So much for anger


By Stephen Pollard
February 26, 2010
Share

Remember all that guff last week about Israel and the UK government being at loggerheads? The Ambassador being summoned ('invited', to use the technical word) to the FCO, Brown's anger, relations being seriously damaged, blah blah blah...

This innvite has just dropped in my in-box:

His
Excellency Mr Ron
Prosor,

Ambassador
of the State of Israel,

 is
delighted to invite you to the Embassy Housewarming
Reception

joined
by our guest of honour:

Foreign
Secretary, the Rt. Hon. David Miliband

and

Chief
Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks

who
will affix the Mezuzah.

I see. That'll be how Mr Miliband expresses his anger, then. 

COMMENTS

moshetzarfati2 (not verified)

Fri, 02/26/2010 - 11:09

Rate this:

0 points

Given that diaries for this kind of thing are co-ordinated months in advance -- and long before any Israeli shenanigans in Dubai -- what's the betting that Mr Miliband will find himself diplomatically indisposed on the day?


tomeisner2

Wed, 03/10/2010 - 12:00

Rate this:

0 points

Doesn't the refusal of Israel to stop the settlement advance remind us of another period in history. Lebensraum.


Jon_i_Cohen

Wed, 03/10/2010 - 12:53

Rate this:

0 points

Troll alert
You cannot be serious, or Jewish for that matter, this is just posted to wind us up, right?


andrew_tolg

Wed, 03/10/2010 - 12:53

Rate this:

0 points

Nope - Hitler justified expansion into the Soviet Union on the basis that it was controlled by Jews (See "Mein Kampf", p655) I don't think that Israel (unlike Tom) is looking to rid the West Bank or East Jerusalem of Jews.

Maybe it is more reflective of the 19th Century concept of "Manifest Destiny".


moshetzarfati2 (not verified)

Wed, 03/10/2010 - 12:57

Rate this:

0 points

Andrew, Hitler and the Nazis justified lebensraum on the basis that the Reich needed more "living space" and it needed the Slavs as slaves for the Aryans.


andrew_tolg

Wed, 03/10/2010 - 13:07

Rate this:

0 points

Moshe, the "living space" argument was used by Germans in the 19th century as part of their unification and imperialistic ambitions. Tom, however, was not trying to equate Israelis leaders with Bismarck but rather with Hitler. That being the case, Hitler changed the concept of Lebensraum to be anti-Semitic in nature.

It is important to keep reminding the troll that linking Israel to Nazism is highly offensive and anti-Semitic per se.


moshetzarfati2 (not verified)

Wed, 03/10/2010 - 13:36

Rate this:

0 points

I disagree, Andrew, on the anti-Semitic interpretation of Lebensraum. It was indeed a means to expand the Reich for "living room" and to get lesser mortals to be enslaved to the Aryans. The Jews were below even te lesser mortals and were to be exterminated.
Linking Israel to Nazism is indeed highly offensive and a grotesque exaggeration, but I wouldn't call it anti-Semitic.
Israel is using the occupied territories for expansion and "living space" and there are parties in Israel who would like to see these territories and Israel proper empty of Arabs. One such party is Yisrael Beiteinu, which is a member of Netanyahu's government.


Akiva

Wed, 03/10/2010 - 15:17

Rate this:

0 points

moshetzarfati2 if that's the case then you have proved conclusively that it is in fact, anti-semitic. Yisrael Beiteinu are a "two states for two peoples" party, which is the ideal of the PA who wish to see all of Judea and Samaria as Judenrein (and in their areas, it is).


moshetzarfati2 (not verified)

Wed, 03/10/2010 - 17:45

Rate this:

0 points

Akiva, the only two-state solution YB is interested in is the one where Israel removes its Arab residents and those in the occupied territories and sends them eastwards to Jordan.


tomeisner2

Wed, 03/10/2010 - 18:04

Rate this:

0 points

Hitler justified the taking of the "Sudetenland" in 1938 as Lebensraum for the Germans. According to the Nazis there were historical reasons going back to the beginning of time, German land that the Untermensch Slavonic Czechs had stolen etc.etc.

According to the Israeli settlers in the West Bank there are also historical reasons for their taking of this land. Their justification apparently goes right back to the Bible and beyond.... they are convinced that they are right in creating Israel's Lebensraum.

Hence the comparison.


Akiva

Wed, 03/10/2010 - 18:17

Rate this:

0 points

"Akiva, the only two-state solution YB is interested in is the one where Israel removes its Arab residents and those in the occupied territories and sends them eastwards to Jordan."

To be fair, that would be the original two state solution (and Jordan is a "Palestinian" majority country).

Even if that were true though, that's a heck of a lot better than Fatah and Hamas's charters which state they want to drive the Jews into the sea. Yet once again, you liberals see fit to snipe at Israel in which YB is just one single political party (and far from the largest)? That's anti-semitism. You're anti-semitic.


moshetzarfati2 (not verified)

Wed, 03/10/2010 - 21:05

Rate this:

0 points

It appears, Akiva, that anti-Semitism is anything you disagree with. That's what's causing the cheapening of the term.
Anyway, YB is one party, add to it Ha'Ichud Haleumi, Shas, Habayit Hayehudi, a large number in the Likud, various Kahanist groupings and you have a fair few parties that want Israel and the Occupied Territories to be clear of Arabs.


Akiva

Thu, 03/11/2010 - 06:17

Rate this:

0 points

You have "missing the point" down to an art form. Disagreeing with YB itself isn't anti-semitic. It's the fact that you use the viewpoint of YB to slander the entire state of Israel's position, while, ignoring that of the Arabs which is far more extreme on every level. You specifically target Jews in your spiteful posts.

Jewish Home, Likud, Shas etc do not favour displacement of arabs. They might favour Jews building homes in Judea and Samaria though (dun dun duh).

National Union is another story, but they are so marginalised it's like comparing their opinion to that of UKIP over here.


moshetzarfati2 (not verified)

Thu, 03/11/2010 - 10:09

Rate this:

0 points

Actually, Akiva, those parties do, and they have introduced policies to induce Arabs to leave. So, it's not just one "small" marginalised party, it's a large chunk of the Israeli body politic which wants Arabs out.
As for building in the Occupied Territories, that'll just hasten Israel's demise. Is that what you want? Are you an anti-Zionist then?


Akiva

Thu, 03/11/2010 - 12:11

Rate this:

0 points

1. You ignored the point, that your comments and excessive standards are always aimed solely at Jews. Guess what we call that?

2. You have yet to explain quite how Jews building houses will cause the downfall of the state.


moshetzarfati2 (not verified)

Thu, 03/11/2010 - 12:17

Rate this:

0 points

1. On a Jewish website, I comment on Israel.
2. Israel's expansionist policies mean that it now controls more non-Jews than Jews and most of those are disenfranchised. An apartheid situation such as this will lead to Israel's demise. If Israel doesn't mend its ways, before long, the non-Jews of the Negev and the Galil, where they are a majority, will be demanding autonomy too. So instead of wasting huge amounts of funds on colonies in the occupied territories, Israel should start developing those areas over which there is a real consensus among Jews.

POST A COMMENT

You must be logged in to post a comment.

STEPHEN POLLARD ON TWITTER

    LATEST COMMENTS