Forum Topic

Mr Ainsworth'"Would you allow Jews to live in the wider Palestine ?"It is not really up to me. In theory no,'Well at least we now can see your true attitude towards the Jews.Bit unpleasant in my view.I have a view as to whether it might be described as racist antisemitism but other readers must make up their own mind. Do you support the attempts of the Palestinians to drive the Jews out of wider Palestine and where do you think they should reside ?'Tell Mama has documented 2,010 Islamophobic incidents between 7 October and 7 February - a steep rise from the 600 it recorded for the same period the year previously.It is the largest number over four months since the charity began in 2011." (BBC Feb 22nd, 2024).The start date is telling if I recall.The day the Palestinian group Hamas which you support and propagandise for, and which you deny has the same genocidal antisemitic views as the Nazis in WWII, invaded Israel; sexually assaulting, raping (men and women), murdering and taking hostage (and posting videos such) Israeli women, children and many elderly men and women.And this incident brought back to the attention of many British citizens the violence and lethal attacks upon them by Arabs over recent years which I have posted on this site.The most notable being the 7/7 TfL  and the Manchester concert bombings which alone killed hundreds between them.That's why many are wary of Muslims in the UK.Whatever Mayor Khan says this is a different antipathy to that he experienced in his youth which, albeit equally unpleasant, was based upon a fear of how non-white immigration in general might change our society.Few gave any thought to the effects the religion per se would have on the country and none I would suspect thought that racial discord would ultimately be centred on the politics of the Middle East.

John Hawkes ● 314d

"All I have done is simply to point out that the Hamas leaders actually express the same views and malign intentions towards Jews as did German Nazi leadership in WWII.The question I asked of you is whether you could see any difference between them.And you have offered no response.So I draw a conclusion: that either you think they do not differ but choose not to denounce them or that you think they do differ but choose not to explain why you think this when their statements and actions seem to me to show otherwise."Would you give some examples which make you think so, from the 2017 Charter text, please?----------------------------------The first Prime Minister of Israel. From https://www.fusiliermuseumlondon.org/art24519"David Ben-Gurion was born in the town of Plonsk in Congress Poland in 1886. He was raised in a family who were ardent Zionists. His views would lead him to settle in Palestine, then part of the Ottoman Empire, in 1906. Throughout this time, he dedicated his youth to politics and Zionism, even committing to studies at the University of Istanbul.At the outbreak of the First World War, Ben-Gurion recruited a Jewish militia to assist the Ottoman Army. However, due to their strong anti-Zionist views the Ottomans expelled Ben-Gurion and other leading Zionists from Palestine in March 1915.From 1915 to 1917, Ben-Gurion lived in New York City continuing his Zionist work. During this time, there was news of Jewish battalions forming in the British Army to liberate Palestine. Ben-Gurion initially opposed this until the Balfour Declaration was signed in 1917. After this event, he fully supported the Jewish battalions and enlisted with the 39th Royal Fusiliers on 26 April 1918."So really, in World War One, the Zionists would have happily fought on the side of Turkey, against Britain, rather than on Britain's side against Turkey. Whichever, it didn't matter - just the chance to take over Palestine. Good to know.

David Ainsworth ● 315d

"Do you honestly think that Palestinians just want to share?"I don't. I don't think that, as a Palestinian in 1920, you would have wanted to either. Tell me, would you? They, of course, may have to. It may be the only deal available. It may not last though."You seem to ignore the fact that Jews have been living in the wider area called Palestine for millennia."You seem to ignore the fact that Palestinians have been living in the wider area called Palestine for millennia. Both groups share DNA."I note you have now taken to using the term Zionist rather than Jews."Not all Jews are Zionists. Not all Zionists are Jews. Some Jews are Anti-Zionists."'Reports of antisemitic incidents in the UK in the first half of this year have reached another record high, according to figures from a Jewish security charity.From January to June 2024, the Community Security Trust (CST) recorded reports of 1,978 anti-Jewish hate incidents, up from 964 in the first half of 2023.The CST says the record high total in the first half of 2024 is a continuation of the impact of antisemitic reactions to the 7 October attack in Israel and the ongoing war'.""Anti-Muslim hate in the UK has more than tripled in the four months since Hamas's attacks, a charity has found.Tell Mama has documented 2,010 Islamophobic incidents between 7 October and 7 February - a steep rise from the 600 it recorded for the same period the year previously.It is the largest number over four months since the charity began in 2011." (BBC Feb 22nd, 2024)"Would you allow Jews to live in the wider Palestine ?"It is not really up to me. In theory no, but in reality for any hope for the area, it has to be shared in some way, with neither side predominant. (And what do you mean by "wider Palestine").As you know there was a minority of Jews in Palestine when the Balfour Declaration was created to turn the Palestinian majority population into second-class citizens in their own homeland. So the descendants of that Jewish minority have the right to be there. The situation is too complex to unpick, so the Palestinians are highly unlikely to get their land back as a whole. But I cannot see that there will ever be an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians over a One-State or Two-State solution. Not while the USA is too weak to impose its will on Israel. And the Palestinians have already lost too much.I notice that you keep writing "Read the Bible!"What does that mean?

David Ainsworth ● 315d

"This claim is validated by the promise of the Bible"There is no point in arguing.Still:-"You also give the impression of believing Palestine was always a separate sovereign Arab country"Nope. From where do you get your "impression"? Nothing about Palestine's status means that it was up for grabbing by Zionists in the late 19th century.By the way, in your long and predicable list, you left out the Jewish people who defeated the Crusaders."Hence it was natural that to seek safety after Germany's attempt at genocide and their massacre of 6 million Jews in WWII they felt their only option was to resettle in a territory the believed they had historical claims to."Except that the Zionists began arriving long before Hitler even came to power."the Balfour Declaration of 1917" - parcelling up the loot even before the war was over. Based upon a belief in racial supremacy."Israel decided that against such overwhelming odds its best option was to attack first which it did on 5th June 1967. The Arabs were defeated in 6 days."So Pearl Harboured then. The "Right of Conquest". How fortuitous it was. By the way, "overwhelming odds"? - for a country which may have had their first nuclear weapon by 1966-67?Enough for now. I hardly know why I bother. Perhaps Sudoku would be a better idea.----------------------------'A landlord was walking through his estate, and he came across two poachers, to whom he said, “These are my lands.”The two poachers asked him from whom he got the land. He said from his father.The poachers then asked, “From whom did your father get the land?” and the reply was, “From my grandfather.”The discussion went on until they came to the present owner's great-grandfather's great-grandfather. Eventually the poachers asked from whom he got the land, and the owner's reply was, “I am proud to say that he fought for it.”One of the poachers replied “Then take off your coat and fight me now.”(Extracted from a speech by Dr. Vincent White, TD, from Dáil discussions on the Land Bill, June 1923.)

David Ainsworth ● 318d

Mr Ainsworth'We did create this mess in the Middle East'.Did we ?You seem to me to believe the Jews have no claims on the land they call Israel.Please correct me if I have the wrong impression.However, this is not true.This claim is validated by the promise of the Bible; uninterrupted settlement for 3,700 years from the time of Joshua onwards; resistance to and survival of numerous invasions by in the distant past by such as the Assyrians and Babylonians; the Balfour Declaration of 1917; the League of Nations mandate incorporating this declaration; the UN partition resolution of 1947; repulsion of the invasion of Israel by Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon in 1948; Israel’s admission to the UN in 1949; the recognition of Israel by most other states; repulsion of further invasions by Egypt and other Arab states in 1956; further attacks by these same countries and their further repulsion in 1967. But also crucially the society created by Israel’s people in decades of thriving, dynamic national existence.The Hebrews entered the land of Israel c.1300 BCE, living under a tribal confederation until being united under the first monarch King Saul. The second king, David, established Jerusalem as the capital c.1000 BCE and his son Solomon built the Temple soon after and consolidated the military, administrative and religious functions of the kingdom. Attacks by the Assyrians in 722 BCE and Babylonians in 586 BCE weakened Israel and finally most Jews were driven from their homeland in 135 CE.Hence it was natural that to seek safety after Germany's attempt at genocide and their massacre of 6 million Jews in WWII they felt their only option was to resettle in a territory the believed they had historical claims to. You also give the impression of believing Palestine was always a separate sovereign Arab countryAgain, not true.Palestine was never an exclusively Arab country though Arabic became the language of most of the population after the Muslim invasions in the 7th century CE.In fact no independent Arab or Palestinian state ever existed in Palestine.1)  At the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, a joint British and American committee assembled in Washington, D.C., on 4 January 1946 tasked to examine political, economic and social conditions in Mandatory Palestine, a distinguished Arab-American historian at Princeton professor Philip Hitti testified against partition said “There is no such thing as ‘Palestine’ in history, absolutely not”.2) Earlier when the First Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations met in Jerusalem in February 1919 to choose Palestinians representatives for the Paris Peace Conference they adopted the following resolution : ‘We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated form it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds.3) The King–Crane Commission, officially called the 1919 Inter-Allied Commission on Mandates in Turkey, consisting primarily of an American delegation was a commission of inquiry concerning the disposition of areas within the former Ottoman Empire. It found that Christian and Muslim Arabs opposed any plan to create a country called ‘Palestine’ because it was viewed as a recognition of Zionist claims.4) In 1937 a local Arab leader Auni Bey Abdul Hadi told the Lord Peel led British Royal Commission that ultimately suggested the partition of Palestine: “There is no such country as Palestine! ‘Palestine’ is a term the Zionists invented ! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria”.5) The representative of the Arab Higher Commission to the United Nations issued a statement to the General Assembly in May 1947 which said Palestine was part of the Province of Syria and the Arabs of Palestine did not comprise a separate political entity.6) Some years later Ahmed Shuqeiri later chairman of the PLO told the UN security Council; “It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria.7) Palestinian Arab nationalism is largely a post-World War I phenomenon and did not become a significant political movement until after the 1967 Six-Day war.8) Following years of bellicose threats and military attacks by Syria and Egypt led by Gamal Abdel Nasser, Nasser ordered the UN Emergency Force stationed in Sinai since 1956 to withdraw and without consulting the Security Council, Secretary General U Thant complied. Nasser stated “We shall not complain any more about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war which will result in the extermination of of Zionist existence”. Further – “We will not accept any ...co-existence with Israel...Today the issue is not the establishment of peace between Arab states and Israel...The war with Israel (has been) in effect since 1948”. The Syrian defence Minister Hafez Assad concurred – “Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse aggression but also to initiate the act of liberation itself and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland…..I as a military man believe the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation”. Arab forces numbered 250,000 men, 2,000+ tanks and 700 aircraft in Egypt and other belligerent Arab states surrounding Israel. (Early proclamation of the views of Hamas).9) Israel decided that against such overwhelming odds its best option was to attack first which it did on 5th June 1967. The Arabs were defeated in 6 days.

John Hawkes ● 318d

"I think you are saying that Jews are either descended from Arabs - 'Druze, Bedouin and Palestinians' or from Northern Italians, followed by Sardinians and French.I did not know that and I wonder if the citizens of these European countries are aware of the fact."Shared ancestry, I believe.Best that you read the article from Haaretz:-https://www.haaretz.com/science-and-health/2015-10-20/ty-article/palestinians-and-jews-share-genetic-roots/0000017f-dc0e-df9c-a17f-fe1e57730000"Furthermore, in your decrying Israel's 'right to exist' as a state are you still saying the same of the UK and the USA ?"Nothing lasts forever. What happened to the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, the Kingdom of Burgundy, the Roman Empire? Did they not have this "right to exist"?Have you read the actual article?"This conflict can only be restored by moderate Palestinians distancing themselves from Hamas and entering into serious and meaningful discussion and negotiation with Israel over how they can share this part of the Middle East."Nope, moderate Palestinians are not respected by Israel. Meanwhile the land is whittled away by the illegal occupier. I cannot see any hope of a one-state solution (shared) nor a two-state solution (separate). With Israel backed by the USA, she cannot fail. The coming US election will make very little difference, whoever wins.The most likely result is a one state solution, basically an Israel between the river and the sea, with very few Palestinians remaining there. Where will the majority go?You may well ask.

David Ainsworth ● 319d

Mr AinsworthI have spent some time trying to get my head around your rather rambling post in which you now invoke your knowledge of genetic theory to support your pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli position regarding the Middle East conflict.I think you are saying that Jews are either descended from Arabs - 'Druze, Bedouin and Palestinians' or from Northern Italians, followed by Sardinians and French.I did not know that and I wonder if the citizens of these European countries are aware of the fact.'At some point in the 1970s the right of Israelis to “live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries” morphed into the right of the state of Israel to exist'.What would the territory 'within secure and recognised boundaries' that the Israelis would have the right to live in be, other than an Israeli state ?And are not the Palestinians asking for the same ?Furthermore, in your decrying Israel's 'right to exist' as a state are you still saying the same of the UK and the USA ?And surely Palestine has UN support for its 'right to exist' in the territory of Gaza and the West Bank.However I concede that because of Israel's steps taken to protect itself from attacks by Hamas which denies Israel's right to exist, the Palestinian governance is much constrained.'The question of what it would actually be recognising by acknowledging Israel’s “right to exist” has only one answer. Hamas would be acknowledging the legitimacy of the dispossession of the Palestinian people from their homeland'.If Palestine took over Israel, what would happen to the Jews that live there ?Would they have something like the political and religious freedoms Palestinians and other Arabs have in Israel or would they be living in a theocratic Islamic state ?It seems that for you Hamas, a prescribed terrorist organisation, is the rightful representative of the views of the Palestinians.Has it been given democratic authority by other Palestinians to speak on their behalf ?But to get to the point, you do not believe Israel has the right to exist and all of its territory and governance should be given over to the Palestinians.Am I correct in thinking this ? This conflict can only be restored by moderate Palestinians distancing themselves from Hamas and entering into serious and meaningful discussion and negotiation with Israel over how they can share this part of the Middle East.Might happen if white middle class Putneyites did not interfere !

John Hawkes ● 319d

"And of course Jews have a very strong claim, some might call it a right, on the basis of their living in this patch of the Levant for millennia."As have the Palestinians."Blood Brothers: Palestinians and Jews Share Genetic RootsJews break down into three genetic groups, all of which have Middle Eastern origins – which are shared with the Palestinians and Druze.""Both groups of Jews shared ancestry with contemporary Middle Eastern and Southern European populations. The closest genetic relatives of the Middle Eastern Jews are Druze, Bedouin and Palestinians. The closest genetic relatives of the European group of Jews are Northern Italians, followed by Sardinians and French.""Israel has no ‘right to exist'—and neither does any other state.""the recent fates of East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union and others are a reminder of how meaningful a right to exist would actually be for states.Nonetheless Hamas, like the PLO before it, is expected to make such a unique acknowledgement before it can even enter peace negotiations, and before the boundaries of the state it is expected to recognise are settled and internationally accepted.The question of what it would actually be recognising by acknowledging Israel’s “right to exist” has only one answer. Hamas would be acknowledging the legitimacy of the dispossession of the Palestinian people from their homeland.Why would they ever want to concede this, let alone as a precondition for peace negotiations? It would amount to a pre-emptive surrender.At some point in the 1970s the right of Israelis to “live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries” morphed into the right of the state of Israel to exist.This appears to have been part of a political strategy. By raising the threshold test beyond the point that any Palestinian group could accept, the Israelis and Americans were preventing serious negotiations towards a settlement of the conflict from proceeding.Today they are still demanding of a political party something that has never before been required of any state. It should be a surprise to no one that this conflict is now in its seventh decade."https://theconversation.com/israel-has-no-right-to-exist-and-neither-does-any-other-state-1668

David Ainsworth ● 320d

You don't believe in completely open borders for the UK, do you? Don't be ashamed. I don't either. But what would you have believed about borders in the 1920s and 1930s, as a member of the Palestinian majority population, for whom we (the UK) were supposed to be responsible:-"The objective of the mandates over former territories of Ottoman Empire was to provide "administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone"." (Wiki). Didn't we do well? Not ready yet, are they? A hundred years on, why don't they just give up? You might ask."branching off into reams of Wiki sourced quotes on a completely different topic."I prefer to select my own topics, don't you? They are all related one way or another. You may disagree."I am not sure if you are no more than a childish troll or are just thick; not having sufficient intellect to respond directly and sensibly to questions nor to put forward an argument."Don't be so modest. I'm sure that you are sure. I'd go for insufficient intellect. And "obfuscatory prevarication" is very good."I had previously asked you a direct question as to whether you saw any similarity between the leaders of Hamas and the leaders of Nazi Germany in WWII regarding the issue of genocide of the Jews."Whose policy is actually slowly clearing the original Palestinian territory of all or most Palestinians? Whose policy is bringing in outsiders, but refusing Palestinians the right of return?  In practice not words. Meanwhile, in the real world, "US bolsters military presence in Middle East as threat of regional escalation intensifiesWashington is bracing for Iran and its allies to respond to the killing of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, which Tehran blames on Israel." Poor little Israel has one doughty but objective defender against their cruel foes. Goliath helping David.

David Ainsworth ● 320d

It is not up to the people who left to return and dictate to and displace the people who stayed. "Israel withdrew unilaterally from Gaza in 2005." Really? "In 2005, Israel withdrew its settlers and troops from Gaza while retaining control over its borders, seashore and airspace." Such a withdrawal! And then a blockade. "their genocidal aim of destroying Israel and exterminating its Jewish population." The Palestinians have a right to get their country back. The  Zionists fought and won it, including ethnic cleansing which they had long discussed. Turn about is fair play.As you admit with your "right of return  of 4 million Palestinian exiles and their descendants, something which would have effectively meant the end of Israel as a Jewish state.", Israel will never permit the Palestinians to be anything but second-class."Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s return to power in Israel with a narrow, extreme right-wing coalition has shattered even the illusion of a two-state solution. Members of his new government have not been shy about stating their views on what Israel is and what it should be in all the territories it controls: a Greater Israel defined not just as a Jewish state but one in which the law enshrines Jewish supremacy over all Palestinians who remain there. As a result, it is no longer possible to avoid confronting a one-state reality." (Foreign Affairs, 2023)"When the forces we face use their enormous power to distort and disguise this reality, our mission of recognizing it — of calling it by its name — becomes ever more necessary."The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, B'Tselem issued a document on January 12, 2021 titled "A regime of Jewish supremacy from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea: This is Apartheid". The document presents the principles that the Israeli regime follows to achieve its goal of conquering the land under its control. The document emphasizes that Israel implements a regime of Jewish supremacy from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean sea that discriminates between Jews who have their full rights and Palestinians who live in four areas under Israeli control and have variable rights (which often are less than the rights granted to the Jewish people) depending on the area in which they reside. The full document can be found on B'Tselem's website"

David Ainsworth ● 323d

There are two issues preventing a solution to the problem. One is the presence of Israeli settlers in occupied territories: 500 000 on the West Bank, 200 000 in East Jerusalem and 25 000 in the Golan. The other is the existence of terrorist groups, notably Hezbollah and Hamas, dedicated to the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state.  The two issues are related in that the Israelis have little or no motive to withdraw from any territories as long as they believe that these will be used as bases from which to launch further attacks on Israel. Twenty  years ago there was a  majority in Israel in favour of giving up land in exchange for peace. in fact at Camp David in 2000 Ehud Barack offered Yasser Arafat complete withdrawal from Gaza, 96% of the West Bank and even a right of return for up to 100 000 Palestinians  dispossessed in 1948 in return for recognition of Israel with Jerusalem as its capital and end to the intifada. Yasser Arafat turned the offer down, apparently because he feared assassination by his own side if he insisted on anything less than the right of return  of 4 million Palestinian exiles and their descendants, something which would have effectively meant the end of Israel as a Jewish state. But whatever belief there was among Israelis in the possibility of a negotiated peace was destroyed by the example of Gaza. Israel withdrew unilaterally from Gaza in 2005. But rather than develop Gaza economically Hamas have used it as a base from which to fulfil their genocidal aim of destroying Israel and exterminating its Jewish population.But in answer to Jonathan Calloway’s question, where do we go from here? There is no chance that Israel will ever withdraw from East Jerusalem. The Jewish people dreamed of returning to Jerusalem for 2000 years. Nor will Israel cede control of the Golan, from which prior to 1967 Lebanese terrorists regularly used to bombard Israeli kibbutzim beneath. But the issue of the West Bank and Gaza could conceivably be resolved. As regards the West Bank, the Israelis could withdraw the settlements and put an end to the discriminatory laws which effectively prevent the Palestinians from exporting to Israel. But this won’t be easy given a) the existence of right wing members of the Knesset aka religious fanatics  who would be opposed to any withdrawal of the settlements and b) the problem of rehousing 400 000 settlers.  A solution to the problem of Gaza would require the return of the remaining hostages and the elimination of Hamas. Israel would then stop the blockade of the territory.But the creation of a self-governing Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank is predicated on the willingness of Palestinians to coexist with Israel. Unfortunately large numbers of Palestinians, both in Gaza and the West Bank, simply don’t accept the right of Israel to exist. And while this feeling persists, it is unlikely that Israel will give up military control of these territories. John Hawkes suggested the intervention of the UN. But I am  not sure that the Israelis would ever trust the UN to keep the peace. Suppose that Gaza became part of an independent Palestinian  state and terrorists started launching missiles at Israel. Would UN peacekeepers be willing to take up arms against the terrorists?

Steven Rose ● 323d

U.S. Secretary of State (analogous to a minister of foreign affairs) Antony Blinken, on CNN today:-"“Nothing takes away from the importance of — as I said a moment ago — getting to the ceasefire which is manifestly in the interests of the hostages and bringing them home, is manifestly in the interests of Palestinians who are suffering terribly every single day,” he said at the conference.“Children, women, men in Gaza who have been caught in this crossfire of Hamas’ making. It’s profoundly in the interests of trying to put things on a better path.”Blinken also said he would not speculate about whether this killing could cause further escalation: “because we simply don’t know.”" "Children, women, men in Gaza who have been caught in this crossfire of Hamas’ making."Really objective and evenhanded? No. He ignores the history. October 7th was part of a continuum. It is dishonest and biased to isolate it. He cannot be ignorant.The Israelis (not admitted yet?) appear to have killed the chief hostage negotiator, Haniyeh, so what does that show about Israel's desire for a ceasefire or the return of the remaining hostages? As I understand it, emissaries are not supposed to be killed. Some ruler (the Sultan of Khwarezm?) beheaded emissaries from the Mongols and returned them by catapult, but then really had cause to regret it.Two chief Israeli hostage negotiators are the heads of Mossad and of Shin Bet. Both might appear worthwhile targets now, which makes their task a bit harder.

David Ainsworth ● 323d

"'Because there is and always has been a bias against Palestinians'.What do you have to substantiate this claim ?"The Palestinians were the vast majority. Their land was taken from them to benefit what was considered a superior people.Year Muslims   Christians    Jews Total1922 589,177   73,024 83,790 757,182They were still the majority in 1947, but their land was divided against their will. They face a future of continuing dispossession. You'd be a tad angry."And surely over millennia there has been more than just a bias against Jews - some might call it genocidal racism."Indeed. The Bible appears to support genocidal racism. Deuteronomy 7:1-4, King James Version:-"When the Lord thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; 2 And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: 3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. 4 For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly."Anyhow, not completely destroyed as "a new scientific report reveals that the genetic heritage of the Canaanites survives in many modern-day Jews and Arabs". Fair shares then."You now seem to be foreseeing a welcome (again my impression of what you write) breakup of the US !"Not totally - I have family there. But Trump ... And the Republicans ... It's a judgement call, I guess."In fact you don't have much good to say about 'the West' in general !"True, although it is the place which I love best.Problem is it has been involved in genocidal racism, destruction of cultures and religions, slavery, invasion, intrusion, theft, international drug-dealing, and many wars.

David Ainsworth ● 323d

Mr Ainsworth'There is no willingness to really learn about how it came about and there is regular misrepresentation'.Does such a description fit you ?'"Why are Palestinian and Israeli actions reported differently?".Because there is and always has been a bias against Palestinians. This bias is now changing a little as Israel becomes ever more openly violent and arrogant, but there is little hope of a permanent change while the USA exists. And even if the USA breaks, well, India appears to be the next likely wealthy protector'.'Because there is and always has been a bias against Palestinians'.What do you have to substantiate this claim ?And surely over millennia there has been more than just a bias against Jews - some might call it genocidal racism.'Well, I don't know, but killing 38,000 in response to the killing of 1,200, does seem somewhat more horrible'.Not withstanding the fact that any civilian deaths are to be deplored, 'The Hamas-run health ministry is Gaza's official source for death numbers'.Not the most unbiased of sources one might think.BBC Fact Checking points out the difficulty of substantiating them and particularly differentiating between civilian and Hamas terrorist deaths. Do you think perhaps the surviving and self appointed Hamas leaders of the Palestinians, in hiding in Qatar far from the fighting, are beginning to regret their attack on Israel last October, as they witness from afar the pain and suffering it has brought on the heads of the people they claim to represent ? But now you now seem to be raising your sights above seemingly wishing to see Israel obliterated and its becoming an Arab state (correct me if I have gained the wrong impression). You now seem to be foreseeing a welcome (again my impression of what you write) breakup of the US !In fact you don't have much good to say about 'the West' in general ! If only George Orwell were alive to read of such attitudes.

John Hawkes ● 323d

Thank you for reminding me of how the West is in such a mess over this problem. There is no willingness to really learn about how it came about and there is regular misrepresentation. From the article title:-"Yet Israel is expected to ‘rein’ itself in following the killing of its citizens by Islamists."The children are Syrian Druze and remain Syrian citizens, as far as I know. However there are many thousands of Israeli citizens in the Golan. They are Zionist "settlers", colonists in an illegally occupied territory, from which massive numbers of the original inhabitants have been driven out. The longterm Israeli aim is likely to be an attempt to complete the operation. It is their longterm aim for Gaza and the West Bank. Even the Palestinian citizens of Israel may not be that secure. The article:-"And yet, still, the media discussion focusses less on the horror of what Hezbollah did than on the horror of what Israel might do in response."Well, I don't know, but killing 38,000 in response to the killing of 1,200, does seem somewhat more horrible.---------------------------------"The New York Times, the unofficial voice of the US regime and the principal guide to the rest of the western press, leads in its vigilant adherence to these linguistic and dictionarial acrobatics.In November 2023, The Times's standards editor, Susan Wessling, along with international editor Philip Pan and their deputies, sent an internal memo to reporters covering Israel's war on Gaza.According to its authors, the purpose of the memo was to provide "guidance about some terms and other issues [they] have grappled with since the start of the conflict in October". This was merely the latest update on language use in the paper's coverage of Israelis and Palestinians.The Times editors instructed journalists to restrict the use of terms like "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing", not to use the word Palestine "except in rare cases", and to avoid terms like "refugee camps" and "occupied territory" to describe actual Palestinian refugee camps and Israeli-occupied territories.The memo further enjoined journalists to be careful in their use of "incendiary" terms like "slaughter", "massacre", and "carnage" to describe killings "on all sides".Yet, as The Intercept revealed, the paper persisted in using such language "repeatedly to describe attacks against Israelis by Palestinians and almost never in the case of Israel's large-scale killing of Palestinians".In fact, it was anger and infighting among The Times's own journalists over the outlet's pro-Israel bias that prompted senior staff to issue this memo and set them straight." You ask "Why are Palestinian and Israeli actions reported differently?".Because there is and always has been a bias against Palestinians. This bias is now changing a little as Israel becomes ever more openly violent and arrogant, but there is little hope of a permanent change while the USA exists. And even if the USA breaks, well, India appears to be the next likely wealthy protector. ---------------------------------The West biased? Surely not?:-"People applying for naturalization in Germany will now be required to affirm Israel’s right to exist, under changes to the country’s citizenship law."

David Ainsworth ● 323d

"there was no Palestine in 1917."Really? Just a big blank zone without a name and non-inhabitants. How many of these non-inhabitants were there at that time? "The land belonged to the Ottoman Empire which I am sure you are aware was carved up after the end of WW1.""Carved up" as you say:-"The right of conquest was historically a right of ownership to land after immediate possession via force of arms. It was recognized as a principle of international law that gradually deteriorated in significance until its proscription in the aftermath of World War II following the concept of crimes against peace introduced in the Nuremberg Principles. The interdiction of territorial conquests was confirmed and broadened by the UN Charter, which provides in article 2, paragraph 4, that "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations."""The people were Ottoman subjects and not known as Palestinians." But they were human beings and they were there. Are you implying that they somehow didn't count or are less worthy? "It's thanks to the British at the time that they became Palestinians under our Mandate."It's thanks to the British at the time that they lost Palestine under our Mandate."In effect they were given land by the British Government during the dispersal of spoils of war.""In effect"?Source for that claim, please.

David Ainsworth ● 333d

"I cannot see an end to this mess until both have internationally recognized countries with formal boundaries."Where do you think that a Palestine state could possibly be?"Netanyahu responded to the ICJ ruling, which other Israeli politicians attacked as antisemitic, by effectively claiming both the West Bank and occupied East Jerusalem.“The Jewish people are not occupiers in their own land, including in our eternal capital Jerusalem nor in Judea and Samaria,” he said in a statement on Friday, using biblical terms for the occupied West Bank that are common in Israel.On Wednesday the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, passed a resolution opposing the establishment of a Palestinian state. Supporters included Benny Gantz, Netanyahu’s main political rival." https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/20/airstrikes-hit-yemens-hodeidah-port-after-israel-vows-revenge-for-houthi-attackThere will be no possible place for Palestine. It is blatant. The USA backs Israel to the hilt, and UK Labour, led by Starmer (“I support Zionism without qualification”), "pledged in its election manifesto to recognise a Palestinian state as part of a peace process, to create a “safe and secure Israel alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state”, but did not set a date." No date for recognition. Blah, blah and blah.So there will be jaw-jaw, until, at some distant future date, they all look around and there is nothing left to discuss, as all the possible land for a Palestinian state has already been "settled" by settlers protected by the IDF. The Palestinians must have done something really appalling back in 1917 for Britain to sell them out so cruelly.

David Ainsworth ● 334d

Oh, and are the UN just like Hamas too?"UN top court says Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories is illegal"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjerjzxlpvdo""The State of Israel is under the obligation to bring an end to its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory as rapidly as possible," he said.He said Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005 did not bring Israel's occupation of that area to an end because it still exercises effective control over it.The court also said Israel should evacuate all of its settlers from the West Bank and East Jerusalem and pay reparations to Palestinians for damages caused by the occupation.Israel has built about 160 settlements housing some 700,000 Jews in the West Bank and East Jerusalem since 1967. The court said the settlements were illegal. Israel has consistently disputed that they are against international law.The ICJ said Israel's "policies and practices amount to annexation of large parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territory", which it said was against international law, adding that Israel was "not entitled to sovereignty" over any part of the occupied territories.Israel claims sovereignty over the whole of Jerusalem, the eastern half of which it captured in the 1967 Middle East war. It considers the city its indivisible capital - something which is not accepted by the vast majority of the international community.Among its other far-reaching conclusions, the court said Israeli restrictions on Palestinians in the occupied territories constituted "systemic discrimination based on, inter alia, race, religion or ethnic origin". It also said Israel had illegally exploited the Palestinians' natural resources and violated their right to self-determination."Still, it won't mean anything will happen. The USA backs Israel with many billions of dollars and so it goes. Much more rubble, many more corpses, and land stolen.

David Ainsworth ● 335d

"Jabotinsky also wrote that the notion of expelling Arabs from Palestine was both immoral and impossible."I think that you need the rest of that page were he says that there is no likelihood of that happening. We know that the immoral and impossible did happen later.https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/document/mideast/ironwall/ironwall.htm"Palestine, a land inhabited by Jews since Biblical times,"Are you claiming that the Palestinians did not?When were Jews last a majority of the population, would you say? What happened to them?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Palestinians#cite_note-:112-15The creation of Israel and the destruction of the Palestinians' homeland entailed violence and terrorism, but you wish that Palestinians would follow Gandhi?What did the Palestinians do to deserve the last 100 years treatment?----------------------------Jabotinsky - "Every reader has some idea of the early history of other countries which have been settled. I suggest that he recall all known instances. If he should attempt to seek but one instance of a country settled with the consent of those born there he will not succeed. The inhabitants (no matter whether they are civilized or savages) have always put up a stubborn fight. Furthermore, how the settler acted had no effect whatsoever. The Spaniards who conquered Mexico and Peru, or our own ancestors in the days of Joshua ben Nun behaved, one might say, like plunderers. But those “great explorers,” the English, Scots and Dutch who were the first real pioneers of North America were people possessed of a very high ethical standard; people who not only wished to leave the redskins at peace but could also pity a fly; people who in all sincerity and innocence believed that in those virgin forests and vast plains ample space was available for both the white and red man. But the native resisted both barbarian and civilized settler with the same degree of cruelty.Another point which had no effect at all was whether or not there existed a suspicion that the settler wished to remove the inhabitant from his land. The vast areas of the U.S. never contained more than one or two million Indians. The inhabitants fought the white settlers not out of fear that they might be expropriated, but simply because there has never been an indigenous inhabitant anywhere or at any time who has ever accepted the settlement of others in his country. Any native people – its all the same whether they are civilized or savage – views their country as their national home, of which they will always be the complete masters."

David Ainsworth ● 335d

Mr AinsworthI do not ascribe all the Islamic terrorist attacks on the UK and its citizens to Palestinians.But I do ascribe them to those that have a common religious faith, one which has 'peace' at its core I believe, and have politicised it leading to a heartless view that terror and killing of uninvolved British citizens is a quite acceptable way of promoting their cause.What have we done to deserve this and how will our minds be changed and won over to supporting you and the Palestinians ?"How horrible, fantastic, incredible, it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing". - Neville Chamberlain.The Palestinians have not turned their territory into a 'normal' state because they are not interested in putting in the hard graft of building institutions and organisations of governance.I believe Hamas won an election in 2006 but have not held one since.They could have started negotiating peaceful co-existence with their Jewish neighbours, but chose not to in order to indulge in the macho activity of obliterating Israel. (Read The Hamas Charter).That's why for self defence, Israel takes the measures you describe.And we well know from their actions on 7th October 2023 the steps they will take to harm Israel.From the BBC News website - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1vdz75g6dvo'Hamas and at least four other Palestinian armed groups committed numerous war crimes and crimes against humanity against civilians during the 7 October attack on southern Israel, the campaign group Human Rights Watch says.A new report accuses the hundreds of gunmen who breached the Gaza border fence of violations including deliberate and indiscriminate attacks on civilians, wilful killing of persons in custody, sexual and gender-based violence, hostage-taking, mutilation of bodies and LOOTING.It also found the killing of civilians and hostage-taking were “central aims of the planned attack” and not an “afterthought”.Hamas angrily rejected what it called HRW’s “lies” and demanded an apology (SIC) !About 1,200 Israelis and foreigners - mostly civilians - were killed and 251 others were taken as hostages when 26 Israeli communities and towns, as well as number of military bases, two music festivals and a beach party were attacked nine months ago'.No one doubts that in response Israel has probably committed acts that range from the unwise to the cruelly vicious.But it is defending itself against attacks by racist fascists intent on its destruction.There is probably a spectrum of attitudes that some people hold when criticising Israel.It ranges from balanced to down right anti-semitic.Those critics should examine their consciences as to where their views sit.Oh, and please no more smart arsed comments regarding other people's use of the English language.We can see how clever you think you are.

John Hawkes ● 335d

Pretty standard script. "Is immigration always wrong, or is it just wrong in the case of the Jews?"Not straightforward immigration though, was it? "We cannot offer any adequate compensation to the Palestinian Arabs in return for Palestine. And therefore, there is no likelihood of any voluntary agreement being reached. So that all those who regard such an agreement as a condition sine qua non for Zionism may as well say "non" and withdraw from Zionism. Zionist colonisation must either stop, or else proceed regardless of the native population. Which means that it can proceed and develop only under the protection of a power that is independent of the native population - behind an iron wall, which the native population cannot breach.That is our Arab policy; not what it should be, but what it actually is, whether we admit it or not." (Ze'ev Jabotinsky - The Iron Wall. 1923)"there is no such place as the land of the Palestinians."Don't pretend that it was Terra nullius!"Unfortunately this wave of immigration coincided with the growth of Arab nationalism, which had not existed in the nineteenth century."Oh dear me! Some people are allowed to be nationalist and even put it into practice, but not everybody can be trusted with it, oh no!From a book review on The Balfour Project site:-"In Britain Edwin Montagu, one of the earliest practising Jews to serve in a British Cabinet, described Zionism as a “mischievous political creed” – a phrase which would have had him thrown out of Keir Starmer’s Labour Party and pilloried in the media. He viewed the Balfour Declaration as antisemitic, while warning that “when the Jews are told that Palestine is their national home, every country will immediately desire to get rid of its Jewish citizens, and you will find a population in Palestine driving out its present inhabitants.”"

David Ainsworth ● 336d

Yes, I meant unreconciled. Your post at least answers the question of whether you believe Israel has a right to exist. The answer is clearly 'no', a view shared by Hamas, a majority of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank and around half of British Muslims.Your view of Israelis as colonialists who have stolen the land of the Palestinians is highly tendentious. First of all, there is no such place as the land of the Palestinians. There has never been a Palestinian state. Palestine was conquered by the Romans, then by the Arabs, then by the Turks, who ruled it till 1917. Finally the British ruled it under a League of Nations Mandate till 1948.  Jews had lived there since Biblical times. In 1880 the Jewish population was around 20k. Between 1880 and  1914 with the permission of the Turkish administration a further 70k Jews immigrated. Then in the twenties and thirties under the British Mandate a further 350k arrived. Most of these immigrants were fleeing persecution in their home countries. They did not drive the Arabs off their land. They bought land and cultivated previously barren areas. Unfortunately this wave of immigration coincided with the growth of Arab nationalism, which had not existed in the nineteenth century. There was an Arab revolt between 1936 and 1939, motivated by opposition to Jewish immigration. The Arabs fought against the British, against the Jews and even among themselves. Several thousand Arabs and several hundred Jews died but the unrest caused the British to limit Jewish immigration. Britain suspended Jewish immigration altogether during the war and even after the war notoriously prevented Holocaust survivors from docking at Haifa.Finally in 1947 the UN voted to create a Jewish homeland. Israel was attacked by all its neighbours in 1948. In the course of the war 700k Palestinians fled or were forced to leave. In the aftermath 800k Jews fled or were forced to leave North Africa and the Middle East. These Arabic and Farsi speaking Jews now form the majority of the Jewish population of Israel. Moreover 20% of Israelis are Arabs, who enjoy full civil rights.Those are some of the facts. How does this early history amount to colonial exploitation? (I am not talking about later settlements on the West Bank). Is immigration always wrong, or is it just wrong in the case of the Jews?

Steven Rose ● 336d

From Jewish Telegraph Agency, March 20th 1930"In two speeches which he delivered, one at a public demonstration held by the English Zionist Federation under the chairmanship of Lord Rothschild in 1920 at the Royal Albert Hall, London, to celebrate the conferment of the Mandate for Palestine upon Great Britain, and another two years later in the House of Lords on a motion introduced by Lord Islington, which had proposed that Great Britain should not accept the Mandate for Palestine, the late Lord Balfour touched on the relation of the Arabs towards Zionism.In the course of his speech at the Albert Hall demonstration in 1920, Lord Balfour said:"Let us not forget in our feelings of legitimate triumph all the difficulties which still lie before us. Those difficulties I have no hesitation in dwelling upon, because I know that you will overcome them; yet it is worth while to enumerate some of them, not to discourage you, but to raise your courage and your resolution even to a higher pitch than it has already reached. Among these difficulties I am not sure that I do not rate the highest, or at all events first, the inevitable difficulty of dealing with the Arab question as it presents itself within the limits of Palestine. It will require tact, it will require judgment, it will require above all sympathetic goodwill on the part both of Jew and Arab."So far as the Arabs are concerned—a great, an interesting and an attractive race—I hope they will remember that while this assembly and all Jews that it represents through the world desire under the aegis of Great Britain to establish this home for the Jewish people, the Great Powers, and among all the Great Powers most especially Great Britain, has freed them, the Arab race, from the tyranny of their brutal conqueror, who had kept them under his heel for these many centuries. I hope they will remember it is we who have established the independent Arab sovereignty of the Hejaz. I hope they will remember that it is we who desire in Mesopotamia to prepare the way for the future of a self-governing, autonomous Arab state, and I hope that, remembering all that, they will not grudge that small notch—for it is no more geographically, whatever it may be historically—that small notch in what are now Arab territories being given to the people who for all these hundreds of years have been separated from it—but surely have a title to develop on their own lines in the land of their forefathers, which ought to appeal to the sympathy of the Arab people as it, I am convinced, appeals to the great mass of my own Christian fellow-countrymen. That is the first difficulty. That can be got over and will be got over by mutual goodwill."The second difficulty, on which I shall only say a word, arises from the fact that the critics of this movement shelter themselves behind the phrase—but it is more than a phrase—behind the principle of self-determination, and say that, if you apply that principle logically and honestly, it is to the majority of the existing population of Palestine that the future destinies of Palestine should be committed. My lords, ladies and gentlemen, there is a technical ingenuity in that plea, and on technical grounds I neither can nor desire to provide the answer; but, looking back upon the history of the world, upon the history more particularly of all the most civilized portions of the world, I say that the case of Jewry in all countries is absolutely exceptional, falls outside all the ordinary rules and maxims, cannot be contained in a formula or explained in a sentence. The deep, underlying principle of self-determination really points to a Zionist policy, however little in its strict technical interpretation it may seem to favor it. I am convinced that none but pedants or people who are prejudiced by religious or racial bigotry, none but those who are blinded by one of these causes would deny for one instant that the case of the Jews is absolutely exceptional, and must be treated by exceptional methods."Speaking two years later in the House of Lords, the Earl of Balfour said with regard to the Arab question:"Those particular charges were, in the first place, as I understand them, that it was impossible to establish a Jewish Home in Palestine without giving to the Jewish organizations political powers over the Arab races with which they should not be entrusted, and which, even if they exercised them well, were not powers that should be given under a British Mandate to one race over another. But I think my noble friend gave no evidence of the truth of these charges. He told us that it was quite obvious that some kind of Jewish domination over the Arabs was an essential consequence of the attempt to establish a Jewish Home."It is no necessary consequence, and it is surely a very poor compliment to the British Government, to a Governor of Palestine appointed by the British Government, to the Mandates Commission under the League of Nations, whose business it will be to see that the spirit of the Mandate as well as the letter is carried out, and beyond them to the Council of the League of Nations, to suppose that all these bodies will so violate every pledge that they have ever given, and every principle to which they have ever subscribed, as to use the power given to them by the Peace Treaty to enable one section of the community in Palestine oppress and dominate any other."I cannot imagine any political interests exercised under greater safeguards than the political interests of the Arab population of Palestine. Every act of the Government will be jealously watched. The Zionist organization has no attribution of political powers. If it uses or usurps political powers it is an act of usurpation. Is that conceivable or possible under the lynx eyes of critics like my noble friend, or of the Mandates Commission, whose business it will be to see that the Mandate is carried out, or of a British Governor-General nourished and brought up under the traditions of British equality and British good government, and, finally, behind all those safeguards, with the safeguard of free Parliamentary criticism in this House and in the other House? These are fantastic fears. They are fears that need perturb no sober and impartial critic of contemporary events, and whatever else may happen in Palestine, of this I am very confident, that under British government no form of tyranny, racial or religious, will ever be permitted.""Titled: - "Case of Jews Absolutely Exceptional and Must Be Treated by Unusual Methods, Said Balfour, Discussing""if you apply that principle logically and honestly, it is to the majority of the existing population of Palestine that the future destinies of Palestine should be committed."

David Ainsworth ● 336d

There are many difficult questions relating to Israel and the Palestinians, but I should have thought that two of the easiest would be 'Does Israel have the right to exist as a Jewish state?' and 'Should the hostages be immediately released?' I suspect that those who find it difficult to answer these questions probably want to answer 'no', but are afraid to do so in a public forum.My answer to the question, 'Should there be a Palestinian state?' is 'Yes, eventually'. But this can only come about in the context of a lasting peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. The Israelis would be stupid to agree to an independent state on the West Bank if this were just to become a second Gaza, a base from which to attack Israel.My answer to the second question, 'Should all the Palestinians detained without charge in Israel be released? is 'I am not sure.' It depends on who they are and what they were planning to do when arrested. In normal circumstances no one should be arrested without charge in a democratic society  But these aren't normal times. A large number of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza consider themselves at war with Israel. The detainees are effectively be held as prisoners of war for the duration even though in many cases no criminal charges have been laid against them. But the situation of these individual cannot be compared to that of the hostages held in Gaza, who include old and sick people, women and children, many of whom have been physically and psychologically abused.

Steven Rose ● 336d

Mr AinsworthBelow is a Wiki sourced list of Islamist terrorism carried out in the UK.I cannot confirm how many perpetrators were Palestinian nor understand what grievances they harboured against the UK  especially in the early attacks.But doubtless they are 'pro-Palestine' and I can only assume their actions were predicated on the fact that the UK has not and will not support their desire (or at least that of the Palestinian barbarians in Hamas) to obliterate Israel.Even though most European countries have suffered from Islamist atrocities, I am intrigued as to why they pick on us; a country that seems to place no restrictions on their living here nor gathering in vast numbers to protest.Over what I have never been able to ascertain as they have a homeland in Gaza and the West Bank, though unfortunately never managed to turn it into anything close to resembling a 'normal' state.Can you explain ?Also, how has such a high level of support for the Palestinians come about ?Perhaps you could explain this also.They should recommend their PR consultants to the Conservative Party !----------------------------------------1989, 3 August: A man using the alias Mustafa Mahmoud Mazeh accidentally blew himself up along with two floors of a central London hotel while preparing a bomb intended to kill author Salman Rushdie.1994, 26–27 July: A group of Palestinians detonated two car bombs in London, one outside the Israeli embassy] and one outside Balfour House, home to a Jewish charity. The attacks injured twenty people.2005, 7 July: 7/7 central London bombings conducted by four separate Islamist extremist suicide bombers, which targeted civilians using the public transport system during the morning rush hour. Three bombs were detonated on three separate trains on the London Underground and one on a double-decker bus. As well as the suicide bombers, 52 other people were killed and around 700 more were injured. It was the UK's worst terrorist incident since the 1988 Lockerbie bombing and the first Islamist suicide attack in the country.2007, 30 June: Two Islamist terrorists drove a Jeep Cherokee loaded with propane canisters into the glass doors of the Glasgow Airport terminal, setting it ablaze. Five people were injured and the only death was of one of the perpetrators, who later died in hospital from his injuries. It was the first terrorist attack to take place in Scotland since the Lockerbie bombing in 1988.2010, 14 May: MP Stephen Timms was stabbed during his constituency surgery by Roshonara Choudhry, a British Islamic extremist, in an attempt to kill him. She was found guilty of attempted murder and jailed for life with a minimum term of 15 years. Choudhry was the first Al-Qaeda sympathiser to attempt an assassination in Britain.2013, 22 May: A British soldier, Lee Rigby, was murdered in an attack in Woolwich by Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale, two Islamist extremists armed with a handgun, knives and a cleaver. Both men were sentenced to life imprisonment, with Adebolajo given a whole life order and Adebowale ordered to serve at least 45 years.2017, 22 March: 2017 Westminster attack – Khalid Masood, a 52-year-old Islamist, drove a car into pedestrians on Westminster Bridge, killing three and injuring almost fifty, one of whom died two weeks later. He ran into the grounds of the Palace of Westminster and fatally stabbed police officer Keith Palmer, before being shot dead by police. The attack was treated as an act of terrorism motivated by Islamic extremism.2017, 22 May: Manchester Arena bombing – An Islamist suicide bomber, 22-year-old Salman Abedi, blew himself up at Manchester Arena as people were leaving an Ariana Grande concert, killing 22 and injuring 139. It became the deadliest terrorist attack in Britain since the 7/7 London bombings in 2005. Many of the victims were children or teenagers, the youngest being an eight-year-old girl.2017, 3 June: 2017 London Bridge attack – Three Islamists drove a van into pedestrians on London bridge before stabbing people in and around pubs in nearby Borough Market. Eight people were killed and at least 48 wounded.] The attackers were shot dead by police eight minutes after the incident was reported. All three were wearing fake suicide bomb vests.2017, 15 September: Parsons Green bombing – The London tube train was targeted and witnesses reported a flash and bang. Thirty people were injured, mostly with flash burns and crush injuries, but there were no fatalities. The threat level was raised to its highest point of critical soon after. Ahmed Hassan, who committed the bombing, received a life sentence with a minimum term of 34 years.2018, 14 August: 2018 Westminster car attack – A Ford Fiesta ran down pedestrians outside the palace of Westminster. The car then went on to crash into the security barrier, after aiming at two police officers. Salih Khater, who carried out the attack received a life sentence with a minimum term of 15 years.2018, 31 December: Mahdi Mohamud, a Dutch national from a Somali family, stabbed three in a knife attack at Manchester Victoria station. Mohamud shouted "Allahu Akbar!" and "Long live the Caliphate!" during the attack. Despite suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, Mohamud was convicted of a terror offence and attempted murder of three people due to his possession of significant amounts of extremist material and the attack's extensive planning.2019, 29 November: 2019 London Bridge stabbing – On 29 November 2019, police were called to a stabbing near London Bridge, in Central London, England, at 1:58 pm. A statement said that one man was detained, and "a number of people" were injured. Two people were killed in the attack and three were left injured. The attacker, 28 year old Usman Khan, was shot dead by police and confirmed dead on the scene.2020, 9 January: Two inmates at Whitemoor prison in Cambridgeshire wearing realistic fake suicide vests, and carrying improvised bladed weapons, stabbed one prison officer several times causing serious injuries and harming several others. One of the inmates, Muslim convert Ziamani, from Camberwell, southeast London, had been jailed for 22 years for hatching a plot to behead a UK soldier inspired by the murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby.2020, 2 February: 2020 Streatham stabbing – Sudesh Amman, wearing a fake suicide vest similar to the one used in the 2019 London Bridge stabbing, was shot dead by armed police after stabbing and injuring two people in Streatham, London Borough of Lambeth. One of the victims sustained life-threatening injuries.2020, 20 June: 2020 Reading stabbings – On 20 June 2020, Khairi Saadallah, shouting "Allahu Akbar", attacked two groups of people socialising in Forbury Gardens, a public park in the centre of Reading, killing three and injuring three others. On 11 January 2021, he was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The sentencing judge, Mr Justice Sweeney said that it was a terrorist attack and that the purpose was to advance an extremist Islamic cause.2021, 15 October: Murder of David Amess – Ali Harbi Ali stabbed MP Sir David Amess at his constituency surgery and was sentenced to life imprisonment with a whole life order.2021, 14 November: Liverpool Women's Hospital bombing – Emad Al-Swealmeen, carrying a homemade bomb, arrived at the Liverpool Women's Hospital by taxi. The bomb exploded, killing him and injuring the driver. The incident was quickly described as terrorism.2023, 15 October: Ahmed Ali Alid stabbed 70-year-old Terence Carney to death in Hartlepool and seriously injured another man, who survived. Alid claimed the attack to be an act of protest against the Israel–Hamas war. Alid was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 44 years in May 2024.

John Hawkes ● 337d

Perhaps people might like to see the whole set of poll results:-https://henryjacksonsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/HJS-Deck-200324-Final.pdfSome key stats:-Key stats: political behaviour- British Muslims think it is more acceptable than not to protest outside an MP’s office if they disagreed with them on Israel/Palestine, and that an MP should be removed- 44% find removal of an MP on other side of the Israel/Palestine argument to them acceptable, with only 18% finding it unacceptable- Broadly Muslims do not find it acceptable to protest outside an MP’s homeo 18-34s are an exception- Almost half of British Muslims say Jews have too much power over UK government policy. This rises to 53% amongst male Muslimso This is similar for US foreign policyo Four in ten say this is the case for the UK financial systemo Four in ten say this is the case for the UK media industry- One in four British Muslims name the Israel/Palestine conflict as their most important election issue compared to just 3% of the publico But the cost of living is most important overall to British Muslims (40%)6.Key stats: Israel/Palestine- Only one in four British Muslims believe Hamas committed murder and rape in Israel on October 7th- Only one in four British Muslims believe Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish homeland - Almost half of British Muslims feel more sympathy with Hamas than Israelo 53% of 18-34 year old Muslims; they are the most likely to sympathise with Hamas- Muslims are more likely to have a positive than a negative view of Hamas; only 24% have a negative view of Hamas- More than half of British Muslims believe the BBC is biased towards Israel- While the wider public are more likely to believe Hamas wanted to kill Jews on October 7th (40% to 26%) more than half of British Muslims say it was to forward the Palestinian cause (52% to 11%)By the way, people might wish to look at the Henry Jackson Society and its aims. Or not.

David Ainsworth ● 339d

Mr AinsworthI have given examples where Palestinians have attacked and murdered British politicians and references to where female politicians at the recent Election have claimed to have been intimidated by Palestinians.Are you suggesting that the pro-Palestinian marches and other events did not involve any Palestinians ?I am suggesting that their right to abode in this country which they have happily accepted, has been given too easily when they seemingly to me show no affinity with our way of life but take full advantage of the benefits, for instance our right to freedom of speech.A freedom which of course they would not have in Gaza where any dissent they might display over the activities by Hamas would bring swift retribution upon themselves.'Hamas faces growing public dissent as Gaza war erodes support' - BBC NewsBut you are right it is not just Palestinians that pose a threat to our values and our politicians.Labour MP for Bethnal Green and Stepney and the first British Bangladeshi elected to Parliament Ms Rushanara Ali, suffered abuse and death threats and needed police protection during the recent campaign.She claimed that campaigners opposing her had tried to turn the Bangladeshi Muslim community against her for supporting Labour's stance on Gaza and the Middle East conflict in general.'Labour MP speaks out on death threats and election abuse' - BBC NewsAnd it appears that the tactic worked as her majority was much reduced, meaning that we are moving into a dangerous realm where identity politics, even where the identity relates to an foreign country, outweighs the normal socio-economic issues that elections have always been fought upon in this country.I have to say that from your responses to comments on this thread, I find the position you seem to take on the issue intriguing.Do  you object to any criticism made of Palestinian and Islamist conduct on the grounds that it should not be made or that it is not deserved because you believe it is exemplary ?

John Hawkes ● 339d