Pick and choose journalism and the Fogel murders


By Jennifer Lipman
March 25, 2011
Share
Hadas Fogel

Hadas Fogel

If you have a few spare hours, actually, make that days, you could fill them by reading the huge number of comments below MP Louise Bagshawe’s piece on the Fogel family massacre in Thursday’s Telegraph.

The piece has attracted quite a reaction – 1955 responses at the time of writing – and as well as the usual stream of frankly antisemitic bile, there’s a few more reasoned queries about why this murder should be different.

It’s a discussion I’ve had more than once since the murders. Yes, this was undoubtedly a tragedy (to refresh your memory, five members of the Fogel family including a three-month-old baby were slaughtered in the most gruesome way), but the world is a place where truly horrible things happen all the time.

Where is the coverage, say, of the five people killed by a Sudanese militia in Abyei, this week? Where in the British media is there any real sense of outrage at the million people displaced by fighting in the Ivory Coast?

I’d absolutely agree that I don’t read enough about these places. Yes, it’s nice to know what Cheryl Cole did this week, or just how skilled Kate Middleton is at flipping a pancake, but I’d be quite interested to hear more about the brutal violence perpetrated by the drug lords of Mexico.

We’ve heard plenty about the oppression in Libya, but why only now? Gaddafi has been doing such things for decades. And it’s happening all over the world, not just in places the UN decides to take an interest.

But the fact is, not every story can be covered. The British media simply doesn’t have the manpower, the British public simply doesn’t have the energy.

So, in the scale of things, with natural disasters in Japan and Libya escalating, why did the BBC need to devote space to one gruesome murder?

Firstly, because the BBC is not one newspaper, but a vast media conglomerate with several television stations, an enormous website and a vast reach. Maybe it was too busy a news day to keep the story central on the front of the web or even in the daily news bulletins on terrestrial channels.

But BBC News 24? Isn’t the whole point of rolling news to use it as a platform to cover more, and in more detail?

More than that though, is that the British media cannot on the one hand cover Israel with a fanatical, forensic zeal 99 per cent of the time, and then, when something of genuine public importance happens, take the day off.

I remember a few months ago the story, highlighted on the BBC website, of the IDF using Facebook to catch army-dodgers.

I’m not saying the BBC doesn’t have a case for covering human interest stories like that – I love to read them – but I’m saying, as a publicly-funded institution it shouldn’t get to pick and choose. If you make the commitment to have an enormous Middle East emphasis, with a concentration of staff and resources in and around Israel, then you have to use it.

The day after the murders, the BBC was happy to write about the Israeli government announcement about settlements. In my opinion, that should be reported, and good for the BBC for covering it. But it’s bad journalism to tell only a part of the story.

That’s why this was different, why it mattered. But beyond that, beyond the point about balanced journalism, bias, and whatnot, there’s another point that should be made.

On Friday March 11 2011, three young children were slaughtered in their beds, throats cut, a tiny baby decapitated - in cold blood. Whatever the politics, whatever else is happening in the world, I’d like to think that Britain’s national broadcaster could have found the time to mention that on the news.

I’d like to think we live in a world where such brutality still merits a headline.

COMMENTS

Joe Millis

Fri, 03/25/2011 - 13:20

Rate this:

0 points

You said it yourself, Jennifer. Where was the coverage of the Sudanese atrocities, or those in DR Congo, or the Cote d'Ivoire? The Mexico drugs wars in which dozens of families are wiped out weekly? Haven't the terror attacks in Af-Pak become so commonplace that they don't even register in our conscience.
Isn't it the case that we just jump up and down when such an atrocity is committed against a Jewish family? Or do we just get inflamed every time Israel is -- or even isn't -- mentioned, depending on your POV? Does the mere word "Israel" jump out at us from newspaper pages or the news crawl?
There could be a serious news feature there.


Jennifer Lipman

Fri, 03/25/2011 - 14:00

Rate this:

0 points

My point is not that those shouldn't be mentioned - I do think they deserve far more coverage.

My argument is that if the British media considers Israel worthy or more scrutiny and more coverage than other places, then it is a problem for it to tell only a part of the story.


Joe Millis

Fri, 03/25/2011 - 14:12

Rate this:

0 points

Jennifer, you make a very good point. The problem is, as you are no doubt aware, that in the 30-second-attention-span-world, no one is going to devote a huge amount of time to a long-term complex issue. Also, I am not entirely sure that the British media does consider Israel worthy of more scrutiny and more coverage than other places.
I know we have world events overload at the moment, what with Japan and the so-called Arab Spring in Libya, the Yemen and possibly Syria, but even on a regular day-to-day basis the most read papers in Britain devote very little to Israel. Even the BBC and Sky News only go there if there is something big happening.
I still think it is the case that if the word "Israel" appears in news print or on a news crawl, it jumps out at us. It reminds me when Feyenoord of Rotterdam had a player called Rinus Israel. His name always jumped out when he was mentioned. And he wasn't even Jewish.


Leah

Fri, 03/25/2011 - 15:47

Rate this:

0 points

"I am not entirely sure that the British media does consider Israel worthy of more scrutiny and more coverage than other places"

ROFL.
Talk about a reality disconnect ...


Joe Millis

Fri, 03/25/2011 - 15:53

Rate this:

0 points

Leah, it doesn't. The word "Israel" may jump out at you every time it's mentioned, but in reality there's no more coverage of Israel than there is of any other country. Take a look at the most widely-read British papers, the Sun, the Mail, the Telegraph and the Times.


Stanley Walinets

Fri, 03/25/2011 - 18:09

Rate this:

0 points

Whether the British press coverage was too little or not, the JC's coverage was certainly very front-page, as we'd expect. But I don't know that 'our' press is entitled to condemn others for limited coverage when itself presenting only one side.

I share utterly the horror at the revolting murders of the Fogel family. Such a brutal act cannot be justified. Yet honest 'both sides' reporting really should not be abandoned: and I fear the JC front page did neglect that responsibility.
The JC's front page message, "Israel angry at suggestions that settlements provoked attack", really should not have stopped short at that point. A proper news report should have at least suggested that perhaps Israel must question that angry response, notwithstanding the grief and anger the nation was certainly feeling.

For Mr Netanyahu to proclaim immediately after these murders, that Israel will now build hundreds MORE settlement homes in retaliation, is a grotesque refusal to understand why such incidents happen. And why they will go on happening until Israel faces the reality that it is bringing such terrible events upon itself. As ye sow, so shall ye reap, is a Bible truth which a sane and honest Israeli Government must eventually understand.

In short, Israel simply cannot go on ignoring the effects of these constantly expanding illegal settlements, on the people whose homes and land are being steadily stolen from them. These people are human beings like us. And if our homes and liveliehoods were being so endlessly restricted, even demolished, we would surely react against it. And some of those reactions would inevitably be by mad thugs like the Fogel murderers, for there are thug elements within every society, including our own.

One other point, to do with press coverage of all sides. Amidst the alleged lack of media coverage of the Fogels' murder, I haven't noticed protest at the virtually non-existent coverage of recent crimes by some settlers. When their houses were being demolished by the IDF (and full praise to Israel for that demolition), the settlers set fire to nearby Palestinian homes. That was a crime not as gross as the Fogel murders, but deserving some coverage as an action we may not be proud of.

I'm sure some will howl 'Self-hater!' on reading this. But if we and Israel really want to solve a problem we really have to try, honestly, to understand its causes. Haven't we?


Macairt

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 20:00

Rate this:

0 points

'For Mr Netanyahu to proclaim immediately after these murders, that Israel will now build hundreds MORE settlement homes in retaliation, is a grotesque refusal to understand why such incidents happen. '

You're an ignorant idiot.

1) Palestinian Arab Muslims did this to Jews en masse in 1929, which is when they ethnically cleansed Hebron of Jews in the first place

2) Jews could only return to Hebron, obviously, in the wake of IDF conquest

3) Palestinian Arab Muslims have been attacking Jews in Hebron since 1967. The IDF has just been better able to thwart them than in 1929.


Leah

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 11:24

Rate this:

0 points

"For Mr Netanyahu to proclaim immediately after these murders, that Israel will now build hundreds MORE settlement homes in retaliation, is a grotesque refusal to understand why such incidents happen"

Another utter prat who thinks that antisemitism should be blamed on Jews.


Stanley Walinets

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 11:33

Rate this:

0 points

Mr Macairt says "You're an ignorant idiot".
Sadly, this is typical of many who respond to anyone who disagrees with them by calling them names. Those who resort to name-calling seem always to be those whose basic belief is that Israel can do no wrong. All I can say to the name-callers is that this is no way to seek truth.

Having said that, I do concede that Macairt does also present apparent facts, eg that "Palestinian Arab Muslims did this to Jews en masse in 1929, which is when they ethnically cleansed Hebron of Jews in the first place".

He doesn't give the source of this statement but I must accept it, for no history is black and white, on either side.

But I think the key area Israelis and Palestinians = and ourselves - are having to grapple with now, is the 60+ years since 1948. And much is made of issues like did Palestinians ever exist (there are certainly some JC bloggers who emphatically refuse to accept that they ever did); and others claim they did but that they all just left their homes and land voluntarily when the State of Israel was declared. So here's a bit of history for us all to consider, concerning their existence, what rights they had, how did they come to lose their homes, etc etc:-

Certainly, Jews have lived in the former Palestine for centuries. But they lived there along with Palestinians, who also go back for centuries. Assertions that the Palestinians had left largely of their own volition is hugely innacurate.

In 1948, Israel's first Prime Minister David Ben Gurion secretly listed the names of Palestinian villages already occupied by Hagana and other paramilitary groups. He explained the next military objectives would be Haifa and Jaffa, which encompassed 100,000 people and thousands more in the surrounding countryside. Many Jews in these areas were content to live alongside their Arab neighbours and were unaware of the military's secret plans. But a small group of Zionist leaders and generals in the ruling MAPAI Party were in charge. Under Mordechai Machler, who later became Israeli Chief of Staff, the Hagana Archives (Tel Aviv, 22 April 1948) recorded the following instructions to the Israeli fighters (then known as 'terrorists'...):

"When the bombardment of the neighbourhoods is concluded, troops will attack fiercely and aggressively and kill every Arab they meet. I am sending you flammable devices as well. You should burn every flammable object. I am sending you sappers with kits for breaking into houses."

Not surprisingly, the thousands of Arabs living in these areas panicked into a massive exodus. When they left, their houses were pillaged. That was the story of those Arabs who 'left of their own volition'.

A shocking photograph of this 'voluntary exodus' was taken on 12 May 1948, three weeks later, of three Hagana soldiers escorting three Arabs with their belongings out of Haifa. I'll try to copy it here, tho' I don't know if I'm computer-skilled enough to manage that; if it doesn't transfer, well, you get the point anyway.

These facts were recorded not by some suspect Arab source but by Jewish, Haifa-born, history Professor Ilan Pappe, writing from his own experiences as a Hagana fighter at the time.


Leah

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 13:36

Rate this:

0 points

"Those who resort to name-calling seem always to be those whose basic belief is that Israel can do no wrong"

Just one more plain and demonstrable lie from this prat.


Leah

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 13:37

Rate this:

0 points

"Having said that, I do concede that Macairt does also present apparent facts, eg that "Palestinian Arab Muslims did this to Jews en masse in 1929, which is when they ethnically cleansed Hebron of Jews in the first place".

He doesn't give the source of this statement but I must accept it"

So this ignorant prat had never heard of the Hebron massacre before today.


Macairt

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 14:57

Rate this:

0 points

Stanley,

you are referring to acts of ethnic cleansing by Zionist Jews 1948-1949.

Hands up, guilty. I don't need the pseudo-historian Ilan Pappe to know of those. Many more reliable historians than he have recorded them e.g. Benny Morris.

Unlike Morris, what Pappe elides from the historical record is that Palestinian and other Arab Muslims and Christians also threatened or executed against Palestinian (and arguably other) Jews acts of ethnic cleansing, or worse (as I observe, since at least at least 1929, in fact).

Since 1882, at least, Palestinian Arab Muslims and Christians had called for a cessation of all Jewish immigration into Palestine, all land sales to Jews since 1892.

Palestinian Arab Muslim and Christian Resistance (the buzzword these days)to Jews existing in the land in other tiny numbers is rooted in a discrimination or apartheid against them that is centuries old.

The 'why such incidents happen' goes back way beyond 1948 or 1967.


Macairt

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 15:01

Rate this:

0 points

'These facts were recorded not by some suspect Arab source but by Jewish, Haifa-born, history Professor Ilan Pappe, writing from his own experiences as a Hagana fighter at the time.'

You really are a spectacularly ignorant idiot: Pappe was never in the Hagannah! He was in born in 1954, 6 years after the Hagannah became officially the TzHal or IDF.


suzanna

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 15:26

Rate this:

0 points

Did the JC condemn the murder of the children in Gaza by Israeli soldiers just a few weeks ago?

Was it even mentioned in the JC?


suzanna

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 15:46

Rate this:

0 points

'accidental death of two Palestinian'

se:: Louise Bagshawe still waiting for BBC to explain Fogel failures

That just about sums up how the JC views Palestinian lives.


Leah

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 16:33

Rate this:

0 points

I missed that ignorant drivel about Pappe being in the Hagannah.

Anyway, his fabrications have been exposed repeatedly. Anyone who still relies on Pappe is an idiot or worse.


suzanna

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 16:38

Rate this:

0 points

So the over 1000 children who have died at the hands of the IDF, how did they die?

By accident?

Or by intent?


Leah

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 16:40

Rate this:

0 points

By accident in wars started by Arabs, as you know full well.
Next!


suzanna

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 16:42

Rate this:

0 points

'Only antisemitic scum call it 'murder'.

What would you call this then?

Muhammad Husam Radwan Eleyan, 17, of al-Sawarha, near Deir al-Balah, Gaza, killed by an IDF missile fired from a drone.

Usama Zaid Nizar Abdul-Qader Rayan, 3, of Jabalya refugee camp, Gaza, killed, with four uncles, five aunts, his grandfather, and other relatives, by an IDF missile strike during the targeted assassination of his grandfather.

Muhammad Iyad Abed-Rabo al-Astal, 12, of al-Qarara, near Khan Younis, Gaza, killed, with his brother and distant cousin, by an IDF missile fired from a drone, on their return home from picking sugar cane at a nearby field. Two of the boys died at the scene, while the third died on his way to the hospital.


suzanna

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 16:45

Rate this:

0 points

Oh, shit, my mistake . . . it was all an 'accident' Silly me

Muhammad Musa Ismail al-Silawi, 10, of Jabalya refugee camp, Gaza, killed, with 14 others, by an IDF missile fired from a drone at a mosque in Jabalya refugee camp during sunset prayers.


Advis3r

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 17:01

Rate this:

0 points

suzanna please give a URL for your claims. If it did happen yes it was a mistake no Jew in Israel is rejoicing or is going round giving out sweets in celebration. If israel wanted to target children they making a pretty poor show of it if one compares how many the Sudanese/Sri Lankans have killed with less sophisticated weapons at their disposal. Unfortunately civilians who are used by Hamas as human shields are always at risk. In Israel civilians are provided with air raid shelters in Hamas led Gaza they are not and are purposely put in harm's way so useful idiots like you can post the imbecillic things you do.


Stanley Walinets

Tue, 03/29/2011 - 16:34

Rate this:

0 points

Macairt - first, my apologies - you're quite right, I've now checked and Pappe wasn't born until 1954 so it was a wrong assumption on my part to say he'd been in the Hagana. (Note: that was my wrong assumption, not something Pappe himself ever said...).

I note you concede the truth of the "acts of ethnic cleansing by Zionist Jews 1948-1949." But is it sufficient, in your mind, to merely recognise those facts yet still rather skate over them because - so you say - similar acts were also committed by Arabs in 1929?

Do the historical crimes of one group justify the continuing crimes of the other group, and vice versa, for ever and ever without end?

If not, what is to be done? Is Israel justified in taking over ['settling'] more and more Palestinian land for ever and ever? Are Palestinians justified in resisting that however they can, for ever and ever? All because of what has happened in each group's history?

If not, what is to be done? Can Israel really go on claiming more of the land they once shared while expecting the Palestinians just to accept their expulsion? If not, what do you suggest must happen? (And one element to bear in mind is that Israel claims its entitlement to the land because of the evil Jews suffered at the hands of Germany, a totally different nation and nothing to do with the displaced Palestinians... and Israel claims because of that, that Jews the world over are entitled to live there whether born there or not, while Palestinians born there are forbidden...).

In short, what is your solution?

(Incidentally, has Leah - still so quick to prove me wrong by calling me names - has she herself actually read the history of those Hebron massacres you mention, or is she just jumping on your bandwagon?).

Finally - welcome aboard Advis3r, yet another skilful debater who believes the way to prove someone wrong is to call them silly names.


Joe Millis

Tue, 03/29/2011 - 17:14

Rate this:

0 points

Advis3r, I'll answer here, because there has been shut down. Tonge and Corbyn, bad as they are, are marginal figures and are hardly Moseley. In fact, I doubt they could get a dozen people to follow them into a pub, let alone several thousand to march in an East London street.
Abbas said he didn't want Israelis in his state. Stupid, but then again neither side in the conflict seems to be blessed with an overwhelming amount of wisdom.
The Negev and the Galil are your homeland, too. What's wrong with living there? Why take away the one area the Palestinians have for their homeland?
Israel claims to be a democracy, the only one in the Middle East™®, and in democracies you get mixed communities. It makes society stronger. Ministers don't go around saying that communities should be built so that this ethnic group or another will be prevented from "raising its head" -- even if he/she thought that way. The fact that there is an Israeli minister who is enboldened enough to say this does make me concerned that Israel, unfortunately, is going to go the way of the crusader kingdom. And that's a shame, because unlike the crusader kingdom, we do belong in that area.


Leah

Wed, 03/30/2011 - 08:32

Rate this:

0 points

"it was a wrong assumption on my part to say he'd been in the Hagannah"

So basically, you just make up your 'facts' as you go along. And only retract them when found out.


Leah

Wed, 03/30/2011 - 08:34

Rate this:

0 points

"The Negev and the Galil are your homeland, too"

Do give it a rest. It's not an either-or situation.

"Why take away the one area the Palestinians have for their homeland"

Because there are no 'Palestinians' and no 'homeland'.

"Israel claims to be a democracy"

Just the usual bilious, ignorant hatred from JM.


Joe Millis

Wed, 03/30/2011 - 09:49

Rate this:

0 points

It is an either/or situation, Leah, or whoever you are from the sadly departed. If Israel clings on to the West Bank occupation, there won't be an Israel to populate the Negev and Galil.


Advis3r

Wed, 03/30/2011 - 12:32

Rate this:

0 points

@Joe Millis
"If Israel clings on to the West Bank occupation, there won't be an Israel to populate the Negev and Galil." Don't worry Joe the way things are going in the UK there'll soon be about 100,000 or so Brits lining up to populate the Galil and the negev just see what Ron Prosser has to say on the JC Website.
@ Mr Walinets
I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not acquainted with the term “useful idiot” otherwise you would not have accused me of calling someone silly names.
In political jargon, the term useful idiot was used to describe Soviet sympathizers in Western countries. The implication is that though the person in question naïvely thinks themselves an ally of the Soviets or other ideologies, they are actually held in contempt by them, and were being cynically used. The term is now used more broadly to describe someone who is perceived to be manipulated by a political movement, terrorist group, hostile government, or business, whether or not the group is Communist in nature. I believe suzanna with her continued reproduction of the propaganda put out by Hamas et al is just one such person. George Galloway, for example, is another such person and whilst he would deny it has been manipulated by the former Iraqi regime, the present Iranian regime and Hamas, unfortunately to good effect.
As to your ethnic cleansing claim I beg to differ. I do not know who Macairt is but he does not speak for Israel and has no right to enter a guilty plea on her behalf.
First consider the number of Arabs now living in Israel as compared to the nearly one million Jews who were living in Arab Countries in 1948 and their number now - I would suggest that that was ethnic cleansing, but obviously that does not concern you.
Secondly a great body of evidence exists demonstrating that the Arabs living in Palestine were encouraged to leave their homes to make way for the invading Arab armies and not as a consequence of anything the Jews did.
The Economist, a frequent critic of the Zionists, reported on October 2, 1948: "Of the 62,000 Arabs who formerly lived in Haifa not more than 5,000 or 6,000 remained. Various factors influenced their decision to seek safety in flight. There is but little doubt that the most potent of the factors were the announcements made over the air by the Higher Arab Executive, urging the Arabs to quit....It was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades." Note the Economist did not refer to them as “Palestinians”.
Time's report of the battle for Haifa (May 3, 1948) was similar: "The mass evacuation, prompted partly by fear, partly by orders of Arab leaders, left the Arab quarter of Haifa a ghost city....By withdrawing Arab workers their leaders hoped to paralyze Haifa." Note the Times did not refer to them as “Palestinians”.
Benny Morris, the historian who documented instances where Palestinian Arabs were expelled, also found that Arab leaders encouraged their brethren to leave. The Arab National Committee in Jerusalem, following the March 8, 1948, instructions of the Arab Higher Committee, ordered women, children and the elderly in various parts of Jerusalem to leave their homes: "Any opposition to this order...is an obstacle to the holy war...and will hamper the operations of the fighters in these districts" (Middle Eastern Studies, January 1986).
Morris also said that in early May units of the Arab Legion reportedly ordered the evacuation of all women and children from the town of Beisan. The Arab Liberation Army was also reported to have ordered the evacuation of another village south of Haifa. The departure of the women and children, Morris says, "tended to sap the morale of the menfolk who were left behind to guard the homes and fields, contributing ultimately to the final evacuation of villages. Such two-tier evacuation — women and children first, the men following weeks later — occurred in Qumiya in the Jezreel Valley, among the Awarna bedouin in Haifa Bay and in various other places."
Who gave such orders? Leaders like Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Said, who declared: "We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down." Note that Nuri Said does not refer to them as “Palestinians”.
The Secretary of the Arab League Office in London, Edward Atiyah, wrote in his book, The Arabs: "This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boastings of an unrealistic Arabic press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to re-¬enter and retake possession of their country.” Note Atiyah does not refer to them as “Palestinians”.
According to Dr. Walid al-Qamhawi, a former member of the Executive Committee of the PLO, "it was collective fear, moral disintegration and chaos in every field that exiled the Arabs of Tiberias, Haifa and dozens of towns and villages." Note Al-Qamhawi does not refer to them as “Palestinians”.
As panic spread throughout Palestine, the early trickle of refugees became a flood, numbering more than 200,000 by the time the provisional government declared the independence of the State of Israel in May 1948.
As to the Hebron Massacre in 1929 I was honoured to meet a survivor of that massacre and hear from her family first hand of her miraculous escape.
You quote Ilan Pappe as an authority who you claim was in the Haganah and therefore has first hand knowledge. When it is pointed out to you that he could not possibly have been in the Haganah instead of conceding that maybe since you got that bit wrong the rest of your thesis may also be in doubt you carry on regardless. In any event Benny Morris has exposed Ilan Pappe as a liar and a fraud. Since the actual article is only available to subscribers I give you the following site to read the full expose:
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2011/03/benny-morris-owns-ilan-pappe.ht...
I suggest you read it before again quoting Mr Pappe as some kind of expert in the field. Further posting of anything written by Mr. Pappe will therefore be treated with justifiable skepticism unless it can be independently verified.


Joe Millis

Wed, 03/30/2011 - 12:50

Rate this:

0 points

Advi3er, in the year that Britain registered its highest number of anti-semitic incidents, about two El Al jumbos' worth of emigrants went to Israel. About half of them return after a year or two. Last year, the number of anti-semitic attacks plummeted by about a third.
And FYI, there are twice as many Israelis living in London as there are expat Brits in Israel.
If the situation is so wonderful in Israel, why are so many people seeking out the papers of the ancestors to get EU passports?


Joe Millis

Wed, 03/30/2011 - 12:57

Rate this:

0 points

Also, Advi3er, if British Jews are forced, God forbid, to leave, they are likely to choose Australia, New Zealand, the US or Canada as their preferred destination -- just as happened with South African Jews.


Macairt

Thu, 03/31/2011 - 10:39

Rate this:

0 points

'I note you concede the truth of the "acts of ethnic cleansing by Zionist Jews 1948-1949." But is it sufficient, in your mind, to merely recognise those facts yet still rather skate over them'

What do you mean by 'skate over them'? Do you think Benny Morris 'skated over them' in The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem'? The Clinton Parameters and Geneva Accords allow for substantial compensation to be paid to the Palestinians, for instance.

'because - so you say - similar acts were also committed by Arabs in 1929?'

No.

Because they were also threatened or performed in 1936-1939, 1947-1949 and much of the time in between.

If one threatens ethnic cleansing, one cannot, for instance, complain over much if one is ethnically cleansed first.

Worse dispossessions occurred in the civil wars that birth many or most states in the 19th and 20th centuries. Most Palestinian refugees fled to other parts of original British ruled Palestine. Most of the rest live close to its borders.


Macairt

Thu, 03/31/2011 - 10:47

Rate this:

0 points

'If not, what is to be done? Can Israel really go on claiming more of the land they once shared while expecting the Palestinians just to accept their expulsion?'

a) that is what European, North African, Asian and, above all, Palestinian Christians and Muslims have been insisting Jews do for most of the last 2000 years

b) that didn't stop Palestinian Muslims and Christians allying themselves with European, Arab and Islamic anti-semites expelling Jews from Europe and the Arab world. Illogical but of a piece with the very traditional Palestinian Islamic and Christian contempt held for Jews for most of Palestinian Islamic and Christian history.

c) that is what Israeli Jews will have to accept from their former homes in Europe, the Arab world, as well as those and those parts of Palestine to which a Palestinian state will not let them return to when it comes into existence.

d) when Jews may have a right of return to a the territory of a Palestinian Arab state, when it comes into existence, I dare say Palestinian Arab Muslims and Christians will have a right of return to the territory of a Jewish.

Because that, after all, has been the crux of the problem since the late 19th century at least: Palestinian Arab Muslims and Christians Resisted Jews existing in the land in other than the tiny numbers to which they (Palestinian Arab Muslims and Christians) felt themselves divinely entitled and accustomed.

What some call 'resistance', others call 'apartheid'.

POST A COMMENT

You must be logged in to post a comment.

JENNIFER LIPMAN ON TWITTER

    LATEST COMMENTS