Calls for Israel's destruction in London

[Colorado Blue]

A central London rally organized by the British Palestine Solidarity Campaign on Saturday heard Respect Party MP George Galloway advocate a general boycott of Israel, as well as other speeches calling for Israel's destruction.

Dark gray clouds poured heavy rain on London's Trafalgar Square, as a crowd waving Palestine flags and anti-Israel banners filled the square to hear speakers shout vitriolic anti-Israel speeches. Demonstrators chanted Islamic slogans and flags calling for "victory to the intifada" were waved. Leading figures in Britain's anti-Israel coalition also lined up to attack Israel.

Andrew Birgin, of the Stop the War Coalition, urged the destruction of the State of Israel. "Israel is a racist state! It is an apartheid state! With its Apache helicopters and its F-16 fighter jets! The South African apartheid state never inflicted the sort of repression that Israel is inflicting on the Palestinians," he said to loud applause. "When there is real democracy, there will be no more Israel!" concluded Birgin. "Allahu Akbar!" yelled several men repeatedly in response.

snip

Galloway, the newly elected MP for the anti-Iraq war Respect Party, used the rally as an attempt to launch an international boycott of Israel. "It's about time that the British government made some reparations for the Balfour declaration," said Galloway. "Instead, Tony Blair said that Israel has no better friend than the British government. We say to Mr. Blair: You should be ashamed by that.

snip

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1116642367186

Great. And people thought the Post was exaggerating when it said Galloway wasn't real friendly to Jewish people.

[Coastie for Truth]

1. It's about time

PM Galloway called for

"It's about time that the British government made some reparations for the Balfour declaration."

What about reparations to the Lebanese (Shia and Christians) and the Israelis and the Palestinians for the Sykes-Picot Agreement?

What about some reparations for the British White Paper of 1939?

George Galloway scored some points on bringing out the Downing Street Memo - then he lost those points with me by conflating Israel with the US Neocons. IMHO - this classic conflation of Israel with American neo-cons is just plain liberal, progressive racism. As racist as conflating Charlie Rangel and John Conyers with Armstrong Williams, Condi Rice, Clarence Thomas, Alan Keyes, Ward Connerly, and Janice Rogers Brown.

[Jim Sagle]

2. Yesterday he RRRAWWWKEDD, today he SSSUXXX!!!

FFFFFFUCCCCCCKKKKKK'm.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rogue_bandit]

3. Jewish People

Galloway said nothing against Jewish people. He refered to Israel...a big difference. There are many Jewish people who don't support Israel's policies.

Colorado Blue I don't know anything about you but your jump from Israel to Jew could be likened to right-wing talk radio logic structures.

[Coastie for Truth]

5. Britain's Jewish Problem by Abraham Foxman, New York Sun, May 18, 2005

Britain has a Jewish problem. More specifically, Britain has a problem with Jews. Few Britons will admit to that, fewer still would accept the proposition, and many will doubtless be offended by it. But what other explanation is there for a country where barely a week goes by without some form of opprobrium being visited upon Jews? Whether manifested as anti-Zionism or as anti-Americanism or in classic form - exemplified by the louts who shouted hateful slurs at a ceremony on April 10 commemorating Jewish war dead in East London - in the last 12 months Britain has witnessed the full spectrum of anti-Semitism, from brutish insensitivity through to a record number of physical attacks.

Naturally, there is resistance to speaking of smashed Jewish gravestones in the same breath as an academic boycott of Israeli universities. But it is legitimate to do so, because both examples reveal an unhealthy fixation with a miniscule percentage of the British - not to mention global - population and a disproportionate emphasis on supposed Jewish misdeeds. The litany, by now, is a familiar one. Highlights include: London Mayor Ken Livingstone comparing a Jewish reporter to a Nazi concentration camp guard; Lord Ahmed hosting a lecture by a virulent anti-Semite who railed against Jewish media barons; and the resignations of Jewish members of the National Union of Students Executive Committee because of their anger and frustration at unchecked anti-Semitism on campus.

Much of this hostility is camouflaged as criticism of Israel. It is often expressed by eminently reasonable, educated people who would hotly deny the charge of anti-Semitism. For the record, Orla Guerin, the BBC reporter who was recently made a Member of the Order of the British Empire, despite overwhelming evidence of bias in her reporting from Israel, should not be accused of hating Jews. Neither should that charge be made against the actor Alan Rickman, who has brought the story of Rachel Corrie, the American activist killed in Gaza in 2003, to the London stage.

Even so, Britain's liberal milieu has yet to face up to some uncomfortable questions: are Jewish sensitivities about Israel-bashing given the same consideration as, say, Muslim concerns about associations with terrorism? Are Jews being held to a unique standard? Are these negative portrayals and abuse of the facts - particularly the canard that Israel resembles apartheid-era South Africa - fueling dislike, distrust, hatred of the Jews? To the first question, the answer is no; to the second, yes; to the third, absolutely.

<snip><<

Foxman makes the point that hostility to Jewish national aspirations, and those who identify with those aspirations, runs deep in the UK. He notes that when politicians or academics or celebrities argue not just against Israeli policy, but against Israel's very legitimacy, that increases the feelings of vulnerability among many British Jews.

Going beyond properly questioning policy
to questioning very legitimacy
leads to feelings of vulnerability.
Is this somehow unusal or unjustified.
Foxman thinks not.

Of course, Brits, like liberals and progressives everywhere conflate Israel (and Zionists and ultimately and illogically and incorrectly all Jews) with (neocons and PNAC and US foreign policy and American Jews) Foxman aregues that enmity toward Israel is a natural bedfellow of the anti-Americanism which is now an established feature of British political life. Foxman argues that one would have to be myopic to deny that all the talk of "neoconservative cabals" and "conspiracies" has a distinctly anti-Semitic flavor.

But there is another important factor: While Britain was spared the Holocaust that accompanied Nazi occupation, there is a misguided sense of responsibility for the Palestinians' fate, given Britain's historic role in the Middle East. (I have posted citations to William Engdahl's book "A Century Of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order" and to Sir Mark Sykes of Sykes-Picot Agrrement infamy that I hesitate to refer to them again).

Those in Britain who regard the Palestinian narrative as an unassailable truth will point to the Balfour Declaration of 1917 as proof of their country's complicity in the Zionist enterprise, while totally ignoring the Sykes-Picot Agreemenet as methodically dissected by Engdahl.

The problem with selective history is just that, selective.

1. Foxman correctly asks when was the White Paper of 1939 - which led the British authorities to virtually close Palestine to Jewish immigrants at a time when this escape route was never more needed - last mentioned in public debate?

2. Foxman asks how widely known is it that Britain threatened to intervene on the side of Egypt during Israel's 1948-49 war of independence, when five Arab armies simultaneously attacked the new Jewish state?

Foxman asks, why is there such a willingness to embrace the Palestinian version of events when respected historians of the region - including Benny Morris, whose work is often cited by Palestinian sympathizers - state clearly that there was no Zionist grand plan to drive out the Arab population?

Is it somehow just remotely possible that Israel emerged in spite of, and not because of, the policies adopted by the British Foreign Office in implementing the Sykes-Picot Agreement or the British Mandate authorities in Palestine in implementing the 1939 White Paper.

While Palestinians may blame the British, as well as the Zionists, for their fate, it is indisputable that Britain's actions also cost thousands of Jewish lives. That was the tragic consequence of a policy based on the idea that Jews are different and, therefore, not deserving of their own country. As long as that idea remains in play, Britain's Jewish problem will persist.

[Colorado Blue]

10. Don't kid yourself. The politics of the British Empire (and

France! - and of course Nazi Germany!) also cost many innocent ARAB lives. It especially cost the lives of moderate Palestinian clans who would have worked with the Jewish people, as the Emir Faisal, son of the Sherif of Mecca, had envisioned when he invited the Zionist settlers to come and help modernize and enrich the Middle East.

Empowering people like Haj Amin al Husseini, directly responsible for fomenting violence against innocents starting in 1920, carving up the middle east into nation-states regardless of tribal, ethnic, religious or political affiliations, and expertly playing "the Great Game" - turning man against man, family against family, tribe against tribe and state against state - well, you get the point.

THEY'RE STILL DOING IT!

And now, to turn around and play "Get the Jew". It's unbearable. I haven't been this upset in YEARS.

[Colorado Blue]

7. Gimme a BREAK already. WHO DO YOU THINK LIVES IN

ISRAEL? Who founded the state, fought for her over five wars, and countless decades of violence and pain - and WHY did we do so?

Please - don't try to wiggle out of this one. Israel is the Jewish state, the embodiment of the Jewish homeland.

Of the 13 million or so Jewish people who live in the world today - 2 million less than before the Holocaust - over 5 million live in Israel.

Hello????

How many more would have died at Hitler's hands if it hadn't been for the haven built by the Jewish settlers? How many more would have been saved if the BRITISH - because of riots fomented by Hitler's ally al Husseini, and the British thirst for OIL - and the British blockades - hadn't slammed the door shut just before the "final solution" swung into action?

On this, the buck really can't be passed to the right wing radio shows. It's the simple truth.

If you support Galloway you must also support this fact: that he and the other speakers at that demonstration wish to destroy the one and only JEWISH state in the entire world. He is capitulating - no he is PLAYING to the mob.

And who, exactly, do you think would be harmed by that action - besides the Arabs in the region and of course within Israel herself -- who depend upon the Israeli economy, or who are otherwise intimately linked?

And who, worldwide, is devastated by this man's actions, and his assertions about the Balfour Declaration?

I couldn't sleep last night, because of this. It's a nightmare, a return to the mobs of Europe's dark and ugly past. I am not a RIGHTWING RADIO SHOW. I am a liberal, Democratic, 55 year old American Jew and talk like this wounds me to the very heart. I am so hurt I can't even cry. And today I get up and find a post that says "Israel" and "Jew" are only linked via rightwing radio talk show logic structures.

Galloway and his ilk can only create more violence, more horror and more pain.

[Darranar]

17. What does it mean to "destroy Israel"?

Kill its people? Have a binational solution? Force it to end the occupation? Merely rename it?

Galloway never said anything amounting to support for the destruction of Israel, so you have no proof that he supports such an action.

[Colorado Blue]

19. I believe, in the context of the demonstration, in which

several speakers said exactly that, and in which Galloway expressly called for across-the-board boycotts, which could be economically devastating, it isn't hard to make the link. Also, one should take into account the British "liberal" point of view concerning Jews, as well as the dramatic increase, since 9/11 and the war in Iraq, in antisemitic attacks in Britain. I'm posting a couple of links separately. So one needs to place his speech into that context as well.

If this was merely a politician doing his thing - if in fact he wishes no harm to Israel or to Jews - it was a damn cynical demonstration of the orator's art.

His comment about the Balfour Declaration was unforgiveable in view of the history of the time, in view of the Jewish desire AND MANIFEST NEED for a homeland, and in view of the dire straits the Jewish people found themselves in, in the 19th and 20th centuries particularly.

And particularly in view of the cynical desertion of the Jews by the British subsequently - up to and including the blockade of ships fleeing the Holocaust and the disarming of Jewish fighters on the eve of the War of Independence, I'd say, the British have long since atoned for the Balfour Declaration.

G*d alone knows how many people died because of their atonement.

***

And what about economic devastation via boycott, plus isolation via travel, social and intellectual boycott, plus scorn for the people who sell and buy Israeli products - indeed the very legitimacy of Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people, DOESN'T spell out a wish for destruction?

What about, in human terms, the toll on the lives of the people of Israel, and the psychological and probably physical damage that will occur to Jews worldwide, because of such rabble-rousing?

Isn't THAT destructive?

***

[Darranar]

23. The legitimacy of Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people...

can be questioned legitimately, for at least two reasons.

The first is the most basic: can any state morally have a policy that benefits one group over another? Can Israel morally consider itself a "Jewish state," when it has a million Muslim inhabitants that it would be reprehensible to kill or expel? For that matter, what about its guarantees of citizenship to any Jew wanting it? Let alone the government's kowtowing to ultra-religious Jews on a number of issues, something that not only annoys Muslims but secular Jews as well.

The second is of a different nature. Can, in a situation where the majority of Jews live outside the Jewish homeland, that state really call itself that, or a Jewish state at all? Clearly, there are religious connections to the land. But no one - at least no one who is neither ignorant or bigoted - seriously questions that. But should those religious connections be transferred to a state? The government of Israel does not represent the Jews of the world, and indeed it shouldn't. Why should I be any more loyal to it than any other? Why should its government be any friendlier to me than it is to any other American citizen?

That does not mean that Israel - and I am using the term to mean the State of Israel, not the people or the land - is an illegitimate homeland, or illegitimate in itself. I am trying to point out the grounds on which these things can be questioned with some seriousness, not trying to argue for one or another perspective. My own view is highly conflicted.

Aside from all this, however, I would actually like an answer to my question. If the speakers were advocating the destruction of Israel, what does that mean?

Typically, like "America hatred," it means nothing at all, amounting to merely a cheap propaganda ploy to smear those criticizing state policy.

There is not going to be "economic devastation via boycott," though the fact is that serious "economic devastation" as a result of this sort of boycott would end the Occupation faster and probably more justly than we would see otherwise. That is the calculation these people are making, and frankly I don't think it has much to do with anti-Semitism.

The Balfour Declaration should be viewed in terms of its consequences, and from the perspective of its victims, it was a tool used to legitimize vicious mass murder and expulsion. In this light what Galloway says is quite reasonable.

Obviously, from a Zionist perspective, from the perspective of many of those who are made safer from a Jewish refuge, those who - with reason - fear another Holocaust, it is quite different.

[Colorado Blue]

25. I want to respond but I'm fried. Your questions demand

thoughtful answers so I'll get back to you soonest.

[Igel]

27. I'll try at some possible answers.

If only as devil's advocate.

Yes, a state can privilege a specific group. The toughest questions of morality come when two distinct values come into conflict, and they must be ranked. People can differ on the actual ranking the values should have, and discuss them. But they frequently have to be ranked.

When Latvia and Lithuania regained their freedom, they found that Russian was the language of government, the courts, and schools. It had been privileged for decades, with a large influx of Russian-speaking people. In one of the Baltic states, the "indigenous" language was a minority. Common sense would dictate that the language and culture weren't worth preserving. Linguists went into paroxysms of indecision: the Russians had linguistic rights, but preserving them could easily mean that the USSR's russification policy would succeed in disposing of the indigenous language long after the USSR's actual demise. The decision was that the local language would be privileged in the Baltic states, at least until they gained the upper hand. Russia went in a rage: suddenly "their" people went from having an edge to having a disadvantage. There was no solution that ranked "fairness" as the dominant value, and it was a decision that I can argue both for and against, but would hate to have to make. Similarly, it would be a relatively simple matter for a fairly secular Israeli society to be assimilated to its Arab neighbors without pro-active measures taken to preserve their distinctiveness. Again, I'm glad it's not my decision.

Israel could justly call itself a Jewish state (assuming appropriate cultural and legal norms were met), even if 99% of all Jews live elsewhere, or if there were 23 other Jewish states. Pakistan is an Islamic state, and so is Sa'udi Arabia. Neither Pakistan nor Sa'udi Arabia contain a majority of Muslims. If either were to claim to be *the* Islamic state, there'd be a problem, but only because there'd be at least one other such state. In Israel's case, "the" would be an ok determiner. There is no other Jewish state.

People mean a wide variety of things by "destruction of Israel." You're right in that for many people it's a slogan they mindlessly, and foolishly, repeat. However, some do call for the Israelis to return to their homeland, Europe; they either deny that Jews were ever in Palestine, or at least not long enough to gain any territorial claim, or that modern Jews are Khazars, or European, and unrelated to the "original" Jews. Others call for extermination, but they're few and far between. Many would be content with their subjugation as proper dhimmis under shari'a, returning Islamic rule by Muslims to Islamic soil and restoring "justice". Others would simply be content with disposing of the "Jewish state" verbiage, so as to allow the interpretation that the land could revert to Islam, or at least isn't being defiled.

As for the Balfour Declaration properly only being viewed in terms of its consequences, that's simply not fair. It said what it said, and its consequences do not result simply from the declaration itself, but as much or more so from others' reactions to it. The same could be said of the Pakistan/Indian partition, the start of the French Revolution, or Nigeria's independence. Maybe the consequences could have been predicted, but hindsight is so much better than foresight. And, in any event, the Ottoman Empire was no stranger to mass murder and resettlement of populations.

[Darranar]

28. Anyone who calls for the ethnic cleansing of the Jews of Israel...

is advocating the destruction of Israel, and is advocating a disgusting and immoral act. I have no doubt about that in my mind. My point was more regarding the lesser statements, like that Israel has "no right to exist." That (the "right to exist" matter in general) is another meaningless bit of nonsense; no state has a right to exist, and whether or not Israel has one is irrelevant to how the situation should be solved. What is done is done; Israel exists.

Israel, thankfully, is not a Jewish state in the sense that Saudi Arabia is an Islamic state. I do not think there is serious question on that point. So my question still stands.

The thoughts behind my questions regarding favoring a certain religion or ethnicity had more to do with the question of refuge for Jews than that of resisting assimilation, but the point you make is a good one. It is certainly something that any serious binational solution would have to consider.

[Igel]

29. A state only has a right to exist to the extent

that it's a manifestation of popular will to self determination by a majority of its population. (Even that statement I find inadequate, but it'll have to do.) I agree that no state has an automatic right to exist.

If I implied that you didn't consider ethnic cleansing to be morally reprehensible, it was inadvertent. When somebody calls for such a thing it may simply be hyperbole and not be intended to be taken literally, but if so I'm unaware of the cultural conventions they subscribe to.

I'm not sure in what sense you're interpreting "Jewish state", but I'm severely jet lagged, with my computer telling me it's 11 pm and time to go to bed while my body is telling me it's 6 am and I should be getting up soon, so the problem may lie with me. I take "Jewish state" to imply that the laws and social norms are rooted in Jewish culture/religion/legal practices, with society structured so as to at least favor and possibly promote Jewish practices. Sa'udi Arabia is an extreme variant, with society structured to encourage, if not compel, adherence to a certain flavor of Islamic norms.

[Darranar]

30. You did not imply that. I was clarifying my own position...

regarding the "destruction of Israel."

There are lots of interpretations of "Jewish state," that is one of the reasons we are having this discussion. I am not sure which is the "correct" one, or even if there is a correct one; what matters to me is that the policy of the Israeli government is humane towards its own people and towards all people. If it prefers to call this "Jewish" I do not care, as long as non-Jews are not disadvantaged for any reason but strong necessity. What I am less sure about is exactly what kinds of "strong necessities" are present in this case, and what the just means of dealing with them are.

[pelsar]

31. Darranar.....

your writing about a balancing act that all western democratic states do. All of them have a dominate culture as 100% multi culturalism simply cannot exist, too many customs of too many different cultures conflict with one another.

that israel has judiaism as its dominate religion means that the sub cultures get second billing, be it muslims, druz, christians, pagans, eskimos (we got "one" in jerusalem).

The question is how much....and for that there is a supreme court which is supposed to protect those lesser cultures...but that is constantly 'moving target"

[Darranar]

32. I agree with that. But would you accept a binational solution...

with full right of return?

Israel as a whole most certainly would not, and there are some good reasons for that, some not.

[Colorado Blue]

20. An International Politician - Not a 19 Year Old Student

If Galloway's comments about boycotts, etc., had been made by a 19 year old Socialist at a far left University, they wouldn't be so serious. They could be interpreted as enthusiasm for a cause - one-sided, perhaps, in understanding.

But this is a politician playing on the world stage, who carpetbagged his way into a poor district represented by an excellent - and JEWISH - MP, via the formation of a political party largely consisting of Muslims. This campaign resulted in the specifically racial vilification of Oona King, the incumbent. She was, as a Jew, pelted with onions and eggs and vilified, as a Jew, for being a member of the race which caused the war in Iraq.

Galloway won votes behind this. When we first discussed his campaign in the thread previously posted in this forum, I was willing to cut him some slack, thinking, well, he isn't actually, personally, deliberately bigoted. But now I think either I was wrong or he is totally exploiting racial bigotry for votes, acclaim and international notoriety.

Doesn't that remind you of somebody way back in the 20th century, who exploited the racial fears of one group of people, to further his political vision? And the fact that people - liberals yet, think this is cool and that Galloway is a HERO - really blows me away. That they swallow whole his vision of Saddam Hussein and the Soviet Union, which disappeared MILLIONS of people and fomented violence all over the place, a totalitarian state and NOT a democratic, liberal state, is mind-boggling and frightening.

I can only assume that his audience doesn't READ.

***

[Colorado Blue]

21. "22 Stupid Arab States"

It is interesting also, that one of the speakers doesn't even want a Palestinian state:

"Azzam Tamimi, head of the Muslim Association of Britain, delivered an Islamist speech, guided by an ideology that rejects nation states in favor of a global Islamic state. "There are 22 stupid Arab states, why have another stupid Palestinian state?" he asked. "I don't want another Palestinian state, I want Jaffa free, I want Haifa free, I want every inch of Palestine free!"

Another, Birgin, said this,

"When there is real democracy, there will be no more Israel!" concluded Birgin. "Allahu Akbar!" yelled several men repeatedly in response.

Another called for the "right of return", which would destroy the state entirely simply by a huge influx of people, let alone the resultant minority of the Jewish people.

***

Should the Jewish people of Israel become the minority in their own state, in the MIDDLE EAST, should their defenses fail - after all that has transpired and given their status as dogs and monkeys in frequently quoted sermons, in view of sermons blaming Jews for every plague known to man from the beginning of time, in the context of school books that teach "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" as HISTORY - what do you think would happen to them?

***

In the context of THESE speeches, at the rally where Galloway made HIS speech, it's difficult to see that he DOESN'T wish Israel to be destroyed. Is it guilt merely by association? Perhaps - but I think it's more than that. Review the possible scenarios, if he and his fellow speakers have their stated desires:

Either there will be economic warfare, there will military action or terror, there will be relentless political pressure, there will be isolation. There will be no Wall, no way to defend against terrorism. There will be no Jewish majority. Israel will no longer be a Jewish state if it survives at all.

The question only remains, how long before this happens? How many will die in the process?

Azzam Tamimi inadvertently pointed out the unfairness of this whole situation with his own words, "There are 22 stupid Arab states".

That's right, folks. There are 22 ARAB STATES.

I might add there are many more Muslim states, billions of Christians living in predominately Christian countries, ditto nationstates representing practically every ethnic group and/or religion on this planet.

There is only one Israel.

One state on this entire planet, where the Jewish people can live normally, as a majority, without fear of persecution by more powerful or numerous individuals.

Is the huge majority of the world that is NOT Jewish, being turned on us now?

[rogue_bandit]

11. So, where's the quotes from Galloway

Lots of words about lots of things but you have said nothing about Galloway. I would be interested in seeing quotes from you of Galloway specifically showing a racial attitude for Jews.

I don't really care about the issue at hand, I am more concerned about undocumented racism charges.

[Colorado Blue]

22. I think Galloway's point is obvious.

Substitute "Jewish homeland" for "Israel", then read his quotes. And please read my replies to Mr. Darranar. Also, for context, I'm going to post some links.

Here:

Galloway, the newly elected MP for the anti-Iraq war Respect Party, used the rally as an attempt to launch an international boycott of (the Jewish homeland).

"It's about time that the British government made some reparations for the (declaration making possible the formation of a Jewish homeland)," said Galloway. "Instead, Tony Blair said that (the Jewish homeland) has no better friend than the British government. We say to Mr. Blair: You should be ashamed by that.

"The Palestinian people are like the 300 Spartans holding the pass of Thermopylae, until the others can arrive and come to their side. We will join them, by boycotting (the Jewish homeland). By boycotting (the Jewish homeland's) goods. By picketing the stores that are selling (the Jewish homeland's) goods," he said to cheers and applause.

[Coastie for Truth]

14. Or to the standard ANSWER response in defense

Your response

"... I don't know anything about you but your jump from Israel to Jew could be likened to right-wing talk radio logic structures."

is the same defense that the followers of the A.N.S.W.E.R. line of hatred regularly spew when questioned about their paranoiac conflations and innuendos.

[not systems]

16. "paranoiac conflations and innuendos"

It is such a shame when people cut in on a happy monopoly
on a tactic without even giving credit.

It is like a road that runs one way when convenient
to your argument and the other when it is not.

Strange.

[applegrove]

4. Um - Israel has been a working democracy in many ways. Yes -

it is unconscionable that the Palestinians do not yet have a home. And hold the Israelis feet to the fire until they make it happen.

I like Galloway less and less. I would think that the soonest peace we can have in Israel and Palestine, Jordan & Lebanon..the better for all the people there.

We enjoy democracy..why shouldn't they. (I've always felt this way...don't tell me I sound like a neocon..they got hit over the head with reality in about 1997 and decided only then that Democracy was a the only good thing any country could ever be).

[Coastie for Truth]

6. Why just Israel's feet?

I agree with your initial statement that

it is unconscionable that the Palestinians do not yet have a home

But I question the implicit assumption that presure only on Israel will bring about an independent, democratic, viable Palestinian state.

I would most honestly commend to your attention:

I. As to the Saudis Blocking of Peace Efforts:

1) House of Bush, House of Saud : The Secret Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties by Craig Unger
2) Secrets of the Kingdom: The Inside Story of the Secret Saudi-U.S. Connection by Gerald L. Posner
3) The Economic War Against the Jews by Nelson, Walter Henry and Prittie, Terence
4) Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed--and How to Stop It by Rachel Ehrenfeld

II. As to the British Both Blocking Peace Efforts and Deliberately Restructuring the Mediterranean Landscape to Establish, Small Warring States

1) War and Peace in the Middle East: A Concise History by Avi Shlaim
2) Sowing the Wind: The Seeds of Conflict in the Middle East by John Keay
3) A Century Of War : Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order by William Engdahl
4) You should also "Google" and "Yahoo" both:

a) "Sykes Picot Agreement"
b) "1939 White Paper"

I have just tried to give you a minimalist but fair and open bibliography. There's a lot of history and emotion out there and the conflict has many causes and many fathers.

Even Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal has called for the Saudis to quit funding terrorists and start funding investment and development (too many Google and Yahoo hits - I leave that one to you)

[applegrove]

13. I agree. There are many feet that are being held to the fire. And yes

the Saudis are a problem. And so are petro-dollars. They seem not to go to create vibrant, multifaceted democracy and economic growth in sectors outside of the Oil industry. Too much money skews economies.

I have not been following the peace process but I know that many, many people are working hard to that end.

[Colorado Blue]

8. I don't think you sound like a Neocon. I believe that this

conference in Jordan, about which I've posted some articles, has been fruitful. I believe it's irresponsible of people to side with Buchanan and his ilk - which I've seen on DU - because they think democratization of the Middle East, is a neocon idea.

And maybe even neocons can be right once in awhile! Liz Cheney, go figure, is standing up strongly to the Saudi leadership - which people can laugh at if they wish but it takes courage, it takes guts for ANY woman to go unveiled and stand up for human rights in that company, against the backdrop of the Wahabi. And it's about time SOMEBODY stood up to Saudi oil power. I'm reading about the degree to which their petrodollars are really influencing politics, academia and the media, here and in Europe, let alone within the Middle East, and it is upsetting.

And I find nothing laughable or silly about Laura Bush traveling to the holy sites in Israel and in the West Bank. I find it sad that people are ridiculing her efforts. We need all the help we can get.

Meanwhile, economic treaties have been signed between Israel, Jordan and the EU, which should also benefit the Palestinians. There are other articles in this forum, which I've posted.

A vote put to the 700 participants revealed that the Arab world itself doesn't believe that Israel is the prime or even a major cause for the lack of reform in the region. It's a hot-button issue - yes - but when confronted with reality even the Arab leadership voted, some 3 to 1, that ARAB GOVERNMENTS are primarily to blame for the lack of democratic reform in the region.

And meanwhile - holding ISRAEL'S feet to the fire while Hamas threatens to withdraw from the "hudna" and start violence again - BECAUSE OF AN ELECTION DISPUTE WITH FATAH - is ridiculous.

This isn't, it has NEVER been - a one-sided situation. Holding only one party responsible is counterproductive.

As for Galloway - feh. His "Respect" party is already responsible for stirring up antisemitic attacks on his rival, MP Oona King, who was pelted with eggs and onions on several occasions during the campaign - including during a memorial for the Jewish people who died in WWII. He is no liberal, he is no progressive. He is a demogogue, whose words will lead to violence and destruction.

[applegrove]

15. The only thing laughable about sending Laura to the middle east

is that it shows how badly the WH has ruined the American name. That they have to rely on a totally separate meme (females) to get any message across. And that is not funny. Not funny what neocon hubris and Bush idiocy have done in terms of trashing the empathy all of the Middle East felt after 9/11. So much so..none of them can present their faces (when do we see Cheney on TV - even in America).
They should be out of power right now.

I saw Lynn Cheney get her grand-daughter into the hate campaign against Kerry. That does it for me. People who teach hate..should not be lauded for anything. And it turns out..the WH has to hide its own dam self...so many people in America feel the same way I do.

[Colorado Blue]

9. PS - the timing on this is especially terrible because people

are TRYING to get the Palestinians a state already.

There are lots of links in this forum about that, it would help if there were some PEACE TREATIES in place, and some formal borders, and if the militants would disarm and stop preaching about the destruction of Israel.

That isn't doing the Peace Process a bit of good.

[pelsar]

12. CB....

its not about peace.....its about having something to get all riled about, something to get excited about, to scream about.

for those who are actually interested in peace, really really interested this is when the threats stop and the quiet encouragment begins.....

but that would take away from a lot of people their "adrenalen fix'

_________________________________
and as far as the "there will be no more Israel!"...though the cry is scary in its meaning (and it hints at how things simply dont seem to change)....dont worry and dont go crazy over it, this is not the 1940's they can scream all they like, get excited, stirr up the crowd....we're not the pushovers of the last 2,000 years

[Colorado Blue]

26. You make me feel better! But, personally I worry, I worry

that the old days could return.

Well, enough kvetching:)

And you're right, being a pushover didn't work very well.

[Colorado Blue]

24. Here are some links for context.

It is important to understand this latest demonstration in the overall context of British politics.

First, the ugly old beast has resurfaced:

http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2003-4/general-analysis.htm

"A popular antisemitic motif in Europe in 2003, prior to and during the war in Iraq, was the accusation that the Jews held dual loyalty, or the allegation that the Jews, regardless of their citizenship, were loyal first and foremost to the interests of the Jewish people, currently dictated by the Sharon government. In an interview to Vanity Fair in May 2003, left-wing British Labour MP Tom Dalyell spoke of the devastating influence of the Jews, who “manipulate the world politic for Israel’s shady interests.” He claimed that Prime Minister Tony Blair was influenced by a cabal of Jewish advisers.

Jews who do not join the chorus of delegitimizing the State of Israel and resist what Serge Klarsfeld has termed “the pressure to become a political Marranos” may risk being attacked verbally or even physically. Tariq Ramadan, a Swiss Muslim philosopher, accused several leading French Jewish intellectuals – among them the philosophers Bernard-Henri Levy and Alain Finkielkraut – of having betrayed their commitment to the universal ideals of the French Republic for a narrow ”sectarianism ” (New York Times, 29 February 2004). Similarly, in 2003, Gretta Duisenburg, wife of European Central Bank President Wim Duisenburg, attacked American Jews, claiming that rich American Jews keep Israel alive and enable the Israelis to oppress the Palestinians.

snip

http://www.axt.org.uk/HateMusic/essay_cohen_delegitimisation.htm

Excellent and thoughtful article about Leftist politics and the evolving relationship with the Jewish world; author shares concern with present day scene:

Much has changed, but much has stayed the same. The denial of victimhood to the Jews, the plundering of the Holocaust to condemn Israel (48), the conspiratorial portrayal of Jewish power and the inherent illegitimacy of Jewish self-determination are all constants. However, the Judeophobia of the British Left is integrating, ideologically and organisationally, with its Islamist counterpart. Consequently, British political discourse in the mosque, the street and the salon has been infected. This last assertion is not intended to subsume peculiarities and differences into a single framework; rather, the aim has been to discern a general pattern of Judeophobia and antisemitism in Britain which, ominously, continues to develop.

http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=571

excellent discussion about the situation in Britain

http://www.jewishtribune.ca/tribune/jt-050224-16.html

In May 2003, Britain’s longest serving member of Parliament, Labour’s Tam Dalyell, sparked controversy when he expressed concern over a “cabal” of Jewish advisers allegedly exerting undue influence over Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Then, in a piece published in the Muslim Weekly newspaper this January, Minister Mike O’Brien of the Department of Trade and Industry said that only Labour would protect the rights of Muslims and campaign for the establishment of a Palestinian state.
Singling out the leader of the Conservative party, who is Jewish, O’Brien wrote, “Ask yourself what will Michael Howard do for British Muslims? Will his foreign policy aim to help Palestine?”
Weeks later, Jewish leaders were astonished when trial posters for the Labour election campaign featured the faces of Howard and his shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin – Britain’s two most prominent Jewish politicians – transposed onto the bodies of pigs. Another image showed Howard as a Fagin-type hypnotist.

“There is at the moment a very nasty smell of antisemitism around,” said Labour peer Lord Greville Janner, who is Jewish. “Each of these issues or items on its own is not particularly important, but I can’t remember a time since the end of the war when there has been so much of this muck around.”

London Mayor Ken Livingstone, a member of Labour, outrages Jewish groups regularly. Last July he set off a firestorm by hosting a radical Qatar-based preacher, Sheikh Yuduf al-Qaradawi, who has justified Palestinian suicide bombings.

Only last week, Livingstone refused to apologize for comparing a Jewish journalist to a concentration camp guard.

[Jack Rabbit]

33. Further discussion on this thread

Please click here.

The thread linked is anchored by a heavy-handed propaganda piece from Israelinsider, however the article in the Jerusalem Post is also discussed.

For once, the JPost looks good, if only in comparison to something else.