A recent Guardian editorial on the never neglected subject of the “Israel-Palestine conflict” seemed to endorse the idea that Obama should impose a “solution”. The piece concluded with the rather smug observation that “Mr Netanyahu would kick and scream against an imposed plan, but that is the consequence of rejecting lesser demands now.” Revealingly, one of the complaints the editorial writer listed was that “no one could imagine Mr Netanyahu conducting any meaningful negotiations” on the Palestinian demand for a “right of return”.
No doubt that a Guardian editorialist would find it hard to imagine that out there in the real world, there are lots and lots of reasons why any Israeli politician would have considerable difficulties to conduct “meaningful negotiations” about a Palestinian “right of return” to Israel. For starters, one could point to how refugees fared in Europe and the rest of the world in the wake of World War II; one could also refer to the doubtful legal basis of Palestinian demands regarding a “right of return”, and one could even mention recent headlines like “Right of Return Dealt Grievous Setback by European HR Court” – describing a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights that decided against Greek refugees from Northern Cyprus who tried to claim a right of return.
Well, but then we all know that the Jewish state must be held to different standards than everyone else…
Protestations that holding Israel to different standards than the rest of the world have nothing whatsoever to do with antisemitism often rely on the fanciful notion that Israel is a relic of European colonialism. In this view, Jewish immigrants from Europe snatched land from the noble native peasants of Palestine who had worked the soil of the Holy Land for centuries.
But over the years, a lot of evidence has been accumulated showing that the economic development of Palestine spurred by Jewish immigration attracted a large influx of Arab immigrants. One blogger who has repeatedly written on this subject is the Elder of Ziyon, and he recently added some fascinating material from an article that was published in August 1935 in the Palestine Post (nowadays known as the Jerusalem Post). The article is based on a report in the Manchester Guardian (nowadays known as the Guardian) that provides a synopsis of a British Treasury report on the economic situation in Palestine.
Under the title “Prosperity in Palestine”, the article explains:
“The prosperity of Palestine is becoming almost a wearisome theme. It has continued for more than two years in spite of constant presages of a boom that will be followed by a slump. And during the last year it has been more impressive than ever.”
The article goes on to highlight the “extraordinary surplus of the Government and the immense increase in the Customs revenue”, which are attributed to “the increasing immigration”. Quoting an “authoritative estimate”, the number of Jewish immigrants for 1934 is given as 50,000; compared to 38,000 in 1933, and 15,600 in 1932.
But the report also notes:
“The immigration, however, is not restricted to Jews. There has been a steady infiltration into Palestine of Arabs from Syria (the Hauran) and from Trans-Jordan. And it is notable that the illicit immigration of the non-Jews recorded in the report of the Government is more than double that recorded for the Jews.”
Obviously, this means that if some 100 000 Jews immigrated to Palestine between 1932-1934, more than 200 000 Arabs immigrated illegally in the same period – and, interestingly enough, some of these illegal Arab immigrants came from the very part of Palestine that the British had decided to cut off from the Mandate area to create an exclusively Arab state from which Jews would be barred.
Of course, even back then, it was fashionable to claim that Jewish immigration caused terrible hardship for the “natives” of Palestine – but, as one contemporary British official dryly noted:
“This illegal [Arab] immigration was not only going on from the Sinai, but also from Transjordan and Syria, and it is very difficult to make a case out for the misery of the Arabs if at the same time their compatriots from adjoining states could not be kept from going in to share that misery.”
Similarly, historian Efraim Karsh highlighted a relevant passage from the 1937 Peel commission report which stated:
“The general beneficent effect of Jewish immigration on Arab welfare is illustrated by the fact that the increase in the Arab population is most marked in urban areas affected by Jewish development. A comparison of the census returns in 1922 and 1931 shows that, six years ago, the increase percent in Haifa was 86, in Jaffa 62, in Jerusalem 37, while in purely Arab towns such as Nablus and Hebron it was only 7, and at Gaza there was a decrease of 2 percent.”
For a lot of additional interesting material on this issue, check out the post by Daled Amos: Zionists Kicked Palestinian Arabs Out Of Palestine? Why Do You Think Arabs Came In The First Place? [Updated]
What emerges quite clearly from the historical documentation is that a considerable percentage of the Arab population that lived in the part of Palestine that became Israel consisted of recent illegal migrants who had been attracted by the economic opportunities created by the Jewish immigrants. One can obviously only speculate as to how many of these recent immigrants decided to flee the war declared by the Arab states against the new Jewish state, but since the illegal Arab immigration had been considerable by all accounts, it is clear that the refugees must also have included many of the migrants who had come to British Mandate Palestine to take advantage of the economic opportunities created by Zionist development.
Needless to say, in a forum like CiF, this would be brushed aside as irrelevant. The call for “meaningful negotiations” about Palestinian claims of a “right of return” raised in the Guardian editorial illustrates the enduring appeal of the Palestinian “narrative” that blames the “evil Zionists” for the cruel “ethnic cleansing” of hundreds of thousands of “native” Palestinians. Just as the massive Arab immigration into British Mandate Palestine is ignored in this “narrative”, no other relevant historical fact is allowed to get in the way of the “right of return” myth. However, anyone interested in countering this myth can find plenty of material in some of Abba Eban’s UN speeches on this subject.
In a speech in May 1949, Abba Eban rejected accusations of a deliberate Israeli effort to drive out the Arab population by relying on a relevant article published in The Economist the month before:
“A vivid account of the circumstances could be found in the April 1949 issue of The Economist of London. The French representative on the Conciliation Commission, who had undertaken a detailed interrogation of Arab refugees, had stated at a meeting of the Commission on 7 April 1949 that it was wrong to describe the refugees as having been driven out; rather, they had fled in an atmosphere of fear, insecurity and danger inseparable from war.”
Abba Eban added:
“So many passions had been aroused by the problem of refugees that the issue of initial responsibility presented itself again and again. That responsibility lay with the Arab States which, by virtue of having proclaimed and initiated the war which had rendered those refugees homeless, were under moral obligation to take a full share in the solution of their problem, even apart from their own ties of kinship with the refugee population.”
In another speech delivered in 1958 – which was recently reprinted by The Jewish Press – Abba Eban highlighted some contemporary statements acknowledging the Arab responsibility for the refugee problem, and he also addressed the deliberate prolongation and political manipulation of the refugee issue:
“Apart from the question of its origin, the perpetuation of this refugee problem is an unnatural event, running against the whole course of experience and precedent. Since the end of the Second World War, problems affecting forty million refugees have confronted governments in various parts of the world. In no case, except that of the Arab refugees – amounting to less than two percent of the whole – has the international community shown constant responsibility and provided lavish aid.
In every other case a solution has been found by the integration of refugees into their host countries. Nine million Koreans; 900,000 refugees from the conflict in Vietnam; 8.5 million Hindus and Sikhs leaving Pakistan for India; 6.5 million Muslims fleeing India to Pakistan; 700,000 Chinese refugees in Hong Kong; 13 million Germans from the Sudetenland, Poland and other East European States reaching West and East Germany; thousands of Turkish refugees from Bulgaria; 440,000 Finns separated from their homeland by a change of frontier; 450,000 refugees from Arab lands arrived destitute in Israel; and an equal number converging on Israel from the remnants of the Jewish holocaust in Europe – these form the tragic procession of the world’s refugee population in the past two decades.
In every case but that of the Arab refugees now in Arab lands, the countries in which the refugees sought shelter have facilitated their integration. In this case alone has integration been obstructed.
The paradox is the more astonishing when we reflect that the kinship of language, religion, social background and national sentiment existing between the Arab refugees and their Arab host countries has been at least as intimate as those existing between any other host countries and any other refugee groups. It is impossible to escape the conclusion that the integration of Arab refugees into the life of the Arab world is an objectively feasible process which has been resisted for political reasons.
Recent years have witnessed a great expansion of economic potentialities in the Middle East. The revenues of the oil-bearing countries have opened up great opportunities of work and development, into which the refugees, by virtue of their linguistic and national background, could fit without any sense of dislocation. There cannot be any doubt that if free movement had been granted to the refugees there would have been a spontaneous absorption of thousands of them into these expanded Arab economies.
The failure or refusal of Arab governments to achieve a permanent economic integration of refugees in their huge lands appears all the more remarkable when we contrast it with the achievements of other countries when confronted by the challenge and opportunity of absorbing their kinsmen into their midst.
Israel with her small territory, her meager water resources and her hard-pressed finances, has found homes, work and citizenship in the past ten years for nearly a million newcomers arriving in destitution no less acute than those of Arab refugees.”
Given all these undisputable considerations, what could the Guardian editors possibly have in mind when they demand “meaningful negotiations” on the Palestinian “right of return”?
Hawkeye
Omar2
WellofSense
Medusa
The Alchemist
Louise
Tosca
Maimon
Telling the Truth
Israelinurse
Adam Levick
Margie in Tel Aviv
Guest/Cross Post
Hadar Sela
48 comments
Comments feed for this article
May 14, 2010 at 3:21 am
Margie
Impressive and excellent research, Maimon.
This illustrates the difference between fact and Guardianista sentiment which is based on nothing more than the half-remembered bits of media sound-bites plus expectation well mixed with a healthy helping of bigotry.
There are signs of hope that others at least are coming to their senses, at long last, in the matter of Palestinian refugees and the reluctance of the Arab states to absorb them as citizens. In January of this year the admirable Canadian government announced that it was ceasing to provide support for UNWRA. Since Canada used to provide a substantial amount of support – $20 M in the past year – this is no small gesture.
May 14, 2010 at 5:57 am
pretzelberg
For starters, one could point to how refugees fared in Europe and the rest of the world in the wake of World War II; one could also refer to the doubtful legal basis of Palestinian demands regarding a “right of return”
Try and look at it from a Palestinian perspective: why should Jews have been allowed to return (and continue to) while we are denied that right?
May 14, 2010 at 6:37 am
zkharya
‘Try and look at it from a Palestinian perspective: why should Jews have been allowed to return (and continue to) while we are denied that right?’
I think I do. I think historians like Benny Morris do. But I question whether Palestinian Arabs look at it from a Jewish perspective.
Aren’t you mixing tenses, a little? ‘have been’ precedes ‘are denied’?
Palestinian Arabs sought to deny Jews refuge, even from genocide, arguably. Some sought to expel or eliminate them, hence the war of ’47-49. A Palestinian diaspora has existed, largely in original British ruled Palestine, for 60 years, even as a Jewish diaspora has existed for 2000 years.
But Jews would have to forego right of return to territory of a Palestinian state. Just as they had to to the territory of Transjordan, and would have to the territory of an Arab state, had Palestinian Arabs accepted partition.
That one should look at Palestinian Muslims and Christians and see ‘Jews’, I do not dispute. I just think Palestinian Muslims and Christians should start looking at Jews and seeing historical ‘Palestinians’.
May 14, 2010 at 6:38 am
Ariadne
A great article from Maimon.
I don’t have the source but I have read quite often that the UN in despair at the scamming “refugees” (Arab only!) in 1949 decided that a refugee was any Arab who had been in the Mandate area 1946-1948.
It is very strange that the Jew-haters call this “indigenous”.
May 14, 2010 at 7:10 am
Fairplay
It’s articles like this that put the Guardian’s to shame. Well done!
The artificial ‘Palestinian’ refugee question has always been a stick to beat Israel with.
May 14, 2010 at 8:43 am
zoidberg
having done a lot of work with refugee groups, i was always astounded that the arab regimes were not being held to the same standards that are evident elsewhere and that this was never commented on.
there would be outrage (and i would add my voice) were the uk to keep refugees in a camps for decades and not allow them or their offspring a shot at citizenship and integration.
the palestinians denied these rights therefore have little freedom of movement (which is a stick often used to beat israel), nor do they have the education and economic opportunities to improve their lot.
needless to say the conspicuous non-signatories of the refugee convention are those such as jordan, lebanon and syria (and most of the arab world bar egypt).
one suspects, had the original refugees been granted the rights that those fleeing to europe take for granted, that there would now be economically strong, educated palestinian diaspora communities across the middle east and that these would have been able to fund the political, infrastructural and economic growth of gaza and the west bank and that peace would have prevailed as people do not tend to want to jeopardise their own economic well-being.
so that begs the question…who would benefit from preventing the palestinian diaspora achieving financial independence by way of integration into host communities?…would it be israel or others?
there does seem to be a huge double standard with regard to the position of the palestinians and the fact that it is never mentioned by those adovcating a right of return is a fallacy. yet it is always israel which gets the blame, rather than any guilt being laid at the door of the various regimes which have not helped their brethren in any way, preferring instead to foster resentment, hatred and unrealistic expectations among those in the camps and to keep them poor and disenfranchised.
May 14, 2010 at 9:10 am
AKUS
zoidberg – I agree. One of the great hypocrisies is the constant demand for the RoR and the complete avoidance of the fact that Arab states have kept Palestinians in refugee “camps” – slums, actually – for 60 years.
Not only, of course, in countries surrounding Israel, but particularly and specially in Gaza and the WB, which for 20 years were under Egyptian and Jordanian control. The “camps” which so upset the “activists” were established and maintained by the Egyptians and Jordanians, who did not allow refugees from what is today Israel to purchase land in what they now proclaim will one day be a Palestinian state or states).
May 14, 2010 at 10:41 am
Zamalek
I’m surprised that nobody has yet mentioned Jewish refugees on this thread.
There were more Jewish refugees from Muslim persecution than Arab refugees from the 1948 war. The solution is simple – let the Palestinians acknowledge that there was an exchange of population. The article below explains why Jewish refugees don’t want to return to Arab countries. Most of them have exercised their ‘right of return’ to Israel. Similarly Palestinians should be allowed to become full citizens of the Arab countries where they now live:
http://www.thejc.com/blogpost/israels-answer-palestinian-right-return
May 14, 2010 at 10:43 am
Heres to Davy.
Ariadne
“It is very strange that the Jew-haters call this “indigenous” ”
The strange thing is that you think it is not strange to call people Jew Haters. When you lose this risible verbiage you may be able to scratch CIF.
May 14, 2010 at 10:49 am
zkharya
It seems to me what this Guardian editorial seeks to do is set Zionist and Jewish national claims below those of Palestinian Arab Muslims and Christians e.g. ensuring there is no fundamental equivalence between Jewish and Palestinian Muslim and Christian rights of return, and their bases or premises.
If they did, they would acknowledge that asking Palestinian Muslims and Christians forego ror to the territory of the Jewish state is no worse than asking Jews forego ror to territory of a Palestinian state.
Since TG is fundamentally anti-Zionist, anti-Jewish nationalist, but pro-Palestinian Arab Muslim and Christian nationalist, the chances of that are remote.
I wonder if Ian Black wrote it? Back in the ’90s he collaborated with Benny Morris on academic works. Morris remains staunchly Israeli and Zionist. Black is being as British as can be. And what he sees is a profound grass roots British hostility to Zionism and the Jewish state. So that is the band wagon he mounts. Perhaps, in a sense, he has to, as a matter of personal or career survival.
May 14, 2010 at 10:55 am
zkharya
‘If they did, they would acknowledge that asking Palestinian Muslims and Christians forego ror to the territory of the Jewish state is no worse than asking Jews forego ror to territory of a Palestinian state.’
Especially when most Palestinian refugees live within the territory of original British ruled Palestine, or very close to its borders.
To quote Black’s erstwhile colleague:
“…that’s so for the Jewish people, not the Palestinians. A people that suffered for 2,000 years, that went through the Holocaust, arrives at its patrimony but is thrust into a renewed round of bloodshed, that is perhaps the road to annihilation. In terms of cosmic justice, that’s terrible. It’s far more shocking than what happened in 1948 to a small part of the Arab nation that was then in Palestine.”
“…We are the greater victims in the course of history and we are also the greater potential victim. Even though we are oppressing the Palestinians, we are the weaker side here. We are a small minority in a large sea of hostile Arabs who want to eliminate us. So it’s possible than when their desire is realized, everyone will understand what I am saying to you now. Everyone will understand we are the true victims. But by then it will be too late.”
http://www.counterpunch.org/shavit01162004.html
Of course, if Morris were to comment on CIF today, anonymously, Ian Black’s censorship policy would delete him.
Thank g-d for Hebrew University. Thank g-d for Israel.
May 14, 2010 at 11:04 am
zoidberg
here’s to davy- ‘The strange thing is that you think it is not strange to call people Jew Haters.’
but it’s so much more descriptive than ‘anti-zionist’ and means that the real anti-zionists don’t have to provide a cloak for their fellow travellers, some of whom they may find as objectionable as i do.
out of interest, what term would you prefer? ‘anti-zionist’ is a bit of a catch all and could include those who advocate another genocide. ‘anti-israeli’…sounds a bit xenophobic doesn’t it? what other options are there?
May 14, 2010 at 11:39 am
THH
Why use the word Anti? why be against when you can be for ?
Woop woop woop woop .
May 14, 2010 at 12:11 pm
Bluesea
Does the Guardian editorial staff really have such a poor understanding of history?
The League of Nations mandated Britain to “secure the [re] establishment of the Jewish national home”. To that end, the League of Nations allocated roughly 45,000 square miles. Britain took away three-fourths of the territory east of the Jordan River to set up Transjordan. In turn, Jews were barred by law from living or owning property east of the Jordan river.
In 1923 Britain ceded the Golan Heights to the French Mandate in Syria.
Article 5 of the Mandate expressly prohibited ceding land to foreign powers. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1922mandate.html
” The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign Power.”
Jewish settlers on the Golan Heights were forced to abandon their homes and relocate inside the western area of the British Mandate. The total remaining area was about 10,000 square miles. The southern part in the Negev was also closed to future Jewish settlement.
May 14, 2010 at 12:46 pm
HairShirt
Berchmans, you have absolutely no right to criticise any one here.
Ever.
Save your breath to cool your porage.
Bluesea yes it does, when it bothers to refer to history at all. Its history is serves its anti-Israel/Theobald Jewish biases. Any newspaper which could lose its allegedly socialist principles so readily and put its weight behind the LibDem sharp suits, deserves to sink without trace.
May 14, 2010 at 1:02 pm
zkharya
While I think TG probably does have a highly prejudiced view on Jewish v. Palestinian ROR, and while it is, or may well be, alluded to in this editorial, I think this CIFWatch piece does actually misrepresent itl, which is more positive than one might have gathered from merely reading Maimon; especially, concerning ‘the guidelines for a permanent status agreement which were offered by Bill Clinton in 2000, known as the Clinton Parameters.’
May 14, 2010 at 1:04 pm
zkharya
The reference to ROR is only a small part of the editorial as a whole.
May 14, 2010 at 1:09 pm
pretzelberg
@ zkharya
Aren’t you mixing tenses, a little? ‘have been’ precedes ‘are denied’?
Nope – nothing wrong with the sentence I wrote.
But Jews would have to forego right of return to territory of a Palestinian state. Just as they had to to the territory of Transjordan
Excuse me? You’re saying Jews had/have some right of return to Transjordan as well????
Shit, why not just add Syria, the Lebanon, Iraq and Egypt and be done with it?!
Same to Bluesea.
@ Zamalek
The solution is simple – let the Palestinians acknowledge that there was an exchange of population.
It was not an “exchange” of populations though, was it?
May 14, 2010 at 1:19 pm
Bluesea
Pretz,
Here you go for answers.
http://smashingtruth.com/map-1920—original-territory-assigned-to-the-jewish-national-home/
May 14, 2010 at 1:23 pm
Bluesea
“The Mandate of the League of Nations on Palestine is not only compatible with the settlements, but actually calls for the encouragement and facilitation of “close settlement” by Jews on the lands of all of Western Palestine. The original Mandate included the Golan and Transjordan, but later Jewish national rights there were “withheld” or “pos[t]poned”. The Mandatory took upon itself to build in Palestine the infrastructure needed for a Jewish national home, which also involved facilitation of Jewish immigration to Palestine and the submission of an annual report to the Council of the League of Nations satisfying the Council that measures had been taken during the year to carry out the provisions of the Mandate. The Mandate forbids the ceding or leasing of the land destined for a Jewish state to the “Government of any foreign Power”. All these rights of the Jewish people are currently still valid and binding in international law.”
http://middleeastfacts.com/guests/shifftan_16may05l.php
May 14, 2010 at 1:43 pm
Bluesea
They can scribble ‘em ditzy Guardian editorials ’till the cows come home. Nothing will pan out. The act of observing changes the outcome only in quantum physics; geopolitics, on the other hand, recognizes no such law. Possession is 9/10th of law in our world.
Shabat shalom le kulyam.
May 14, 2010 at 1:48 pm
Bluesea
read: 9/10th of the law
May 14, 2010 at 2:39 pm
Heres to Davy.
zoidberg
.
“Jew Haters.’ what other options are there? ”
I do realise the purpose of this site is not to try to make peace with the pro Palestinians… but to suggest that a motive is ” Jew Hating ” is why the site is doomed to be a side issue sniping at CIF from the shadows.. with no chance of making a mark.
Everyone I know has had their lives changed by Jewish people and many would fight to the death to protect Jewish lives ..much as our parents who were the very first to fight Hitler nearly did.
The supreme comedy of an American site challenging a Brit paper is missed by you guys…. when it was our parents who fought Hitler whilst the Yanks had other things to do.
May 14, 2010 at 2:47 pm
Zamalek
Pretzel: It was not an “exchange” of populations though, was it?
It was – a ‘de facto’ exchange. It so happens that the numbers of refugees on both sides were roughly equal
May 14, 2010 at 4:01 pm
zkharya
Aren’t you mixing tenses, a little? ‘have been’ precedes ‘are denied’?
Nope – nothing wrong with the sentence I wrote.’
I didn’t say there was anything wrong with it, at least grammatically. I meant that Palestinian Arabs didn’t allow Jews a right of return to historical Palestine then, and launch a war to exclude, expel or eliminate them, and consequently brought about the dispossession for which they seek a right of return. It seems to mix up effect with cause.
[But Jews would have to forego right of return to territory of a Palestinian state. Just as they had to to the territory of Transjordan]
‘Excuse me? You’re saying Jews had/have some right of return to Transjordan as well????’
Well, had, obviously. Because it was denied them by the British. But, as Ben Gurion observed, in antiquity Jews lived both sides of the Jordan. Had Jews been so allowed, and no artificially constrained to west Palestine, matters might have turned out very differently, with less pressure, and more peacefully.
‘Shit, why not just add Syria, the Lebanon, Iraq and Egypt and be done with it?!’
Because I am talking of the land of the Israel. Something I assume you, as Zionist, believe in.
And there is absolutely no need to swear. I haven’t sworn at you.
May 14, 2010 at 7:46 pm
jane schlitz
“….when it was our parents who fought Hitler whilst the Yanks had other things to do” @ Heres to Davy
?????????????????????????????????????
May 14, 2010 at 11:35 pm
BigFish
I think Here’s to Davy is referring to the period when the UK “stood alone” against Nazi Germany. The Americans were yet to decide which side to join.
May 14, 2010 at 11:39 pm
Heres to Davy.
jane schlitz
For a while on CIF I took on the Americans who spoke of Chamberlain and called us “appeasers”. I would gently poke fun at them suggesting that our people were doing the dying and the fighting when no one else was left. My country has still not recovered from WW2 in some respects.
We had a Polish group here…a French group … but no Yanks…”they were visiting their auntie who had not been too well lately”
May 14, 2010 at 11:49 pm
spoton
The only ones who could have imposed a solution were the Israeli’s,but they were too decent to do so.They could have done it after every war that was imposed upon them.And won hands down.
Imposed solutions and ethnic cleansing are a Muslim specialty,they did it to the Jews that lived amongst them,and are doing it at the moment to the people of Darfur.
May 15, 2010 at 12:01 am
Heres to Davy.
spoton
.
” the people of Darfur. ”
The good people of Darfur..in our thoughts whenever argument starts to run dry.
The horror of Darfur and the lack of attention to it from the rich Muslim states and les Guardinista does not mean you can keep building illegal settlements . “What aboutism” is not a secure political stance.
May 15, 2010 at 12:09 am
Irit
I am sick to death of that idiocy called “the narrative.” There is no such thing as a “narrative,” in any real sense of that term. There are only the verifiable facts, which make up the truth. On some points there may be a disagreement, but only on the interpretation, facts themselves can not be at issue.
There is no Arab “narrative.” What is meant by that obfuscatory term is a string of lies, some few of which may contain the merest trace of a true fact, cobbled together to fit the end desired by the liars, which they use to try to obscure the truth.
The facts, and thus the truth, is on the side of Israel and Zionism. History is as it actually occurred, not the way the Arabs wish it had occurred. The Arabs and their apologists (and God knows they SHOULD apologize) have a good line in whining and victimhood, but that doesn’t make it true. It just makes it Goebbels’ Big Lie.
May 15, 2010 at 12:59 am
Greensleeves
Berchmisleading again.
“many would fight to the death to protect Jewish lives ..much as our parents who were the very first to fight Hitler nearly did.”
If WW2 had been presented to the British people as a war to protect Jewish lives then we would be writing in German now and you know it. The Jews in the 1930s were not beloved of the British people – read the newspapers and the popular literature. There were Jewish quotas. My friend’s grandmother couldn’t send her children to the nursery school in London near her house because the Jewish quota was full.
(Actually we wouldn’t be writing at all, since these IT programmes are based on Israeli patents and most of us would never have been conceived.)
May 15, 2010 at 1:02 am
peter1
The essential facts about the Arab right of return, is that there is no such right.
There is no law,there is no implication, there is no connection to Israel Law of return in any way shape or form.
Israel’s Law of Return is a matter of immigration policy, a purely “national” consideration.
One has to remind the guadanistas that UNGAR 194, the document which is the basis for this so-called right of return…..was rejected by ALL of the Arab member countries of the UN.
UNGAR 194 was rejected by the PLO in their propaganda right up to the 80′s when they did an about-face and proceeded to sell the revisionism to the world.
May 15, 2010 at 1:24 am
Toko LeMoko
Bluesea is correct. With Arab agreement, Palestine was thrice designated a Jewish home a quarter-century before the establishment of Israel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Remo_conference
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_for_Palestine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal%E2%80%93Weizmann_Agreement#The_agreement
May 15, 2010 at 2:09 am
Margie
Napoleon Bonaparte also considered the whole area to be the home of
“[T]he Jews “rightful heirs of Palestine,” Napoleon announced he was fighting to avenge “the almost 2000-year-old ignominy imposed upon you; and, while time and circumstances would seem to be least favorable to a restatement of your claims or even to their expression – and indeed compellingly advocate their complete abandonment – France offers you at this very time, and contrary to all expectations, Israel’s patrimony!” ‘
May 15, 2010 at 2:15 am
spoton
Israel made too many mistakes by thinking that it was dealing with rational people,these are the type of people who take acts of kindness as acts of weakness.
It should have transferred the Arabs when it could and should have,now it’s too late.
Israel’s weakness is that it has a conscience,living in the midst of Arabs,a conscience is one luxury that Israel can ill afford.
May 15, 2010 at 3:05 am
spoton
Israel is lacking in the propaganda stakes,it just doesn’t do misery very well,compared to the palestinians who excel in the misery stakes.
The palestinians also excel at fawning,another one of their strong points.
May 15, 2010 at 3:33 am
peterthehungarian
Hi Berchmans
Your lesson is very interesting, you are extremely innovative writing an absolutely new version of history nobody knew about it before:
Everyone I know has had their lives changed by Jewish people and many would fight to the death to protect Jewish lives ..much as our parents who were the very first to fight Hitler nearly did.
You sad joke of a human you really want to suggest that your oh so righteous parents went to war to protect the Jews?! Then I have news for you: the British government and people didn’t allow the Jews from the continent to escape the Nazis, didn’t allow them to enter the UK (save a very limited numbers with family connections or rich), didn’t allow them escape to Palestine, and are indirectly responsible for the deaths of millions of Jews, Roma etc. The antisemitism of pre-war England is very well documented and well known.
Your Papa went to war to fight for your European hegemony, for your colonies, for the cheap rubber, oil etc and not for ideological reasons (although -who knows- maybe you inherited your brain from him and so he didn’t know this then). The purpose of the British foreign policy before WW2 was to destroy the Sovietunion with the help of the Germans, they didn’t give a rusty nail about the Jews or the ideology of the Nazis. Maybe the name Munich should have ring a bell in your alcohol soaked brain before starting write your BS about your heroic parents? If you didn’t hear about it, in 1938 you sold the people of Czechoslovakia to Hitler in Munich, hoping that Hitler will continue his expansion to the East and would leave you alone allowing you to continue robbing your colonies in Asia, the ME and Africa… Maybe your family heroes were busy to visit the auntie’s estate in India in 1938? Or a safari in the Ngorongoro with some black servants carrying their load?
The supreme comedy of an American site challenging a Brit paper is missed by you guys…. when it was our parents who fought Hitler whilst the Yanks had other things to do.
The number of US casualties in Europe is about 100.000 deaths. These US servicemen died saving your skin and making possible that you don’t have to speak German today, exactly as they did in 1918. I understand your hate, they saved you twice in 35 years proving your utter inability to fight for yourself, after the war they make it clear to you that your colonialissm is intolerable and forced you to abandon your African and Asian colonies. (BTW the same with Palestine, the difference that there the Jews kicked you out – they didn’t wait for outside help).
And one more thing
I do realise the purpose of this site is not to try to make peace with the pro Palestinians…
You and your Jew hater chums at the Guardian are as pro-Palestinians as
the Nazis were socialists. You have a very impressing record to colonise Arab lands, to rob them from your oil and to keep them as your slaves.
You are simply using the Palestinians as a stick to beat Jews. You celebrate every new Palestinian death in Gaza pretending compassion- you can exploit their fate to spit your filth playing the that you give a discarded fishhead for them.
May 15, 2010 at 3:54 am
JerusalemMite
Berchmans.
The supreme comedy of an American site challenging a Brit paper is missed by you guys…. when it was our parents who fought Hitler whilst the Yanks had other things to do.
Go and piss into the wind.
I assume that your father signed on to fight against Stalin and his communist hoards when he signed the non-aggression treaty with Hitler.
Ignoramus.
May 15, 2010 at 5:03 am
zoidberg
here’s to davy- ‘I do realise the purpose of this site is not to try to make peace with the pro Palestinians… but to suggest that a motive is ” Jew Hating ” is why the site is doomed… ‘
so you can’t think of an appropriate term then…why not just say it?
asfor not being about making peace…i tried advocating that on cif and was called all manner of names by the usual suspects.
as for making a dent in cif…i believe that the phrase is ‘bovvered?’ i’d rather go on to the site of my football club and discsuss things htere if the need to have a cyberchat. at least i don’t get insulted there (much) and there’s a diversity of opinion, something which cif does not seem to value.
‘The good people of Darfur..in our thoughts whenever argument starts to run dry.
… “What aboutism” is not a secure political stance.’
that does a grave disservice to the peoplel of darfur and sugggests that, even though a larger number of people have been displaced/killed than in palestine, this getes a disproportionate amount of press.
and there never seems to be a response or explanation as to why this is from anyone, only derisory responses like yours. why do congo and darfur and the iranian protesters (among plenty of others around the world) get forgotten, when cif is always chock full of loaded i/p threads? not ‘whataboutery’ (as a scot i woulda thought you would get the terminology correct) but a valid question.
the other curious thing is that whataboutery always seems to come into play around when human rights or justice are raised in the context of criticism of hizbollox or the hamstas, and it then magically becomes a perfectly valid debating tool. as it does whenever it is applied by those who advocate palestinian ‘resistance’ (just like the ra ‘resisted’ and the farc continue to ‘resist’….most of us just call it gangsterism).
and as for the slur on the yanks…my hometown had two u.s. camps within about ten miles either side…not that the canadians liked it much (saturday nights were always a bit heated i gather). plenty of yanks gave their lives to suggest otherwise is lying and dishonours those who did and their families…..but that’s the ingleft, anything for a cheap shot at the yanks or the ‘zionists’ eh?
May 15, 2010 at 9:10 am
zkharya
‘but to suggest that a motive is ” Jew Hating ” is why the site is doomed… ‘”
‘Doomed’ to be Berchmans’ perpetual hangout, I assume you mean.
May 15, 2010 at 9:26 am
Heres to Davy.
peterthehungarian
.
“you really want to suggest that your ..parents went to war to protect the Jews? ”
Of course not…but they did fight…they held the torch …alone …briefly whilst others.. whose contribution seems to be beyond criticism here … were there in spirit only.
Here is to the real RSM Berchmans.
zoidberg
Thank you for your careful and moderate post. I admit CIF ignores Darfur it is not a subject that generates sparks the way the I/P debate does. It ignores hunger as well ….the destruction that we wrought to Iraq …the continuing imperialist nonsense in Afghanistan.
My brothers response when I told him a large number of posts on CIF mention “Darfur” as was …”do the posters contribute money to Darfur”?
May 15, 2010 at 10:03 am
zoidberg
here’s to davy-
i try to be moderate…most of the time. hell, i even found myself defending you….whoda thunk eh?
just to correct you, britain was never ‘alone’…the free french, poles, canucks, strines, kiwis, indians and saffers, among others, fought every inch of the way.
and of course you ignore the thousands of yanks who joined the british military and those of other nations whilst the usa itself remained neutral…almost like saying that brits had no role in the spanish civil war just because we weren’t formally involved….
as for darfur, you still don’t posit any reason why many more die there (and i pick darfur only as the example that’s being held up) yet it gets so little coverage. i would guess (because i can’t be bothered looking it up) that more have died in darfur in the last 2 years than have in palestine in the last decade, yet the numeric prevalence of articles on cif would suggest that it is the other way round.
the point being, why are palestinian lives of so much more apparent journalistic value than those of the fur, zaghawa etc? it would be disingenuous to suggest that it comes down to skin tone or that the british left sees more in common with movements which try to destabilise a ‘capitalist’ government and therefore express support for the left leaning (it says here) fatah or those nice pan-arab ‘social nationalists’ in the syrian govt…but therein may be some shards of truth.
i would also suggest that, in our post-soviet world, the left needs somewhere to hand its cap round and raise funds for ‘the revolution’ and, as it did in soviet days, turns a blind eye to the ‘incovenient’ bits.
as for contributing money to darfur, can’t speak for others but ‘yes’. as for donating money to palestine, i do also…involuntarily, via my taxes that are paid to the u.n. and e.u….this provides a minimum of care for the palestinians. other tax money goes to ngos that also operate in the region. hams knows that if it imperoved the lot of its people, that these payments would stop and that they then might have to stop spending on arms and actually go about using their funds to make life better for their own people.
however, the palestinians still do not have food or medicines…why is this? they seem to be able to smuggle cars and arms in (so many arms, indeed, that hamas need to store them in schools), so why not medicine, food and fuel? or would that be down to who controls what comes in via the tunnels? can’t go having people with a peaceful, comfortable and prosperous life…might stop them being williing to listen to calls for ‘resistance’ (or ‘self-sacrifice’ …your call).
it appears that there is an elelment of calculated victimhood, but i’m not for one second suggesting that it’s a decision that’s been taken with the full participation of ALL the palestinian people (or, indeed, anywhere near all) and am not convinced that they would agree with it given a free and secret ballot.
May 16, 2010 at 2:31 am
Heres to Davy.
zoidberg
.
“and of course you ignore the thousands of yanks who joined the british military ”
Guilty as charged. Furthermore I think the the Brits caused WW2 so why should the US have helped? I say this because I believe the huge industrial output of Germany in the early 1900s meant a larger share of the world was on the cards but Britain harnessed the entire world to defeat her. This directly contributed to Germany turning Nazi as her people were so battered and brutalised.
It was a European calamity and the Yanks were right to be cautious. However it irks me to my bone when I feel the contribution that my people made is belittled.
“as for darfur, you still don’t posit any reason why many more die there ”
.
This is again correct …but my perception is that the continuing horror in Darfur is only ever mentioned as a foil and never with any feeling for real people dying . I accept this is a shaky position.
” they seem to be able to smuggle cars and arms in..why not medicine, food and fuel? ”
You suggest “victimhood” and again maybe you are right…being battered and targetted for 40 years ruins a people’s case ..as it is intended to do .
If you take leaders out ..leaving people with less organisational skills poor education and experience of government.. to make decisions in reinforced shelters re day to day matters you get clumsy often murderous consequences.
May 16, 2010 at 5:58 am
zoidberg
here’s to davy- on ww2, i agree, the hollywood ‘we won this on our own’ irks me too and ignores the heroism of people from all communities and nations who fought fascism. the u.s. felt it had bailed us last time,and didn’t fancy it again. who can blame them?
as for your ‘we caused ww2′ well…it’s a position. i would say that the ww1 allies tilled the ground for the nazis and created the conditions where it could flourish. i use a similar argument about anti-zionism (i know that we’ll disagree on this).
i can see that you think that darfur is used by some as a smokescreen, but i think that it is perfectly valid to ask why a large conflict (and there are plenty of others) gets less airtime than palestine. and it’s a question that never gets an answer.
in terms of ‘victimhood’ i was trying to point out that the leadership of the ‘liberation’ organisations keep the palestinian people in poverty. again, there’s never any explanation as to why big tag luxury items can make it in, as can armaments, but then i read on cif that there is no medicine or food. surely if the well armed hamstas control the territory, then its reasonable to assume that they have a say in what comes in. if sone accepts that premise, then why do they prioritise non-emergency items over things that would benefit the people in general?
as for taking out the leaders, this is a tough one. it would be easier to agree were there a high profile palestinian advocate of peace and to see how they were treated by israel. would they still be in power? those targetted tend to advocate violence in no uncertain terms.
poor education you say? i’d call that a failing in government, but then, having seen the hamstas school curriculum it’s no surprise.
‘to make decisions in reinforced shelters re day to day matters you get clumsy often murderous consequences.’ sorry, but that just looks like an excuse. i have to say that i really don’t think that the likes of meshaal are the sharpest tools the palestinians have at their disposal. they’re in positions of power because they’re thugs. those who advocate anything less than eternal violence tend to be labelled ‘collaborators’ by the hamstas and are summarily executed. so you can’t decry assassinations by one side, when the other does exactly the same. besides, i thought that most of the decisions were made either in damascus or tehran?
May 16, 2010 at 6:30 am
Heres to Davy.
Zoidberg
Why on earth did CIF ban you? This is nonsense. You argue and reason. You also understate …this is a dirty trick!
I will simply say the leaders of Hamas have much to answer for and if people like you partake in the inevitable negotiations we can all be hopeful.
May 17, 2010 at 10:38 am
Fairplay
Arguing with trolls is often fun to read and one can learn a lot as a spinoff, but I still doubt if it’s all worth it. He’s so vain he thinks CifWatch is all about him and he’ll never change his spots.
May 17, 2010 at 12:17 pm
zoidberg
htd-
thank you for your kind words.
even though our views are not the same, it’s good to see that there can be common ground. hopefully this can be replicated by those who seek to resolve this issue and a peaceful compromise can be obtained with as little further violence as possible.
there again, i’ve been waiting so long that i am wise enough not to hold my breath and cynical enough to know that there are those on both sides who prosper from conflict and who would, therefore, perpetuate it in their own interests. meanwhile ordinary people on both sides live in fear.