Geert Wilders visit with FM Lieberman. How will the JC report it?


By Kahina
December 6, 2010
Share

Yesterday in Tel Aviv, Geert Wilders praises Israel and repeats that Jordan is Palestine. Daphne Anson reports here:

http://daphneanson.blogspot.com/2010/12/in-tel-aviv-geert-wilders-praise...

I'm waiting to see how the JC reports on it... (if at all).

Update 10th December: No reporting in this week's Jewish Chronicle on the meeting.

COMMENTS

zair (not verified)

Mon, 12/06/2010 - 13:02

Rate this:

1 point

Birds of a feather......


jose (not verified)

Mon, 12/06/2010 - 13:04

Rate this:

0 points

What's the problem, zair? You are antisemite, Geert Wilders is not anti-Arabs, just anti-Islam.
So better not pose as better.


Jon_i_Cohen

Mon, 12/06/2010 - 13:14

Rate this:

-1 points

This is what Wilders says:-
"Jordan is Palestine, Changing its name to Palestine will end the conflict in the Middle East and provide the Palestinians with an alternate homeland. If Jerusalem falls into the hands of the Muslims, Athens and Rome will be next. Thus, Jerusalem is the main front protecting the West. It is not a conflict over territory but rather an ideological battle, between the mentality of the liberated West and the ideology of Islamic barbarism, there has been an independent Palestinian state since 1946, and it is the kingdom of Jordan."

Wilders also calls on the Dutch government to refer to Jordan as Palestine and move its embassy to Jerusalem.

Wilders has spoken the big inconvenient truth. As a result, it is inevitably being dismissed as merely what ‘the right’ regularly says. So of course it's untrue, on the grounds that, by definition, everything ‘the right’ says is untrue. Yadda yadda.

But it is not untrue. It is correct.

Anyone familiar with the history knows it is correct.

Immediately after World War One, Palestine consisted of what is now Jordan, Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. The powers dividing up the region decided that Britain should be given a mandate to administer Palestine and restore within it the historic Jewish national home. Within a couple of years, Winston Churchill, for reasons of realpolitik, gave away three quarters of Palestine to the Hashemite dynasty to found (Trans)Jordan. So Jordan really is indeed Palestine and the answer to todays "West Bank" problem.


yankeeuxb (not verified)

Mon, 12/06/2010 - 14:07

Rate this:

0 points

'If Jerusalem falls into the hands of the Muslims, Athens and Rome will be next.'

'between the mentality of the liberated West and the ideology of Islamic barbarism'

That is Nazi talk.

Praise from Wilders is nothing really to be proud about. The guy is anti islam, anti Arab. A Nazi really.


yankeeuxb (not verified)

Mon, 12/06/2010 - 14:09

Rate this:

0 points

Like the ZF federation aligning itself with the EDL, the Israeli Government would rather align itself with a right wing racist than offer any quarter to the besieged and occupied Palestinians.


Jon_i_Cohen

Mon, 12/06/2010 - 14:21

Rate this:

0 points

It has nothing whatsoever do do with Nazism, and it is and he is not "anti"-Arab, he is anti-Islamic extremsism. Two different things.
It is a simple statment of reality, as are these, by Arab leaders themselves:-

Jordanians, for decades, were avid proponents of the ‘Jordan is Palestine’ position. They used that position as justification for the annexation of the West Bank, arguing that Palestine was one single, indivisible unit, and that Jordan was the legitimate governing body of Palestine...

‘We are the government of Palestine, the army of Palestine and the refugees of Palestine.’ Prime Minister of Jordan, Hazza' al-Majali, 23 August 1959

‘Palestine and Transjordan are one.’ King Abdullah, Arab League meeting in Cairo, 12 April 1948

‘Palestine is Jordan and Jordan is Palestine; there is one people and one land, with one history and one and the same fate.’ Prince Hassan, brother of King Hussein, addressing the Jordanian National Assembly, 2 February 1970

‘Jordan is not just another Arab state with regard to Palestine, but rather, Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan in terms of territory, national identity, sufferings, hopes and aspirations.’ Jordanian Minister of Agriculture, 24 September 1980

'The truth is that Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan.' King Hussein 1981

Indeed, until 1970 the Palestine Liberation Organisation conducted terrorist operations against Jordan on the grounds that it was Palestine and the Hashemite minority was ruling the Palestinian majority. It was only after Jordan killed thousands of Palestinians in 'Black September' (and who in the west ever cared about that??) that Israel suddenly became the sole historic homeland’ of the Palestinians and Jordan was airbrushed out of the picture -- and the fabrication of ‘Palestinianism’ became the accepted truth.

All I am doing is re-stating the Historigraphical evidence.

yankeeuxb and his other lefty friends may not like it, but there it is in the "Arabs" own words.


Jon_i_Cohen

Mon, 12/06/2010 - 14:23

Rate this:

-1 points

But as 'Palestinian' politician Zouhair Moussein told the Dutch newspaper Trouw in 1977 (hat tip: Israel Matzav):

The Palestinian people does not exist.

The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people’ to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.

It is the west’s refusal to acknowledge this connection, and wholly to misrepresent instead both the history of the region and the causes of the conflict in the Middle East, which is one of the principal reasons why that murderous impasse continues to this day.


jose (not verified)

Mon, 12/06/2010 - 15:03

Rate this:

-1 points

Don't try to demonise Wilders as you try to demonise Israel, yankeeuxb: nobody believes you anyway. Wilders is anti-Islam. He just doesn't like this religion and it's his right to have an opinion.
We know that you hate those who don't like your religion, but this is not an opinion, this is hate, just like zair's.

It is useless to libel Wilders by writing he is anti-Arab, he is not and some Arabs are siding with him too.
It is useless to libel Wilders as being a Nazi, he is not, as "Nazi" is antisemite, racist and supremacist. Obviously, Wilders is neither an antisemite, nor a racist nor a supremacist.


Jon_i_Cohen

Mon, 12/06/2010 - 15:28

Rate this:

0 points

Gert Wilders yesterday:-

http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=198150

Dutch politician Geert Wilders called on Israel to build more settlements in the West Bank.......

Wilders stated that building must continue so Israel can create defensible borders — by annexing the West Bank........


Robert Snodgrass

Mon, 12/06/2010 - 16:13

Rate this:

0 points

Ha ha yankeeuxb, your posts are so funny. you claim that Israel would prefer to align herself with racists then the Palestinians. Does this comment make any sense to you? You only have to read the Hamas charter to see that the people of 'Palestine' do not speak all that kindly RE the Jooze, thus making them blatent racists, the likes of which you accuse Wilders of being

Following on from your original comment, Wilders is not racist. He has lived in Israel and visited lots of Muslim Arab countries and from what he has seen in these countries, coupled with the rising immigration of Muslims into the Netherlands, he has made a rational conclusion based on his experiences.

I can understand why the truth would frustrate and upset you, but you are continuing to embarrass yourself with your silly views and your ignorant cheer leader Zair. I don't think either of you has made a valid point on these blogs since its inception.

Regards


jose (not verified)

Mon, 12/06/2010 - 17:12

Rate this:

0 points

Remember that the Arab nations have offered no shelter to the 'Palestinians', remember that the number of 'refugees' is an artificial creation of UNRWA. Under any other circumstances, the number of refugees would be today less than 100,000. In 30 years there would be none to claim any 'right of return', a right that they could as well claim in Jordan for 43 years. Let's not count the 19 first years when they felt very much at ease, 'occupied' by Jordan.

What 'Palestinians' want is like any Arab country want, a Judenrein country. In any other country, a government that would forbid its citizens to buy anything to Jews or work for them would be called "Nazi". This proves that the 23rd Muslim state would be as racist and intolerant as the 22 others.


Yehuda Erdman

Tue, 12/07/2010 - 17:29

Rate this:

1 point

Jordan is not Palestine, it is a sovereign state. In due course the state of Palestine will be created after negotiation with Israel and all problems such as borders, demilitarisation and security, refugees, water rights etc. will be resolved. Such a treaty will be guaranteed by the Quartet (USA, Russia, EC and UK) which will bring to an end the conflict which has continued for 62 years so far.
This is what is meant by the two state solution and all responsible Israeli politicians have by now signed up to it. Netanyahu himself has publicly stated that he agrees with this solution.


mattpryor

Tue, 12/07/2010 - 19:08

Rate this:

-1 points

Yehuda: It's a shame that Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Muslim Brotherhood, and the thousand other splinter groups, don't want a "two state solution", they want a "one state solution" where Jews know their place.

As for Fatah, they only seem to be interested in having their own state if it can be militarized, hostile to Israel, and Juhdenrein. Some neighbour!

You can only have two states if there is a responsible leadership to govern the second state. Otherwise you are signing Israel up for more conflict and more bloodshed.

Where is that leadership?


Kahina

Fri, 12/10/2010 - 13:27

Rate this:

0 points

Update 10th December: No reporting in this week's Jewish Chronicle on the meeting.

Do the Jewish Chronicle believe that British Jews are not interested?


Yvetta

Fri, 12/10/2010 - 17:52

Rate this:

0 points

The JC hasn't reported this.
It prefers breadsticks lite.


joemillis

Fri, 12/10/2010 - 17:57

Rate this:

0 points

Maybe, Yvetta, it wasn't all that important a meeting. After all, it's a flash-in-the-pan marginal Dutch extremist meeting a a flash-in-the-pan, here-today-gone-tomorrow Israeli extremist. So what?

POST A COMMENT

You must be logged in to post a comment.

LATEST COMMENTS