the Israeli government, it is actively harmful to the main aim of living in peace and security.

    Britain has very little influence on all this. But insofar as we do there is a legitimate case for consistent criticism of Israel as a state based on ethnic/community/religious preference. The same, of course, applies to the Islamic Republic of Iran, and don't get me started on the far more oppressive Saudi Arabia.

    The intellectual difficulty in the ILHR is that it's fine with criticising Israeli policy but the legitimacy of criticising the very basis of Israel is less clear. That's why Labour struggles with the specific example which seems to rule that out. As a pragmatist, I think we should just shrug and accept the ILHR with all examples and that the theoretical basis of Israel is something we don't discuss - there are a zillion issues that are more important for British politicians to debate. But Jeremy, much as I like him, is not a pragmatist - he doesn't like agreeing to shut up about something he cares about merely because it's politically inconvenient. That's not anti-semitic, and in other contexts it might be admirable, but right now I wish we'd just suck it up and move on.
    Good post. I'm surprised a pragmatist like McDonnell hasn't told Corbyn to accept ILHR and move on.

    PS Great article @david_hersdon, thanks!
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Pointer, McDonnell's made a few noises in that direction (at least a week or so ago). There was something of a split, I think, in the loony left of Labour's front bench and the broader Momentum cult on the subject.
  • surbysurby Posts: 1,227
    kle4 said:

    Anazina said:

    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.

  • surbysurby Posts: 1,227
    edited August 2018

    Mr. Surby, Morsi lost support because he won a free and fair election by a narrow margin then started acting like he was a new pharaoh.

    One suspects the Coptic Christians were less than distraught at his departure.

    So you support any freely and fairly elected government to be turfed out by the military if their popularity goes down ? Should all British governments be removed in mid term ?

    More Coptic Christians have been killed after Morsi was removed.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    kle4 said:

    Anazina said:

    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.
    I have no problem with criticising Israel's actions, and it certainly deserves much criticism.

    But it is only one actor in the tragedy that is taking place, albeit a powerful one, and the other actors also are well worthy of criticism. If someone continually criticises Israel but not the various Palestinian groups, or the surrounding countries, for their misdeeds, then it stops being even-handed, and even harms the prospects for peace.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,092


    PS Great article @david_hersdon, thanks!

    Echoed.
  • surbysurby Posts: 1,227
    Another odd omission in PB is Saudi Arabia, the UAE , Kuwait are never criticised.

    Must be beacons of democracy ?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    FF43 said:

    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.
  • JWisemannJWisemann Posts: 1,082
    Absolute cobblers as one has come to expect from DH.

    Useful, though, as a good summary of the counterfactual opinions of the frothing pro-israel right-or-wrong nutters that make up so much of the westminster establishment and their pathetic hangers-on and so little of the population at large.

    Amazing how self-declared intelligent people can regurgitate the violent, murderous, racist settler state's endless vomiting of self-aggrandizing propaganda that it spurts out to justify the unjustifiable, without the slightest hint of examination or critical thought.

    Its basically exactly the same as the Tory support for Apartheid South Africa.

    The last thing Id want to do is live somewhere like Israel.

    But the jealousy on display is that of the obsessed hard-right Tories and their fellow travellers like DH, who would dearly love to live in an extreme nationalist racial-supremacist state in which a perceived inferior class of people can be violently suppressed and repressed.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    edited August 2018
    surby said:

    Another odd omission in PB is Saudi Arabia, the UAE , Kuwait are never criticised.

    Must be beacons of democracy ?

    I very much doubt they are never criticised, they just don't come up much. (In fairness I don't know if Kuwait has ever come up outside reference to the first Gulf War)
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758

    Mr. Surby, Morsi lost support because he won a free and fair election by a narrow margin then started acting like he was a new pharaoh.

    One suspects the Coptic Christians were less than distraught at his departure.

    Isn't it a good job we'd never have something like that in this country?

    Ah...

    (Although bad as he is, even Jeremy Corbyn would be no Morsi.)
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Surby, I didn't say that, but I suppose it's easier winning an argument if you're making up both sides of it.

    I acknowledged the reality that Morsi's win was free and fair, and that the Coptic Christians suffered more under his arrogant misrule. And yes, they've been persecuted both before and after his time, that's true.

    You're willing to take on board the positive aspects (won a fair election) without considering his demerits. The situation in Egypt now is not great, either democratically or for the Coptic Christians. Given how things progressed in places like Iran and even how they're changing in Turkey, I'd be greatly surprised if they were better had Morsi remained in power.

    A democratically elected leader can still be a tyrant, or an enemy of his own nation. Just look at all the journalists locked up in Turkey, or how out of control the socialist lunacy of a party that was originally elected legitimately (the last election being a farce) got.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758
    edited August 2018
    surby said:

    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!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    edited August 2018
    Excellent, well argued piece but I respectfully disagree.

    The hypothesis is that Israel faces an imminent threat of destruction. It doesn't. It is vastly more powerful than its neighbours. The biggest threat used to be Egypt. Not any more. Not only has Egypt had relatively good relations with Israel for decades it has gone backwards as a country and a military power. After Egypt the great threat was Syria on the Golan Heights. Enough said. Israel faces a terrorist problem from groups funded and supplied by Iran. It is a serious problem and a genuine threat to its citizens but it is no threat at all to the existence of the state.

    This power is a consequence of Israel's success as well as Arabic failure. I agree that there is much to admire about what they have achieved but the problem now is the way that power is being used. And it is being used brutally. The family home of anyone involved in a terrorist act is bulldozed to destruction. Supplies of water as well as food and a whole range of things that are deemed to have military potential are kept out of Gaza and the west bank. This means that there is no chance of these areas developing viable economies. People throwing stones are routinely shot, even children. More and more land is seized for new settlements which are then sealed off making what remains less viable. I could go on but how do we support a state like that?

    Corbyn is a simpleton and he is wrong to glorify terrorists whether Palestinian or Irish but an understandable concern about anti-semetism cannot be used to prevent criticism of a powerful state which is abusing people under its control. And they do.
  • surbysurby Posts: 1,227
    edited August 2018
    JWisemann said:

    Absolute cobblers as one has come to expect from DH.

    Useful, though, as a good summary of the counterfactual opinions of the frothing pro-israel right-or-wrong nutters that make up so much of the westminster establishment and their pathetic hangers-on and so little of the population at large.

    Amazing how self-declared intelligent people can regurgitate the violent, murderous, racist settler state's endless vomiting of self-aggrandizing propaganda that it spurts out to justify the unjustifiable, without the slightest hint of examination or critical thought.

    Its basically exactly the same as the Tory support for Apartheid South Africa.

    The last thing Id want to do is live somewhere like Israel.

    But the jealousy on display is that of the obsessed hard-right Tories and their fellow travellers like DH, who would dearly love to live in an extreme nationalist racial-supremacist state in which a perceived inferior class of people can be violently suppressed and repressed.

    "Its basically exactly the same as the Tory support for Apartheid South Africa."

    The recent legislation in Israel creating first class Jewish citizens and second class everyone else is hardly mentioned by the "frothing pro-israel right-or-wrong nutters"

    I always have this argument with my Jewish friends. Take any issue [ e.g. US civil rights, South African apartheid etc. ], most Jewish people will have been on the side of the oppressed.

    Even, in the case of Palestine. Marion Kozak, Ed Miliband's mother founded "Jews for Palestine". Those are rare voices today.

    But somehow, if the Israeli government does the same, there is a wall of silence. Some come up with the words, "the others are worse!". But the Saudi's and now the off-shoot's of AQ are friends of Israel!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    surby said:

    kle4 said:

    Anazina said:

    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. You demonstrably can criticise Israeli actions, people do it all the time, on the new law, on it's disproportionate responses, on the settlements, people do that, even some of the people on here who most stridently speak up for Israel as well. People who complain you cannot criticise Israel are, I'm sorry, liars. I've just done so and I've no fear of being hounded for being an anti Semite, it's very easy to criticise Israel.

    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.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,349
    Writing as one woefully ignorant of Middle East politics, it might give me the advantage of appreciating what the 'Ignorami' think. So don't go bothering me with your facts.

    I wasn't even born when they created the Israeli state but it seems an odd thing to do. However what's done is done. The surrounding Muslim countries want Israel eliminated, so it's hardly surprising that it reacts in a draconian way. It may not be justified, but its not an uncommon reaction.

    The far left always work on the basis that anyone being oppressed is a saint. Most of the rest of us work on the basis that they're both a set of nasty bastards. Unfortunately, anyone wanting to make peace is automatically excluded from government by the extremists on both sides..

    I suppose I'm saying that Jezza isn't particularly anti-Semitic (aren't they all semitic?) but he will always take sides very strongly, based on who he thinks has power. Simplistic and slightly childish, but not exactly racist. I lack sympathy for him however, because 'racist' is an adjective they use far too freely themselves.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    JWisemann said:


    But the jealousy on display is that of the obsessed hard-right Tories and their fellow travellers like DH, who would dearly love to live in an extreme nationalist racial-supremacist state in which a perceived inferior class of people can be violently suppressed and repressed.

    Amazing how people can read different things about others in the same words.
  • surbysurby Posts: 1,227
    kle4 said:

    surby said:

    kle4 said:

    Anazina said:

    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. You demonstrably can criticise Israeli actions, people do it all the time, on the new law, on it's disproportionate responses, on the settlements, people do that, even some of the people on here who most stridently speak up for Israel as well. People who complain you cannot criticise Israel are, I'm sorry, liars. I've just done so and I've no fear of being hounded for being an anti Semite, it's very easy to criticise Israel.

    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.

  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    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.
  • surbysurby Posts: 1,227
    ydoethur said:

    surby said:

    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 ?
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263
    kle4 said:

    FF43 said:

    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.
    +1. David is always a pleasure to debate with.
  • surby said:

    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.
This discussion has been closed.