If you read the following on the BBC News website …
The American housing ministry has invited tenders for the construction of 100 new homes at American settlements in occupied Iraq.
… people would say that it was wrong and that America had no right to build homes for Americans in Iraq against the will of the Iraqi government. So why is there no international uproar when it reads …
The Israeli housing ministry has invited tenders for the construction of 100 new homes at settlements in the occupied West Bank.
Israel has illegally occupied Palestine for decades, has ignored more UN resolutions than any other nation on earth (remember that frustrating the will of the international community was justification for invading Iraq) and is continuing to expand its settlements in Palestine that have been declared illegal under international law.
If they were muslims would they have been invaded by now?
Technorati Tags: 
I am afraid your analogy doesn’t quite work. Whilst you could certainly show me a map or an Atlas with Iraq on it, perhaps you could also show me a map or an atlas that says “Palestine” on it?
I believe it was on the map in that atlas you got out when I was at your house George. 😉
The Foreign Office knows where Palestine is, even the Americans refer to Palestinians (Palestinian • adjective relating to Palestine. • noun a member of the native Arab population of Palestine.) although they conveniently omit to mention the fact that Hamas won free and fair elections in the West Bank when they talk about them “siezing power”.
For someone who is usually such a stickler for facts and quite rightly critical of lies and sleaze in politics, when it comes to Israel you’re a bit of a revisionist. How can you recognise the state of Israel but not the state of Palestine that was there before Israel was created?
There is no country called Palestine in my atlas; there is one called Iraq!
Iraq and Palestine are different countries, perhaps that’s where you’re getting confused George. 😉
Sorry Wonko, but Palestine is NOT a country!!!
What is it then George?
A former British mandate on the east coast of the Mediterranean; divided between Jordan and Israel in 1948
George seems to think that because a supranational body declares a country non existent it no longer exists. Palestine was in existence long before the Br*tain that was awarded a mandate to betray it, and it will exist long after the Br*tain that has betrayed England has ceased to be, without any mandate from any supranational body.
Actually, the UN still recognises Palestine. It is the only country in the world recognised by the UN as a sovereign nation under the occupation of a foreign power. Something for the pro-Israel lobby to be proud of that – supporting the world’s only occupying power in “frustrating the will of the international community”.
The League of Nations mandated administration of Palestine and Transjordan to the UK – Palestine already existed within the Ottoman Empire. Transjordan because independent as Jordan and Palestine remained under control of the UK. Palestine was partitioned despite there being no majority Jewish areas in Palestine and all its neighbours promising eternal war against any Jewish state created in Palestine. Despite the promise of eternal conflict and there being no Jewish claim to Palestine other than a 2,000 year old story (Native Americans and Aborigines have much more recent claims to their historic homelands) Palestine was partitioned and an artificial Jewish state was created and populated mainly by Jewish immigrants whose claim to the land was even more tenuous than that of Jews whose ancestors had lived there.
The rest is history, both real and (in the case of the pro-Israel lobby) revised.
It’s a little more complicated than that but my point was that George is pissing in the wind.
The plain fact remains that “Palestine” does not exist as an independent state and therefore a comparison with Iraq does not hold water.
Every new archaeological dig supports the fact that the jews had a presence in Israel for three thousand years – coins, cities and pottery. The Jewish claim predates the claim of any other people in the region. The ancient Philistines are extinct, as are other ancient peoples. They do not have the unbroken line the Israelis have. The first modern Israelis are direct decendents from the original Israelites.
Israel existed as a nation until the time of the Roman Empire. Even after the dispersions of A.D.70 & A.D.135, a strong Jewish presence remained. The Turks took control 700 years ago and ruled until they were defeated by Great Britain in WW1. Grateful for the contributions Jewish scientists and businessmen had made to the war effort, Britain promised in 1917 to set aside certain captured lands (all present day Israel and Jordan) for a Jewish homeland. There was no outcry over the plan because the land was considered worthless, unable to sustain any sizable population.
Arabs began to repopulate the land only after the Jews reclaimed it and the land began to prosper. No nation in the region has a longer-standing historic claim to the land than Israel. Saudi Arabia was not created until 1913; Lebanon, 1920; Iraq, 1932; Syria, 1941; Jordan, 1946; and Kuwait, 1961. (1)
“The Lord said unto Abram…’Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art…for all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, AND TO THY SEED FOREVER’…” Genesis 13:14-17
(1) Senate Floor statement by Senator James Inholfe, “Seven Reasons Why Israel is Entitled to the Land”, CBN.com, March 4th 2002,http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/news/020308c.asp (accesed on 19/04/08)
So if a 3,000 year old claim is justification for partition and then illegal occupation of another country and a 50 year (and counting) conflict that’s claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands, do you advocate the partition of Australia into Australian and Aborigine states or the US into American and Native American states or perhaps the partition of Northern Ireland into Irish and Scottish (the Scots originated in Northern Ireland and displaced the original inhabitants of moder-day Scotland) states? Do you support the partition of Germany into German and Polish states or the partition of France into French and Celtic (Breton) states? How about partitioning Mexico into Mexican/Aztec/Mayan/Incan states?
All of these people have more recent claims to the land they were historically displaced from – in the case of Poland, less than a century old.
That’s wrong – there were 4 or 5 proposals, only one of which was to turn the whole lot over to the Jews.
George, the countries in the region all pledged to wipe Israel off the map, of course there was an outcry.
I am surprisied. Some advocate that Britain be broken up into seperate states: Scotish, Welsh & English!
I am seeking to point out that the lands that you call “Palestine” are of historic significance to the Jewish people. They are the lands that were given, by way of divine covenant with Abraham, by Almighty God himself. A Jewish prescence has existed in those lands for more than 3,000 years.
I have asked this question before, and I ask it again: given the historic significance of these lands to the Jewish people and considering their plight at the end of WW2, WHERE WOULD YOU HAVE PUT THE JEWISH STATE?
A promise in a story book isn’t justification for a 50+ year war and the deaths of thousands of Arabs.
Where would I have put a Jewish homeland? I wouldn’t. There hadn’t been one for 2 thousand years and no single concentration of Jews big enough to constitute a Jewish state. However, if I was pressed to create one it would have been in America – they’re the ones driving the Jewish agenda, they had the biggest population of Jews and they have plenty of space to put one.
As for breaking up “Britain” – the UK is an artificial entity with no cultural or historical basis and now with minority support for its continued existence. It’s hardly the same thing.
1200 years ago, in the time of Alfred the Great, England was divided between the English and the Danes. (Vikings)
The way I look at the Israeli/Palestinian situation is as if, at the end of the Second World War, the Americans had said that there were all these Danish people with an historical claim to half of England, so that they were going to re-constitute the Danelaw as a home for them. Millions of English people in the North and Midlands would have been forced from their homes and have become refugees.The settlement boundaries would not be fixed, however, and Danish settlers would have been building settlements right through the south, backed by massive force and billions of dollars in ‘aid’. How would we English feel about that?
Steadmanc, England is not really a valid example in this case, it had an overwhelming anglo saxo population ruled over by a Nordic elite, after Billy One, the elite were Norman and so on until democracy lessened the impact of a ‘foreign ruling class’.
‘Meet the new boss, same as the old boss’
Except he smelled of garlic instead of Rollmops!
‘Mad dogs and englishmen, go about in the mid day sun’
All the sun shine has driven both of them mental, if you want a good example come up here and see what 3 hours of sunshine on a saturday afternoon does to us¬
So there we have it. Wonko believes that the Jews should not have their own state. That the Jews should not enjoy their own nationalsim. But the English of course should. Neither should the Jews have “A promise in a story book”, yet of course, the English can claim Christianity and St. George as their own?
It is highly unlikely that St George ever fought a dragon, and even more unlikely that he ever actually visited England. St George was a brave Roman soldier who protested against the Romans’ torture of Christians and died for his beliefs. The popularity of St George in England stems from the time of the early Crusades when it is said that the Normans saw him in a vision and were victorious.
I know that Wonko will be celebrating St Georges day. What right do the English (or anybody else for that matter) have in celebrating their own myth, legend and sense of nationhood whilst at the same time, seeking to deny the Jews theirs?
I think wonko is saying that the Jews should not have their own state at the expence of someone else!
Israel and indeed most of the problems in Levant have their roots in the cold war and Moscow and Washington pouring wheel barrows full of money into the region. The vast arsenals on both sides have allowed 2 otherwise piss poor groups of states to slove all their problems with bombs and tanks, instead of negotiation amnd talk like civilised monkeys!
Was St George not a libyan who battered a crocodile?
How can Jews have had any form of nationalism when there hadn’t been a Jewish nation for 2,000 years and no major concentration of Jews anywhere in the world prior to Israel being created? That would be like Romany nationalism – there’s no Romany nation and hasn’t been for such a long time, if ever. If Jews wanted to congregate somewhere and form a nation of their own then a 2,000 year old story in a book isn’t justification enough to put it somewhere that’s going to result in a never-ending war and tens of thousands of deaths. They should have created their Jewish state somewhere they could have lived in peace with their neighbours, somewhere they were wanted and somewhere where there was already a large Jewish population – hence me saying I would have created it in America if I had to.
“How can Jews have had any form of nationalism when there hadn’t been a Jewish nation for 2,000 years and no major concentration of Jews anywhere in the world prior to Israel being created? That would be like Romany nationalism – there’s no Romany nation and hasn’t been for such a long time, if ever.”
Wonko writes as though the “Final Solution” never happened, that Hitler didn’t really seek to eliminate European Jewry and as though there was not, at the end of the second world war following the systematic extermination of millions, an absolutely pressing need for the establishment of a Jewish homeland.
However, here is a most interesting piece that I commend to you for reading which discusses the very issues that Wonko describes. In short, for historical reasons alone, the nation of Israel is entirely justified and that today the very survival of the Jewish people is intertwined with the very survival of Israel.
Letters to an American Jewish Friend
By: Hillel Halkin
“The same classical Zionist beliefs that justified modern Jewish settlement in Palestine, and that justified the establishment of a Jewish state, justify this country to this day.
These are so simple that they can be presented as an ordinary syllogism:
1) It is natural for a Jew who is committed to his Jewishness to seek to perpetuate Jewish life in himself and in his people.
2) For objective historical reasons, Jewish life in the Diaspora is doomed; and, conversely, such life has a possible future only in an autonomous or politically sovereign Jewish community living in its own land, that is, in the State of Israel.
3) Therefore, it is natural for a Jew who is committed to his Jewishness to desire to live only in Israel”.
Continue reading at: http://www.wzo.org.il/en/resources/view.asp?id=1535
Plainly, Israel and Palestine currently overlap. That infamous Libyan, Gadaffi of all people once suggested that a future one-state solution be called Israstine. I always thought it absurd – what do others think?
On relgion and nationality: I celebrate Christmas and St George’s day, though I am agnostic. The point about celebration is that it is a social thing – you can’t celebrate alone and people of all faiths and none take part in events at Christmas and St Georges’s day.
And isn’t it curious that there are probably more Christian Zionists than there are people in Israel? Incidentally, the early Zionist movement looked at various places to establish a Jewish homeland – including America.
I must make clear: I would not like to see a Palestinian state at the expense of the Israelis any more than I like seeing an Israeli state at the expense of the Palestinians
Why cant they live together? it is not as if either side would be short of money?
It is still a pawn in the Idealogical war, instead of Moscow\\Washington it is now Washington\\wherever.
It would be easier and cheaper just to nuke it!
Charlie Marks said “I must make clear: I would not like to see a Palestinian state at the expense of the Israelis any more than I like seeing an Israeli state at the expense of the Palestinians”.
However, I believe that what we have to consider today is whether the existence of Israel should be undone by human force. We must be political realists. In reality the historic arguments about Israel’s coming into existence are irrelevant. ISRAEL EXISTS and the speculations about what is right and wrong, what should be done and not done, should start from the premise that ISRAEL IS.
For the most part the opponents of Israel live in the same twisted and counterfactual world as do the Islamic extremists who still to this very day postulate and pronounce on the historic legitimacy or otherwise of the nation of Israel. To suggest, as some undoubtedly do, that the state of Israel is “illegitimate” or that Israel enjoys “no historic claim” to the land is to play directly into the hands of the real opponents of freedom in the world today.
Israel lives. Israel IS. Get Over it!
Look George, Israel’s existence does not have to be based upon the oppression of Palestinians. There is no need to go on as before, indeed it would benefit Israelis greatly if the occupation ended.
Happy St George’s Day, folks!