I am off to Baghdad on Sunday for an Arab League conference on Palestinian detainees held in Israel. This is part of my determination to devote more of my time to helping the Palestinian cause. It seems to me we are at a crucial point where the Palestinians are in genuine danger of an accelerated genocide, as Israeli intentions to annex Est Jerusalem and the West Bank become ever plainer.
In retrospect, my life has mostly been based on the idea that I may not be able to do much to help in a particular situation, but it is incumbent on me to try. So I am trying.
A “two state” solution has, from the start, been advanced in bad faith by promoters such as Blair and Bush, with the intention always that it would be a Bantustan solution. For those too young to recall, the grand plan of apartheid South Africa was that the black population would be corraled into a number of small regions which would become “independent states”.
I have said before that I am often pleasantly surprised by Sky News security correspondent Sam Kiley, who seems to get away with talking great sense by hiding behind a Ross Kemp style persona. A couple of days ago he reported from the West Bank that Israel was “moving towards an apartheid state”. There is no doubt that is true – even in Israel proper, there are over three hundred ethnically based Israeli laws prescribing different treatment for Jews and others, across almost every activity of the state. I fear Sam Kiley will not be on mainstream TV long – a tendency to tell the truth being career fatal.
Bibi’s desire to kill off the two state solution is a terrible, genocidal threat but strangely also an opportunity. Botha and De Klerk did not succeed, and Bibi may not either. I personally would have deplored a Bantustan based solution, with crammed and split Palestinian lands deprived of resources, water, communications and any hope of economic viability.
The ultimate solution must involve a proper single state in Israel/Palestine which is blind and fair in its laws to race and religion. That solution can ultimately bring security to the people of Israel, not based on their ability to kill or evict their neighbours and steal their land. The essentials of the agreement will have to be most people staying where they are – including most West Bank settlers – and very serious compensation to dispossessed Palestinians, with the settlements enlarged to become mixed communities.
On the Palestinian detainee question, for me it shows up yet again Israel’s extraordinary capacity for shameless sophistry in matters of international law. Israel justifies its naval blockade on the San Remo Convention, which is only applicable in times of armed conflict. Israel states that it is in a de facto permanent armed conflict. However it denies being in an armed conflict when it comes to its treatment of Palestinain detainees, captured outside Israel, who are not treated as prisoners of war. Both positions cannot be held simultaneously, but secure in the collusion of the West’s bought politicians, Israel does so.
Silly cunt: 5th December 2012. 1:48pm
“I don’t believe it is even remotely realistic to assume that a one state solution could be the answer. The Israeli’s wouldn’t want it because in time it would spell the end of their freedom to live freely as Jews.”
So Mr Zio,
Israelis are, according to your statement, Jews. Not anyone else.
Hereafter fellow posters don’t feed this Ziofuckwit Troll.
@Nevermind Thanks for the balanced response. I agree with a large part of what you wrote, except I don’t believe the Golan heights issue is the reason for Hezbollah hostilities, in the same way I don’t believe violence in the West Bank to be because of the settlements (although I do disagree with settlement building). If that was the real issue, then how do you explain the violence before the occupation?
I agree with everything else you wrote, from removing settlements to stopping the propaganda war. Without a balanced education (I can’t stress the importance of balance enough) at grass roots level, there literally no hope.
That’s further than what most would go Craig, but then again, you never compromise with the truth as you see it for the sake of political correctness etc.
However, Nobody, repeat, nobody but the Palestinians whose lands were stolen have any right at all to give away.
But your idea (which is was pretty much the conclusion I came to) is. like mine, doomed as it fails to address the Zionist principle which lead to the foundation of this Zionist entity in the first place and then packed the land with Jews (inc later on, atheist, gay and pork eating “Jews”) to try and cement this Zionist crevice. Zionist principles are simply NOT going to change, neither are they going to go away, and therefore, either will the endless suffering meted out to the Palestinians. Indeed, the Apartheid based Zionism emboldens the Zionists into a even stronger mindset of manifest separatism.
This is THE stumbling block and only a purge of this wholly rotten Zionist doctrine from the minds of Zionists (Christian and Muslim Zionist amongst them) will give peace. Only the return of Jesus will do this.
Good Luck Craig…. Much respect for you going on this trip…I wish i had you,re notion inside me…that i MIGHT be able to help… Because for those of us that avoid the MSM…its horrible to watch….I’m horrified that oniel wont be thankful if you could stop the Genocide… Take care noo…and peace from Scotland
Doug – Poor excuse of a human being. Run along now
There is a big difference between the white South Africans and the Zionist Israelis.
The Zionists have no desire to live in the land as equals. If they did, they would have remained in New York and London. The want to live in the land as masters. And will never give up what they claim is their God given right. They view themselves as the master race, and other lesser races as either rightious gentiles to be enslaved, or filth to be exterminated.
This was known when Israel was established. And this is known by the colonialist powers that established Israel. How can the British, French and Americans disagree with this, when they themselves have done it all over the world?
Ths solution will not come by begging the Zionists to act fairly. The solution will not come by begging the very colonialist powers that set up Israel to pressure Israel in to destroying the very racism for which it was established. The solution must come from Muslims themselves.
What is being offered is a reversal of 1964 when the Zionists took Gaza, Golan, the West Bank and Jurusalam.
What Craig is calling for is the reversal of 1948 when the Zionists took what they now call Israel.
What I am calling for is the reversal of Sykes–Picot Agreement. When the middle east was chopped up in to what it is now by the British and the French.
Retired former BBC Panorama broadcaster and ITN Middle East correspondent Alan Hart wrote in his 3 volume Zionism: the Real Enemy of the Jews about a discussion he had with Shimon Peres about how the conflict might be resolved. Hart was doing some unofficial diplomacy acting as a mediator between Arafat and Peres in the pre-Oslo Accords period. His extensive discussions with Arafat had convinced him that he had done what was politically necessary on the Palestinian side to arrive at peace negotiations. Arafat had convinced his people that compromises were necessary–at great personal risk to his life I might add. The discussions with Peres revealed something different.
Peres, whom Hart thought might be the next Israeli leader, stated that he was not prepared to do what was necessary politically to get his people to make the compromises that were necessary to pave the way for peace negotiations. Peres stated that he was not prepared to launch a “civil war” between Israeli liberals and the hardline, far right Israeli settlers movement in the West Bank. That is quite significant I think. In other words, those on the Israeli side who know that compromises are necessary to reach a genuine peace agreement don’t have the balls to sort out the far right, fascist nutters in the colonial settlers movement. Until that happens there will be no resolution to the conflict.
“would spell the end of their freedom to live freely as Jews.” Aaah, the old rob the conversation of its Palestinian focus and playing of the ‘Jew victim’ card. Classic!
Arsalan
Have you met any white south africans? If you think they wanted in the 70s and 80s to live in the land as equals, you are very wrong. They have for the most part come to terms with it – mainly because they don’t live as equals, but that is a question for another day.
Lwtc247 – You didn’t comment on the point I made. Is what I said true or not?
@oniel samuel 3:45
“how do you explain the violence before the occupation?”
Oooh, I know this one.
This is an easy one to answer. History did not start in 1967. **All** of the land now called Israel has been stolen from Palestinians. In 1947 only 6% of the land of Palestine was owned by Jews. By 1948 Zionists had stolen 78% of the land. In 1967 they stole the remainder.
Source
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/maps.html
Is our new friend one and same as this currency dealer? If so, American Express should know that they are not getting a good return if time is spent commenting here.
http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/oniel-samuel/1a/86b/87a
I like the way he just ‘fell upon’ this blog. (2.54pm above) No he was directed here.
Our friend’s alma mater was lucky enough to have received a visit from Mr Taub yesterday. I expect he recounted his recent visit to the FCO where he had coffee and biscuits and a friendly chat with Mr Hague.
http://www.jfs.brent.sch.uk/about/school-information#/latest-news/1
Mary,
Well, he’s not alone. A study of the visitor statistics indicates that the vast majority of people are here during normal office hours in whatever country they visit from – the servers they come from also indicate that many people view this blog from work. Actually a break from the grind within reason makes people more productive.
I very much welcome commenters who have a different view to mine.
Israel apartheid confirmation.
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/no-to-arabs-in-israeli-public-transport.html#entry31552957
Oniel, it was you who said you were off, after throwing a tantrum and the predictable smears around. Do stay though, you amuse me and we can learn from you as one might study deviant psychology. The violence prior to the occupation? I didn’t expect you to bring that up: the mandate era and 1948 and all that. Nothing explains it but Zionist racism and exceptionalism, nothing can ever excuse it or allow it to be forgotten, it accounts fully for what is now likely everlasting Arab hostility. It has its origins in the last quarter of the 19th century and euphemisms such as ‘transfer’; it is odd for a criminal organisation to publish their mass-murdering intent and then go on to attempt carrying it out under the gaze of a watching world, it is almost as if they wanted to be stopped, but instead were given enough rope to hang themselves. It has gone on too long and went too far, caught
red-handed, there is no hope of retaining the spoils. It’ll be springtime 1938 in Palestine again, demographics and Palestinian fecundity and virility are the irrepresible factor.
Should have gone for Madagascar, we’ve no further use for Zionism or Zionists.
There is an interesting post by Alan Hart at
http://www.alanhart.net/are-israels-jews-some-of-them-on-their-way-to-becoming-nazis/
He quotes some chilling paragraphs from Zev Jabotinsky’s book ‘The Iron Wall: We and the Arabs’ published in 1923 in which he sets down how Zionists should set about stealing Palestine. Jabotinsky’s doctrine forms the core of modern day Israeli policy.
“We cannot give any compensation for Palestine, neither to the Palestinians nor to other Arabs. Therefore, a voluntary agreement is inconceivable. All colonization, even the most restricted, must continue in defiance of the will of the native population. Therefore, it can continue and develop only under the shield of force which comprises an Iron Wall which the local population can never break through. This is our Arab policy. To formulate it any other way would be hypocrisy.”
Good detective work Sherlock!
Craig et al.
Apartheid South Africa is different in one very important respect in that Zionism has a religious philosophy (Talmud) as the bedrock of it’s apartheid, South Africa’s religious element was significantly lesser (the Boer idea of “God granted victory of the ‘savage’ Zulu’s” is just a small factor of contemporary S.A. (approx 1960’s). There is no greater motivator than religion – and seemingly no greater evil that stems from the perversion of religion – which brings me back to the Talmud.
Derek – The land didn’t belong to the Palestinians. Palestinians before 1948 were recognised as both Jewish and Muslim. Some 700k Arabs lost their homes in ’48 and I believe they should either be compensated or returned to a newly formed Palestine. It’s a pity you don’t share the same sympathy for the 800k Jews who were ethnically cleansed from Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Morocco, etc.
Mary – You should give yourself a pat on the back for your wonderful detective work on Google. I wish I could use that thing, too. I didn’t realise I wasn’t allowed to use the Internet while at home, but thanks for your concern.
I, unlike others, am quite happy to put my name to my posts. I have nothing to hide, and will gladly take responsibility for the views I air.
Thanks venceremos, Avi Shalim concurs in some of your observations when he speaks about the initial immigrants to Israel, especially Ben Gurion, the reluctance to shake the problem by the neck has always been a stumbling stone.
Now this issue will come to a head, although the old chestnut/a flight forward into war, buying more time, will further erode/loose public opinion in Israel to the extent that it becomes ungovernable.
Civil war? Zionists killing Jews for the sake of a right wing ideology? I cannot fathom that at all.
LWtc 247, my point is that Zionist so called principles, many of them religious propaganda points, will have to be made to confront their own limitations. Only if these two people have to live together will their outlook change over time and that takes a rigorous framework to achieve it and it starts with the very young, an end to exclusion indoctrination and propaganda in schools, a dismantling of propaganda chapters and Hasbara troops, on both sides.
But I agree with you, it will have to be acceptable to all sides and all sides have to accept that they are part of a greater world community that has a parameter of equality, at any cost.
It will take a strong arbiter, a humane dictator.
Cryptonym – There were some horrifying posts here which I wasn’t really interested in entertaining. It does seem, however, that humble pie is in order as a (semi!)reasonable debate can be had.
“Nothing explains (the violence pre 1967), but Zionist racism…” – Do you not see that shrugging off an important factor will lead to calls of bigotry and only highlights your sympathy for one cause. That, in my view is simply not fair
Depends what the work is Craig and how hard the grind. There was certainly no time or opportunity to trawl round the internet when I was working at an NHS district general hospital.
The Guardian’ Leader on Syria today lays out their allegiances pretty clearly. They talk about the “profoundly sectarian nature” of Assad’s last stand while failing to mention the fundamentalist nature of the rebels who are busy slaughtering kids in schools and regime-supporting civilians. Neither does it mention where the jobbing Jihadis get their money or arms from. And the piece’s own figures show that the Syrian state hasn’t splintered into fragments despite the intense pressured it is being subjected to from literally all sides. It’s complete spin and an inversion of the facts — the regime (nasty though it is) is standing pretty firm against a largely outside aggressor.
Good man, Craig.
Let’s end this evil now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5moLcrLE3Y
Oniel the majority of that 800k (?) came from Morocco, however they were incentivised I’m unaware, but there is no record of ethnic cleansing there whatever. Zionist bomb attacks on settled Jewish communities in Iraq and possibly similar tactics elsewhere drove that migration. It is notable that such Jews of Arab or African origin were treated worse than third class citizens in Israel, far better than the Palestinians were though in their own land.
The Arab League has 22 member states.
The Arab League was founded in Cairo in 1945 by Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Transjordan (Jordan from 1946), and Yemen (North Yemen, later combined Yemen). There was a continual increase in membership during the second half of the 20th century, with additional 15 Arab states and 4 observers being admitted.
Israel is not a member despite 20% of its population being Palestinian Arab, nearly half the Jewish population being descended from Jews from Arab countries, and Arabic being an official language.
.
/..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_Arab_League
I should make plain that I am going as a guest of the Arab League, but not being paid for my time.
Oriel
“The Israeli’s wouldn’t want it because in time it would spell the end of their freedom to live freely as Jews. One look around the Middle East can testify to that.”
So why did the Jews in Iran (yes, Iran) and Tunisia tell Netanyahu to go fuck himself when he offered them £10,000 to come and live in Israel?
Eh?
Cryptnym – “With the November 1947 declaration of United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, severe anti-Jewish pogroms with massive casualties erupted across the Arab World. Arab pogroms against Jews in Yemen and Syria were particularly violent.[citation needed] The violence prompted a severe increase in Jewish exodus, with the Aleppo Jewish community deteriorating into decline and soon after the pogrom half the city’s Jewish population had left.[20] In 1948, the violence had spread to Egypt, Morocco and Iraq as well, practically covering all Arab countries.[citation needed] At the same time, independent Arab countries began to encourage Jewish emigration to Israel.[21][22][23]
In Libya, Jews were deprived of citizenship, and in Iraq, their property was seized. Those Jews who were forced to emigrate were not allowed to take their property. From 1948 to 1949, the Israeli government secretly airlifted 50,000 Jews from Yemen and from 1950 to 1952, 130,000 Jews were airlifted from Iraq. From 1949 to 1951, 30,000 Jews fled Libya to Israel. In these cases over 90% of the Jewish population opted to leave, despite the necessity of leaving their property behind.[24]
In total it is estimated that 800,000 to 1,000,000 Jews were forced out or fled from their homes in Arab countries from 1948 until the early 1970s. Some place the emigration peak to a slightly earlier time window of 1944 to 1964, when some 700,000 Jews moved to Israel from Arab countries and were dispossessed of nearly their entire property.[25]” – Wikipedia
I think it is fair to say that they were not treated better than Arabs living in Israel today. I go to Israel regularly, and have had many conversations with the Arab locals. I can say for sure that the picture being painted of Israel in many media outlets is highly skewed. I cannot say the same for the Palestinians in the WB. I don’t agree with the settlement enterprise and I think you will find that the majority of Israelis would rather move out of the WB in return for peaceful borders.