Well, well…. We’re beginning to see light at the end of the tunnel. I’ve been arguing for ages here that excluding Jews from a Palestinian state would be wrong, but not getting far.

However, except in its fundamental point, this OP is all over the shop:

it’s not at all clear that a future Palestinian state will be an oasis of liberalism and democracy

Understatement of the year. If we can go by Gaza, it is more likely to be an Islamist tyranny.

As a devout liberal, I believe states should ideally have no national or religious character.

Plenty of devout liberals down the ages have supported the idea of states having a religious or national character. Probably most actually existing states have one or the other, or both. Your kind of pose is a recent one, and one seen by many Jews as thinly disguised anti-semitism. It is a double-barrelled attack on the idea of a Jewish homeland – you don’t qualify for statehood as either a religious identity or ethnic one…..so keep on wandering etc. I doubt if you would get far in France arguing that the French state should not have a French character. Or in the US. Try it in Russia…..etc.

The UK, for instance, is officially a Christian state, but this is of little significance except to Anglicans.

I imagine it is of some great significance to Catholics, Methodists, Baptists and so on too. It is a fact many Jews are comfortable with and I’ve heard many Muslims as well. But even without other faiths, around 70% of the population self-identified as Christians in the census. Yet you make it sound as if Christians were as rare as hens’ teeth. You might also note all the national iconography in the UK as well…..

Pretending B’Tselem are a credible source isn’t funny.

And there’s every chance of a three-state solution, if allies of that like you keep pushing for it.

Leon,

Ok, so you don’t like Israel’s most respected human rights group. Tell me which claim you doubt and I’ll find a link from Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, or another group to confirm it.

As a devout liberal, I believe states should ideally have no national or religious character. But things are rarely so simple.

What a pair of sentences!

But I think this is the logical endstate of liberalism: it seeks the abolition of society in the sense that all particular societies should be abolished. Can you say homogeneity, brother? I bet you can!

That’s why, in Israel-Palestine, I support the increasingly unfashionable notion of two states for two peoples: one with a Jewish majority, a distinctively Jewish public sphere, and equal civil and political rights for non-Jews; and another with an Arab majority, a distinctively Arab public sphere, and equal civil and political rights for non-Arabs.

Or we could have two secular states which recognised the rights of women and homosexuals as well as different ethnic groups .

” every chance of a three-state solution”

Why not? why do gaza and the west bank have to be one state?

@3 – “Respected”?

No, no point even trying, given the number of times they’ve been caught lying about events.

There are perfectly good NGO’s, but that you call them the “most respected” is a black joke. Also, your inability to tell between Jews, Israel and the Israeli Government is notable.

The Palestinian “Leadership” in Hamas still don’t admit there should BE an Israeli State. Start by persuading them otherwise, THEN get back to me.

Some people seem to be a bit confused about what I mean when I talk about states with no national or religious character. I mean I favour a concept of citizenship that is neutral between ethnicities, nationalities, faiths, etc. So Britain of course can be British, but not white British, or English British, or caucasian British.

Leon,

Ok, B’tselemen are rubbish – have it your way. Tell me which claim you doubt and I’ll support it with evidence from other groups.

The article conflates the idea of nation-states with the question of a state built upon the idea of allegiance to a specific ethnic identity. What separates modern nation-states such as the UK or the USA from Israel is not that they don’t have a national identity – but that membership of the community is conferred upon by the individual’s civic allegiance to the nation. In that sense, the fact that the head of state is also the head of the Anglican church bares no relevance to anyone’s citizenship.

Israel is instead an ethnic nation-state, whose sense of citizenship, as Tony Judt puts it (and expanded upon by Sean Lee at 972 Mag), owes more to mid-19th Century post-Hapsburg Romania than to modern multicultural liberal democracies.

Finally, I am one of those who does find it painfully obvious that the Israeli state is increasingly racist and heading in an undemocratic direction. That is not to say that I do support a Palestine that is also an ethnically or religiously exclusive. To say so is just pure trolling.

I wish I could believe in the whole “one state” thing. Can anyone can envisage a peaceful, cohesive “Israel + Palestine”-type state and, if so, how would it function? Does anyone really expect the Palestinians, burdened by several decade’s worth of grievances, anti-semitic prejudices and, for many, religious supremacist beliefs would live and let live with the Israelis EVEN IF the population of that country decided to forget their own ethnonationalism and grievances and prejudices against Arabs? (And vice versa.) Fair enough, I’m a bit of a pessimist, but it seems as likely as, say, indefinite energy resources; bombing people into liberalism or the other great fantasies of our age.

Matt

As a devout liberal, I believe states should ideally have no national or religious character.

So did I. One of the reasons that it’s folly to cherish this conviction is that holding it puts you in – to borrow the rhetoric of the occupiers – the 0.1%.

Leon -

Pretending B’Tselem are a credible source isn’t funny.

You’re right. It isn’t funny. It’s factually accurate.

re. citizenship – Israel being Jewish is not the same as France being French. 20% of Israelis are Arabs.

Shatterface -

Or we could have two secular states which recognised the rights of women and homosexuals as well as different ethnic groups .

We could, in an ideal world. We can’t, because they won’t. If Westerners are intent on making the Israel/Palestine problem one of their own it’s worth understanding the people it involves.

Some people will always be confused.

I thought what you said originally was both unambiguous and logical from the perspective of contemporary liberalism, Matt.

Your explanation, less so. How can Britain be British if it has no national character?

vimothy,

For me, ‘British’ would simply = democracy, a liberal justice system, equal civil, political and human rights, etc.

I’m curious, why not just go all out and say that Mandela should’ve argued for independence for the bantustans rather than one democratic South Africa?

A two-state solution sounds great, but I just can’t see it working- it’s getting less likely as illegal settlements continue. I wouldn’t like to be tasked with drawing the borders or designing an electoral system which protects and represents the interests of the minority population in a divided Israel and Palestine.

In other words, Britishness could include any and every type of national, religious, or ethnic characteristic, but would be circumscribed by those values. So you can be a Muslim and = British. But you can’t be a fanatical, homophobic, anti-democratic Salafist Muslim and = British.

@9 – No, they’re LIARS. And talking about other groups basing their findings off corrupt data from B’Tselem is pointless.

@10 – Great, then why do Israeli court record disagree. You’re saying the entire Israeli court system is corrupt.

Any country could have those same institutions. Indeed, many do.

“If the comments of top-ranking Palestinian officials are anything to go by, the question is moot: there won’t be any Jews in Palestine.”

Substitute German for Palestine/Palestinian.

BTW, I don’t think you can call Godwin’s Law when the case is literally true, can you?

In other words, what does it mean to be British?

It doesn’t mean anything. It just means that you live in a particular bit of territory, with some arbitrary combination of generic political institutions.

vimothy,

Sorry, I should have added the English language – and insofar as that’s a constituent part of Britishness, it does have a national character. I should perhaps have said I believe states should have no ethnic character and as little national character as possible.

@ 11 Matt Hill

re. citizenship – Israel being Jewish is not the same as France being French. 20% of Israelis are Arabs.

I’m not sure what point you are making here.

Somehow I doubt you are making the true one: that it is perfectly (demonstrably) possible to have a Jewish state that is Jewish in culture and character and that still manages to accommodate a sizeable non-Jewish population, affording them all democratic and civic freedoms, representation in the Knesset, human rights and so on.

You say:

So Britain of course can be British, but not white British, or English British, or caucasian British.

Yet when Israel is Jewish – including Yemeni, Iraqi, Moroccan, Russian, Polish, German, South African, American, Ethiopian, Argentinian, Australian, Spanish, Italian, British, Persian, etc Jewish… AND has a 16-20% non-Jewish minority it is somehow a ‘racist’ state that is offensive to your ‘liberal’ ideal?

Go figure.

Matt Hill

For me, ‘British’ would simply = democracy, a liberal justice system, equal civil, political and human rights, etc.

So, for you:

British = Dutch

British = Danish

British = American

British = New Zealander

British (even) = Israeli!

Just let them sort it out between each other.

None of our business.

Can someone approve my comment from earlier please? I expect service godzdammit.

Leon,

But are there any claims in the article you dispute?

@25 – The database here has been more than bit funky lately. Patience.

@22 -

Read what I said again. Ideally I would prefer states to have no ethnic or religious character. But I said in the article that I support, as the lesser evil, a Jewish state in the sense of a state with a Jewish majority and a distinctively Jewish public sphere, if the equality of its non-Jewish citizens is upheld.

If you would like me to spell it out for you further, I think the Palestinians should have no problem recognising Israel as a Jewish state – according to that definition.

I also realise I would be booted out of the pro-Palestinian movement for saying this.

@30 – The point is that unless Hamas recognises Israel, all you’re doing is pushing for a three-state solution.

What was the breakthrough in Oslo? Mutual recognition.

I have to assume Matt Hill is unaware for campaigns for self-determination in Alba, Cymru and Kernow?

Of a certain dissatisfaction in the polarised nature of British society?

Not sure you’ve picked the best exemplar of tranquility

Nadir Jeewa,

I’m glad you support a non-nationalistic, secular Palestine. If you don’t think Israel can be a Jewish state in the sense I’ve defined it. Does that mean you don’t think the state of Palestine should be an Arab state in any way? Would it have an Arab majority? Arabic as the national language? Are you in favour of Jews living there with equal rights?

@12: “re. citizenship – Israel being Jewish is not the same as France being French. 20% of Israelis are Arabs.”

And something like 10 % of the French are Arabs. Another 10 % are from other Mediterranean/South European countries. So why France being French is somehow more acceptable than Israel being Jewish?

Don’t get me wrong: I think your original post makes a lot more sense than much of the stuff on this site. I must thank you for it.

But like others, I don’t see why a solution would have to be two states. A solution of three states – Gaza, Israel and West Jordan – seems both inevitable and desirable to me, the only other option being a genocide of one or two parts of the local population.

@33 – There can’t be an Israeli state at all in that view, of course. Don’t play dumb.

@23. Flowerpower: “Yet when Israel is Jewish – including Yemeni, Iraqi, Moroccan, Russian… AND has a 16-20% non-Jewish minority…”

Thanks for that comment.

I’d go further and say that coexistence of religions and people in the Middle East, Turkey, North Africa etc was the norm for hundreds of years, persisting even after the foundation of the state of Israel. The current identity of Palestinian = Arab AND Moslem seems strange to those of us who recall the 1980s PLO (with Christians and others as public representatives) that sought a secular society.

@17 -

A correction:
Individual = “fanatical, homophobic, anti-democratic Salafist Muslim”
Individual’s nationality = British

The two aren’t incompatible. Fascist EDL members can still be British, just as much as pro-Osama Bin Laden Islamists can still be. That’s how citizenship works.

Also, the Israel – Britain comparison is one of apples and oranges.

Britain as Anglican state does not mean Anglicans from around the world are allowed and are encouraged to be absorbed into the British nation-state.

On the other hand, Israel’s identity as Jewish state means that Jews from around the world are encouraged to become Israeli citizens regardless of where they were born. On the other hand, descendents of Palestinian refugees are not allowed to return to Israel precisely because of it’s Jewish character.

Maybe that’s why Palestinian leaders refuse to recognise Israel as Jewish? Hmm?

A two-state solution sounds great, but I just can’t see it working.

That’s unfortunate, since it’s the only feasible outcome I can see. Israel, after all, is not just a fact on the ground, as they say. It’s a fact that’s armed with a formidable nuclear arsenal, and it has no intention of going anywhere.

Which means a negotiated solution will have to involve two states and a series of extremely painful concessions on both sides. That being the case – and given the astounding level of bastardry in the region – I imagine that folk will still be arguing about this long after all of us have kicked the bucket.

I guess one of the core problems is whether being a Jew is a religious or a racial definition (and I’d welcome comments on this point).

Good on you, Matt Hill, for actively participating in this thread.

@37 – There are plenty of countries with a right of return. Including Finland, France, Germany, India, Norway, Russia, Spain, Britain and a dozen others. Oh, and the Palestinian Territories. Hypocrite.

Moreover, Britain allows people from most commonwealth countries to vote in it’s national elections if they’re allowed by immigration law to live here, and of course EU citizens here can vote in local and EU elections, and…

And those Palestinian Leaders who don’t recognise Israel, period, you mean. Because of “Jews” and “The Zionist Entity”.

@ 34 –

‘And something like 10 % of the French are Arabs. Another 10 % are from other Mediterranean/South European countries. So why France being French is somehow more acceptable than Israel being Jewish?’

You can be a French Muslim, but you can’t be a Jewish Muslim, can you? France being French is = to Israel being Israeli. i.e. this is a civic definiton that can encompass different nationalities, ethnicities, religions, etc. ‘Jewish’ is not that kind of identity.

Really, this should be obvious.

@38 – Read up on the three-state solution.

Two-state would be far better, yes…

@42 – Funny, the country’s not Jewrael, it’s Israel. And there are Isralie Arabs and Isralie Christians and…

You also won’t answer my point @31, of course.

@ 39 -

‘I guess one of the core problems is whether being a Jew is a religious or a racial definition (and I’d welcome comments on this point).’

With respect, it’s obviously both, and I don’t think it’s a core problem at all. Jewishness can be an ethnicity or a religion – it doesn’t much matter – but what it can’t be is a civic identity. There’s no reason, in theory, why an ‘Israeli’ couldn’t be an Arab Muslim, say. (I have a good Arab Israeli friend who recently went travelling around South America. When she introduced herself as Israeli, people would often say – inanely – ‘Oh, I love Jews!’ To which she learnt to respond: ‘Me too!’)

What I’m arguing is that Israel needs to get past this debate about whether it’s going to be merely a ‘Jewish state’ or a ‘state of all its citizens’. Why can’t it be both? If a Jewish state is simply a state with a Jewish majority and a public sphere that is, in many ways, distinctively Jewish, most Arab Israelis could live with that (polling is encouraging on this issue) – so long as non-Jews were guaranteed equality at the same time.

If you’re opposed to that – if you think it’s an inherently racist, discriminatory idea – well, I sympathise, because the whole idea of basing citizenship around a certain ethnic identity has uncomfortable echoes of . . . well, you know what. But I would merely point out that the idea of a 100% liberal, non-nationalistic civic identity is almost unheard of. Even here in the UK – which is pretty liberal – our public sphere is largely Anglican, and the English language would form part of most people’s idea of ‘Britishness’. Indeed, the idea of a 100% liberal civic identity, which is neutral between nations and ethnicities, is a relatively new one which very few countries have (perhaps the US is the closest). So while a non-Jewish, ethnically neutral, 100% liberal Israel would be ideal, it’s an incredibly high standard to hold it to – particularly since it’s a country born of unique circumstances, as a kind of liferaft for the victims of ethnic persecution, and (whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation) has been engaged in warfare with a strong ethnic component ever since.

So I’m simply making a modest proposal: a new Israeli social contract which all of its citizens can agree to. Under this contract, Israel would be a Jewish state in a limit sense – it would have a large Jewish majority, a distinctively Jewish public sphere, and full equality for its non-Jewish citizens (limited only by laws that would ensure the former conditions).

If you don’t support this, fine, but don’t tell me you support a Palestinian state with an Arab national identity.

This current news report shows up the inherent flaws in Israeli values:

The Israeli government has ordered adverts that urge Israelis in the US to return home to be pulled amid outcry from the American Jewish community.

The ads suggest expats could lose touch with their Israeli identity because of assimilation into the US.

Funded by an Israeli government agency, the campaign was criticised by US Jewish organisations.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16013478

Read further in that news report. The implied Israeli assumption in the adverts is that jews everywhere owe their primary loyalties to Israel, not to the state where they live and have citizenship.

We’ve come across a similar situation before with the Cambridge five in Britain who plainly felt their primary loyalty was to the Soviet Union and with William Joyce and John Amery who felt they had greater loyalties to Nazi Germany.

@46 – And with your and your like’s campaigns against Jews, why should I not feel that way?

Leon Wolfson,

I don’t want to seem disrespectful, but have you thought about trying to engage a little more constructively on these threads? Every time I write anything about Israel, I can count on you to provide some lively debate. You’re obviously in many ways a smart, thoughtful chap, and far from an uncritical ethno-nationalist. I remember a few threads ago defending you against someone who called you a fascist – which is hardly fair, considering your stated loathing of Avigdor Lieberman and the fact that you said you agreed with almost all of an article I wrote on the Arab Israelis (which is here – http://themuddleeast.blogspot.com/2011/10/book-review-1-forgotten-palestinians.html – it’s balanced I think but hardly a whitewash of Israel).

While this topic in particular ignites a lot of passion from all sides, I don’t see why it has to be personal. Posting regularly here and at Harry’s Place – and being neither consistently pro-Palestinian nor pro-Israeli – it’s increasingly clear to me that sincere, intelligent people can hold a wide range of opinions on this topic. It doesn’t offend me when people disagree strongly with me about all this stuff. Why should it? So long as people don’t cross certain lines, like outright racism (and people have accused me, ludicriously, of both anti-semitism and anti-Arab racism so many times it no longer bothers me) then I don’t see why we can’t just have a fruitful, thoughtful exchange of views.

After all, you never know, we might just learn something.

Try this wikipedia entry:

Jonathan Jay Pollard (born August 7, 1954, Galveston, Texas to Jewish parents) worked as a civilian intelligence analyst before being convicted of spying for Israel. He received a life sentence in 1987.

Israel granted Pollard citizenship in 1995, while publicly denying, until 1998, that he was an Israeli spy. Israeli activist groups, as well as high-profile Israeli politicians, have lobbied for his release. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has voiced particularly strong support for Pollard, visiting the convicted spy in prison in 2002. His case was later linked to that of Ben-ami Kadish, another U.S. national who pleaded guilty to charges of passing classified information to Israel in the same period. He renounced his United States citizenship and is now solely an Israeli citizen, the country to which he will be deported in the event he is released from prison.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard

The fact that jews who were American citizens, living in America, spied for Israel gives an insight as to why jews are so often distrusted in Islamic countries. It also accounts for the outrage felt by so many American jews at the Israeli adverts which implied that all jews owed their primary loyalty to Israel, their “homeland”, and not to their country of residence and citizenship.

46. Bob B

This current news report shows up the inherent flaws in Israeli values:

Bob, I know I am not going to make a dent in your Jew-problem but no it does not.

The Israeli government has ordered adverts that urge Israelis in the US to return home to be pulled amid outcry from the American Jewish community.

Israelis in the US.

The ads suggest expats could lose touch with their Israeli identity because of assimilation into the US.

Or what most people would call a statement of the bleeding obvious.

The implied Israeli assumption in the adverts is that jews everywhere owe their primary loyalties to Israel, not to the state where they live and have citizenship.

Here is where you go wrong – where do the adverts imply this? They were not aimed at Jews, but at Israelis. By your own admission.

We’ve come across a similar situation before with the Cambridge five in Britain who plainly felt their primary loyalty was to the Soviet Union and with William Joyce and John Amery who felt they had greater loyalties to Nazi Germany.

You don’t think this is a tad hysterical? After all, all the Israeli government is saying is that Israelis might like to keep in touch with Israel. The parallel is not with the Cambridge Five, but with every other graduate of Cambridge who remained loyal British subjects. I should probably not point out that Italy has an entire Ministry devoted to keeping in touch with the Italian diaspora – and that they can vote in Italian elections. Why is this any better than these ads?

49. Bob B

Jonathan Jay Pollard (born August 7, 1954, Galveston, Texas to Jewish parents) worked as a civilian intelligence analyst before being convicted of spying for Israel. He received a life sentence in 1987.

So we have one American of Jewish origin who happened to spy for Israel.

The fact that jews who were American citizens, living in America, spied for Israel gives an insight as to why jews are so often distrusted in Islamic countries. It also accounts for the outrage felt by so many American jews at the Israeli adverts which implied that all jews owed their primary loyalty to Israel, their “homeland”, and not to their country of residence and citizenship.

And yet again Bob overs overboard in an effort to see how far he can sink. Arabs do not give a flying f**k about Pollard when it comes to the Jews. As can be seen by the fact that Iraq and Egypt expelled their Jewish populations in the 1950s. Yemen in the 1960s. Before Pollard was even born. What is more, even if it were true, how precisely does the spying activities of one man, or even two perhaps, maybe even three, reflect on the entire community? How can you blame all Jews everywhere – and especially the victims of oppression and ethnic cleansing in the Arab world – for the actions of a tiny number of individuals?

Or let me put this another way – if I was mugged by two young Black males, do you really think I would be justified in supporting the expulsion of all people of Afro-Caribbean descent from the UK? If not, why not given you are defending it for Jews.

Your racism is simply out of control.

45. Matt Hill

Jewishness can be an ethnicity or a religion – it doesn’t much matter – but what it can’t be is a civic identity.

Why not? We have other countries where religious belief is a civic identity and many many more where ethnicity is. You mean it shouldn’t be?

There’s no reason, in theory, why an ‘Israeli’ couldn’t be an Arab Muslim, say.

As is, in fact, the case.

What I’m arguing is that Israel needs to get past this debate about whether it’s going to be merely a ‘Jewish state’ or a ‘state of all its citizens’. Why can’t it be both?

Because a significant and growing minority of that State does not wish it to be a state for the Jews?

If a Jewish state is simply a state with a Jewish majority and a public sphere that is, in many ways, distinctively Jewish, most Arab Israelis could live with that (polling is encouraging on this issue) – so long as non-Jews were guaranteed equality at the same time.

And why do you think this is not in fact the reality at the moment?

because the whole idea of basing citizenship around a certain ethnic identity has uncomfortable echoes of . . . well, you know what.

…. what every other country in the world does?

Compare with Scotland. Britain is not a nation-state because it is a collection of nations unified by a common Crown. But Scotland is asserting a distinctive and rather intolerant in practice ethnic identity and demanding citizenship on that basis. Scottish independence tends to be pretty popular around here. But not for Jews it seems.

After all, the Israel-occupied territory has two kinds of citizens. Jewish settlers have their own towns, roads, buses, and schools – from which Arabs are, naturally, excluded. Jews can vote for their leaders; Palestinians have few democratic rights. Jews have full access to a liberal justice system;

Not only is none of this true, but it has been pointed out to Mr. Hill before that none of this is true. So it is sad to see him repeat it.

The Occupied Territories have Israeli-only towns, roads, buses and schools. From which non-Israelis, mainly Palestinians, are excluded. In the same way that Britain has British-only schools from which, oddly enough, Moroccans, on the whole, are excluded. It is not true that Palestinians are unable to access these things. Those Palestinians who are citizens of Israel are. They even vote. Palestinians who are not citizens of Israel do not.

The racism here is in the mind of the beholder. Not in Israeli practice.

@49 – I think you missed the nationality of some of the recent Russian spies discovered…

Countries spy on each other. Even friendly countries. Strangely enough, this dosn’t make us exclude everyone from those nations from those countries, it just means we limit who we grant security clearances to. And yet you’re excusing the Arab nations point-blank excluding Jews.

@48 – I’m a moderate left winger as Israel goes, yes. I cried when Rabin was assassinated. But the problem is the “negotiations” are going to go nowhere as long as Hamas is part of the PA government and they refuse to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist.

It was, literally, mutual recognition which ended the deadlock at Oslo. Trying to isolate Israel while Hamas’s intransigence persists just pushes things towards a highly unsatisfactory – for everyone except the Israeli right and some elements of Hamas – three-state solution.

As it stands, over three-quarters of the population are unconvinced that talks will go anywhere
And only 19% have it as their priority, largely because of this!

http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=53896

I’ll have to reply in detail to some of these comments later, but – dare I say it? – this is almost a thoughtful, fruitful discussion about I-P on Libcon!

SMFS: “So we have one American of Jewish origin who happened to spy for Israel.”

Evidently you have acute reading difficulties for that wikipedia entry relating to Jonathan Pollard refers to two spies and just a little checking of news reports on the internet shows that there have been many other American jews convicted of spying for Israel.

One of the most recent was Dr Stewart David Nozette in 2009 as the result of a FBI sting operation. As reported, Dr Nozette believed he was selling classified information to a Mossad agent so the FBI are evidently familiar with the continuing threat, hence the trap.

As for Britain, there is an enduing puzzle of why that arch fraudster Robert Maxwell was given a state funeral in Israel:

On 10 November 1991, Maxwell’s funeral took place on the Mount of Olives Har Zeitim in Jerusalem, across from the Temple Mount. It had all the trappings of a state occasion, attended by the country’s government and opposition leaders. No fewer than six serving and former heads of the Israeli intelligence community listened as Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir eulogized: “He has done more for Israel than can today be said” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Maxwellhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Maxwell

Is there any information on whether Bernard Madoff will also be getting a state funeral in Israel?

In the light of the documented history, it is very easy to understand why jews are distrusted in Islamic countries.

@52 – yes, I think Matt needs to nuance that para rather more.

Matt – your anecdote about your Palestinian/Arab Israeli friend made me smile.

Bob B – some people are too lazy to use their shift key – you clearly aren’t – except when it comes to one proper noun …

On the contrary. The Zionists have over-expanded to such an extent on Palestinian land, that the only answer is a one-state solution.

But you know what, it doesn’t matter. The conflict will end when American hegemony ends and an endogenous retribution will begin.

@55 – Right, we’re agents of the ZOG.
…
You know, I didn’t realise what an anti-Semitic piece of shit you were before. And hi Roshan, who I did know about.

It’s easy to understand why people like you are trying actively to make this country hostile to my entire people.

Bob B,

I have to say, though I don’t think accusations like this should be made casually, that comment – ‘there are good reasons for Muslims to distrust Jews’ – smells rather off to me.

Also, ‘Jew’ is a proper noun, you know.

Nadir Jeewa,

I’m keen to know why you think this is trolling, because you seem articulate. I’m simply saying that a new state of Palestine ought to grant equality to Jews – while maintaining an identity as an Arab state. What’s wrong with that?

Also I’m not Israeli or even particularly pro-Israeli. I strongly support Palestinian justice and statehood (and I’ve made it very clear on my blog what I mean by that).

I jus hunk the Palestinian national movement can and does make certain mistakes.

Sorry, predictive text!

@ 51 -

SMFS

Jewishness cannot be an all-encompassing civil identity coterminous with Israeliness, for the simple reason that, as you point out, 20% of Israelis are not Jews.

And it is simply untrue that Arab Israelis have full equality. See my review of Ilan Pappe, linked above, where I admit Israel may be the best place in the ME to be Arabic – but point out some of the many ways in which they’re not equal to Jews.

Remember I note all this while arguing for Israel’s right to regard itself as a Jewish state.

@ 52 -

Israeli-only towns in the West Bank from which Palestinians are excluded are not the same as British towns from which Moroccans are excluded. can you see the big difference?

The proper analogy would be Britain occupying a large slice of Morocco, settling half a million Brits there, and then having two types of citizenship, two types of towns, etc.

And it’s not as though the Palestinians are simply excluded from the benefits of Israeli citizenship – they have court systems, security, ruling authorities, all issued by Israel. Which are of course extremely inferior in every respect.

I don’t agree with the apartheid comparison for Israel as a whole, because Israeli Arabs have relatively advanced status. But in the West Bank the comparison is inescapable. You realise that in South Africa, the apartheid authorities tried the same argument? – confining blacks to their own cantons, calling them autonomous, giving them their own (lesser) form of citizenship, and thus justifying the whole damned system. Look it up, it’s uncanny.

And you cant justify a system of two kinds of citizenship on one territory by saying there may be Israeli Arabs amongs the Israeli settlers – well, I doubt there are more than a dozen, if that. Especially as the Knesset has made it legal to exclude potential residents from small Jewish communities on the basis of ‘culture’ – prompted by an Arab Israeli family applying to live in a Jewish town and being rejected.

Lots of patriotic, Zionist Israelis are for Israel but against the occupation. You’re trying to defend the indefensible.

Matt Hill @ 63

I don’t agree with the apartheid comparison for Israel as a whole, because Israeli Arabs have relatively advanced status. But in the West Bank the comparison is inescapable.

It is not “inescapable”, it is just silly and facile.

You may buy into all this Rosa Parks nonsense but even the Guardian article you link to twice highlights the fact that the real reason Palestinian Arabs are banned from entering the settlements is security concerns not “racism”. You are trying to paint the Israelis as being like the KKK in the deep South during segregation. But in your heart you must know that security is the true motivation, so why do you give a platform to this vicious and mendacious propaganda?

Sure the “occupation” is tough on Palestinians. But you also know in your heart that it could have been ended years ago if the Palestinians had stuck to their word and stopped terrorist assaults on settlers and on Israel.

@58: “You know, I didn’t realise what an anti-Semitic piece of shit you were before”

As posted many times before, any criticism of Israel and Israelis is immediately dismissed as “antisemitism” regardless of whether the criticsm is well-founded in fact – which tells us something very significant. Calling me “antisemitic” does absolutely nothing to cover over or explain the documented facts – the facts in this instance being the number of American jews convicted of spying for Israel.

@59: “that comment – ‘there are good reasons for Muslims to distrust Jews’ – smells rather off to me.”

Jews are plainly distrusted in many Islamic countries. Perhaps that’s hardly surprising after looking at the documented reports on the internet from America of American jews convicted of spying for Israel and that BBC report about an Israeli advert linked @46 which plainly implies that the primary loyalty of jews is to Israel, their “homeland”, and not to their place of residence and citizenship.

No wonder Natanyahu had the advert pulled in response to the outrage of many jewish Americans.

I’m still seeking an explanation for why that arch fraudster Robert Maxwell was given a state funeral in Israel.

Even to raise what is a thoroughly relevant question in this context triggers claims that I’m antisemitic for asking it – but with no answers for the question.

@ 64 -

Did you even read my article? You’re making exactly my arguments – as though I said the opposite of what I in fact said, and you thought of the points I made!

I presume you’ll retract what you said after you’ve actually read my post.

Bob B,

Ok, I agree many apologists for Israel are too quick to cry anti-semitism, but that doesnt mean theres no such thing. Just because im paranoid doesnt mean theyre not out to get me.

Why don’t you capitalise the word ‘Jew’?

Readers here may be interested in this first of a four part Fox news report about Israeli espionage in America on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEOecRtBU7U&feature=player_embedded#!

“Why don’t you capitalise the word ‘Jew’?”

Because I don’t capitalise blacks or caucasians and I often don’t capitalise christians either unless those are the first words in a sentence. I can’t see any pressing reasons for making an exception for treating jews any differently from other human beings. To my way of thinking, notions of a master race fell out of fashion at the end of WW2.

@ 64 -

The argument that the occupation is tough but somehow necessary because the Palestinians hate the Israelis so much is maddeningly circular. Basically it goes: sure, the Palestinians hate the occupation, but sadly it’s necessary because they hate the occupation! It’s like if I turned up at your house, kidnapped you and kept you quiescent with daily beatings, and then refused to negotiate your release because I’ve heard you say how much you hate me and want me dead. Oh, and while I’m here I might as well use your hose to water my garden. And live in your house. Right, it’s time for your daily beating…

‘you bastard, I’ll kill you for this!’

See, how can I deal with this monster! Look how he hates me!

‘the west bank is two different countries’ – http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/for-palestinians-settlers-the-west-bank-is-two-different-places-1.400264

Matt Hill @ 66

@ 64 – Did you even read my article?

Yes, several times.

You’re making exactly my arguments – as though I said the opposite of what I in fact said, and you thought of the points I made!

Not so. You regurgitated the whole Rosa Parks drivel in the OP without demur or qualification as to its appropriateness or fairness and then repeated it at comment @63, where you said the analogy of apartheid was ‘inescapable’.

Nowhere did you make any point about security concerns.

Nowhere did you acknowledge Palestinian failure to keep to agreements made in respect of settler or Israel’s security from suicide bombers.

I presume you’ll retract what you said after you’ve actually read my post.

I think you should read your own post.

Linger on these words: “Palestinians aren’t just campaigning for an end to racist segregation”.

@ 71 – Flowerpower-

Ok, I’m going to paraphrase my article in one paragraph for your benefit.

When Palestinians boarded a Jewish bus in the West Bank last month, their attempt to channel Rosa Parks failed. Why? Because the Palestinian state for which they’re campaigning would replace one form of segregation with another. What do I mean? It’s a given in Palestinian circles that the Palestinian state won’t have any Jewish citizens. Which is hypocritical, considering the criticism pro-Palestinians direct at the Israeli concept of a ‘Jewish state’. What’s wrong with two states living side by side: one with a Jewish majority, a Jewish public sphere, and equality for Arabs; and one with an Arab majority, an Arab public sphere, and equality for Jews? We should all get behind this.

Is that clear? Sorry if it wasn’t clear the first time.

Maybe I should provide these summaries beneath my articles in future.

Or to paraphrase it in one sentence:

What Israel is doing in the West Bank is wrong, but in many ways what the Palestinians are proposing isn’t a whole lot better.

Is there a single British “leftist” supporter of “Palestinian rights” who is remotely as much motivated by concern for the Palestinians as by old fashined anti-Semitism and Nazism.

If there were they would have had to be publicly opposed, more vehemently, to abuses of other nationalities by other nationalities, particularly by was crimes, genocide and worse caried out by Labour leaders (for which the British “left” is obviously more closely responsible than anything done by Israel).

I know of not a single “leftist” Palestine “supporter” who, by that test, is not provablty an anti-Semitic Nazi, but perhaps somebody can name even 1. In any case were it not “supporters” using them for their own political benefit, the Palestinians would have had a peaceful and prosperous state years ago.

@ 74 -

‘Is there a single British “leftist” supporter of “Palestinian rights” who is remotely as much motivated by concern for the Palestinians as by old fashined anti-Semitism and Nazism.’

Me?

“Western leftists are often highly critical of the notion of a ‘Jewish’ state, calling it racist and incompatible with democracy. But how many of those same people support a fully democratic Palestine, where Muslims, Jews and Christians enjoy equal citizenship?”

Erm, all of them surely? What do you think they support, some sort of Muslim theocracy? Why would they support that? Is there any evidence they do?

@74: “I know of not a single ‘leftist’ Palestine ‘supporter’ who, by that test, is not provablty an anti-Semitic Nazi”

That’s just the usual, paranoid nonsense.Try: Jews for justice for Palestinians: http://jfjfp.com/

Then there’s that speech by Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks reported in the Guardian:

“Britain’s chief rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, today delivers an unprecedentedly strong warning to Israel, arguing that the country is adopting a stance ‘incompatible’ with the deepest ideals of Judaism, and that the current conflict with the Palestinians is ‘corrupting’ Israeli culture. . . ” Guardian 27 August 2002

Try also the several speeches on Palestine or Ariel Sharon made in Parliament by Gerald Kaufam MP, such as: Israel acting like Nazis in Palestine. Several have been posted on YouTube so try a search there – I could retrieve it easily.

The claim that Rabbi Jonathan Sacks and the Rt Hon Gerald Kaufam are “provably” Nazi is transparently lunatic but it graphically illustrates the ridiculous lengths that the extensive and vociferous Israeli lobby will go to to discredit any critics of Israel.

Chris, in all discussions of what form a Palestinian state would take, it’s always assumed that all the Israeli settlers will either be annexed to Israel in their own homes, or leave. Why couldn’t they become residents – or even citizens – of Palestine?

Can you find a single proponent of a Palestinian state who proposes this explicitly?

Due apologies for mis-spelling the name of Rt Hon Gerald Kaufman MP.

To make amends, here is a link to his speech about Israel acting like Nazis:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQxdxH2k7-M

55. Bob B

Evidently you have acute reading difficulties for that wikipedia entry relating to Jonathan Pollard refers to two spies and just a little checking of news reports on the internet shows that there have been many other American jews convicted of spying for Israel.

Many others? Name them. On the other hand there are many young Black males of Afro-Caribbean origin who commit violent crimes. Is it rational to hate all people of Afro-Caribbean origin because of it?

As for Britain, there is an enduing puzzle of why that arch fraudster Robert Maxwell was given a state funeral in Israel:

Sure Bob. Those Jews are out to get you.

Is there any information on whether Bernard Madoff will also be getting a state funeral in Israel?

Not merely a conspiracy but also a smear. Excellent. Well done Bob.

In the light of the documented history, it is very easy to understand why jews are distrusted in Islamic countries.

Except, as I pointed out before, these crimes and your delusions took place half a century after the Arabs expelled their Jewish populations. How can hatred 60 years ago be caused by crimes (and “crimes”) 20 years ago?

65. Bob B

As posted many times before, any criticism of Israel and Israelis is immediately dismissed as “antisemitism” regardless of whether the criticsm is well-founded in fact – which tells us something very significant.

Except it is not. Anti-Semitic criticism of Israel is usually dismissed as anti-semitic. Because it is. And I am afraid to say you are an anti-Semite. Your one-sided bigotry makes that conclusion inevitable. Not the fact that you criticise Israel but because you do so on explicitly racist grounds.

Calling me “antisemitic” does absolutely nothing to cover over or explain the documented facts – the facts in this instance being the number of American jews convicted of spying for Israel.

And the crime rate among Afro-Caribbeans is also well documented. Pointing that out is not racism. To blame all Blacks for it is racism. In the same way blaming all Jews or even all Israelis is anti-Semitic.

Jews are plainly distrusted in many Islamic countries. Perhaps that’s hardly surprising after looking at the documented reports on the internet from America of American jews convicted of spying for Israel and that BBC report about an Israeli advert linked @46 which plainly implies that the primary loyalty of jews is to Israel, their “homeland”, and not to their place of residence and citizenship.

Causation Bob. Causation. How can one or two people spying for Israel in the 1980s cause mass expulsion of Jews in the 1950s? And that ad does no such thing. You merely wish it was true.

Even to raise what is a thoroughly relevant question in this context triggers claims that I’m antisemitic for asking it – but with no answers for the question.

How is it relevant – unless you think that British Jews are all part of some secret plot against Britain? That is, unless you accept your anti-Semitic premise.

@ SMFS

You appear not to have noticed that we are not discussing Afro-Caribbeans in America but Palestine and Israel. Do try that Fox News report about Israeli espionage in America linked @68 for more information.

I’m still seeking an explanation of why that arch fraudster Robert Maxwell was given the honour of a state funeral in Israel.

As for the rest, I’m more inclined to take notice of what Jews for justice to Palestinians, Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks and the Rt Hon Gerald Kaufman have said about Israel in Palestine. Try that video clip on YouTube @79 of Gerald Kaufman’s convincing speech about Israel acting like Nazis.

60. Matt Hill

I’m simply saying that a new state of Palestine ought to grant equality to Jews – while maintaining an identity as an Arab state. What’s wrong with that?

Because it is delusional to the point that any sane person has to wonder if you are pulling our legs. Any Jew left in Palestine would be murdered. Even if they granted such equality in theory, any Jew dumb enough to remain would be murdered. Unless you actually acknowledge the reality on the ground this will remain like talking to a child. Look at the rest of the Arab world. Algeria’s Jewish population was driven out despite being there for thousands of years. Egypt’s was expelled despite being there before the Christians much less the Muslims. Iraq and Yemen too.

See Gaza.

62. Matt Hill

Jewishness cannot be an all-encompassing civil identity coterminous with Israeliness, for the simple reason that, as you point out, 20% of Israelis are not Jews.

That does not mean it cannot. That means it is not practical.

And it is simply untrue that Arab Israelis have full equality. See my review of Ilan Pappe, linked above, where I admit Israel may be the best place in the ME to be Arabic – but point out some of the many ways in which they’re not equal to Jews.

Pappe is a tool. It is like quoting Chomsky about America. Or David Irving about the Jews of Germany. You are right, Israel is the best place in the Middle East for Arabs. For anyone really. They have, essentially, full equality. They certainly do in the law.

63. Matt Hill

Israeli-only towns in the West Bank from which Palestinians are excluded are not the same as British towns from which Moroccans are excluded. can you see the big difference?

Yes. Morocco and Britain have legal governments. The OTs are disputed. I notice that you have moved, partially, to correcting your lie. Those towns are Israeli-only – but that includes Palestinian Israelis.

I don’t agree with the apartheid comparison for Israel as a whole, because Israeli Arabs have relatively advanced status. But in the West Bank the comparison is inescapable. You realise that in South Africa, the apartheid authorities tried the same argument? – confining blacks to their own cantons, calling them autonomous, giving them their own (lesser) form of citizenship, and thus justifying the whole damned system. Look it up, it’s uncanny.

Except it is not. Everyone agrees the OT is not part of Israel. There is no government to take it over, but there you are. South Africa created artificial bantustans that no one accepted were real countries. As they were not. Israel is not obligated to provide for foreigners. For non-foreign Palestinians, they do provide, equally, with Jewish Israelis. So your parallel breaks down. You are simply trying to have it both ways – treating the OT as foreign when it suits you and not when it doesn’t.

And you cant justify a system of two kinds of citizenship on one territory by saying there may be Israeli Arabs amongs the Israeli settlers – well, I doubt there are more than a dozen, if that.

I have no idea if there are Israeli Palestinians there or not. Israeli Arabs there certainly are – half the Jewish population of Israel is of Arab origin. But Britain has one territory with over 100 kinds of citizenship. Because a lot of foreigners live in London.

Lots of patriotic, Zionist Israelis are for Israel but against the occupation. You’re trying to defend the indefensible.

Good for them. It does not make your original lie true. We can have a different discussion about the rights and wrongs of the occupation if you like, but that would be a different conversation. This one is about your claim there are Jew only roads in the West Bank. Which there are not.

72. Matt Hill

What’s wrong with two states living side by side: one with a Jewish majority, a Jewish public sphere, and equality for Arabs; and one with an Arab majority, an Arab public sphere, and equality for Jews? We should all get behind this.

And sing Kumbaya? If Jews and Muslim Arabs can’t live together in Egypt (or any other Arab state except Morocco to a limited extent) they cannot live together in Palestine. Deal with the reality. What you are demanding is that a number of Jews be handed over to be murdered.

73. Matt Hill

What Israel is doing in the West Bank is wrong, but in many ways what the Palestinians are proposing isn’t a whole lot better.

And so your conclusion is what? Demand more of Israel and nothing of Palestine?

78. Matt Hill

Chris, in all discussions of what form a Palestinian state would take, it’s always assumed that all the Israeli settlers will either be annexed to Israel in their own homes, or leave. Why couldn’t they become residents – or even citizens – of Palestine?

Because they would be murdered. This is the nature of your friend’s political demands and public opinion among the Arabs. Deal with it.

81. Bob B

You appear not to have noticed that we are not discussing Afro-Caribbeans in America but Palestine and Israel.

Actually we are talking about racism and more specifically your anti-Semitism. Simply refusing to justify or defend it won’t make it better.

I’m still seeking an explanation of why that arch fraudster Robert Maxwell was given the honour of a state funeral in Israel.

Good for you. Who gives a damn?

As for the rest, I’m more inclined to take notice of what Jews for justice to Palestinians, Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks and the Rt Hon Gerald Kaufman have said about Israel in Palestine. Try that video clip on YouTube @79 of Gerald Kaufman’s convincing speech about Israel acting like Nazis.

Because anti-Semites like to hide behind the words of liberal Jews. Big deal. It does not change the fact that while Jonathan Sacks’ criticism is sensible, well motivated and often highly accurate, your objections are based on lies and an irrational hatred of Jews.

@SMFS

Predictably more personal abuse to cover up the way Israel and Israelis behave. I go by the evidence – Justice for Palestinians, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks and Gerald Kaufman are credible witnesses. Do check out Gerald Kaufman’s speech to Parliament linked @79.

Why do you suppose that Natanyahu pulled those Israeli adverts so quickly, the ones which implied that jews had greater loyalties to Israel, their “homeland”, than to their country of residence and citizenship? See the link to the BBC report @46.

On Israeli espionage in America, try 4/4 of Israeli Spying:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwckJoP7-wg&feature=related

I’m still short of an explanation as to why that arch fraudster Robert Maxwell was given a state funeral in Israel. Curiosity prompted me to speculate on whether Bernard Madoff would qualify for one as well. Just asking.

SMFS:

re. the claim that any Jews who remained in Palestine would be murdered: I agree that, without protection, it would be exceedingly risky for Jewish Israelis to live in a future Palestinian state. That is no reason, in principle, not to offer them citizenship. It simply means that the PA would have to provide adequate security. A tiny number of Jewish settlers live amid 160,000 Arabs in Hebron, quite safely. Why? Because they have 24-hour security provided by the IDF. Which proves it’s possible to protect them, given the necessary resources.

If I were Mahmoud Abbas, I would announce that any Jewish person who wished to live in the future state of Palestine – either as a citizen or a resident – would receive 24-hour security, provided, if necessary, by a heavily armed private Israeli security team.

Why? Because it’s the right thing to do. But even if nobody accepted the offer at first, the principle would be established, and as Jews and Arabs got used to coexistence, gradually it would become more feasible.

The fact that over a million Palestinians live peacefully as citizens of Israel proves that there’s no inherent reason why Jews and Palestinians can’t coexist, as they did for centuries before about 1900.

I repeat: it’s important to establish the principle that Jews CAN live as citizens or residents of Palestine, even if the bitter emnity between the peoples is such that it’s not possible in the short term.

The alternative is far worse: to lay down a principle whereby Jews are barred from living in places like Hebron – which would fall well within any Palestinian state based even roughly along the 1967 lines. That would be a shameful principle to establish, since Jews lived in significant numbers in the city until a brutal pogrom in 1929, and have legitimate religious and historical links with the area.

It is impossible to protest a ‘Jewish’ Israel while campaigning for an all-Arab Palestine.

By the way, among the settlers, a large number are in ‘Judea and Samaria’ due to the economic incentives provided by the state to attract them there, and polls show they would happily move to Israel proper given the right incentives. Studies show that 75% of settlers could stay in their homes if Israel annexed under 5% of Palestinian land (defined as land within the 1967 lines) – which would be compensated with land of equal size and value within Israel. This would allow for the main settlement blocs near the border to be annexed to Israel (the problematic cases are Ariel and Ma’ale Adumin, which are relatively deep but relatively populous). The rest of the settlements – scores of small ones with fewer than a thousand settlers – would be evacuated, UNLESS those settlers chose to stay as residents of Palestine (presumably choosing to keep their Israeli passports). Putting aside the security issue, it may turn out that a fairly sizeable number would consider their attachment to the land more important than their loyalty to the Israeli state – particularly in the case of some ultra-Orthodox Jews, who never embraced the idea of a secular, earthly Israel and await the establishment of a Jewish kingdom with the coming of the messiah (I’m sure many readers are familiar with these fruits).

Bob B,

Although I disagree strongly with many of SMFS’s views as stated here, I must agree with him that this business about Robert Maxwell and, of all people, Bernie Madoff, is totally fucking irrelevant. I’m not quite sure what you’re trying to imply (and I agree apologists for Israel trot out the anti-semitism claim far too readily), but you seem to be vaguely insinuating that there’s some kind of global capitalist conspiracy being run by crooked Jews, somehow connected to the state of Israel. Is that what you’re saying? If so, why don’t you state openly what you’re alleging? I’m afraid I can barely follow your rather bizarre reasoning.

According to wikipedia, Robert Maxwell provided Israel with information that was crucial to its victory in 1948, helped snare Mordechai Vanunu, helped a million Russian Jews or ‘Jews’ immigrate to Israel, and gave other assistance, much of which is probably secret. He was an Israeli spy – that much is clear. So that explains why his funeral had the trappings of a state occasion. Sure, the guy was a fraud – and much of his spy-work was probably illegal (whereas some of his work was obviously above-board). Frankly, it’s no great revelation that the guy was dishonest – Israel can have him.

But what’s so mysterious or significant about all this?

Matt: “Although I disagree strongly with many of SMFS’s views as stated here, I must agree with him that this business about Robert Maxwell and, of all people, Bernie Madoff, is totally fucking irrelevant. I’m not quite sure what you’re trying to imply (and I agree apologists for Israel trot out the anti-semitism claim far too readily), but you seem to be vaguely insinuating that there’s some kind of global capitalist conspiracy being run by crooked Jews,”

The central issue is whether Palestinians have just cause to distrust Israelis.

What initially prompted my line of thinking was that BBC news report @46 about an Israeli advert implying that jews everywhere have a primary loyalty to Israel, their “homeland”, and not to the country where they live and have citizenship.

I understand completely why so many American jews were outraged at that claim and why Netanyahu quickly moved to pull the advert before more damage was done.

Dig a bit on the internet and you’ll soon find signs that Israeli espionage in America is a sore issue with Americans – those Fox News reports I’ve linked to are just part of it. In the light of the continuing frictions between Israel and its neighbours along with the long history of Israeli atrocities, it’s surely understandable why jews in the Middle East outside Israel are distrusted.

With the losses that Maxwell inflicted on the pensions of retired employees from companies he had controlled, it really isn’t difficult to comprehend the sentiments prompted by the news that Maxwell was to have a state funeral in Israel.

Dig a little further to note that that the oration at the funeral was delivered by the Israeli PM at the time: Shamir, who was at one time a leading member of the Lehi Group or Stern Gang, which was responsible for organising a string of murders and atrocities, including the Deir Yassin massacre in April 1948.

Israel has rather made a habit of electing its retired terrorists to the position of prime minister, which rather discredits all those Israeli claims about how evil terrorists are.

85. Matt Hill

I agree that, without protection, it would be exceedingly risky for Jewish Israelis to live in a future Palestinian state. That is no reason, in principle, not to offer them citizenship. It simply means that the PA would have to provide adequate security.

So you are not actually arguing merely for a pointless gesture, you are arguing for something you know is a pointless gesture, but which you attach some sort of significance to. Is that right? Why? Is it because you want to fool some people into thinking security is not an issue? What?

A tiny number of Jewish settlers live amid 160,000 Arabs in Hebron, quite safely. Why? Because they have 24-hour security provided by the IDF. Which proves it’s possible to protect them, given the necessary resources.

Given the will, you mean. They are guarded by the IDF. People dedicated to protecting Jews. Not by Fatah or Hamas. You know, people dedicated to murdering Jews. Or at least they have been for the last sixty years. So are you seriously suggesting there is an air-borne hamster’s in a hurricane’s chance that Fatah will wait more than five minutes before murdering those Jews or are you just being silly?

If I were Mahmoud Abbas, I would announce that any Jewish person who wished to live in the future state of Palestine – either as a citizen or a resident – would receive 24-hour security, provided, if necessary, by a heavily armed private Israeli security team.

I am sure Abbas might think that sensible. Except that they will be murdered anyway and then the Palestinian government will have to deal with the political consequences. Hardly a good start to their relations with Israel. But it is utterly pointless as we both know they would be murdered in minutes. Without that unfair justice system you decry, there is no way to guarantee their security.

Why? Because it’s the right thing to do. But even if nobody accepted the offer at first, the principle would be established, and as Jews and Arabs got used to coexistence, gradually it would become more feasible.

Living 24 hours behind barbed wire is not coexistence. Besides, why bother? The world is full of useful idiots who will work tirelessly to give Abbas what he really wants without such concessions.

The fact that over a million Palestinians live peacefully as citizens of Israel proves that there’s no inherent reason why Jews and Palestinians can’t coexist, as they did for centuries before about 1900.

The fact that over a million Palestinians live peacefully in Israel proves there is no problem with Muslims living under Jewish rule. The fact that the Jewish populations of the Muslim world have largely vanished and the Christian populations are rapidly following them – along with the Zoroastrian, the Hindu and the Buddhist minorities of the Muslim world – suggest the converse is unlikely to be true. Why do you continually ignore reality?

I repeat: it’s important to establish the principle that Jews CAN live as citizens or residents of Palestine, even if the bitter emnity between the peoples is such that it’s not possible in the short term.

You mean it would help your political argument. It would hurt the Zionist cause. Notice it is not part of the Palestinian political argument. So you want them to give up their political programme – which we can assume runs something along the lines of not one single Jew left – to further your brand of anti-Zionism. You don’t find that an odd argument to be making?

That would be a shameful principle to establish, since Jews lived in significant numbers in the city until a brutal pogrom in 1929, and have legitimate religious and historical links with the area.

They lived in Babylon even longer. Who remembers the Iraqi Jews now?

It is impossible to protest a ‘Jewish’ Israel while campaigning for an all-Arab Palestine.

On the contrary, the Left does it all the time. Which is why they have embraced neo-Nazi doctrine in thin Islamist, or anti-Zionist, guise.

86. Matt Hill

This would allow for the main settlement blocs near the border to be annexed to Israel (the problematic cases are Ariel and Ma’ale Adumin, which are relatively deep but relatively populous). The rest of the settlements – scores of small ones with fewer than a thousand settlers – would be evacuated, UNLESS those settlers chose to stay as residents of Palestine (presumably choosing to keep their Israeli passports).

The Israeli Fence shows roughly what they would consider keeping in a worst case scenario.

Putting aside the security issue, it may turn out that a fairly sizeable number would consider their attachment to the land more important than their loyalty to the Israeli state – particularly in the case of some ultra-Orthodox Jews, who never embraced the idea of a secular, earthly Israel and await the establishment of a Jewish kingdom with the coming of the messiah (I’m sure many readers are familiar with these fruits).

Sorry but what are the fruits of the ultra-Orthodox Jews? But you’re wrong. The Frummies rarely live on the OTs. Jerusalem, yes, but not in the settlements.

89. Bob B

The central issue is whether Palestinians have just cause to distrust Israelis.

I don’t see what racist attacks on non-Israeli Jews have to do with that. Can you please explain that to us all Bob?

What initially prompted my line of thinking was that BBC news report @46 about an Israeli advert implying that jews everywhere have a primary loyalty to Israel, their “homeland”, and not to the country where they live and have citizenship.

An implication seen only by you – as the ads were, by your own admission, aimed at Israelis who lived overseas and not Jews of non-Israeli origin.

In the light of the continuing frictions between Israel and its neighbours along with the long history of Israeli atrocities, it’s surely understandable why jews in the Middle East outside Israel are distrusted.

Yet again you assert that it is not wrong to ethnically cleanse Iraqi Jews because someone else has a problem with Israeli Jews. Why is that Bob? Can you explain to me what the connection is between what European Jews did in Israel in 1948 and what Arab Jews suffered in Iraq?

Shamir, who was at one time a leading member of the Lehi Group or Stern Gang, which was responsible for organising a string of murders and atrocities, including the Deir Yassin massacre in April 1948.

So he was Israel’s own Nelson Mandela. So what?

Israel has rather made a habit of electing its retired terrorists to the position of prime minister, which rather discredits all those Israeli claims about how evil terrorists are.

At least they have only elected ex-terrorists as well as some non-terrorists. Which makes them exceptional in the region.

SMFS, I think it’s quite revealing that you oppose my support of a more liberal, democratic, inclusive version of Palestinian statehood – along with a call to eschew racism and recognise the Jewish nature of Israel – because you see it as a cynical attempt to make the Palestinians look good! I’m basically arguing in favour of Zionist principles, and that bothers you because you think it’s all part of a paradoxical scheme to advance the secret cause of anti-Zionism! By the same logic, I suppose you’d condemn my opposition to violence against Israeli civilians – on the grounds that quitting terrorism would have the pernicious effect of making the Palestinians look more reasonable.

Quite clearly, you’re all in favour of an angry, violent, hateful brand of the Palestinian struggle, because it makes for a more convenient enemy.

I’m afraid you credit me with more subtlety than I possess, alas. My support for Zionism isn’t some cunning ploy to destroy Zionism – I really do believe Israel has a right to a state with borders on the 1967 lines, and that there’s no reason why it can’t be Jewish in some sense. Sorry to disappoint you: I’m sure you can find lots of spittle-flecked racist fanatics out there who fit your notion of what a supporter of Palestinian statehood should look like. But I ain’t one.

92. Matt Hill

I think it’s quite revealing that you oppose my support of a more liberal, democratic, inclusive version of Palestinian statehood – along with a call to eschew racism and recognise the Jewish nature of Israel – because you see it as a cynical attempt to make the Palestinians look good!

You misunderstand me. I do not oppose it. I support a more liberal Palestinian politics in the same way I suppose a less virulent cancer. But until cancers all co-operate, it is rather unlikely they will become less virulent. I simply recognise that this is not what you are supporting. If you were, you would be preaching to the Palestinians not to British liberals. So if you’re preaching to British liberals, you want British liberals to change. If you wanted Palestinians to change, you would be preaching to Palestinians.

Which brings us back to the point of what you really want.

I’m basically arguing in favour of Zionist principles, and that bothers you because you think it’s all part of a paradoxical scheme to advance the secret cause of anti-Zionism!

Because you are not arguing it where it matters. You are not talking to Zionists, although I think it is ironic that you think asking Palestinians not to murder Jews is Zionist. You are talking to the British Left. So what is it you hope to achieve apart from the further de-legitimisation of Israel?

By the same logic, I suppose you’d condemn my opposition to violence against Israeli civilians – on the grounds that quitting terrorism would have the pernicious effect of making the Palestinians look more reasonable.

I am all in favour of less violence against Israeli civilians. And I mean it. What do you mean?

Quite clearly, you’re all in favour of an angry, violent, hateful brand of the Palestinian struggle, because it makes for a more convenient enemy.

I didn’t make cancer the way it is. It is the way it is. I think that the Palestinians would be vastly better off with a less murderous form of politics. But their politics are what they are whether I like it or not. When you realise this we may have a conversation. Although it is a perfectly reasonable assumption that you do realise this and you are blowing smoke to hide your real agenda.

I’m afraid you credit me with more subtlety than I possess, alas. My support for Zionism isn’t some cunning ploy to destroy Zionism – I really do believe Israel has a right to a state with borders on the 1967 lines, and that there’s no reason why it can’t be Jewish in some sense.

In some sense. Just not in the specific sense of, you know, being a Jewish state. Fine. Then the question is how to get there. I would suggest that the first step is an end to the murder of Jews. Myself. A problem that long pre-dates the Occupation. Has nothing to do with the occupation in fact.

Sorry to disappoint you: I’m sure you can find lots of spittle-flecked racist fanatics out there who fit your notion of what a supporter of Palestinian statehood should look like. But I ain’t one.

So you say. Spittle-flecked like Bob, no. On that we can agree.

But you have yet to make a convincing case for what it is you support.

By Bob B’s logic we ought to distrust all Muslims because some Muslims have committed, or support, terrorism. (I note that he manages to capitalise Islamic.)

I rather agreed with SMFS about the Rosa Parks point but I’m a bit baffled as to why Matt’s proposal about Jews being allowed to stay in a future Palestinian state is anti-zionist. If Matt had said the opposite, how long would it have been before the word ‘Judenrein’ appeared in the comments?

94. Sarah AB

I’m a bit baffled as to why Matt’s proposal about Jews being allowed to stay in a future Palestinian state is anti-zionist. If Matt had said the opposite, how long would it have been before the word ‘Judenrein’ appeared in the comments?

I don’t think it is anti-Zionist. I think it is deluded. We all know that there is no chance whatsoever of a single Jew remaining in Palestine once the IDF withdraws. If anyone is so stupid as to try, they will be murdered in hours. The future is Gaza.

Everyone knows this. I know it. You know it. Sunny knows it. And Matt must know it too.

Which raises the simple question of why he pretends otherwise. Why he thinks this is worth spending two seconds debating. I can only assume he is not dumb and so that he has another motive. Quite what I am not sure, but I doubt it is in any way remotely pro-Israel.

I accept your point – but I think he is just trying to establish a principle. I have read posts on sites sympathetic to Israel drawing attention to the fact that many Palestinian figures wouldn’t support a continuing Jewish presence in a Palestinian state. This story, one of Matt’s links, seems fairly typical.

http://israeltoday.co.il/News/tabid/178/nid/22948/language/en-US/Default.aspx

Many have written about antisemitic elements in the pro Palestinian movement, and its lack of criticism of Palestinian policies, or recognition that it’s not all Israel’s fault. So – with reference to your comment that Matt is addressing British left/liberals – is that not a reasonable thing to do, to combine a broadly left and pro-Palestinian position with a recognition that some of the anxieties expressed by Israelis/Zionists also need to be acknowledged?

Matt Hill @ 72

Ok, I’m going to paraphrase my article in one paragraph for your benefit. …. Is that clear? Sorry if it wasn’t clear the first time.

Matt, you know jolly well it was clear first time. I was the first person to comment on it in this thread and @1 I called your ‘fundamental point’ (i.e. the one you have now somewhat patronizingly paraphrased) “light at the end of the tunnel” and made clear that I agreed with it.

What I don’t agree with are the other bits – that to my mind are a set of reflexive assumptions amounting to a prejudice. It seems to me that you have reached a right conclusion, but based it on some false predicates. I find some of those predicates utterly offensive (as set out in @71).

Imagine if someone were to use the ‘N’ word and spray around other hurtful racist epithets while advancing a perfectly good and decent argument about the unfairness of racial discrimination in the workplace. Wouldn’t you think that the language and framing militated against the content? Wouldn’t it strike you as incongruous?

It is not the words coming out of your mouth that I (and I can see other Jews here) find offensive. It’s the smell of your breath.

Actually pointing out that the Rosa Parks analogy is wrongheaded, actually acknowledging that the reason for the ban on Palestinians entering settlements is based on security, not racism; actually acknowledging that it has been Palestinian inaction on stopping suicide bombings has been the main obstacle to the peace process – all these would be a kind of mouthwash. Without that, your argument – reasonable as it may be – still stinks.

@91: “I don’t see what racist attacks on non-Israeli jews have to do with that. Can you please explain that to us all Bob?”

Try the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Lebanon in 1982 and the torture and appalling mistreatment of prisoners at the Khiam Prison in South Lebanon and ask why Israelis so hate Palestinian women and children wherever they live.

And try the report of the Physicians for Human Rights report in 2000 on the disproportionate response of the IDF to the intifada – stone throwing youngsters were shot in the head and thighs by Israeli sharpshooters:
http://middle-east.yu-hu.com/peacewatch/PHR_Report.htm

Gerald Kaufman put it correctly: Israel behaving like Nazis

@ 97 Bob B

Try the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Lebanon in 1982 and the torture and appalling mistreatment of prisoners at the Khiam Prison in South Lebanon and ask why Israelis so hate Palestinian women and children

Israel did not carry out the Sabra & Chatila massacres, nor did it operate the torture-centre at Khiam.

The massacres were perpetrated by Arabs, members of a Lebanese militia. The same militia, the SLA, ran Khiam.

Although this is contested, I can quite see why Israel might be accused of turning a blind eye to this appalling behaviour. Moreover, Israel probably did have a legal and moral responsibility to intervene to stop it – and clearly failed in this ….. though, to be fair, it is by no means clear Israeli authorities actually grasped the full horror of what was going on.

Even accepting that in the fog of war, Israel failed in its moral and legal obligations – that’s a long way short of “hating” Palestinian women and children, who, after all, were murdered and tortured by their fellow Arabs.

@99: “Israel did not carry out the Sabra & Chatila massacres, nor did it operate the torture-centre at Khiam. ”

Unbiased observers reported that Israel operated through compliant surrogates. IDF forces and security agents were in the vicinity of both operations. Israel was a guilty party to both.

As that French ambassador to Britain remarked: Israel is a shitty little country. Gerald Kaufman again:

Israel has turned into a “pariah state” under prime minister Ariel Sharon and his ways of dealing with terrorism are “unacceptable”, Jewish senior Labour MP Gerald Kaufman has claimed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1874459.stm

The sooner the UN officially declares Israel a pariah state and imposes sanctions as it did with apartheid South Africa the better for the rest of us.

@100 – Yes, of course it’ll be better for you and the rest of the BNPers, you can then REALLY go to work on the country’s Jews, to try and make them leave Bobbit.

@63 – The moment you start throwing words like “occupation” around, the conversation stalls. My bad, I won’t try engaging on this with you again.

“@100 – Yes, of course it’ll be better for you and the rest of the BNPers, you can then REALLY go to work on the country’s Jews, to try and make them leave Bobbit.”

Do try and resist your persisting impulse to post fatuous personal abuse and address the real international concerns over the Nazi tendencies of Israel and Israelis.

Try this educative video about Israeli settlers on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALiyDNwgUGY

@ 100

As that French ambassador to Britain remarked: Israel is a shitty little country.

Wow. For an otherwise mild-mannered, retired civil servant with a propensity to didacticism and posting boring OT links to articles you’ve read in the morning paper, you sure have an ugly moral face when the mask slips.

I guess it wouldn’t surprise Damiel Goldhagen, but on the rare occasions I see this sort of stuff, it still surprises me.

@102 – You have repeatedly, BNPer, attacked Jews. You are dead-set on eliminating us from this country. You call other Nazis to try and excuse your blatant Neo-Nazism.

@103 – If you’re surprised, it’s because you’re not well enough read on the UK history of anti-Semitism, no offence.

Well Matt 75 lets test your claim to be an honest liberal rather than a lying anti-semite.

If the former you will have no difficulty whatsoever in providing links to where you have denounced the British and other NATO governments for their ethnic cleansing, genocide and dissection of 1800 living people to steal thei body organs in Kosovo (in terms obviously at least hundreds of times more strongly than your anti-Jewishisms)..

If the later you won’t.

77 – better point – however in the early days of the Nazi movement it did have a Jewish section, motivated by anti-communism so it is not impossible. Presumably, just like Matt you will be able to show that you are proportionately opposed to serious atrocities.

I look forward to seeing if there is indeed a single wedtern Palestinain supporter who is not racist, or if all those who claim to be are simply liars.

@103: “For an otherwise mild-mannered, retired civil servant with a propensity to didacticism and posting boring OT links to articles you’ve read in the morning paper, you sure have an ugly moral face when the mask slips.”

It’s the Rt Hon Gerald Kaufman saying that Israel behaves like the Nazis and I agree with him – and with that report of the Physicians for Human Rights on the IDF suppression of the intifada when stone throwing youngsters were shot in the head or thighs by Israeli sharpshooters. You won’t find much in a cruel world that is uglier and more despicable than that but that’s Israel.

At the UN debate on Palestine in Novemeber 1947, the UK representative warned that partition would lead to continuing conflict – which it plainly has ever since 1948. The obvious question is why did the Zionists feel it necessary to demand partition. Could that be because of the difficulties that Zionists have with living with anyone else apart from fellow jews?

I found Avi Shlaim’s account of Ariel Sharon’s early military career during the night of 14-15 October 1953 most illuminating:

“. . Unit 101 was commanded by an aggressive and ambitious young major named Ariel Sharon. Sharon’s order was to penetrate Qibya, blow up houses, and inflict heavy casualties on its inhabitants. His success in carrying out this order surpassed all expectations. The full and macabre story of what happened at Qibya was revealed only during the morning after the attack. The village had been reduced to a pile of rubble: forty-five houses had been blown up, and sixty-nine civiliains, two-thirds of them women and children, had been killed. Sharon and his men claimed that they had no idea that anyone was hiding in the houses. The UN observer who inspected the reached a different conclusion: ‘One story was repeated time after time: the bullet splintered door, the body sprawled across the threshold, indicating that the inhabitants had been forced by heavy fire to stay inside until their homes were blown up over them.’”
Avi Shlaim: The Iron Wall (Penguin Books, 2001), p.91.

Btw quite a few of the links I post are to academic papers and books but I guess you aren’t up to reading those.

‘Well Matt 75 lets test your claim to be an honest liberal rather than a lying anti-semite.

If the former you will have no difficulty whatsoever in providing links to where you have denounced the British and other NATO governments for their ethnic cleansing, genocide and dissection of 1800 living people to steal thei body organs in Kosovo (in terms obviously at least hundreds of times more strongly than your anti-Jewishisms)..’

I find this a rather bizarre test. Anyone who hasn’t done so is a ‘lying anti-semite’?

Does it ever occur to you that by throwing the allegation of anti-semitism around so liberally you trivialise an extremely serious issue?

96. Sarah AB

I accept your point – but I think he is just trying to establish a principle.

What principle? That it is wrong for the Left to support the murder of Jews? I am not sure that is going to go anywhere.

I have read posts on sites sympathetic to Israel drawing attention to the fact that many Palestinian figures wouldn’t support a continuing Jewish presence in a Palestinian state.

And so he wants to teach the Palestinians better PR?

So – with reference to your comment that Matt is addressing British left/liberals – is that not a reasonable thing to do, to combine a broadly left and pro-Palestinian position with a recognition that some of the anxieties expressed by Israelis/Zionists also need to be acknowledged?

He is not acknowledging any of the anxieties of the Israelis. He is kind of denying them isn’t he? He is not saying that Israeli Jews have a right to be concerned about two political organisation dedicated to murdering them going on to establish a political presence next door. He is saying they have nothing to be worried about. They can withdraw in safety. They can even stay in Hamasastan. No worries! Sign away! No consequences. Either is a deluded or it is malicious.

98. Bob B

@91: “I don’t see what racist attacks on non-Israeli jews have to do with that. Can you please explain that to us all Bob?”

Try the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Lebanon in 1982 and the torture and appalling mistreatment of prisoners at the Khiam Prison in South Lebanon and ask why Israelis so hate Palestinian women and children wherever they live.

Sorry Bob but could you please tell me what the massacres of Arabs by other Arabs has to do with the hatred of non-Israeli Jews you and many Palestinian militants so often display? I mean I would hate to accuse you of changing the subject here, but what has your response got to do with the actual issue?

Or to put it another way, when the Palestinian terrorists hijacked a plane to Entebbe in Uganda, they separated out the Jewish passengers. Not the Israeli ones, but all those with “Jewish sounding” surnames. Regardless of their nationality. Thanks to the help of their German comrades from the Revolutionary Cells organisation. Can you explain to me why this was done?

And try the report of the Physicians for Human Rights report in 2000 on the disproportionate response of the IDF to the intifada – stone throwing youngsters were shot in the head and thighs by Israeli sharpshooters:

Wow. In four years of the First Intafada Israel managed to kill fewer stone throwing youths than the Syrians have managed to kill in four months. You must really hate all Syrians about now, mustn’t you Bob? If this is about killing young people that is. Is it Bob? Is that what you care about?

Gerald Kaufman put it correctly: Israel behaving like Nazis

As you agree with Ger, perhaps you might like to point out just where Israel has behaved like Nazis? Hmmm? When did they turn a single Palestinian into a bar of soap? Where are their extermination camps? Hmm Bob?

Well Matt 107 it seems you cannot pass the test of being equally opposed to alleged wrongdoing by Jews as to real wrongdoing, by real nazis and ex-Nazis. And more important neither can anybody else here.

It seems you have been caught trying to trivialise your own anti-Semitism and Nazism by pretending to some liberal attitude neither you nor any of the other racists in the anti-Israel movement have.

What an utter fucking moron you are.

What a disgusting, obscene, racist, genocidial, child raping, cannibalistic Nazi piece of filth Matt Hill and every single animal in the “pro Palestinian” movement not willing to dissociate themselves from such scum is.

Now Matt I would like you to produce a scintilla of evidence for your gratuitous rudeness, and your qualifications for testing IQ, since it is improper to say such things without evidence. I never would.

Please can’t that last comment just be deleted? The Nazi comment was ridiculous enough.

Reposting. Excuse possible repetition.

That last comment should be deleted. The Nazi comment was ridiculous enough.