Our misplaced sense of priorities over Israel


by Sunny
19th February, 2010 at 9:04 am    

I find this whole kerfuffle over Mossad ‘allegedly’ killing some Hamas people in Dubai quite absurd. The British government is acting all horrified over this? Nearly 1,500 innocent people were killed by the Israeli government when they invaded Gaza in Dec 2008. They chucked chemical weapons on them for god’s sakes!

But oh no, all the government did was shuffle its feet. There were some mumblings about human rights. But generally, no real noise. Who the hell cares if White phosphorus was used eh? It’s faaaar more important to get angry when a few flipping passports get faked.

The BBC’s Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen said if there was proof Israel had used British passports “for some nefarious uses of its Mossad service – as they have in the past with Canadian and New Zealand ones”, then relations between the UK and Israel would be “in a crisis”.

No they won’t. They’ll make a few noises as an act and then things will go back to normal. Israel will be back to it’s ‘we’ll break international law and use chemical weapons and we don’t care‘ mode. It’s actually gobsmacking when the political fallout from a passport-faking scandal is more than the lives of over a thousand innocent people.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: 'Honour'-based violence,Current affairs,Middle East






71 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. pickles

    Blog post:: Our misplaced sense of priorities over Israel http://bit.ly/9s9YXU


  2. unslugged

    Well said > RT @pickledpolitics Blog post:: Our misplaced sense of priorities over Israel http://bit.ly/9s9YXU


  3. Milena Buyum

    Spot on. RT @pickledpolitics Blog post: Our misplaced sense of priorities over Israel http://bit.ly/9s9YXU


  4. Kerry Abel

    RT @8minstosunrise: Spot on. RT @pickledpolitics Blog post: Our misplaced sense of priorities over Israel http://bit.ly/9s9YXU


  5. NewLeftProject

    RT @pickledpolitics Blog post:: Our misplaced sense of priorities over Israel http://bit.ly/9s9YXU


  6. Allan Siegel

    Pickled Politics » Our misplaced sense of priorities over Israel – http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/7558


  7. Sam Bumby

    RT @pickledpolitics: Blog post:: Our misplaced sense of priorities over Israel http://bit.ly/9s9YXU


  8. Owen Blacker

    RT @pickledpolitics: Blog post:: Our misplaced sense of priorities over Israel http://bit.ly/9s9YXU




  1. Morrigan — on 19th February, 2010 at 9:27 am  

    Surely the outrage is based on the fact that Israel has tried to fit up British subjects for this crime.

    If we don’t make it absolutely clear that we disapprove, there may be those in the Arab world who say ‘no smoke without fire’ and that the UK is complicit in this crime.

    That would damage our stake in the middle east peace process.

  2. johng — on 19th February, 2010 at 10:12 am  

    I expect that UK complicity is firmly established by our countries connivance in the blockade of Gaza, the campaign of subversion against a democratic election result, etc, etc. When Hamas won a democratic election there were two possible responses: a) attempt to open up negotiations to achieve a settlement b) use the resulting political split in the Palestinian camp as a means of destroying the coherence of the Palestinian national movement, hence obviating the neccessity for any peaceful settlement.

    The latter path was chosen by the Israeli government and recieved the wholesale support of what is laughingly called the ‘international community’. The latest incident is merely a logical follow on and nothing particularly dramatic. We support the policy. We’re just a bit fastidious about getting caught.

  3. Morrigan — on 19th February, 2010 at 10:15 am  

    But the Israelis appear to have taken people’s IDs without permission.

    Are you seriously suggesting that the UK provided those false passports? If not, how is the UK ‘complicit’, except in your black and white, goodies and baddies left wing world.

  4. Random Guy — on 19th February, 2010 at 10:30 am  

    RE to Morrigan @ 1:

    What ‘stake’ in the ME peace process? LOL!

    The UK is chiefly responsible for the mess there. If it ever had a stake, its role is so marginal (and will continue to be so) now that it really doesn’t matter. And anyway, the government doesn’t have the balls or diplomatic power to rebuke Israel anyway, as evidenced by Isreali government blokey’s trip to Downing Street earlier this week.

    But it all has to be stiff upper lip “I disapprove MOST severely”, rather than concrete actions.

    I suppose it gives the UK a chance to pretend it has a say in what happens in the region [and pretend that there is some sort of moral high ground to take], so fair do’s.

  5. Morrigan — on 19th February, 2010 at 10:44 am  

    Well, I prefer hope to counsels of despair and boring Israel bashing.

    Handy that this matter has now become ‘news’ for PP after 3 days of headlines. Coincidentally this has happened the day after Begg called time on Amnesty.

  6. Dara bhur gCara — on 19th February, 2010 at 10:46 am  

    I’m not sure how much credence to give to the Dubai authorities investigating this assassination, because they obviously have a vested interest in arguing that the immigration personnel in Dubai are not total cretins who can’t spot a fake passport, but they insist that the European passports used by these assassins were not ‘false,’ in the sense that they were forged, but were real passports obtained fraudulently.

    http://euobserver.com/9/29505

    If this is the case, then it DOES raise questions about complicity, either from individuals working within European governments, or from the governments themselves.

    It also, of course, makes it less and less likely that this was carried out by any agency other than Israel, since the likelihood of any of the other interested parties (Jordan, the PA or Egypt are three countries who would plausibly benefit from Mr al-Mahbouh’s demise) a) being able to get the sort of high-level collusion that would make this necessary or b) having intelligence assets in place in the passport agencies of these European countries are slim to none.

  7. chairwoman — on 19th February, 2010 at 10:49 am  

    Here we go, here we go, here we go.

    “That would damage our stake in the middle east peace process.”

    This country has no stake in the middle east peace process. Middles Eastern regimes are far too canny to trust the UK.

  8. Mark T — on 19th February, 2010 at 10:50 am  

    nearly 1,500 innocent people were killed by the Israeli government

    Interesting. I didn’t know Hamas militants counted as “innocent”.

  9. Morrigan — on 19th February, 2010 at 10:56 am  

    Chairwoman

    This country has no stake in the middle east peace process. Middles Eastern regimes are far too canny to trust the UK.

    I have a stake in the peace process as a British citizen: the sooner there is a 2 state solution, the sooner the Islamists and other Lefty America bashers will shut up about it.

    Roll on the day!

  10. chairwoman — on 19th February, 2010 at 11:03 am  

    Morrigan

    Amen to those sentiments. I just doubt our Government’s ability to contribute.

  11. Morrigan — on 19th February, 2010 at 11:14 am  

    Chairwoman – fingers crossed for Obama then.

    I assume that is part of the reason Sunny did so much work for his campaign.

  12. soru — on 19th February, 2010 at 12:32 pm  

    Nearly 1,500 innocent people were killed by the Israeli government when they invaded Gaza in Dec

    Leaving aside the ‘innocent’, I think you are kind of missing the point, looking at history backwards not forwards.

    The reason Israel did that is, fundamentally, because they felt unable to ignore the provocation of the rockets fired at them.

    Similarly, the reason that Hamas will almost certainly, within a month or two, blow some people up somewhere is they will feel it impossible to ignore the provocation of having their guys assassinated.

    And then the process will repeat.

    Discussion need to set aside academic concerns of whether any of these are illegal, and on what grounds.

    Concentrate on the core issue: they are either bloody stupid, or, more likely, deliberate attempts to start a new war.

  13. bananabrain — on 19th February, 2010 at 12:56 pm  

    as i understand it, the point of having this chap knocked off is that he was a key liaison point between the iranian supply of weapons and raw materials and the hamas regime in gaza which then uses them to perpetuate the standoff. it would seem to me to be another strand in the strategy of going after hamas’s supply chain, to which you could add the airstrike on that weapons shipment in the sudan (which the egyptians would have probably had to know about) and the boarding of that weapons ship by the navy commandoes.

    the thing that i don’t get is why, if the israelis are responsible, they would be so obvious as to use the passports of britons living in israel, unless they are trying to send some sort of message of a) feck off, britain, if you’re going to try and prosecute our politicians and/or b) we’re going to get blamed anyway, so why not be obvious about it?

    of course, it is possible that this was done by someone else who doesn’t like hamas (that’s a long list) and would like to point the finger at israel. you never know with these intelligence operations.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  14. Sunny — on 19th February, 2010 at 1:09 pm  

    the sooner there is a 2 state solution, the sooner the Islamists and other Lefty America bashers will shut up about it.

    So in your mind people couldn’t be annoyed about it all because of the blockades or death of innocent Palestinians?

  15. chairwoman — on 19th February, 2010 at 1:27 pm  

    You really are (or have become) a piece of work, Hundal.

  16. MiriamBinder — on 19th February, 2010 at 1:35 pm  

    One of the reasons this mess exists is because people, on both sides of the debate, are unable to keep emotions at bay.

    Some Palestinians are certainly innocent just as some Israeli are; some, whether Palestinian or Israeli, are certainly not. However until such time as, hard as this may sound, both sides are willing to put a line under the devastations caused … more devastation will be inevitable.

  17. Boyo — on 19th February, 2010 at 1:52 pm  

    Say what you like about Mossad, but they know how to fake a good passport. I wouldn’t go to anyone else.

  18. johng — on 19th February, 2010 at 3:31 pm  

    ” If not, how is the UK ‘complicit’”

    Its complicit because it, along with others, back the policy of pursuing war and not peace of which this assasination was simply a part. Backing the campaign of destabilisation in Gaza and then huffing and puffing over the paperwork just seems incoherent to me.

  19. Tory — on 19th February, 2010 at 4:04 pm  

    I presume that Iran is also ‘complicit’ for funding terrorism across the region. Oh wait…thats resitance isn’t it?

    Is this the ‘policy of war’ that Hamas pursue? The Hamas Commander in question shooting Israeli hostages in a quest for peace?

    This is such a pointless debate in the blogosphere.
    There will be no peace until both sides decide they dont want to shoot each other anymore. Britain was driven out of its mandate in Palestine by terrorists. We shouldn’t touch the thing with a barge pole ever, they still like fighting each other too much.

  20. Kulvinder — on 19th February, 2010 at 4:12 pm  

    You really are (or have become) a piece of work, Hundal.

    How so? Its a perfectly reasonable point to make. I also favour a two state solution not because im a ‘lefty’ or some vague – and silly – accusation of ‘america bashing’ but because i think the israelis deserve peace and the palestinians have suffered for far too long without having the right to self determination.

  21. Morrigan — on 19th February, 2010 at 5:07 pm  

    So in your mind people couldn’t be annoyed about it all because of the blockades or death of innocent Palestinians?

    I rest my case.

  22. Sunny — on 19th February, 2010 at 5:36 pm  

    I rest my case.

    You don’t have one other than some snidey insinuations.

  23. DF — on 19th February, 2010 at 6:04 pm  

    “They chucked chemical weapons on them for god’s sakes!”

    Can you please elucidate, providing sources. Ta.

  24. Rumbold — on 19th February, 2010 at 6:31 pm  

    The evidence seems to suggest Mossad involvement (not that I have a particular problem with the targeted killing of an unrepentent murderer and terrorist outside the wheels of justice). The question is, who are the other likely suspects? Israel’s standing couldn’t be any worse in the eyes of people most inflamed by it, so why do it to ‘frame’ Israel?

  25. chetna — on 19th February, 2010 at 6:32 pm  

    Last year, Britain made it compulsory for all South Africans to have prior visas before entering Britain. Why? Because they said the South African passport system was compromised, their passports could be faked.

    But Mossad has proved that British passports can be faked too. And I think that is the problem.

    Brown is not worried about international law or human rights or one hamas leader vs 1500 innocent palestinians. He is worried about the undermining of British passports, which could hurt ease with which British tourists travel.

  26. Don — on 19th February, 2010 at 6:54 pm  

    My retirement plan depends on easy access to fake passports. I hope this isn’t going to mess that up.

  27. Sunny — on 19th February, 2010 at 7:03 pm  
  28. Old Pickler — on 19th February, 2010 at 8:17 pm  

    Good for Mossad knocking the scum off. Keep it up, but next time use Arab or French passports.

  29. DF — on 19th February, 2010 at 10:29 pm  

    Your statement:

    “They chucked chemical weapons on them for god’s sakes!”

    implies a deliberate intent to cause *them* [and presumably the 'them' you refer to here are innocent civilians] harm. The article you linked to in The Times makes no such claim.

    The misuse of a few ‘fireworks’ to illuminate a UN compound suspected of being used by Hamas is hardly the war-crime of the century … although judging by your hysterical outburst you could be confused into believing it was.

  30. Kulvinder — on 19th February, 2010 at 10:45 pm  

    …implies a deliberate intent to cause *them* [and presumably the 'them' you refer to here are innocent civilians] harm.

    No you’re right when you fire WP artillery shells at a heavily populated area it isn’t to cause harm; each bomblet has the magical capacity to avoid civilians.

  31. Sunny — on 19th February, 2010 at 11:11 pm  

    The misuse of a few ‘fireworks’ to illuminate a UN compound suspected of being used by Hamas is hardly the war-crime of the century

    there is delusion… and there is insanity.

  32. DF — on 20th February, 2010 at 12:36 am  

    Kulvinder. I.M.O. there is a difference between using smokescreen shells containing white phosphorus in a civilian area [however unwise] and the deliberate use of chemical weapons against civilians, as implied by the statment “They chucked chemical weapons on them for god’s sakes!”.
    The use of WP smokescreen shells in a civilian area is wrong in itself and doesn’t need to be ‘dressed up’ as something it wasn’t by a blogger having a hissyfit.

    By the way there is no need to use such a condescending tone in your replies to me … unless, of course, it is your intention to present as a pompous twit.

  33. Kulvinder — on 20th February, 2010 at 2:14 am  

    …as something it wasn’t by a blogger having a hissyfit.

    …use such a condescending tone in your replies to me

    i wouldn’t dream of it.

  34. Logic — on 20th February, 2010 at 10:24 am  

    But generally, no real noise. Who the hell cares if White phosphorus was used eh?

    Considering that the USA and UK use white phosphorus in Iraq (just Google it), criticizing Israel would be quite hypocritical.

    If you want to stop the use of chemical weapons, the first step is obviously to stop using them yourselves!

  35. DF — on 20th February, 2010 at 1:58 pm  

    Why has my reply* to post 31 been deleted?

    [*"Shall I send the men-in-white-coats to pick you up now?"]

  36. johng — on 20th February, 2010 at 5:58 pm  

    Did someone have the bad taste to denounce describing the use of phospherus on civilians as inflammatory? The strange mismatch between concerns about language and concerns about people is nowhere more striking then in discussions about this conflict. On the question of whether it is ‘hypocritical’ to denounce Israel for using these weapons when ‘we’ use them: well it would be if it were not the case that almost everyone who does denounce Israel’s use of these weapons also denounces ‘our’ use of them. There was actually a larger movement against our intervention into Iraq then was against the Israeli intervention in Gaza, so, everything is as it should be.

  37. lemontea — on 20th February, 2010 at 7:10 pm  

    Sunny your comments are spot on, nothing will happen to the apartheid israeli state absolutely nothing. The suffocation of palestine will carry on as usual.

  38. Boyo — on 20th February, 2010 at 10:40 pm  

    @37 indeed, and there was me thinking “our misplaced sense of priorities over Israel” had to do with fetishising Israeli wrongs above genocide in Sri Lanka, Congo, and Zimbabwe, executing human rights activists in Iran, propping up police states in Iraq and Afghanistan, suppressing dissent in China, and so on.

    It’s still a mystery to me why PP, along with many others, loves to stick it to the Israelis in particular. No one has ever properly explained and no one will – because the fascination is literally inexplicable, apart from one conclusion that is, naturally, unacceptable (but inescapable).

  39. chairwoman — on 21st February, 2010 at 1:56 pm  

    “It’s still a mystery to me why PP, along with many others, loves to stick it to the Israelis in particular. No one has ever properly explained and no one will – because the fascination is literally inexplicable, apart from one conclusion that is, naturally, unacceptable (but inescapable).”

    Because it’s the Jewish state, and for some reason, despite all those Islamic, nominally Christian, and goodness knows what whatever other creed states there are, it’s somehow unacceptable for Jews, like me, to have a country where to be Jewish isn’t somehow second class or ‘not quite one of us’.

    Few have the honesty to admit to this, but every time the old adage ‘It’s not Jews, it’s Zionists’ vomits from mouths and pens, that’s what is accurately being stated. Zionists are literally people who want a Jewish State of Israel. The majority of Zionists would be delighted if that State could live at peace, with its neighbours, in pre 1967 borders.

    But until its neighbours will stop demanding that it isn’t a Jewish nation while they retain their Islamic nature and nomenclature, ain’t gonna happen.

    I now look forward to the offensive and vitriolic diatribes that I have come to know and expect from certain Picklers. Please note that I have not used offensive language unsuitable to my years, and have the good grace to refrain from using it yourselves.

  40. Boyo — on 21st February, 2010 at 5:41 pm  

    “It isnt however acceptable for anyone to have a state on land that is already populated by others who are then ethnically cleansed to make that state.”

    Couldn’t the same thing be said about Pakistan? Many more people were killed or displaced as a result of its foundation.

    Naturally one could also say the same about the United States, Australia, New Zealand… etc, but Pakistan was established at the same time as Israel so bears closer comparison?

  41. swift — on 21st February, 2010 at 6:14 pm  

    Boyo

    Couldn’t the same thing be said about Pakistan? Many more people were killed or displaced as a result of its foundation.

    Naturally one could also say the same about the United States, Australia, New Zealand… etc, but Pakistan was established at the same time as Israel so bears closer comparison?

    I dont think so because the places that became Pakistan were already majority Muslim (apart from Kashmir which was majority Muslim but occupied by India). Whereas :

    “The Jewish population of Palestine [what is now Israel and the occupied territories, the West Bank and Gaza] at the time of the Balfour Declaration in 1917 was a mere 7 percent of the 700,000 inhabitants. The rest were Muslim and Christian Arabs. At the time of the (US-dominated UN) partition vote in 1947 there were only 650,000 Jews in Palestine while there were 1.3 million indigenous Palestinian Arabs, either Christian or Muslim. Under the partition plan, 56% of Palestine was given for a Zionist state to people who constituted 33% of the population and owned about 6% of the land. These UN figures have never been in dispute.”

    Dr Alfred Lilienthal The Zionist Connection,

  42. Boyo — on 21st February, 2010 at 6:38 pm  

    Yes… in 1917! But in 1947, your own undisputed facts say there were considerably more Jews. We could go all the way back to the Romans by your logic, which strikes me as highly dangerous at any rate – the BNP could use the same argument against all post-1950 immigrants to the UK, couldn’t it?

    Proportionately there may have been more Muslims in the part of India claimed for Pakistan but the principal appears to remain the same. It was an ideological state established out of violence and displacement (and engaged in a number of subsequent wars I recall, and seen by many as a State-sponsor of terrorism in India and Afghanistan). Not that I’m questioning its right to exist, simply that there appears to be a valid comparison.

  43. chairwoman — on 21st February, 2010 at 6:55 pm  

    Palestine at that time also included what is now Jordan.

  44. DF — on 21st February, 2010 at 6:57 pm  

    Swift, in 1947 how many of those 1.3 million Palestinian Arabs were actually indigenous?

    “Under the partition plan, 56% of Palestine was given for a Zionist state”

    How can that be when 80% of Palestine was given for a Muslim state, Jordan?

  45. Kulvinder — on 22nd February, 2010 at 12:06 am  

    It’s still a mystery to me why PP, along with many others, loves to stick it to the Israelis in particular.

    I don’t ‘stick it to’ israel any more than i do any other state; im certainly as outspoken when debating anyone who advocates a ‘sikh homeland’ – and they in turn accuse everyone of singling out the sikhs.

    In reality its probably more to do with sample bias, those who have an interest in a particular subject will tend to remember the mention of that subject above all others.

    Couldn’t the same thing be said about Pakistan?

    Yes, though for what its worth Pakistan is, depending on your point of view, either a de facto failed state or teetering on the brink. Its been unable to provide adequate rights for minorities who are muslims let alone those who aren’t.

    Israel is – or sees it self as – a modern developed democracy comparable to the EU or US, as such the standards its ‘held to’ are significantly different.

  46. Kulvinder — on 22nd February, 2010 at 12:30 am  

    I dont think so because the places that became Pakistan were already majority Muslim (apart from Kashmir which was majority Muslim but occupied by India).

    And the place that now is Bangladesh was and is majority muslim and was occupied by Pakistan, only to be liberated with the significant help of India.

    And India and China in turn disputed where their common borders were until they got into a fight and the Chinese battered the Indian army. The Chinese also continue to repress the tibetans and x numbers of non-hans etc etc

    The irritating thing about nationalists is they’re all too keen to point out the failings of others without being at all introspective of the abuses conducted in their name.

  47. Serendipity — on 22nd February, 2010 at 6:55 am  

    How many Arab muslims migrated to Israel in the period before 1948, to find work provided by the Jewish people? The Governor of Syria never stopped bemoaning the fact that he was losing thousands upon thousands of his citizens to Israel and the jobs Israel provided which surrounding Arab countries couldn’t? These citizens from Syria etc. now claim to be ‘ethnic Palestinians’, reduced to living in refugee camps off western aid.

    Ostracised by the other muslim Arab states who will not give them citizenship – with Jordan actively cancelling the Jordanian citizenship formerly given to the Palestinians who migrated there – what hope is there for these people who are stateless and unwanted?
    Why do the Egyptians in Gaza, removed there by Egypt for political reasons now call themselves Palestinians?

    Why, in the recent past, has anyone with an Arabic name been allowed to go to Gaza and ‘sign on’ with the UNRWA?

    It is very obvious that it is financially beneficial to claim that one is an indigenous ‘Palestinian Arab’ when they had merely moved there in the late 20th century for financial gain.

    How many Arab Palestinians can produce deeds for the land that they claim was theirs – very few, I imagine. Palestine did not become attractive to Arabs until the Jewish people worked their economic miracle there.

    Seems to me that the major problem is that millions of muslim Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza actually believe they are Palestinians as do those in the West who are uneducated about the migration of massive numbers of Arab muslims to the British Mandate of Palestine once it had become economicaly viable and civilised. They could either have stayed at home in poverty or emigrated to the muslim state of Jordan and endured poverty there. But they chose the Jewish area of mandated Palestine for obvious reasons and for obvious reasons now want to claim it as their own.

    Less Arabs left Israel in 1947 than Jews who arrived there after having been deported (penniless) from the surrounding Arab countries and then the Arabs only left to leave space for their muslim brothers to arrive in the form of the Arab Armies to liquidate the Jews and give the 650,000 displaced Arabs(some of whom may have been indigenous Palestinians) the fruits of the Jewish peoples labour.

    We are critising the wrong people for this appalling situation where the ‘Palestinian’ people have been manipulated disgracefully by their ummah in order to successfully raise anti-semitic feelings globally in Islam’s pursuit of world domination.

  48. Boyo — on 22nd February, 2010 at 7:48 am  

    “Israel is – or sees it self as – a modern developed democracy comparable to the EU or US, as such the standards its ‘held to’ are significantly different.”

    Oooh, I don’t agree that Pakistan should be “held” to anything less. It was founded at around the same time and under similar democratic principals. It is a powerful, populous, nuclear armed state (and used to have close links with the US and Turkey, like Israel). It may well be it is “failing” but that is neither here nor there…

    It’s been an interesting discussion. Despite the insinuations that have been hurled at me in the past by Sunny et al for having pro-Israel sympathies (or worse being a Zionist!) I’m not Jewish, have no ties, and no particular sympathy – I’m really just a “traditional” socialist with no axe to grind.

    I’ve been to I/P and spent time with Palestinians – I’ve seen the settlements and their impact. I believe a return to 67 borders should be enforced by sanctions if necessary. Yet, given this, I don’t regard Israel as the summit of all evil: there’s far, far worse.

    Apart from the obvious conclusion therefore, I suspect that Israel is simply the object of a powerful amount of projection. Freud (dammit, another Jew) had a theory about “the monster” representing “the return of the repressed” and in this context it is very easy to understand why Israel is made “monstrous” – by the left as a token of anti-Americanism, by Islam and the Arab world for its failings.

    Thanks for helping clear that up. ;-)

  49. persephone — on 22nd February, 2010 at 8:54 am  

    “It is very obvious that it is financially beneficial to claim that one is an indigenous ‘Palestinian Arab’ when they had merely moved there in the late 20th century for financial gain.”

    It always set something off in me, this rhetoric of people claiming their higher ‘right’ as the original or true indigenous.

    And it always seems to be linked to migration being down to that nasty motive of economic gain. It comes across as being under the bnp school of reasoning.

    This is despite that our early and common ancestors, in their animal skins, probably migrated to the lands they then settled in to gain in some way eg by way of fertile land and other aspects of an advantageous location.

    People, whether in the 20th century or in antiquity, do migrate to have a better life in some way. Its as old as the hills and no group of people can say they did not migrate originally to make some sort of gain so why criticise other groups for doing so.

  50. persephone — on 22nd February, 2010 at 8:55 am  

    “It is very obvious that it is financially beneficial to claim that one is an indigenous ‘Palestinian Arab’ when they had merely moved there in the late 20th century for financial gain.”

    It always set something off in me, this rhetoric of people claiming their higher ‘right’ as the original or true indigenous. And it always seems to be linked to migration being down to that nasty motive of economic gain. It comes across as being under the bnp school of reasoning.

    When all of our early and common ancestors in their animal skins, probably migrated to the lands they then settled in to gain in some way eg by way of fertile land and other aspects of an advantageous location.

    People, whether in the 20th century or in antiquity, migrate to have a better life in some way. Its as old as the hills and no group of people can say they did not migrate originally to make some sort of gain so why criticise other groups for doing so.

  51. Kulvinder — on 22nd February, 2010 at 12:37 pm  

    I don’t agree that Pakistan should be “held” to anything less

    Fair enough, Pakistan and Israel are comparable – neither are modern developed democracies despite the aspirations of their people, and both are equally shit at accomodating minorities that aren’t part of the ethno-national majority.

    Thanks for helping clear that up.

    No thanks needed; you came up with the pop-psychology crap yourself not least advocating the pseudo-scientific bollocks of Freud. ;-)

  52. Kulvinder — on 22nd February, 2010 at 12:51 pm  

    Palestine did not become attractive to Arabs until the Jewish people worked their economic miracle there.

    This is the problem i have with all ethno-nationalists. You have no problem being bombastic about ethnicity and achievement – or seeking achievement through association – but you’re the first in line to be offended if the failings of the state or society are also attributed to ethno-nationalism.

    If the economic miracle worked was jewish then the oppression of the palestinians and the denial of their rights is also jewish.

    If you have the honesty to accept both sides of that association then fair enough; i may disagree with you but i applaud the consistency. But as it is almost every ethno-nationalist from the balkans to khalistanis want to constantly bang on about how good and virtious their way of life is because of who they are and what they believe in; but if you point out their failings can equally be attributed to who they are and what they believe in they’re apoplectic with rage.

  53. Boyo — on 22nd February, 2010 at 12:53 pm  

    It’s the best explanation I can come up with… and is superior to the alternative! Here we have it…

    http://www.answers.com/topic/return-of-the-repressed

  54. Boyo — on 22nd February, 2010 at 12:54 pm  

    Although I grant there are people who do not love Freud as I do ;-)

  55. douglas clark — on 22nd February, 2010 at 1:00 pm  

    Boyo,

    Assuming you are a boyo:

    Although I grant there are people who do not love Freud as I do

    Bit of a Freudian slip ;-)

  56. Don — on 22nd February, 2010 at 1:50 pm  

    I gather that that theory is not standing up too well.

    http://bps-research-digest.blogspot.com/2010/02/repression-debunked.html

  57. persephone — on 22nd February, 2010 at 1:56 pm  

    “It is very obvious that it is financially beneficial to claim that one is an indigenous ‘Palestinian Arab’ when they had merely moved there in the late 20th century for financial gain.”

    It always set something off in me, this rhetoric of people claiming their higher ‘right’ as the original or true indigenous. And then it is always linked to migration being down to that nasty motive of economic gain. It comes across as being under the bnp school of reasoning.

    When in fact all of our early and common ancestors probably migrated to the lands they then settled in to gain in some way eg by way of fertile land and other aspects of an advantageous location.

    People, whether in the 20th century or in antiquity, migrate to have a better life in some way. Its as old as the hills and no group of people can say they did not migrate originally to make some sort of gain so why criticise other groups for doing so.

  58. swift — on 22nd February, 2010 at 1:59 pm  

    Seredipity

    How many Arab Palestinians can produce deeds for the land that they claim was theirs – very few, I imagine. Palestine did not become attractive to Arabs until the Jewish people worked their economic miracle there.

    Actually Palestinian refugees have numerous deeds for their land from Ottoman times proving the land is theirs. But these have been ignored by the Israelis who have expelled them to make way for fanatical Jewish settlers from the US to build illegal settlements.

  59. swift — on 22nd February, 2010 at 2:06 pm  

    Serendipity

    We are critising the wrong people for this appalling situation where the ‘Palestinian’ people have been manipulated disgracefully by their ummah in order to successfully raise anti-semitic feelings globally in Islam’s pursuit of world domination.

    Far-right loony alert. Symptoms:

    1) Denying the Palestinians exist – referring to them as the “Palestinian” people
    2) refering to “Islam’s pursuit of world domination” (suprised you didnt mention Baet Y’or’s “Eurabia”, serendipity)

  60. DF — on 22nd February, 2010 at 2:58 pm  

    [not so]Swift, I refer you to post #46.

  61. DF — on 22nd February, 2010 at 4:16 pm  

    “Actually Palestinian refugees have numerous deeds for their land from Ottoman times proving the land is theirs. But these have been ignored by the Israelis who have expelled them to make way for fanatical Jewish settlers from the US to build illegal settlements.”

    Swift, I believe much of the land you claim to have been stolen by “Israelis” and given to “fanatical Jewish settlers” was in fact sold to said “fanatical Jewish settlers” by monomaniacal Muslim Ottoman absentee landowners following the 1873 emancipation act.

  62. Kulvinder — on 25th February, 2010 at 12:03 am  

    Apparently Boyo was right! they’re all pretty much as bad as each other.

    “While under arrest, he was severely beaten and tortured by the Israelis and essentially asked to become an informant on Hamas in the prison itself,” Avi Issascharof said.

    …”He told me he was disgusted to find out that Hamas were torturing Palestinians just like the Israelis and even worse – burning cigarettes on their bodies, beating them to a pulp,” Mr Issascharof said.

  63. Serendipity — on 27th February, 2010 at 4:02 am  

    @Swift – “When the cap fits etc.”

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.