Since when was feeding the starving connected with the Jooos?

Morons:

It is precisely because of this that Oxfam, founded in Oxford in 1942 as Famine Relief, turned to the actor Scarlett Johansson in 2007 to become its global ambassador. She travelled to Oxfam projects, something that provided photo opportunities for herself (as a caring artist) and for Oxfam (to shine a light on the important work that the charity does).

In January, Johansson was appointed the brand ambassador for SodaStream, an Israeli company that produces machines to carbonate beverages. SodaStream’s factory is located in the Israeli settlement of Maale Adumim, near Jerusalem.

Therefore, because Johansson works with the Jooos she cannot work with Oxfam.

Bugger this feeding the starving thing and embrace the anti-semitism of the British left instead.

Cunts.

40 thoughts on “Since when was feeding the starving connected with the Jooos?”

  1. So Much For Subtlety

    Therefore, because Johansson works with the Jooos she cannot work with Oxfam.

    In all fairness it is not Working wit’ Da Jooos that is the problem. It is endorsing a company that is located in the Occupied Territories. That is, the State of Israel took what was pretty indisputablably someone else’s land and gave it to this company. Oxfam thinks that is illegal. Which is probably is. And they think that their spokeschick should not be in any way associated with it.

    Now I agree totally that they are c*nts, but it is a little more complex than just an issue with Da Jooos.

  2. Please note that the author’s previous article with the Guardian is “Bangladeshi workers need more than boycotts”.

  3. The State of Israel did no such thing.

    It was invaded by the armies of several countries, and fought back to the extent that those countries lost territory. Not just legal, but moral, just, apposite.

  4. So Much For Subtlety

    Snag – “The State of Israel did no such thing. It was invaded by the armies of several countries, and fought back to the extent that those countries lost territory. Not just legal, but moral, just, apposite.”

    Come on. In 1967 you cannot say that Israel was invaded by anyone. You can say that Egypt was foolish. That they were coming close to annoying Israel seriously in the Straits of Tiran. But you cannot say a single Arab soldier set one foot inside Israeli territory.

    Israel attacked them because Israel thought that perhaps they wanted to attack Israel. And their habit was to always strike first – an aggressive war that might have seen some people dragged before war crimes trials if they lost.

    Israel also does not recognise any Arab title to land in the West Bank except those granted by the Jordanians. So if a village has existed for centuries, and did not buy or sell any land in the brief period of Jordanian control, all their land is deemed by the State of Israel to be State-owned. Which they can and do take and give to settlements whenever they feel like it. Even if the villagers can prove they have owned it since before the Ottomans.

    But it is nice to see naked acts of aggression supported. Churchill supported Zionism because he said ruling over their own subject peoples would force the Jews of the world to support the British Empire. Racist perhaps but not entirely wrong was he?

  5. Well that’s what tends to happen when you have conquests.

    This had all the potential to be a great population swop. North Africa and the Middle East were practically denuded of joos after Israel was established – they were all “encouraged”, more or less forcefully, to leave.

    And most of them did, leaving their land and houses behind. All of which could be occupied by the Palestinians, if it weren’t for the Arab states that want to keep the Palestinians in their fourth generation refugee status because that inhumane policy gives them a continued excuse to bash Israel.

  6. I enjoyed listening to Radio 4 today,. with al the rentamob protestors complaining about Israeli ‘apartheid’.

    Right. The horrible kind of apartheid that lets you live in a country, work there, vote in its elections etc.

    Unlike the nice kind of non-apartheid practised in every Arab country in the middle east, where simply having an Israeli visa in your passport is enough to get you turned back at the border.

  7. Anyone recently visited the thriving Jewish community in Bahrain, for instance?

    Nice people, though they are keeping their heads down a bit these days.

    Or tried finding a synagogue in Iran, Iraq, Saudi, Yemen etc etc?

    To be fair, you can hardly move outside the Qatari embassy in London for all the leftie protestors demanding Jews be allowed to celebrate the Passover in Doha without risk of being murdered!

    (I’m a lapsed Catholic, not Jewish. I used to live in Bahrain. I like Bahrainis, most of those I’ve met.)

  8. So Much For Subtlety

    bloke in germany – “And most of them did, leaving their land and houses behind. All of which could be occupied by the Palestinians, if it weren’t for the Arab states that want to keep the Palestinians in their fourth generation refugee status because that inhumane policy gives them a continued excuse to bash Israel.”

    Yes but as an utterly practical matter, the Arabs states are under no obligation to solve Israel’s problems for her are they? They have precisely no incentive to do so. And it is absurd to think they are going to pay to settle Israel’s problems isn’t it?

    As it stands, Israel has a legal obligation (they are never going to fulfil) to take back those they expelled in 1949. The only people keeping them in camps are Israelis. And the West that continues to fund those camps.

    Interested – “Right. The horrible kind of apartheid that lets you live in a country, work there, vote in its elections etc.”

    Palestinians from the West Bank cannot live in Israel, they cannot work there, they definitely cannot vote in elections. For very good reasons. Actually even the Palestinians of Israel proper have some problems voting in elections because the State of Israel has only very reluctantly allowed them to have their own parties.

    “Unlike the nice kind of non-apartheid practised in every Arab country in the middle east, where simply having an Israeli visa in your passport is enough to get you turned back at the border.”

    It is not apartheid if British immigration denies Farakhan entry to the UK. It is not apartheid of Arab states deny any foreign entry for any reason at all. God knows I am critical of everyone in the Middle East, but really, you’re comparing immigration control with apartheid?

  9. It takes a particularly perverted reasoning to see the events of 1948-1973 as “naked aggression” by, of all parties, Israel.

    It is almost invariably pointless to have arguments, even about provable facts, via internet comments. How much more so with with liars.

  10. There’s always going to be at least one on any comment thread about Israel; this might be endemic among the left but it’s baked into the old right too.

    SMFS doesn’t regard artillery strikes and state-sponsored terrorist attacks as acts of war, nor does he think it legitimate for a numerically-inferior force to pre-emptively attack numerically superior forces that are preparing to invade it.

    The only obstacle to land for peace is the Palestinian refusal to countenance peace, for reasons of religious supremacism, not historic claims to land. But if such a deal were to happen the area where Sodastream operates would probably remain part of Israel. Remember, the whole of the West Bank was mandated for Israel in the 1920s but the betrayal of the Jews by the British Foreign Office put an end to that.

    Scarlett Johansson told the anti-Semitic professional activists who’ve taken over Oxfam (and other charities) to shove it. Good for her.

  11. “In all fairness it is not Working wit’ Da Jooos that is the problem”

    Yes it is! But we can’t say that because it makes us look like the anti-semitic cunts that we are. So we pretend our problem is with “Zionists”, or with “settlers” or any other word we can dream up, any excuse, any ‘act of agression’, any legal uncertainty, any standard that we do not apply to any other nation-states. Shit, in France right now they’re pretending they’re protesting against “the system”; total lying bollcocks.

    I’m not Jewish, but I know what anti-semitism looks like.

  12. @SMFS

    ‘It is not apartheid if British immigration denies Farakhan entry to the UK. It is not apartheid of Arab states deny any foreign entry for any reason at all. God knows I am critical of everyone in the Middle East, but really, you’re comparing immigration control with apartheid?’

    No, I’m using dramatic licence to compare the situation vis a vis travelling to Arab states (or being Jewish in an Arab state) with the ‘apartheid’ claimed by protestors. In other words, they started it.

    Of course it’s not apartheid, but I would far rather be a Palestinian in Israel than a Jew in any Arab country.

    re Israel generally, there are people who want to wipe it off the map and kill everyone living there; I don’t blame them for being quite hard-faced about that. That doesn’t mean they’re right on everything, just that in a 50-50 call I go with them pretty much every time.

  13. So Much For Subtlety

    Snag – “It takes a particularly perverted reasoning to see the events of 1948-1973 as “naked aggression” by, of all parties, Israel.”

    But we are not talking about the events of 1948-1973 are we? We are talking about the consequence of the events of 1967. And we all know why you do not want to talk about that. It is simply flatly impossible to interpret 1967 as anything other than an Israeli attack on its neighbours.

    “It is almost invariably pointless to have arguments, even about provable facts, via internet comments. How much more so with with liars.”

    And yet here I am trying. Don’t believe me. Believe Begin. Who said exactly the same as me. Clearly.

    Peter Risdon – “There’s always going to be at least one on any comment thread about Israel; this might be endemic among the left but it’s baked into the old right too.”

    One what?

    “SMFS doesn’t regard artillery strikes and state-sponsored terrorist attacks as acts of war, nor does he think it legitimate for a numerically-inferior force to pre-emptively attack numerically superior forces that are preparing to invade it.”

    I have not been asked about artillery strikes. Nor have I been asked about terrorist attacks. There is precisely no evidence that anyone was preparing to invade Israel. Even Israel does not claim so. And were they numerically inferior? Depends on what you count I suppose. In terms of men, yes. But in terms of hardware?

    “The only obstacle to land for peace is the Palestinian refusal to countenance peace, for reasons of religious supremacism, not historic claims to land.”

    The PLO is hardly engaged in religious supremacism and those that are do so for historic claims to the land. There are lots of impediments in the way of peace. Sure, the Palestinians could surrender and have a peace tomorrow. Perhaps they should. Their campaign has been incredibly incompetent as well as immoral. But they have a legal right to return and I can see why they are disinclined to surrender it.

    “But if such a deal were to happen the area where Sodastream operates would probably remain part of Israel.”

    Sure. The Palestinians would have to accept they are beaten and only entitled to whatever bones the Israelis throw them.

    “Remember, the whole of the West Bank was mandated for Israel in the 1920s but the betrayal of the Jews by the British Foreign Office put an end to that.”

    What betrayal? Why do you make this sh!t up? The West Bank was not mandated for Israel either.

    Ironman – “Yes it is! But we can’t say that because it makes us look like the anti-semitic cunts that we are.”

    Well let’s see if they refuse to work with anyone who is associated with an Israeli company with no ties to the West Bank at all. Are you asserting that they would oppose any spokeschick who was not endorsing the Occupation?

    “Shit, in France right now they’re pretending they’re protesting against “the system”; total lying bollcocks.”

    Well they are doing both. Nothing upsets the system like anti-Semitism. I often wonder about the logic of giving the power to any random 14 year old to bring a First Division match to a halt simply by an offensive chant.

    “I’m not Jewish, but I know what anti-semitism looks like.”

    And what looks like anti-Semitism about this? Is it wrong to be opposed to the Occupation? Look, the Moscow Olympics took place when the Communists were still in power. The UK never recognised the annexation of the Baltic States. But the Soviets moved several events to the Baltics – the swimming for instance. I thought it absolutely wrong for Western athletes to compete in Riga. I actually protested about it. You really think that was racism?

  14. So Much For Subtlety

    Interested – “No, I’m using dramatic licence to compare the situation vis a vis travelling to Arab states (or being Jewish in an Arab state) with the ‘apartheid’ claimed by protestors. In other words, they started it.”

    Are you sure? For the first twenty years or so the Palestinians of Israel did live under apartheid – they were under military rule for decades. At a time when few of the Arab states were independent. The original problem began with the ethnic cleansing of 1949. No one cared much about Israel before that. I don’t know it makes sense to make this argument, but I don’t think you can make this argument.

    “Of course it’s not apartheid, but I would far rather be a Palestinian in Israel than a Jew in any Arab country.”

    That goes without saying.

    “re Israel generally, there are people who want to wipe it off the map and kill everyone living there; I don’t blame them for being quite hard-faced about that. That doesn’t mean they’re right on everything, just that in a 50-50 call I go with them pretty much every time.”

    Sure. But that doesn’t mean they are always right or that we need to falsify the historical record. If Oxfam is really only concerned about the West Bank, then they are only concerned about the West Bank. Not Jews in general.

  15. What happens when/if the two sides manage to make peace? Either this settlement comes fully under Israeli sovereignty or else under Palestinian sovereignty. Either way, the SodaStream factory will continue to exist and continue to do exactly what it does now.

    Is the question of which group of inept, lying bastards receive the taxes from SodaStream more important than the manufacture of goods and services which improve the lives of all involved?

  16. So, Crumpet Johanssen has been mugged by reality eh? At least she’s seen the light now.

    There’s a very useful website these days that tells you which charities are genuine and which have been perverted into (or have always been) leftist campaign fronts:
    http://robinhoodtax.org.uk/whos-behind-it/the-coalition

    I refer to it regularly when one of them pushes another bin bag – sorry ‘unwanted clothes collection’ bag – through the letterbox.

  17. “In January, Johansson was appointed the brand ambassador for SodaStream”

    I take it that is the language now for what used to be “accepted a large sum to advertise …”

  18. @SMFS

    When I said ‘In other words, they started it’ I meant that the protestors started throwing around the word ‘apartheid’ rather too imprecisely.

  19. “Since when was feeding the starving connected with the Jooos?”

    Since when was Oxfam connected with feeding the starving?

  20. “And we all know why you do not want to talk about that. It is simply flatly impossible to interpret 1967 as anything other than an Israeli attack on its neighbours.”

    Huh. This again?

    The 6-day war was the response to Nasser throwing out the UN peace-keeping force in Sinai, Egypt assembling an army of 100,000 troops and 900 tanks on the Sinai border, with another 140,000 troops in reserve, Syria assembling 75,000 troops and 400 tanks in the Golan Heights, Jordan had another 32,000 troops and 300 tanks, and blockading the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. And Nasser had stepped up the war rhetoric over the past year.

    Everyone knew they were planning to invade, and destroy Israel. They had made their intentions very clear. Instead of waiting until they were ready, Israel struck first, taking out the entire Egyptian air force in one night. Nasser told the Jordanians (falsely) that the Israeli air force had been destroyed in order to draw them in, and as a result Syria, Iraq, and Jordan launched simultaneous air strikes against targets in Israel.

    Yes, Israel took the opportunity to take control of the parts of the British Mandate area that had previously been occupied (illegally) by the Jordanians and Egyptians, and used since as a base of operations for continual terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians.

    “What betrayal? Why do you make this sh!t up? The West Bank was not mandated for Israel either.”

    Article 4 of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine ratified by the LoN council in July 1922 recognised a body set up for the purpose of establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine. The LoN mandate area included what is now Israel, the West Bank, Gaza, and Jordan. The part of the territory east of the Jordan river was called ‘Transjordan’ and was allocated to the Arabs by the British administrators, while that part to the west of the Jordan was allocated for the Jews to immigrate into.

    The only requirement was that they allow free immigration. The Jews had to buy their own land, and any Arabs who wished to stay could do so, or if they found Jewish neighbours so intolerable, had only to move house across the river about 50 miles away.

    That was the initial agreement. But then the British caved in to pressure from the local nazi thugs and throttled back immigration, while appointing the leader of the local nazis to be the leader/representative of the Arabs in Palestine. Just at the point when thinks were getting really bad for Jews in Europe and Russia, the British were doing everything they could to discourage them from escaping. That’s seen by many Jews as a betrayal.

    “And what looks like anti-Semitism about this? Is it wrong to be opposed to the Occupation?”

    That depends on whether you oppose it more or less than the *reasons* for the “occupation”. Israel opposes the occupation, too. They’d like nothing better than to be able to withdraw, and save all the blood and money they spend there. All it requires is for Palestinians to stop attacking Jews.

    Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza, and what did the Palestinians do? Put ‘Hamas’ in charge!

    Opposition to the “Occupation” is effectively support for the Palestinian right to murder Jews until they get what they want, (which is basically the destruction of Israel and expulsion or subjugation of all Jews in Muslim lands). And if you think that’s in any way justifiable because they’re Jews, that’s anti-Semitism.

  21. SMFS, I’d be interested to know what law obligates the Israelis to allow those expelled in the war of 1948-49 to return, rather than agree compensation. But given there must only be a few thousand left alive, maybe they should let them back in. However, we know that the right of return as the Palestinians conceive it is not limited to those unhappy few.

  22. From all the rabid attention lefties lavish on it, you’d think Israel must be one of the most oppressive societies on the planet.

    I understand why the religion of peace hates Israel but why does the British left? Unlike some of its neighbours, Israel doesn’t mistreat women or gays. It isn’t a theocracy or a despotic monarchy or a military dictatorship. Its domestic policies are along similar social democratic lines to what you’d expect in a western european country.

    So why is there so much screaming and shouting about Israel as opposed to Cuba or North Korea or Saudi Arabia or Zimbabwe?

  23. “So why is there so much screaming and shouting about Israel as opposed to Cuba or North Korea or Saudi Arabia or Zimbabwe?”

    For the same reason there is screaming and shouting about the USA, and to some degree Britain.

    I recall some years ago sat at ease on a hilltop out in the countryside somewhere, admiring a spectacular view over rolling hills, and being annoyed by a lefty companion spoiling the quiet mood by going on and on about Guantanamo Bay and George W Bush and why didn’t the world care. I explained it to them thus. The problem is we have no sense of proportion about these things. There were, then, about 600 prisoners in Guantanamo, which if we represent that at a scale of one millimetre per prisoner was about thus far. (Holds hands apart about 60 cm.) It’s not an insignificant distance, but you could step over it at a stretch. The number who have died there corresponds to about two millimetres. Now, based on the coverage you see in the public media, I asked, on the same scale how far would you guess the corresponding distance was for the Laogai?

    “What’s the Laogai?” he said.

    And that’s what’s wrong with the lefty view of the world.

    I explained to him that just the number of people who had *died* in the Laogai would stretch from here to the horizon. (15-27 km, depending on estimate). The number who have been detained in it, in many cases for periods longer than Guantanamo has existed, would extend far out of sight. And yet, we saw the alleged abuses at Guantanamo endlessly circulated on the news, which corresponded to that single footstep, while the abuses going on elsewhere, corresponding to the spectacular vista before us, they didn’t even know the name of, and to the extent they ever think about abuses in communist/Islamist countries they seem to assume are of more-or-less comparable size. OK, so China abuses human rights, but then so does America, so we’re in no position to lecture, right? The history of slavery in America and Europe is remembered and endlessly obsessed over. The history of slavery in the Muslim Middle East and North Africa is forgotten. The colonialism of Europe is condemned. The colonialism of the Islamic empire is celebrated – because they brought art and culture to the benighted Europeans.

    It’s a form of self-hatred. They feel guilty for their wealth and privilege. But they also feel smugly virtuous *because* they feel guilty, and speak up about it.

    The left hate Israel because they see it as a new wave of colonialism, spreading corrupt western values and freedoms (backed by our guns) at the expense of romanticised native cultures, and because it is backed by western military and economic power. They mostly have *no clue* about the thuggish, intolerant nature of the culture supposedly being replaced. They have no sense of *proportion* between the sins of each side. And the Palestinian propagandists know very well how to tap into that guilt and ignorance.

    And there is some truth to the claim that a lot of the tropes of the left originated in the cold war, with the Russians backing the Arabs who had all the oil and the numbers, and the Western powers backing the Israelis and their liberal, market capitalist culture. Many wars were proxy conflicts between the superpowers, and the propaganda about them reflected the positions taken by each side. Leftists naturally believe what they were told about the conflict by those they trusted.

    It’s natural. It’s a consequence of the modern western culture, that we are allowed to dissent even against what gives us the freedom to dissent. And to the extent that we could and should do better, I don’t think it’s a totally bad thing. Israel could and probably would have behaved a lot worse if it hadn’t know its every action was being scrutinised so closely. But what we need is a better sense of proportion – both about the dangers freedom is facing (both internal and external), and about how amazingly far we have come.

  24. So Much For Subtlety

    NiV – “The 6-day war was the response to Nasser throwing out the UN peace-keeping force in Sinai, Egypt assembling an army of 100,000 troops and 900 tanks on the Sinai border, with another 140,000 troops in reserve, Syria assembling 75,000 troops and 400 tanks in the Golan Heights, Jordan had another 32,000 troops and 300 tanks, and blockading the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. And Nasser had stepped up the war rhetoric over the past year.”

    In other words, perfectly normal deployments of soldiers within the borders of other countries. And the fact that they were not actually preparing an invasion can be seen by the fact that of the thousands of tanks that these three nations owned, a few hundred were destroyed – that is, they were not in the Sinai or on the Golan Heights when Israel invaded.

    The only issue here is the Straits of Tiran. Which Nasser offered to take to the International Court. And Israel refused. Which looks like a pretty serious admission that it was Egyptian and hence blocking it was not a crime.

    “Everyone knew they were planning to invade, and destroy Israel.”

    Everyone? You mean everyone who wanted after the war to make this look like a justified invasion? Again Begin was very clear about what sort of war this was. No doubt he was an anti-Semite or something. The people who did fear war were the Egyptians and Syrians. Because for some reason the Soviet Union kept telling them Israel was going to invade. And then they did. What do you know.

    “Yes, Israel took the opportunity to take control of the parts of the British Mandate area that had previously been occupied (illegally) by the Jordanians and Egyptians, and used since as a base of operations for continual terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians.”

    So we are all in agreement then.

    “Article 4 of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine ratified by the LoN council in July 1922 recognised a body set up for the purpose of establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine.”

    I am sorry but what do you think Article 4 says? I think it says:

    ART. 4.
    An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.
    The Zionist organisation, so long as its organisation and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty’s Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.

    I see nothing whatsoever that supports your claim about what this article says, nor do I see a damn thing supporting your side of the argument right now. You’re not changing the subject are you?

    The LoN mandate area included what is now Israel, the West Bank, Gaza, and Jordan. The part of the territory east of the Jordan river was called ‘Transjordan’ and was allocated to the Arabs by the British administrators, while that part to the west of the Jordan was allocated for the Jews to immigrate into.

    By the British administrators. Not by the League of Nations. Britain had no legal obligation to do a damn thing. It was certainly not mandated to give the West Bank to Israel.

    “The only requirement was that they allow free immigration.”

    No. Where is there the slightest obligation on the British to allow any immigration at all much less free immigration?

    “The Jews had to buy their own land, and any Arabs who wished to stay could do so, or if they found Jewish neighbours so intolerable, had only to move house across the river about 50 miles away.”

    True – while the British were there. But then in 1948 the Haganah drove them all out of Israel proper.

    “That was the initial agreement.”

    No it wasn’t.

    “Just at the point when thinks were getting really bad for Jews in Europe and Russia, the British were doing everything they could to discourage them from escaping. That’s seen by many Jews as a betrayal.”

    Escaping to Palestine. They were doing everything they could to help them escape Germany. Britain took a huge number of Jewish refugees – whose record was mixed, some of them were very good for Britain, some of them were very bad.

    Of course it was seen by some as a betrayal. Like our other vibrant multicultural communities who do not give a damn about Britain but are only concerned about what is good for them. The fact is it was not a betrayal.

    But I can see why you want to keep changing the subject of conversation given that you will loose this one hands down. As you have nothing valid to say.

    That depends on whether you oppose it more or less than the *reasons* for the “occupation”. Israel opposes the occupation, too. They’d like nothing better than to be able to withdraw, and save all the blood and money they spend there. All it requires is for Palestinians to stop attacking Jews.

    Actually they could withdraw in reasonable safety. As they did from Gaza. Not a lot of terrorist attacks from Gaza now. A lot less than there used to be. Israel has a Fence after all. But the settlers have taken too much land and people like Bibi clearly want it all. So it ain’t going to happen.

    In the meantime, the reasons for the occupation remains what they are. And international law does not change. If Oxfam are opposed to violations of international law, they are opposed to violations of international law. If.

    “Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza, and what did the Palestinians do? Put ‘Hamas’ in charge!”

    So freakin’ what? It is not Israel’s job to elect governments. And if the Israeli government had not funded Hamas in order to undermine the PLO we wouldn’t be in this mess.

    Opposition to the “Occupation” is effectively support for the Palestinian right to murder Jews until they get what they want, (which is basically the destruction of Israel and expulsion or subjugation of all Jews in Muslim lands). And if you think that’s in any way justifiable because they’re Jews, that’s anti-Semitism.

    No, that is a paranoid fantasy. Not the reality. But stick with it. It will work better for you than the facts.

  25. So Much For Subtlety

    Hugh – “SMFS, I’d be interested to know what law obligates the Israelis to allow those expelled in the war of 1948-49 to return, rather than agree compensation. But given there must only be a few thousand left alive, maybe they should let them back in. However, we know that the right of return as the Palestinians conceive it is not limited to those unhappy few.”

    Well apart from rewarding ethnic cleansing, UN Resolution 194:

    Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible; Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation, and to maintain close relations with the Director of the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees and, through him, with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations;

    Naturally the rights of citizenship descend to the children too. So the right of return applies to all those driven out in 1948-9. Which is to say, Israel would probably soon cease to exist as a Jewish state.

  26. So Much For Subtlety

    NiV – “The only requirement was that they allow free immigration. The Jews had to buy their own land, and any Arabs who wished to stay could do so, or if they found Jewish neighbours so intolerable, had only to move house across the river about 50 miles away.”

    There is nothing remotely like any of this in the Mandate. The closest I can find is this:

    ART. 6.
    The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

    So immigration was conditional on the rights and position of the Palestinians being respected – which of course they were not precisely because of the levels of immigration the British did allow. They were ethnically cleansed by the immigrants they did not resist strongly enough. And Britain is under no obligation to allow immigration at all, much less unlimited immigration. They merely should “facilitate” it under suitable conditions – that is, as much or as little as they would like.

    Nothing about buying land either.

    Nothing about the West Bank being rightfully Israeli. In fact nothing about the need to create Israel at all.

  27. Even if you don’t agree with NiV (I do), Oxfam’s policy is insane.

    If Israel pulls out of the West Bank, the Gaza experience shows that the missiles will start flying. Tel Aviv is 25 kilometres away, cheap rocket range. And when Iran gets its nukes (as it will), some of those rockets will carry city-killers and that’s millions of dead Israelis. And this time the Jews won’t go gently into the night, so many millions of Arabs will get fried. Alternatively, the Israelis will pre-empt, as states with zero defensive depth must. Then you just get millions of dead Arabs.

    Neither outcome strikes me as charitable .

  28. So Much For Subtlety

    Thomas Gibbon – “Even if you don’t agree with NiV (I do), Oxfam’s policy is insane. If Israel pulls out of the West Bank, the Gaza experience shows that the missiles will start flying. Tel Aviv is 25 kilometres away, cheap rocket range. And when Iran gets its nukes (as it will), some of those rockets will carry city-killers and that’s millions of dead Israelis. And this time the Jews won’t go gently into the night, so many millions of Arabs will get fried. Alternatively, the Israelis will pre-empt, as states with zero defensive depth must. Then you just get millions of dead Arabs. Neither outcome strikes me as charitable .”

    Let us agree Oxfam’s policies are generally insane. Is this one? Let’s us try the Riga test again. The Soviet Union, according to the British government, illegally occupied the Baltic States. What to do about it? If the Soviets had given it up, it would have been a propaganda triumph for the West that would have undermined the USSR. They would have to be nuts to do so. As history did show in the end. Challenging them might have ended up with a nuclear exchange.

    But that is no reason for us to recognise Soviet ownership. As in practice we did.

    No one knows what is going to happen. No one knows how history will turn out. It is not for Oxfam to second guess the future. If they want to go down this path, well, that is their business. But it is not insane. As long as they applied the same rule to, say, East Timor.

  29. (Sigh)

    “In other words, perfectly normal deployments of soldiers within the borders of other countries.”

    And if you believe that…

    “The only issue here is the Straits of Tiran. Which Nasser offered to take to the International Court. And Israel refused. Which looks like a pretty serious admission that it was Egyptian and hence blocking it was not a crime.”

    Denying passage to international shipping in international waters? Of course it was a crime. Not wanting to submit to a bent court isn’t an admission of guilt, either.

    “I see nothing whatsoever that supports your claim about what this article says”

    Article 2:
    “The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.”

    “By the British administrators. Not by the League of Nations.”

    The LoN requires them to set up a Jewish homeland within the mandate area. You might argue that it actually requires them to do so in the *whole* of the mandate area, which would include Jordan too, but that’s not something the Jews would argue for at this point.

    “o. Where is there the slightest obligation on the British to allow any immigration at all much less free immigration?”

    Article 6:
    “The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.”

    “Britain took a huge number of Jewish refugees”

    But not an unlimited number, and not nearly enough. After all, we had our own problems with Jews. People like the 6th baronet of Ancoats were far from alone. Nor do they seem to have gone away.

    “Of course it was seen by some as a betrayal. Like our other vibrant multicultural communities who do not give a damn about Britain but are only concerned about what is good for them.”

    Why should they? They’re not British.

    “Actually they could withdraw in reasonable safety. As they did from Gaza. Not a lot of terrorist attacks from Gaza now. A lot less than there used to be.”

    The only reason there aren’t a lot of terrorist attacks from Gaza is because the Israelis smashed their capability to do so every time they attempted it, and got the Egyptians to cooperate cutting off supplies. Hamas haven’t given up. And there are still far more terrorist attacks going on than *we* would put up with.

    “Israel has a Fence after all.”

    Quite so. And isn’t that popular with the British Left.

    “But the settlers have taken too much land and people like Bibi clearly want it all. So it ain’t going to happen.”

    It would be difficult. The original intention of the settlements was to put pressure on the Palestinians to make a deal quickly, because the longer they continued the worse things would get. As it was previously, Palestine had no motive to be in any hurry to settle. But the settlements were an error on Israel’s part, because they didn’t realise how bloody-minded the Palestinians were going to be, and that having escalated the situation they couldn’t easily back down. At least, not without a lasting peace in exchange for it. The Gaza withdrawal did show how it was possible, though.

    “So freakin’ what? It is not Israel’s job to elect governments.”

    No, it’s the Palestinians’. And the Palestinians get to take the consequences, too.

    “And if the Israeli government had not funded Hamas in order to undermine the PLO we wouldn’t be in this mess.”

    Oh! Good one! So now Hamas are Israel’s fault, too!

    And the Palestinians who are actually members of Hamas, and who voted for Hamas, bear no responsibility at all for this?

    “No, that is a paranoid fantasy. Not the reality.”

    The reality is that minorities in Muslim countries are routinely persecuted. The Coptic Christians in Egypt are far less abrasive than the Jews, and yet they still get their church’s burnt down.

    Islam requires that the entire world submits to Allah, and that once a land has been brought under Islamic control it can never be given up. Jihad to defend Muslim lands is obligatory. They’ll fight until Israel is destroyed, and if any Jews survive there it will once again only be as dhimma.

    “Well apart from rewarding ethnic cleansing,”

    So would you argue that Pakistan shouldn’t exist?

    “Naturally the rights of citizenship descend to the children too. So the right of return applies to all those driven out in 1948-9.”

    And of course exactly the same logic would apply to the descendents of those Jews forced out by the Romans, or by the Islamic invasion in 637!

    Or you could say that as citizens of the Ottoman Empire, those Jews driven out of other parts of the former Ottoman territories had as much right to be there as any other Ottoman citizen. It was all the same ‘country’. To the extent that citizenship of the former Ottoman territories can descend to anyone, given that they no longer existed, most of the Jews of Israel already had it.

  30. So Much For Subtlety

    NiV – “Denying passage to international shipping in international waters? Of course it was a crime. Not wanting to submit to a bent court isn’t an admission of guilt, either.”

    It was not international, it was disputed. The whole question is whether it was international or not. And it is absurd to claim that a court in the Netherlands in 1967 was bent. Of course it was an admission of guilt. So no it is not a crime. Especially as Egypt didn’t close it. Nasser said he had. Not the same thing. On top of which, the only reason that Israel had a port on the Red Sea was that it violated the 1949 cease fire before the guns had cooled down to seize it.

    Article 2 does not support a single one of your claims. It says Britain ought to work towards creating *a* national home in Palestine. Not *the*. Not covering all of it. Not right now. Not immediately. But whenever the British felt like it.

    “The LoN requires them to set up a Jewish homeland within the mandate area. You might argue that it actually requires them to do so in the *whole* of the mandate area, which would include Jordan too, but that’s not something the Jews would argue for at this point.”

    You might so argue. I wouldn’t. Because you would be laughed at. The Mandate does not require a State of Israel. It does not give Israel all of Palestine. It certainly does not give them the West Bank. You’re just making sh!t up now.

    “Article 6:
    “The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.”

    Facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions is not unlimited immigration. Especially as the existing rights of the Palestinians had to be safeguarded. Again, the Mandate document does not say what you claim it says. You’re lying. Because you know it does not.

    “But not an unlimited number, and not nearly enough. After all, we had our own problems with Jews. People like the 6th baronet of Ancoats were far from alone. Nor do they seem to have gone away.”

    There weren’t an unlimited number to take – and your claim is asinine. Between Britain, France, Belgium and Poland all the German Jews who wanted to leave found refuge. The problem was that the Wehrmacht took over territories faster than the refugees could flee. Not that they lacked places to go. And some people in Britain may not have liked Jews. So freakin’ what? Is this the same argument that you have used that because one Palestinian supported Hitler all Palestinians supported Hitler?

    “Why should they? They’re not British.”

    You’re claiming British Jews and British Afro-Caribbean people are not British?

    “The only reason there aren’t a lot of terrorist attacks from Gaza is because the Israelis smashed their capability to do so every time they attempted it, and got the Egyptians to cooperate cutting off supplies. Hamas haven’t given up. And there are still far more terrorist attacks going on than *we* would put up with.”

    And the Fence. Don’t forget the Fence. Hamas is still there. Israel has not done much to dismantle their terror network. But they do have the Fence.

    “It would be difficult. The original intention of the settlements was to put pressure on the Palestinians to make a deal quickly, because the longer they continued the worse things would get.”

    No it wasn’t. But it is odd you claim it. The original aim was to consolidate Israel from the river to the sea in the words of the Likud anthem. The aim was annexation.

    “As it was previously, Palestine had no motive to be in any hurry to settle. But the settlements were an error on Israel’s part, because they didn’t realise how bloody-minded the Palestinians were going to be, and that having escalated the situation they couldn’t easily back down.”

    This is the most amazing re-writing of history. Sadat signed an agreement with Begin that gave autonomy to the West Bank and Gaza. Begin allowed them to control their own garbage collection. Little more. It was actually a good chance to create a non-violent, non-PLO leadership in the West Bank using the same family networks the Jordanians had used. But no, Begin was not having any of it. Because he did not want a peaceful settlement that involved anything other than a complete Palestinian surrender. So the PLO discredited those mayors stupid enough to collaborate and they have been in control ever since.

    “No, it’s the Palestinians’. And the Palestinians get to take the consequences, too.”

    So they do. So what?

    “Oh! Good one! So now Hamas are Israel’s fault, too!”

    Israel encouraged them. They can hardly claim the results they wanted had nothing to do with them.

    “And the Palestinians who are actually members of Hamas, and who voted for Hamas, bear no responsibility at all for this?”

    Nice try to dodge the issue by changing the subject.

    “Islam requires that the entire world submits to Allah, and that once a land has been brought under Islamic control it can never be given up.”

    Sure but what has that got to do with the rights and wrongs of this or any other dispute?

    “So would you argue that Pakistan shouldn’t exist?”

    Yes.

    “And of course exactly the same logic would apply to the descendents of those Jews forced out by the Romans, or by the Islamic invasion in 637!”

    If you can produce a birth certificate, I am sure someone might be interested. As it happens, Jews are always and everywhere genetically closest to the people around them. And so they are unlikely to be descended from anyone much.

    “Or you could say that as citizens of the Ottoman Empire, those Jews driven out of other parts of the former Ottoman territories had as much right to be there as any other Ottoman citizen.”

    You could. I am not sure what good it would do you as that would apply to the Jews of Iraq and that is about it. Maybe the Jews of Yemen if you stretched a point. Given Israel seems to have worked to bomb the Jews of Iraq out, I am not sure about blame assignment there either. It certainly would not apply to all those Jews you claim the British were keeping out of Palestine.

    “It was all the same ‘country’. To the extent that citizenship of the former Ottoman territories can descend to anyone, given that they no longer existed, most of the Jews of Israel already had it.”

    Most? Come on. Given your other claims this is not the weirdest, but it is pretty weird. Former Ottoman subjects do not make a majority of the Israeli Jewish population. Not even close. Jews from Arab countries make over half the Jewish Israeli population, but only about a sixth of those are Iraqi. Maybe you might go up to a third if you were really generous with your definition of what the Ottoman’s controlled.

  31. “It was not international, it was disputed. The whole question is whether it was international or not.”

    The French said it was international waters, the British said it was international waters, the Americans said it was international waters, up until Nasser made his unilateral declaration, even the Arabs had admitted it was international waters.

    “And it is absurd to claim that a court in the Netherlands in 1967 was bent.”

    When Israel is in the dock, most courts are bent. There are too many people like you around.

    “Article 2 does not support a single one of your claims. It says Britain ought to work towards creating *a* national home in Palestine. Not *the*. Not covering all of it. Not right now. Not immediately. But whenever the British felt like it.”

    And what kind of corkscrew weasel-lawyer interpretation of plain language is that?!

    The mandate says “The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home” and you’re going to say, “sure, we’ll do that… in about a billion years time, the wording doesn’t say we can’t”!? And you think that “secure the establishment of the Jewish national home” really meant “do everything you can to delay and prevent the establishment of a Jewish national home”, that when the LoN assigned the entire mandate territory, they were saying “I know we’ve given you this huge area in which to establish a Jewish homeland, but we really only want you to cram them all into a tiny corner of it, the rest is yours to disburse as you wish, nudge, nudge, wink, wink”; that that was what the LoN intended, but for some reason forgot to make clear?

    Oh, I can’t be bothered any more. Even by the usual standards of Israel-haters, this logic is spectacularly twisted – it’s making my brain hurt just reading it. I’m done.

  32. SMFS: No one knows what is going to happen. No one knows how history will turn out. It is not for Oxfam to second guess the future. If they want to go down this path, well, that is their business. But it is not insane. As long as they applied the same rule to, say, East Timor.

    East Timor’s independence did not threaten Indonesia with elimination: Oxfam’s plan guarantees a second holocaust.

    And you don’t have to second guess this, it’s inevitable as WW2 was post-1936.

    When the Mullahs either walk away from or cheat on Obama’s deal (as they will), they’ll get enough enriched Uranium for a minimum of 5 boosted Hiroshima-type bombs in 45 days. With bases just 15 miles away from Tel Aviv, Iran or more likely its proxies can easily kill a couple of million Jews in few seconds. Which is what it’s promised to do.

    Israel has about 100 nukes, many fusion. And they have this saying ‘Never Again’, so they’ll fight to the death.

    So yes, Oxfam is insane.

  33. SMFS,

    my question still stands. UN General Assembly resolutions, which resolution 194 is, are not considered binding international law.

  34. So Much For Subtlety

    NiV – “The French said it was international waters, the British said it was international waters, the Americans said it was international waters, up until Nasser made his unilateral declaration, even the Arabs had admitted it was international waters.”

    Then Israel should have taken it to Court. They did not. It still remains an almost certain admission of guilt.

    “When Israel is in the dock, most courts are bent. There are too many people like you around.”

    Not before the Six Day War there weren’t. And nice little smear. Johnson was wrong, patriotism is not the last resort of the scoundrel.

    “The mandate says “The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home” and you’re going to say, “sure, we’ll do that… in about a billion years time, the wording doesn’t say we can’t”!?”

    I am not sure what I would say. But it does not say that the British have to do it immediately and it does not say they have to allow in any Jew who would like to immigrate. It does not say that the West Bank must be part of a new Jewish State. In fact it does not say a single one of the many stupid things you have been claiming.

    “And you think that “secure the establishment of the Jewish national home” really meant “do everything you can to delay and prevent the establishment of a Jewish national home”,”

    Misquoting me is not going to help either.

    “that when the LoN assigned the entire mandate territory, they were saying “I know we’ve given you this huge area in which to establish a Jewish homeland, but we really only want you to cram them all into a tiny corner of it, the rest is yours to disburse as you wish, nudge, nudge, wink, wink”; that that was what the LoN intended, but for some reason forgot to make clear?”

    Actually the British took what they wanted and the LoN came along after and made up some legal excuse to justify what they did. So you’re looking at the wrong end. If the LoN wanted any immediate effect, they would have said so. They did not.

    “Oh, I can’t be bothered any more. Even by the usual standards of Israel-haters, this logic is spectacularly twisted – it’s making my brain hurt just reading it. I’m done.”

    True but you were done when you started making sh!t up.

    Thomas Gibbon – “East Timor’s independence did not threaten Indonesia with elimination: Oxfam’s plan guarantees a second holocaust.”

    I fail to see how giving up the West Bank is going to cause a Holocaust. Really this is getting absurd. Israel and too many of its supporters have abused language for too long. It makes the entire cause look shabby. NiV’s cheap and all too glib use of anti-Semitic is a good example. But claiming that anyone who thinks the Occupation is illegal is lusting for a new Holocaust is not far off it.

    “When the Mullahs either walk away from or cheat on Obama’s deal (as they will), they’ll get enough enriched Uranium for a minimum of 5 boosted Hiroshima-type bombs in 45 days. With bases just 15 miles away from Tel Aviv, Iran or more likely its proxies can easily kill a couple of million Jews in few seconds. Which is what it’s promised to do.”

    They have based within a few minutes of Tel Aviv in Lebanon. Or in a boat off shore. Even assuming that the secular and Sunni PLO wanted anything to do with the declining Shia Iranians. On top of which Iran has not promised to do any such thing. Deterrence works you know. There is not a lot of reason to think it won’t work in the Middle East either.

    “Israel has about 100 nukes, many fusion. And they have this saying ‘Never Again’, so they’ll fight to the death.”

    Yeah but that whole fighting to the death thing isn’t what is on offer. What you mean is that they will incinerate millions of women and children if their women and children are incinerated first.

    “So yes, Oxfam is insane.”

    You still have not shown how opposing the occupation of the West Bank makes one little bit of difference. If the Iranians are happy to see half their population reduced to CO2 and liberally distributed about the upper atmosphere, just so that they can kill a few Jews, it doesn’t matter if they give Israel two hours warning or two minutes or two seconds. The end result is the same. Israel’s retaliation cannot be stopped. So it makes no difference – as long as they are willing to pay the price. Are they? I see no signs of it.

    No, Iranians are not the sort of people who should have nuclear bombs. But that doesn’t make your argument any less absurd.

    Hugh – “my question still stands. UN General Assembly resolutions, which resolution 194 is, are not considered binding international law.”

    Binding may be the right word. But I think you will find others strongly disagree.

  35. SMFS
    …Iran has not promised to do any such thing. You must be joking!

    Missile defence is all about numbers. The Hezbollah fields are about 130 Km from TA and defence against them is doable. The West Bank is 25 Km and defence is very hard.

  36. SMFS, the disagreement appears to be between you and everyone else. General Assembly resolutions are recognised as recommendations only in the UN charter itself. They place no legal obligations upon anyone. Security Council resolutions, on the other hand, are binding. There is no dispute or controversy here. Israel has no legal obligation to accept the return of those who either left willingly or were expelled in 1948-49.

    Of course, the Palestinian refugees are unique in that they are the only refugees whose status as refugees is inherited by their descendants in perpetuity. If they were treated like any other refugee, then the numbers with a right of return would be very small indeed and no threat to Israel as a Jewish state. I have no idea what makes the Palestinians so special.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *