Forum Topic

West Bank 2025 - softly, softly

Jerusalem Post 11/11/24"Smotrich: The time has come to apply Israeli sovereignty over West BankThe United States has for decades backed a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians and has urged Israel not to expand settlements.Israel's far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said on Monday he hoped Israel would extend sovereignty into the West Bank in 2025 and that he would push the government to engage the incoming Trump administration to gain Washington's support.Israel's foreign minister said separately that while no decision was made, the issue could come up in talks with the future US administration in Washington.Smotrich, who also wields a defense ministry supervisory role for settlers as part of his coalition deal with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, said he hopes the incoming Trump administration in Washington will recognize an Israeli sovereignty push.Smotrich has for years called for Israeli sovereignty in the West Bank, land Palestinians want for a future state.At a meeting of his far-right faction in parliament on Monday, Smotrich said he had instructed Israeli authorities overseeing West Bank settlements "to begin professional and comprehensive staff work to prepare the necessary infrastructure" for extending sovereignty, according to a statement from his office.He also said he would push the government to engage the incoming Trump administration to recognize such a move.""The West Bank is among territories captured by Israel in the 1967 Middle East war and where Palestinians, with international support, seek statehood. Most world powers deem the settlements illegal. Israel disputes that, citing historical claims to the West Bank and describing it as a security bulwark."The readers' comments are well worth a look too.https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-828584More detail:-https://mondoweiss.net/2024/11/west-bank-annexation-will-israel-finally-do-the-deed/

David Ainsworth ● 27d89 Comments

"So why would the Palestinians accept a worse deal?"Possibly due to the post WWII propaganda and also due to relatives keeping quiet and sparing the next generation the horrors of war or just fucking ignorance, I think the UK has some romantic view of war.We see it on this forum - one side is good the other evil. In reality things are a lot more complicated. Of course our government is heavily invested in this and other conflict want to make it very black and white.But time exposes this. The Israelis were terrorists and killed British troops. Now the Palestinians are terrorists. The British of course are never terrorists whatever they do - that is at least one constant.We reward our war criminals with TV shows and knighthoods lets not forget!Good Taliban fighting the Russians. Savages when they fight Western forces.Nazis when we are fighting them - something else when they are building rockets for Western forces.Monsters when they experimented on civilians and pow in Europe & Japan. Allies when given amnesty and labs in the West.In short when you lose a war the victor dictates the terms.When the terms are better not than the previous terms but the continuation of the war - that is a good indication that you should settle.When your civilian population is being destroyed and those doing it avocate openly for their complete destruction and those in the so called free Western governments help them to do so.When your neighbor supports a MP that is a Minister in a government that is actively participating in the conflict then that surely is an indicator that they should accept what terms will be offered.Reports seem to indicate that Israel is unwilling to accept terms at the moment hence the hope that Trump may change that.

Ed Robinson ● 18d

Mr BrigoAm I wrong to assume you are of Afro-Carribean descent ?If you are and take my comments as a personal insult, then I apologise.However I think you missed the point of what I posted, the origin of which came from a polemical article in the Spectator by Rod Liddle.https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-reparations-racket/This in turn was prompted by BBC news items -  'The UK has long faced calls to provide reparations for its role in the Atlantic slave trade which saw millions of Africans enslaved and forced to work, largely on plantations in the Caribbean and Americas. A 2023 report co-authored by a United Nations’ judge concluded that the UK owed more than £18tn to 14 countries in reparations'.And also an article in the Standard - 'Caribbean nations will demand $33 trillion (£26.5 trillion) and a formal apology from European countries over their role in the transatlantic slave trade.Caricom, a political and economic union of 15 Caribbean countries, has established a ten-point plan to negotiate a financial settlement with Britain, France, Spain and Denmark as part of a process of “international reconciliation”'.In his usual provocative style he poo-pooed the notion of reparation payments and pointed out that the Caribbean descendants of slaves from many generations back, plus the countries in which they now reside, exist in far better financial and political circumstances than is often the case today of both many Africans remaining in the originating countries and those countries themselves.His views which I perhaps misguidedly threw into the ring on Forum for discussion.He did not condone slavery and slave trading which as I said has been carried out by Romans, Arabs and Africans themselves for millennia and was legal in the UK till abolished in the 18th century.And neither do I.It is worth noting that as of 2018, the countries with the most slaves were: India (8 million), China (3.86 million), Pakistan (3.19 million), North Korea (2.64 million), Nigeria (1.39 million), Indonesia (1.22 million), Democratic Republic of the Congo (1 million), Russia (794,000) and the Philippines (784,000).And closer to home often those that work in carwashes or nail bars have been smuggled into the country or are illegal immigrants from Albania or Vietnam and exist in a slavery environment.I hope this clears up your misunderstanding.

John Hawkes ● 19d

After reading this account of a recent Oxford Union meeting, https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-oxford-union-has-disgraced-itself/which shows how low the standard of students, their behaviour and intellects at what is (was ?) the world's leading higher education establishment have dropped, I wrote the following to its current President and copied the vice-Chancellor.Neither has yet replied.'To: Ebrahim Osman Mowafy    President of the Oxford UnionI have been a life member of the Union since 1964 when on arrival at Exeter I paid £10 from my £300 annual grant to join.This was to enable me as someone interested in politics yet whose state school background gave little exposure to it, the opportunity to listen every Thursday night to distinguished speakers of all persuasions debate in a civilised matter the issues of the day.I relished the opportunity and learnt much. It must be said that some debates - "That this House will under no circumstances fight for its King and country" (a re-run of the original 1933 debate) were quite heated.And yet the situation remained civilised. You can thus imagine how disappointed I was to read about the disgraceful fracas that took place recently under your Chairmanship. The motion was “This House Believes Israel is an Apartheid State Responsible for Genocide.”Somewhat loaded one would have thought ?It was reported that your behaviour throughout the evening was not that of a neutral chair but of an orchestrator, stacking the odds against the opposition and fostering an environment of unchecked hostility.You even forwent the traditional impartiality of the chair’s role to speak against the motion yourself.  I read that apparently 'as one speaker against the motion rose to speak, the mob of a crowd pointedly giggled and coughed to show their animosity. Their interruptions grew louder and more vicious culminating in a young woman standing and screaming obscenities in his face 'like a banshee': “Liar! F*** you, the genocidal motherf***er!”'Not your responsibility it is true, but furthermore when the audience was asked to indicate by a show of hands how many of them would have reported prior knowledge of the October 7th massacres, the vast majority of the room remained still.Obviously many Union members are supporters of sexual assault, rape and kidnapping of women, children and the elderly, many still held captive and whose bodies seem to be now released spasmodically for some sort of grotesque media stunt.And one proposer Miko Peled, described as 'a relentless anti-Israel activist', even described the atrocities of 7 October as acts of “heroism" !Not your view I hope.All the while, you were reported as sitting unmoved, permitting this orgy of hate to continue unimpeded, as members of the audience cursed opponents in Arabic and disrupted the proceedings.One of the opposing speakers described the experience thus: 'This was not a debate; it was a show trial, it seems to me, orchestrated by a deeply biased president and cheered on by a mob that had no interest in facts or truth.This felt like a marker, the moment when the Oxford Union truly fell. Not just as a debating society, but as a symbol of intellectual freedom. The room that night was not filled with future leaders engaging in the battle of ideas; it was a mob baying for blood, intolerant of nuance, and utterly resistant to the values the Union claims to uphold'.Not just an indictment of the Union but also the university itself I would have thought.I wonder if you plan to return to your homeland when you receive your Oxford degree.Will you feel that Egypt's attitude to free speech aligns with your own as displayed at the Union especially where Israel is concerned ?Or will you feel somewhat nervous that the demonstration of your very partial and strongly held views might be held against you were you brave enough to begin to criticise the Egyptian government ?Have you read how Human Rights Watch have described the current political climate in Egypt -'The Egyptian authorities have in recent weeks arbitrarily detained and referred for prosecution at least four critics of the government on charges stemming solely from their legitimate exercise of freedom of expression, as part of their work, in a fresh assault on freedom of expression, eight organizations, including Human Rights Watch, said today. Those prosecuted include two detained journalists and a researcher living in exile.The authorities have employed incommunicado detention, abusive pretrial detention, and unsubstantiated terrorism-related charges against the critics. The family of one detainee alleged that he was tortured. Harsh repression has stymied freedom of expression and independent media in recent years, despite the government’s claims that it is pursuing reforms.“Egypt cannot turn a new page without respecting freedom of expression, which is part and parcel of promoting other political and economic rights,” said Bassam Khawaja, deputy Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch. “Egypt should urgently cease targeting critics and immediately release those unjustly detained.”'Will you be challenging your own government with as much bravado as you challenged the behaviour of Israel or is the thought of 'discussions' with Egypt's security forces perhaps a little daunting ?Whatever it is I hope you felt some self-congratulatory satisfaction from bringing the primitive political posturing of your homeland and the Middle East in general to this country to defile Oxford University, its institutions and its attitudes to free speech.Let's hope other Oxford students show more open-mindedness, maturity and common sense than you do. I hope you will do me the courtesy of giving a reply and I wish to make it clear that I will be sending a copy of this email to the vice-Chancellor.J W HawkesExeter 1964'

John Hawkes ● 20d

Before the war there were around 850 000 Jews living in the Muslim countries of North Africa and the Middle East. By 1972 600 000 had relocated to Israel and these individuals together with their descendants now form the majority of the Jewish population of Israel. The rest of the Jewish inhabitants of Muslim lands migrated to France, America and Canada. By 2019 the total number of Jews in Arab countries and Iran had dwindled to 12 700.There were pull factors (i.e. people wishing to make a better life for themselves in Israel and elsewhere) but also severe push factors (i.e. discrimination and pogroms). A few examples: In Morocco, which was not the worst case, there were anti-Jewish riots in 1948 leading to the death of 44 Jews. In Algeria the Nationality Code of 1962 deprived non-Muslims of citizenship. In Libya there were pogroms in 1945 and 1948 leading to the death of over 150 Jews. In 1961 Jews were banned from voting or attaining public offices. In 1967 the Libyan government urged Jews to leave the country permitting them to take one suitcase each and $50. Their property was confiscated. In Iraq in 1941 the ‘Farhud’ broke out in which 180 Jews were killed. In 1948 Jews were dismissed from the civil service and quotas were imposed at universities. In 1950 the government reversed their policy of forbidding emigration to Israel but confiscated the property of departing Jews. Following the Six Day War the remaining Iraqi Jews had their property expropriated and their bank accounts frozen and scores of Jews were imprisoned  on charges of spying for Israel and 50 executed. In Egypt in 1956 1000 Jews were arrested and 500 Jewish businesses were seized by the government. Lawyers, engineers, doctors and teachers were not allowed to work in their professions. Thousands of Jews were ordered to leave the country, threatened with concentration camps if they stayed. They were only allowed to take one suitcase and a small amount of cash, signing their property over to the state. In Syria in 1948 all Jewish bank accounts were frozen. In 1954 Jews were legally barred from working for the government, obtaining a driving licence and having telephones in their homes.

Steven Rose ● 20d

Michael, I am not particularly swayed by the opinion of the international community as regards the Middle East. The international community is simply a euphemistic expression for a collection of countries who tend to make decisions based on their own national self interest. After the creation of Israel in 1948 the international community was happy to accept Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank. Then after Black September in 1970 they decided that the West Bank should be the preserve of the Palestinian people, declaring Israeli settlements in the territory to be illegal.In my opinion Israel’s decision to build settlements on the West Bank and in Gaza was worse than a crime - it was a serious error which has jeopardised Israel’s existence. By the same token Arafat’s rejection of Rabin’s offer at Camp David in 2000 to withdraw from 96% of the  West Bank in return for an end to the intifada has inflicted untold misery on the Palestinian people. So I think John Hawkes is right when he says that the issue can only be resolved by face to face negotiations between Israel and non-terrorist representatives of the Palestinians. Both sides will have to compromise. The Palestinians will have to give up their ambition of reclaiming their lands in Israel and the Israelis will have to withdraw from the West Bank. A deal might also include land swaps and financial compensation. There should also be compensation for the Jewish families forced to leave their homes in North Africa and the Middle East, though this would involve negotiation with those countries.

Steven Rose ● 21d

'The Israelis have to protect themselves and they are not going to do anything which jeopardises their own security such as a unilateral withdrawal from either Gaza or the West Bank. What is required is a negotiated settlement between Israel and the Palestinians (excluding Hamas), backed by the USA and the neighbouring Arab countries.'I agree.I have also made the same point but it appears that to do so makes one a racist !However any negotiation has to be between parties that agree unequivocally that Israel has the right to exist as a sovereign state in the land it currently inhabits, albeit the actual borders might be subject to negotiation.I am not sure that all Palestinians agree with this and not just the psychopaths in Hamas who are still holding women, children and the elderly hostage and even holding the bodies of those they have killed, releasing them under circumstances that they bizarrely think will give them maximum media attention and support.Though their opinions are worthless I think that Palestinian fellow travellers in the west hold similar views regarding the right of Israel to exist.BBC News: 'Israel says it is investigating a claim by Hamas that a female hostage has been killed during Israeli operations in northern Gaza.The woman's identity was not revealed by Hamas, and it was unclear how or when she is said to have died.The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said it was currently unable to “verify or refute” the claim, but that its representatives are in contact with the woman's family.“This evening the terrorist organization Hamas released a document in which a kidnapped woman is allegedly seen killed,” the IDF said in a statement. “We are checking the information and at this stage we are unable to verify or refute it.”'.Can one truly negotiate with and trust such people nor the other Iranian proxy Hezbollah ?

John Hawkes ● 23d

The situation regarding Jerusalem and the West Bank is complex. It would be simplistic to assert that Israel has occupied Palestinian land, as implied by your question.When the UN voted in 1947 to partition Palestine between the Jews and the Arabs, Jerusalem was designated as an international city. The UN plan was accepted by the Jews but rejected by both the Palestinians and the neighbouring Arab countries. In the war of 1948 the Israelis captured West Jerusalem while Jordan annexed East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Then after the 1967 war  the Israelis unified Jerusalem and took military control of the West Bank. From 1979 the international community has regarded the Palestinians as having sovereignty over the West Bank, declaring the presence of Israeli troops and Israeli settlers to be illegal.The answer ought to be the withdrawal of Israeli settlements and the creation of an independent Palestinian state on the West Bank with special safeguards for Jerusalem. This two state solution is more or less what Rabin offered Arafat at Camp David in 2000. Unfortunately the offer was rejected, essentially because the Palestinians also wanted a right of return of around four million Palestinians to Israel, which would have meant the end of Israel as a Jewish homeland. Many Israelis fear that this is still the intention of the Palestinians, whatever they say about wanting to live in peace with Israel. And even if the current leadership of the PLO is sincere about peace , the Israelis fear that on becoming independent the Palestinian state would soon be overcome by revolutionary groups like Hamas who would start the conflict over again.

Steven Rose ● 24d