Melanie Phillips: The case for Israel

[Steve_uk]

Can we leave 1937, Neville Chamberlain and the Peel Commission behind us and concentrate on how the issue will be resolved? You once stated that those born on the territory of what you called Palestine would be allowed to stay, though you omit to say what should happen to Jewish immigrants and any cut off period.

Still, it's a better contribution than ngb1066, who is deafeningly silent on the subject.

[ngb1066]

Can we leave 1937, Neville Chamberlain and the Peel Commission behind us and concentrate on how the issue will be resolved? You once stated that those born on the territory of what you called Palestine would be allowed to stay, though you omit to say what should happen to Jewish immigrants and any cut off period.

Still, it's a better contribution than ngb1066, who is deafeningly silent on the subject.

I have only been deafeningly silent because I despair of ever getting you to confront your fundamental prejudices and bigotry on this issue.  I also respect the superior skills of Gringo who has been tireless in his efforts to educate you.  However, since you have challenged me directly I will reply.

The fact is we cannot leave the historical context out of any assessment of what needs to happen now. We are faced with current reality and it does not help to say simply that what has happened in the past should not have happened.  In my view the formation of the state of Israel was a mistake.  Many Jews agree - Zionism was very much a minority movement within the Jewish community.  The Balfour declaration was colonialist arrogance on the part of the British government.  Under the League of Nations at the end of the first world war we governed the area under the Palestine Mandate.  Nevertheless the Balfour declaration was made and it provided a framework for the late 1940s creation of the state of Israel.  It should be noted that the Balfour declaration envisaged that the entire area of Palestine would become the new state and that included what is now Jordan.  However, included within the declaration itself was the principle that the state should respect the rights of all, Arabs as much as Jews. 

Following the Balfour declaration there was an influx of Jews into Palestine and there were huge tensions.
For reasons which are very well documented it was finally decided by the United Nations that there would be a two state solution rather than the single state envisaged in the Balfour declaration.  This was supported by the USSR and the USA.  It was opposed by many within Palestine.  In my view it was a huge mistake, but we have to accept reality.

The United Nations and large sections of the anti- Zionist movement continue to support a two state solution.  On balance I support that but with conditions and with grave reservations.  I support it upon the basis of the UN resolutions which insist that the state of Israel should exist only within the pre 1967 borders and there should be a completely independent Palestine alongside with full sovereign rights. Because that reflects current international law I feel I have to support that solution, but I have grave doubts about it.  I have a lot of sympathy with others who support a single state solution, with Palestine a single independent secular nation respecting the rights of all citizens.

You have asked what should happen to Jewish immigrants. There has been a Jewish "right of return" which is both racist and colonialist.  Instinctively I would like them to be removed, but I accept that this would cause some considerable problems.  Just as we do not say Australia or North America must be given back to the indigenous peoples, we have to accept what has happened in Israel.  The illegal settlers should certainly be evicted from the lands they have stolen but immigrants who have gone to Israel should be allowed to stay within Palestine as long as they accept that the displaced Palestinians have the right to return to their land and their interests outrank those of the recent immigrants.

That is my personal view.  I do not want to see a bloodbath in Israel.  I fear that is what Israel is facing if it continues on its current genocidal path.

I hope that helps.

 

[Steve_uk]

I have only been deafeningly silent because I despair of ever getting you to confront your fundamental prejudices and bigotry on this issue.  I also respect the superior skills of Gringo who has been tireless in his efforts to educate you.  However, since you have challenged me directly I will reply.

The fact is we cannot leave the historical context out of any assessment of what needs to happen now. We are faced with current reality and it does not help to say simply that what has happened in the past should not have happened.  In my view the formation of the state of Israel was a mistake.  Many Jews agree - Zionism was very much a minority movement within the Jewish community.  The Balfour declaration was colonialist arrogance on the part of the British government.  Under the League of Nations at the end of the first world war we governed the area under the Palestine Mandate.  Nevertheless the Balfour declaration was made and it provided a framework for the late 1940s creation of the state of Israel.  It should be noted that the Balfour declaration envisaged that the entire area of Palestine would become the new state and that included what is now Jordan.  However, included within the declaration itself was the principle that the state should respect the rights of all, Arabs as much as Jews. 

Following the Balfour declaration there was an influx of Jews into Palestine and there were huge tensions.
For reasons which are very well documented it was finally decided by the United Nations that there would be a two state solution rather than the single state envisaged in the Balfour declaration.  This was supported by the USSR and the USA.  It was opposed by many within Palestine.  In my view it was a huge mistake, but we have to accept reality.

The United Nations and large sections of the anti- Zionist movement continue to support a two state solution.  On balance I support that but with conditions and with grave reservations.  I support it upon the basis of the UN resolutions which insist that the state of Israel should exist only within the pre 1967 borders and there should be a completely independent Palestine alongside with full sovereign rights. Because that reflects current international law I feel I have to support that solution, but I have grave doubts about it.  I have a lot of sympathy with others who support a single state solution, with Palestine a single independent secular nation respecting the rights of all citizens.

You have asked what should happen to Jewish immigrants. There has been a Jewish "right of return" which is both racist and colonialist.  Instinctively I would like them to be removed, but I accept that this would cause some considerable problems.  Just as we do not say Australia or North America must be given back to the indigenous peoples, we have to accept what has happened in Israel.  The illegal settlers should certainly be evicted from the lands they have stolen but immigrants who have gone to Israel should be allowed to stay within Palestine as long as they accept that the displaced Palestinians have the right to return to their land and their interests outrank those of the recent immigrants.

That is my personal view.  I do not want to see a bloodbath in Israel.  I fear that is what Israel is facing if it continues on its current genocidal path.

I hope that helps.

Not really. I don't see how you can ever allow people who wish for your destruction to return (for sake of argument let's accept the nabka narrative) when one sees what happened when Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip. https://www.straitstimes.com/world/middle-east/poll-shows-palestinians-back-oct-7-attack-on-israel-support-for-hamas-rises

You make no mention of the Holocaust. Let's put this in perspective: 15 million Jews worldwide, 7 million of them living in that tiny piece of land I posted previously. Six million killed. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/map-of-the-jewish-refugees-1948-1972

If 30 million Brits had been murdered in gas chambers don't you think the next generations of Brits would obsess about security?


If you must, pay the descendants ( the original owners will be long dead) compensation, but there must be a viable state of Israel where Jews feel safe behind defined borders, without rockets raining down on them from the Gaza Strip or Hezbollah firing missiles from Lebanon.

No mention of October 7 either.

[David1819]

Many Jews agree - Zionism was very much a minority movement within the Jewish community.  The Balfour declaration was colonialist arrogance on the part of the British government.  Under the League of Nations at the end of the first world war we governed the area under the Palestine Mandate.  Nevertheless the Balfour declaration was made and it provided a framework for the late 1940s creation of the state of Israel. 

Do you really believe that millions of Jews over the last 8 decades would endure all the conflicts, bombings, violence, isolation and create all the grief that exists on both sides today because Arthur Balfour issued a statement of support in 1918? 


"Without the existential urgency created by the Holocaust, the willingness to endure decades of conflict, invasions, terrorism, and isolation would likely have been significantly diminished.

The Holocaust fundamentally transformed Jewish collective psychology and the perceived stakes of statehood in several crucial ways:

Post-Holocaust Jewish Psychology and Resilience

"Never Again" mentality: The Holocaust created a powerful collective trauma and resolve that survival required self-reliance and a sovereign state with its own defense forces. This psychological shift made Israeli society willing to bear tremendous hardships that might otherwise have seemed disproportionate.
Existential necessity vs. ideological preference: Without the Holocaust, a Jewish state might have been seen more as a cultural aspiration rather than a matter of physical survival. This distinction is crucial when weighing the costs of enduring conflict.

Diaspora alternatives: Without the Holocaust, viable Jewish communities throughout Europe would have continued to exist, providing alternative centers of Jewish life. This would have made the sacrifices required to maintain Israel seem less justifiable.

Security Considerations in a Non-Holocaust World

Risk calculation: The Holocaust fundamentally altered how Jews calculated risk. The potential worst-case scenario of statelessness was made viscerally real, making almost any hardship seem preferable to that alternative.

Willingness to use military force: The perceived existential nature of threats against Israel, informed by Holocaust consciousness, has influenced Israel's security doctrine and its population's willingness to maintain a high state of military readiness.

International response to terrorism: Without the historical context of the Holocaust, international sympathy for Israel's security challenges might be significantly reduced, potentially making the conflict even more difficult to sustain.

Political Will and National Cohesion

Internal unity: The Holocaust created a powerful unifying narrative that helped bridge ideological, religious, and cultural divides within Israeli society. Without this, internal divisions might have weakened resolve during difficult periods.

Diaspora support: Holocaust consciousness has been crucial in maintaining diaspora Jewish support for Israel, providing financial, political, and moral backing during conflicts. This international Jewish solidarity might be weaker in a non-Holocaust world.

Justification to citizens: Government leaders need to justify sacrifices to their populations. The Holocaust provided a powerful framework for explaining why security challenges had to be endured rather than avoided through territorial concessions or other means.

The Reality Check
You've identified something profound: The willingness to endure multiple wars, ongoing terrorism, economic hardship, international isolation, and the constant existential anxiety that has characterized Israeli life was profoundly shaped by the Holocaust experience. Without that historical context, it's questionable whether sufficient national will would have existed to maintain a Jewish state through such sustained challenges.

This doesn't mean Israel wouldn't have come into existence - the Zionist project was well underway before the Holocaust - but its ability to survive the early Arab-Israeli wars and subsequent conflicts would have faced not just different external circumstances but potentially insufficient internal resolve.
The Holocaust created not just practical conditions for Israel's establishment but the psychological foundation for a society willing to endure extraordinary challenges to maintain sovereignty. This dimension is often underappreciated in historical counterfactuals about Israel's creation."

Israel is not existing in an alternate history without Nazi Germany. It set a precedent.


This guy was on almost every ballot box in the UK in the early 80s. - https://streamable.com/65ap8b

And there are many more examples of people who want to repeat what the Nazi's done.

[gringo]

I have only been deafeningly silent because I despair of ever getting you to confront your fundamental prejudices and bigotry on this issue.  I also respect the superior skills of Gringo who has been tireless in his efforts to educate you.  However, since you have challenged me directly I will reply.

The fact is we cannot leave the historical context out of any assessment of what needs to happen now. We are faced with current reality and it does not help to say simply that what has happened in the past should not have happened.  In my view the formation of the state of Israel was a mistake.  Many Jews agree - Zionism was very much a minority movement within the Jewish community.  The Balfour declaration was colonialist arrogance on the part of the British government.  Under the League of Nations at the end of the first world war we governed the area under the Palestine Mandate.  Nevertheless the Balfour declaration was made and it provided a framework for the late 1940s creation of the state of Israel.  It should be noted that the Balfour declaration envisaged that the entire area of Palestine would become the new state and that included what is now Jordan.  However, included within the declaration itself was the principle that the state should respect the rights of all, Arabs as much as Jews. 

Following the Balfour declaration there was an influx of Jews into Palestine and there were huge tensions.
For reasons which are very well documented it was finally decided by the United Nations that there would be a two state solution rather than the single state envisaged in the Balfour declaration.  This was supported by the USSR and the USA.  It was opposed by many within Palestine.  In my view it was a huge mistake, but we have to accept reality.

The United Nations and large sections of the anti- Zionist movement continue to support a two state solution.  On balance I support that but with conditions and with grave reservations.  I support it upon the basis of the UN resolutions which insist that the state of Israel should exist only within the pre 1967 borders and there should be a completely independent Palestine alongside with full sovereign rights. Because that reflects current international law I feel I have to support that solution, but I have grave doubts about it.  I have a lot of sympathy with others who support a single state solution, with Palestine a single independent secular nation respecting the rights of all citizens.

You have asked what should happen to Jewish immigrants. There has been a Jewish "right of return" which is both racist and colonialist.  Instinctively I would like them to be removed, but I accept that this would cause some considerable problems.  Just as we do not say Australia or North America must be given back to the indigenous peoples, we have to accept what has happened in Israel.  The illegal settlers should certainly be evicted from the lands they have stolen but immigrants who have gone to Israel should be allowed to stay within Palestine as long as they accept that the displaced Palestinians have the right to return to their land and their interests outrank those of the recent immigrants.

That is my personal view.  I do not want to see a bloodbath in Israel.  I fear that is what Israel is facing if it continues on its current genocidal path.

I hope that helps.

      Thank you for your kind comments, ngb, but I think you do yourself down. I could not have put it better than your own excellent response to Steve's questions. In fact the reply I was going to give when I found time was covered in entirety by your response. One slight correction however, my "tireless effort", as you put it, is not to try and educate Steve. It has long been clear that it is impossible to get through Steve's " fundamental prejudices and bigotry on this issue."(to use your phrasing). What is also clear is that Steve's " fundamental prejudices and bigotry on this issue" are an exact mirror of the approved narrative,so he acts as a useful foil to discuss some issues in further depth and raise issues with the approved narrative to others who are open to take on challenging information. He is also really poor at debating any of the issues he is goaded into raising in any depth and is more likely to dissuade than persuade any reader. 
     I see that David has also chimed in with his own AI generated response. He also serves a similar purpose to Steve and the best that can be said of David is that his, "fundamental prejudices and bigotry on this issue" are no worse than Steve's.
     Your reply does help, seeing as you ask, ngb, to any interested reader. But as we both know, it won't help Steve.
     

[David1819]

      Thank you for your kind comments, ngb, but I think you do yourself down. I could not have put it better than your own excellent response to Steve's questions. In fact the reply I was going to give when I found time was covered in entirety by your response. One slight correction however, my "tireless effort", as you put it, is not to try and educate Steve. It has long been clear that it is impossible to get through Steve's " fundamental prejudices and bigotry on this issue."(to use your phrasing). What is also clear is that Steve's " fundamental prejudices and bigotry on this issue" are an exact mirror of the approved narrative,so he acts as a useful foil to discuss some issues in further depth and raise issues with the approved narrative to others who are open to take on challenging information. He is also really poor at debating any of the issues he is goaded into raising in any depth and is more likely to dissuade than persuade any reader. 
     I see that David has also chimed in with his own AI generated response. He also serves a similar purpose to Steve and the best that can be said of David is that his, "fundamental prejudices and bigotry on this issue" are no worse than Steve's.
     Your reply does help, seeing as you ask, ngb, to any interested reader. But as we both know, it won't help Steve.
   

I have had Steve on ignore since Covid. That helps 

[Cambridgecutie]

I have had Steve on ignore since Covid. That helps 

Is there anyone who doesn't agree with your posts who you don't have on ignore?  It helps it you are happy in an echo chamber! 

[Steve_uk]

      Thank you for your kind comments, ngb, but I think you do yourself down. I could not have put it better than your own excellent response to Steve's questions. In fact the reply I was going to give when I found time was covered in entirety by your response. One slight correction however, my "tireless effort", as you put it, is not to try and educate Steve. It has long been clear that it is impossible to get through Steve's " fundamental prejudices and bigotry on this issue."(to use your phrasing). What is also clear is that Steve's " fundamental prejudices and bigotry on this issue" are an exact mirror of the approved narrative,so he acts as a useful foil to discuss some issues in further depth and raise issues with the approved narrative to others who are open to take on challenging information. He is also really poor at debating any of the issues he is goaded into raising in any depth and is more likely to dissuade than persuade any reader. 
     I see that David has also chimed in with his own AI generated response. He also serves a similar purpose to Steve and the best that can be said of David is that his, "fundamental prejudices and bigotry on this issue" are no worse than Steve's.
     Your reply does help, seeing as you ask, ngb, to any interested reader. But as we both know, it won't help Steve.
   

What nonsense. You're both rattled and no other member has come to your aid.

[Steve_uk]

I have had Steve on ignore since Covid. That helps 

I'm sorry you had Covid. Didn't Cambridgecutie call you an Incel? That just about sums you up, though I had to check the meaning. I thought at first it was a new exam board.

[ngb1066]

What nonsense. You're both rattled and no other member has come to your aid.

Not true.  Roch has also adopted a principled position and has challenged you robustly.  Others may not want to enter the fray, but I am sure that more and more are seeing what is happening and are disgusted by it.



 

[ngb1066]

I'm sorry you had Covid. Didn't Cambridgecutie call you an Incel? That just about sums you up, though I had to check the meaning. I thought at first it was a new exam board.

That is a really nasty post.  I am leaving it unless I get a complaint, because I think it reflects very badly on you.

[David1819]

That is a really nasty post.  I am leaving it unless I get a complaint, because I think it reflects very badly on you.

Even more reason to keep him on ignore.

[ngb1066]

Even more reason to keep him on ignore.

Unfortunately as admin I am not able to do that.

[David1819]

Unfortunately as admin I am not able to do that.

My condolences.

[gringo]

What nonsense. You're both rattled and no other member has come to your aid.

    Nobody is rattled by you, Steve. In fact it is fairly clear that you spend most of your time on here rattled by someone or other. Other members can recognise that neither myself nor ngb are in need of "assistance" when debating someone as ill informed as you. You on the other hand... Other posters have often commented positively on my posts but I don't recall similar reactions to your "contributions". I would venture that most posters/readers recognise your limited knowledge on the subjects that you imagine that you are in a "debate" about. You are getting schooled, not debating, but are too ideologically blinded to be objective.