“I’d argue that saying that the Israelis “invaded” is inherently prejudiced”
Israelis =/= Jews, no?

Indeed. Which is the point. Which demonstrates what has been said many times – that criticism of Israel is denounced as criticism of the Jews.

QED

@Crankboy, The same applies to the Hawks in the Israeli government surely?

The same applies to the Hawks in the Israeli government surely?

Who are the non-hawks?

Ninfan not even slightly the IDF could contain any threat without the Hawks in the Israeli government . In fact the Hawks seem intent on maintaining the tension and unrest in order to maintain power . Israel is in a position of strength it could absorb and contain the very limited Hamas attacks without the disproportionate response collective punishment and targeting of civilians. Indeed the last op protective edge seemed a deliberate stirring of the nest at a time when Hamas were putting a lid on strikes against Israel by other groups.

Wiki pages are pretty good on [ original] Zionism and also how Israel came to be
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism#Territories_considered

Worth noting various territories and areas were covered it’s disingenuous to suggest it was anything other than an attempt to create a Jewish homeland by “invasion”[ I prefer settlement* personally but whatever wors we use they were largely not from the region that is not disputable – well it is on STW but not in the world where facts matter] though Palestine did indeed have jewish folk there but the fighting was the result of the settlement to create a homeland for the jewish people

In 1905, the Zionist congress declined a 1903 offer by the British to establish a homeland in Uganda. Lobbying by Russian Jewish immigrant Chaim Weizmann together with fear that American Jews would encourage the USA to support Germany in the war against communist Russia, culminated in the British government’s Balfour Declaration of 1917.

It endorsed the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, as follows:

His Majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.[56]

In 1922, the League of Nations adopted the declaration, and granted to Britain the Palestine Mandate:

The Mandate will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home … and the development of self-governing institutions, and also safeguard the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.[57]

Weizmann’s role in obtaining the Balfour Declaration led to his election as the Zionist movement’s leader. He remained in that role until 1948, and then was elected as the first President of Israel after the nation gained independence.

Jewish migration to Palestine and widespread Jewish land purchases from feudal[citation needed] landlords contributed to landlessness among Palestinian Arabs, fueling unrest. Riots erupted in Palestine in 1920, 1921 and 1929, in which both Jews and Arabs were killed.[58] Britain was responsible for the Palestinian mandate and, after the Balfour Declaration, it supported Jewish immigration in principle. But, in response to the violent events noted above, the Peel Commission published a report proposing new provisions and restrictions in Palestine.[citation needed]

It was not Jewish folk born and bred there fighting in the main, though some were, it was a direct attempt at settlement to create a Homeland- they could not have been more open about this, nor could the international community and i dont know how someone could not know this.

* “direct all future settlement efforts solely to Palestine”
Thats from the 7th ZIonist convention in 1905 who probably weren’t very anti semitic.

Junky, I would have to agree on it initially being ‘settlement’, if you look at the history of land purchase and subsequent cultivation under Ottoman rule – again, wiki being a good source here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_land_purchase_in_Palestine

I’ve pointed you before to the Peel Commission report, its very even handed and well worth reading:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/peel.html

For example:

The problem of immigration has been aggravated by three factors:– (1) the drastic restrictions imposed on immigration in the United States, (2) the advent of the National Socialist Government in Germany, and (3) the increasing economic pressure on the Jews in Poland.

The continuous impact of a highly intelligent and enterprising race backed by large financial resources on a comparatively poor, indigenous community, on a different cultural level, may produce in time serious reactions. The principle of economic absorptive capacity, meaning that considerations of economic capacity and these alone should determine immigration, is at present inadequate and ignores factors in the situation which wise statesmanship cannot disregard. Political, social and psychological factors should be taken into account. His Majesty’s Government should lay down a political high level of Jewish immigration. This high level should be fixed for the next five years at 12,000 per annum. The High Commissioner should be given discretion to admit immigrants up to this maximum figure, but subject always to the economic absorptive capacity of the country.

Among other alterations in the immigration regulations the Commission recommend that the Administration should have direct control over the immigrants coming in under Category A(i) (persons with £1,000 capital), and any person who desires to enter Palestine under this category should convince the Immigration authority not only that he is in possession of £1,000, but also that there is room in Palestine for additional members in the profession, trade or business which he proposes to pursue.

Not the last time a British government would be concerned over their ability to successfully control levels of immigration 😉

dazh – Member

Seems like there are anti-semites high up in the IDF too. Hiding in plain sight obviously.

Try and keep up, he’s a Self Hating Jew of course.

t was not Jewish folk born and bred there fighting in the main, though some were, it was a direct attempt at settlement to create a Homeland- they could not have been more open about this, nor could the international community and i dont know how someone could not know this.

* “direct all future settlement efforts solely to Palestine”
Thats from the 7th ZIonist convention in 1905 who probably weren’t very anti semitic.

Jews did purchase land in the 19th century, due to anti-semitism throughout Europe. But what really cemented zionism were the riots in the 20’s and the second world war, without the latter occuring – Israel would not exist today.

The creation of Israel was a necessity for the Jews – and the responsibility for it’s existance lies soley with the west and Arab nationalists.

Jews in Palestine were fighting a defensive war, to call in an invasion because Jewish refugees bought land their in the 19th century is quite frankly, disgusting. By your logic, if we started killing a lot of Muslims in the UK – they wouldn’t be entitled to fight a defensive war and call in the help of their friends.

You’re a lefy anti-racist who is guilty of exactly what you preach against.

You can’t deny that Israel had to forcibly eject several thousand Arabs to create their state as it less now

Throughout history, the victors of war have dictated peace terms and expelled their enemies (see German regugees during ww2). When Israel does it, it has to sue for peace.

Jewish migration to Palestine and widespread Jewish land purchases from feudal[citation needed] landlords contributed to landlessness among Palestinian Arabs, fueling unrest. Riots erupted in Palestine in 1920, 1921 and 1929, in which both Jews and Arabs were killed.[58] Britain was responsible for the Palestinian mandate and, after the Balfour Declaration, it supported Jewish immigration in principle. But, in response to the violent events noted above, the Peel Commission published a report proposing new provisions and restrictions in Palestine.[citation needed]

We can play the quote game if you want.

The Arabs found rioting to be an effective political tool because of the lax British response toward violence against Jews. In handling each riot, the British prevented Jews from protecting themselves, but made little or no effort to prevent the Arabs from attacking them. After each outbreak, a British commission of inquiry would try to establish the cause of the violence. The conclusion was always the same: the Arabs were afraid of being displaced by Jews. To stop the rioting, the commissions would recommend that restrictions be placed on Jewish immigration. Thus, the Arabs came to recognize that they could always stop the influx of Jews by staging a riot.

This cycle began after a series of riots in May 1921. After failing to protect the Jewish community from Arab mobs, the British appointed the Haycraft Commission to investigate the cause of the violence. Although the panel concluded the Arabs had been the aggressors, it rationalized the cause of the attack: “The fundamental cause of the riots was a feeling among the Arabs of discontent with, and hostility to, the Jews, due to political and economic causes, and connected with Jewish immigration, and with their conception of Zionist policy.?.?.?.” 37 One consequence of the violence was the institution of a temporary ban on Jewish immigration.

The Arab fear of being “displaced” or “dominated” was used as an excuse for their merciless attacks on peaceful Jewish settlers. Note, too, that these riots were not inspired by nationalistic fervor—nationalists would have rebelled against their British overlords—they were motivated by racial strife and misunderstanding.

In 1929, Arab provocateurs succeeded in convincing the masses that the Jews had designs on the Temple Mount (a tactic still used today). A Jewish religious observance at the Western Wall, which forms a part of the Temple Mount, served as a pretext for rioting by Arabs against Jews that spilled out of Jerusalem into other villages and towns, including Safed and Hebron.

Again, the British Administration made no effort to prevent the violence and, after it began, the British did nothing to protect the Jewish population. After six days of mayhem, the British finally brought troops in to quell the disturbance. By this time, virtually the entire Jewish population of Hebron had fled or been killed. In all, 133 Jews were killed and 399 wounded in the pogroms. 38

Throughout history, the victors of war have dictated peace terms and expelled their enemies

You write that like it justifies something. ISIS won a battle in Iraq and sold Yazidi women into slavery. Justified? I guess so. They won another and destroyed Palmyra. All good. Assad bombed a hospital. Cool, dude – rock on.

You write that like it justifies something. ISIS won a battle in Iraq and sold Yazidi women into slavery. Justified? I guess so. They won another and destroyed Palmyra. All good. Assad bombed a hospital. Cool, dude – rock on.

My point is, if you pick a fight with someone and then lose – don’t bleat about it. Why should Israel apologise for expelling Muslims during the creation of Israel (I’m not talking about the current issues in the West Bank etc, I will quite happily crticise modern Israel), considering how they had been treated by the Arabs during the British Mandate?

Why should Israel apologise for expelling Muslims during the creation of Israel

That’s not too difficult – because it was wrong.

I will quite happily crticise modern Israel

Really? I’m not sure I recall seeing that.

That’s not too difficult – because it was wrong.

But perfectly understandable considering the historical circumsrtances. Place the following into the context of the violence that Jews faced within Palestine during the British mandate, and you have the recipe for what happened.

In the 1920s, Zionism looked like an eccentric, minority belief. In revolutionary Russia after 1917, where once the Tsar had exploited anti-Semitism to divide workers, Jews such as Trotsky took on positions of responsibility and power. The revolutionary government declared freedom of religion for all and abolished earlier restrictions on the education and residential rights of Jews. Any individuals or mobs that attacked Jews were severely punished. Meanwhile, Jews continued to migrate to Western countries, showing their belief that, for all the evils of anti-Semitism, a better life could be forged there. In 1927, at least as many people emigrated from Palestine – namechecked by Herzl and other Zionists as the place where Jews should remove themselves from the world – as migrated to it. Political Zionism looked like a losing card.

So what changed? How did Zionism emerge victorious in the three strands of thinking among twentieth-century European Jews? It became the beneficiary of political degeneration, and of the outbreak of war and genocide.

The strand of Jewish assimilation, where middle-class Jews confidently believed they could prosper in European society, was destroyed by the relentless intensification of anti-Semitism in the 1920s and 30s. As the crisis of capitalist society deepened following the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the trend towards economic recession, there emerged a vicious right-wing backlash in Western and Eastern Europe. The main target of this backlash was the organisations of the working classes, but it also visited its fury upon Jews, who were held up as the main cause of ‘Bolshevik conspiracism’ and economic decline. With the march of Nazism across Europe in the 1930s and 40s, and the elevation of Jewish extermination to the level of government policy, the strand of Jewish assimilation lost all credibility.

Meanwhile, the most positive strand, socialism – whose Jewish adherents refused simply to assimilate into capitalist society or wilfully to separate themselves from it – suffered numerous setbacks in the 1920s and 30s. A combination of the attacks on the working classes in Europe and the creeping degeneracy of Russia under the Stalinists dealt a severe blow to the ideal of internationalism and socialist solidarity. By the late 1920s, working-class solidarity with Jews had declined, and even morphed into new forms of anti-Semitism. Prejudice against Jews was on the rise in Stalin’s Soviet Union. By 1930, the German Communist Party was even shamefully refusing to allow its Jewish leaders to speak in public, lest such a spectacle upset the Nazis. The German Communists cravenly offered up ‘non-Jews’ for public debate instead.

It is in these circumstances that Zionism, founded in the late 1800s but remaining fairly marginal in the early twentieth century, became more attractive to European Jews. Victimised by governments and disillusioned with socialism, many Jews understandably embraced the safety and security – the outright separation – offered by the Zionists. This is the tragedy of Zionism. It emerged in response to anti-Semitism in the late nineteenth century, and was further popularised by the intensification of anti-Semitism and the decline of the left in the 1920s and 30s. The victory of Zionism among European Jews spoke to the degeneration of capitalist society and the failure of the left to uphold internationalism.

With assimilation discredited, and international socialism seemingly exhausted, European Jewry effectively adapted to anti-Semitism rather than seeking to defeat it. Zionism was based on a conviction that Jews can have no place in Gentile society since, in the words of the early Zionist thinker Leo Pinsker, anti-Semitism is insurmountable; it is ‘hereditary’, a ‘disease’, which has been ‘incurable for 2,000 years’. Thus the Jews must cut themselves off. In this sense, Zionism rejects the idea that anti-Semitism can be fought and defeated, and in fact gives credence to the anti-Semitic view that Jews are somehow abnormal. That is one good reason to oppose Zionism. But this is no ancient creed, or a base racist ideology; it is the product of complex historical forces and the experience of profound political defeat.

Really? I’m not sure I recall seeing that.

I have never once in this thread, defended modern Israel. I have been defending it’s creation and attacking the idea that its creation was simply an “invasion”. Blaming/attacking Jews for the creation of the state of Israel is both anti-semitic and an attempt to dodge responsibility for why many Jews felt that Israel had to be created in the first place. It was a defensive war fought by those that felt threatened in Palestine and those that felt threatened in Europe.

OK then, I think the modern state of Israel is a disgusting pariah based on the systematic persecution,ethnic cleansing and use of indiscriminate violence to achieve its aims. Can I be in Junkyards club now? Oh and temple mount; not currently the best of examples to use really.

I have never once in this thread, defended modern Israel.

Perhaps, but I don’t recall having seen you in any thread ever criticise modern Israel. I’m happy to be proved wrong, but my impression is that you are a member of the “Israel can do no wrong” brigade, along such illustrious members as jamba and ninfan.

I have been defending it’s creation and attacking the idea that its creation was simply an “invasion”. Blaming/attacking Jews for the creation of the state of Israel is both anti-semitic and an attempt to dodge responsibility for why many Jews felt that Israel had to be created in the first place. It was a defensive war fought by those that felt threatened in Palestine and those that felt threatened in Europe.

Indeed – it was the Palestinians and their allies who rejected the 1947 UN partition plan, (they now admit that this was a mistake) and then tried to wipe Israel off the face of the map, and failed.

then tried again, and failed.

then tried again, and failed.

Its not Israel who has remained sworn to the destruction of any of its neighbours ever since.

They don’t have to swear to it, they have been doing it.

Its not Israel who has remained sworn to the destruction of any of its neighbours ever since.

I’m sure that is a big comfort to the residents of this neighbour:

Perhaps, but I don’t recall having seen you in any thread ever criticise modern Israel. I’m happy to be proved wrong, but my impression is that you are a member of the “Israel can do no wrong” brigade, along such illustrious members as jamba and ninfan.

I haven’t seen you criticize a certain brand of Muslim.

You terrorist symathizer.

Personally, I think that Israel has done itself a massive diservice and undermined its legitimacy with many of its recent actions. Thats a slightly different subject though.

“. Blaming/attacking Jews for the creation of the state of Israel is both anti-semitic and an attempt to dodge responsibility for why many Jews felt that Israel had to be created in the first place.

When did facts become anti semitic?
There was a zionist commision to create a homeland- that considered a number of locations- if this was not jews doing it , with the support of the international community, to create Israel then whoTF was then in your view?

I am not sure sophistry will help the debate much but hey you crack on and then call anyone who objects to your view racist. 😯

There is no doubt zionism arose out of outright bigotry by European states who openly oppressed Jews – what a shame it led to a zionist state openly oppressing Arabs from the moment it expelled them and said they could never return to what they do now. Neither is defensible and the treatment of jews historically does not give them the right to be the oppressors now.

There is also no doubt the Arab view of pushing Israel into the sea is, to understate it massively a largely insurmountable obstacle to peace. I dont think Israel’s current treatment of them is going to be wining hearts and minds anytime soon though a two state solution is the only option – though Israel needs to respect the actual borders and not the “ones they have made on the ground”.

I am not sure sophistry will help the debate much but hey you crack on and then call anyone who objects to your view racist.

There is no doubt zionism arose out of outright bigotry by European states who openly oppressed Jews – what a shame it led to a zionist state openly oppressing Arabs from the moment it expelled them and said they could never return to what they do now. Neither is defensible and the treatment of jews historically does not give them the right to be the oppressors now.

Give me a break, the Jews in Israel, at that time – are more or less blameless for expelling their previous opressors. From the moment that Jews were being opressed in Europe, the Arabs sought to block their safe refuge to Palestine. What a shame hey? They then spent the next few years trying to wipe Israel off the map. Tears of a crockodile.

I think that the obvious solution to the Syrian refugee crisis is to declare a new Syrian homeland in, say, Kensington, and kick out the non-Arab residents to make space.

Give me a break, the Jews in Israel, at that time – had the right to expel their opressors.

I assume that these “oppressors” were identified in a due process of law, right?

I assume that these “oppressors” were identified in a due process of law, right?

No such thing as due process when you decide to kick off a war, really.

Again, bleating about it is an attempt to distract from the shared European and Arab responsibility for the necessisty of Israel.

ive me a break, the Jews in Israel, at that time – had the right to expel their opressors.

So you have the right in international law to settle in a country then when the local populace object you can then expel them from their land..MMM OKAy where else should we try this approach to make a country from folk not currently living there at the cost of those actually living there now?

From the moment that Jews were being opressed in Europe, the Arabs sought to block their safe refuge to Palestine.

It was not safe refuge it was a desire, openly and explicitly stated, to create a homeland that resulted in the expulsion of the folk who lived there and its still going on. No nation would embrace this “settlement/invasion” as it led to their own state being extinct

the obvious solution to the Syrian refugee crisis is to declare a new Syrian homeland in, say, Kensington, and kick out the non-Arab residents to make space.

No its in israel and Tom is on the case to explain how right and just this will be…He will be well upset if those folk living there now in anyway object

When did facts become anti semitic?

Ah, the Nick Griffin defence…

So you have the right in international law to settle in a country then when the local populace object you can then expel them from their land

Yes, Israel was created by international law, UN resolution 181

Jambalaya:

“What I need to do is my business and if I wanted your opinion on it I would have asked. I didn’t ask so you can be assured I don’t give a t0ss about your 2 pence.”

You’re participating in a debate/discussion on an open forum. By doing so, you are actively inviting response. That you either like or dislike the response received is neither here nor there. If you do not wish to be challenged, you can simply choose not to participate. My tuppence feels somewhat relieved you won’t be tossing over it.

“In my 35 year career…. My views are based on that experience.”

You are entitled to whatever views you choose, of course. But to attempt to play some sort of self-validating ‘top trumps’ on the internet, with people whom you have never met, nor are knowledgeable of their experiences, is quite a risky game; you really have no idea who others are, what they do, what their knowledge and experience is, and you could end up looking very stupid, so let’s not play that game. Your ‘experiences’ do not qualify your comments/views above anyone elses. It’s your arrogance in proclaiming your righteousness that wins you few allies. And quite frankly, your constant habit of carefully selecting information to suit your own agenda, as well as only using your own interpretation of facts, shows the paucity of your argument.

Now this is a very emotive subject; one which involves discussing the justification for violence and oppression, the denial of Human Rights to people based on their ethnicity/culture, and the ‘legality’ of forced expulsion of an entire people. So it’s understandable that tempers will get a little frayed. But none of us will solve anything by simply shouting down the arguments of others; Jambalaya, you probably could have some very useful input into this discussion, as does TomW1967. I personally feel that some elements of the pro-Palestinian ‘side’ choose to obfuscate matters with the questioning of the validity of the Israeli state (and justifiably so, for it wasn’t formed with universal approval and consensus); Israel is a state, regardless of how it was formed, and that’s a fact. And yes, it has a right to defend it’s own borders and people. As does any state, including Palestine (which is recognised as a state by the majority of world nations and UN members, so I think we can safely say it is one, for the sake of this argument). No state has the right to bulldoze it’s way into other nations, simply to make more living space for it’s own citizens, at the expense of others. The actions of the Israeli government and military are abhorrent, largely illegal under international law, and in violation of UN agreements, and even the Geneva Convention. Elements such as Hamas are also guilty of crimes, and many members guilty of abhorrent racist, misogynist and anti-Semitic views. This, we all know. The facts speak for themselves. The rest is simply opinion.

As for Ken Livingstone: he is guilty of nothing more than stupidity, and a deliberately provocative choice of words. He has no case to answer, regarding anti-Semitism. Even his most ardent opponents know this, if they are being completely honest. Only an idiot would think otherwise. The whole media frenzy was whipped up deliberately to damage Corbyn and Labour, this much is obvious. Well, that seems to have largely failed, so the right will have to go away and think up some new tactics. So far, in trying to find a stick to beat Corbyn and Labour with, all they’ve managed to find is a few twigs.

Meanwhile, Palestinians continue to suffer. And this is what makes most decent people angry.

As for Ken Livingstone: he is guilty of nothing more than stupidity, and a deliberately provocative choice of words.

Good summary of the last 16 pages or argument 🙂

As for Ken Livingstone: he is guilty of nothing more than stupidity, and a deliberately provocative choice of words. He has no case to answer, regarding anti-Semitism.

True

Even his most ardent opponents know this, if they are being completely honest. Only an idiot would think otherwise.

Its not his opponents that are the problem. This has been largely an internal Labour cluster f%%k. They lacked the bottle to stand up to lazy anti-Semitism slurs.

So far, in trying to find a stick to beat Corbyn and Labour with, all they’ve managed to find is a few twigs.

Last week’s results suggest that this might not be 100% accurate

I personally feel that some elements of the pro-Palestinian ‘side’ choose to obfuscate matters with the questioning of the validity of the Israeli state (and justifiably so, for it wasn’t formed with universal approval and consensus); Israel is a state, regardless of how it was formed, and that’s a fact. And yes, it has a right to defend it’s own borders and people. As does any state, including Palestine (which is recognised as a state by the majority of world nations and UN members, so I think we can safely say it is one, for the sake of this argument). No state has the right to bulldoze it’s way into other nations, simply to make more living space for it’s own citizens, at the expense of others. The actions of the Israeli government and military are abhorrent, largely illegal under international law, and in violation of UN agreements, and even the Geneva Convention. Elements such as Hamas are also guilty of crimes, and many members guilty of abhorrent racist, misogynist and anti-Semitic views. This, we all know. The facts speak for themselves. The rest is simply opinion.

We should just post that on every Israel thread as its pretty well balanced IMHO.

“Last week’s results suggest that this might not be 100% accurate”

Oh hello, you again!

I think winning a larger percentage of council seats than Blair or Cameron did at their first elections, plus Labour winning the London Mayoralty, would suggest that it might in fact be true. Sorry!

“This has been largely an internal Labour cluster f%%k. They lacked the bottle to stand up to lazy anti-Semitism slurs.”

No let’s get this straight; there’s been a concerted campaign by Blairites within Labour, to damage and oust Corbyn, and this is their latest twig. That’s all. Yes, they’ve caused some damage, but Labour can and will recover, and the Blairites have now exposed and isolated themselves further. Labour hasn’t ‘lacked the bottle to deal with anti-Semitism slurs’ as you suggest, far from it. They are dealing with matters as would any political party.

Very odd – we agree that KL had no case to answer (other than being a pillock in this case)and that this has been a largely internal issue (those nasty blairites).

And so the fact that this has become a mess is a sign of strong or weak leadership? You decide…

They are dealing with matters as would any political party.

No they’re not. There was nothing remotely racist/anti-semitic about what KL said. I don’t think any other party would have suspended him, and suspending him just gave a non-story legs.

“I don’t think any other party would have suspended him”

Does that mean only Labour take anti-Semitism seriously then?

Does that mean only Labour take anti-Semitism seriously then?

Well, they certainly take baseless accusations of anti-Semitism seriously….

This has been largely an internal Labour cluster f%%k. They lacked the bottle to stand up to lazy anti-Semitism slurs.

Absolutely untrue its agenda driven by his opponents who exist in the media and within the labour party . Only RW folk argue that its ” only labour” and the slurs amount to how many members ? 10 – we can find as many in Tories doing this and we have a high office campaign against a Muslim and yet the silence , when there is open dissent in the tories about the “tone” of the campaign, is deafening and once more serves to highlight your agenda/politics
Both are proof its tories like you doing the stirring aided and abetted by Blairites and a hostile media.

Kens comment was idiotic and corbyn could not win
Do nothing and defend ken he will be an anti semite
Suspend him and its proof of anti semtism in the party – its what they naysayers wanted and Ken helped deliver it, the tit.

Well, they certainly take baseless accusations of anti-Semitism seriously….

😀

Following on from this humour with a serious and related point, Tristram Hunt noted in the FT today, “there is an obsessive focus on fringe issues”

Just at a time when we need a decent opposition

Forum member of the month award goes to clodhopper for that post.

Nah, FF’s retort was much better….

I think he means the long post not the flippant one.

@clod responding to a debate in one thing offering your advice about what anyone else should do is something rather different, hence my reply. I don’t recall you participating in the numerous Israel related threads over the past few years. Most of what you’ve said we’ve debated at length and will I am sure continue to do so as there is unlikely to be a solution any time soon

Livingstone’s statement was indeed deliberately provocative and done so with the deliberate intention to provoke controversy and to encourage his many anti-semitic followers. As such it was typical of him and hugely irresponsible.

Chief Rabi again commented over the weekend on anti-semitism and in particular how it’s been ignored by Universities for far too many years.

The creation of Israel lead to the forced movement of 700,000 people in 1947 (note many Arabs decided to stay) – now there are some 5m Palestinians who claim refugee status. In 1995 the population of Gaza was 600,000 now it is 1.8m. Either Palestinians have been multiplying at a prodigious rate or there is a lot of migration and refugee claims. There would be no attacks on Gaza if they had elected a different government 10 years ago after Israel’s unilateral withdrawal (no election since, plenty of executions of political rivals) and the rocket attacks (totally pointless imho) and tunnel building would stop (more shelling over the past few days as Israel has been destroying newly rebuilt tunnels (they cost about $3m each to build and use large amounts of cement which would be better used to rebuild houses). The Arab population of Israel numbers about 1m, its worth noting the Palestinians wish that any Palestinian future state has a zero Jewish population.

None of what is going on in Israel has much of anything to do with the 250,000 Jews living in the UK. Just like what is going on in Israel and Gaza has little to do with the millions of Muslims who live in the UK.