Harry’s Place

Good post. We know that Milliband has a difficult job here but hopefully it does not involve appeasing a bunch of thugs.

Great stuff! Has he mentioned Tibet lately to the ‘colleagues’? Perhaps he’ll squeeze in a visit with a Meester Khaled Mash’al while he’s at it: ‘About those power cuts Khaled old thing…’

Good post. We know that Milliband has a difficult job here but hopefully it does not involve appeasing a bunch of thugs.

He has already done that with his attitudes against Israel and appeasment towards Palestinians http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/2768096/another-banana-moment.thtml

Interesting that West Bank Settlements aren’t illegal despite what the Arabists in the Govt believe.

Milliband is puppet crap.

Really good post, you’re spot on, Lebanon should not be the price for any attempt to spilt Syria from Iran.

My own view is that any attempt to split Syria from Iran is just wishfull thinking, and the Assad’s know this so will play the game in order to gain concessions.

here are some good articles on this very subject http://beirut2bayside.blogspot.com/2008/11/rubin-syria-cant-be-flipped.html

http://beirut2bayside.blogspot.com/2007/08/voop-nonsense-about-syria-iran-alliance.html

http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=283&PID=1847&IID=2208

Excuse me whilst I take 5 minutes to laugh heartily at the suggestion of ‘Lebanese Democracy’

Fuck off Bob

It was March 14, 2005. One million Lebanese – Sunnis, Christians, more Shia than would admit it now, and Druze too gathered in the largest peaceful anti-government demonstration ever in the Arab world. In proportion to population, it was the largest anywhere, ever.

Apparently not. The BBC reported that the pro-Syrian demonstration which occurred at roughly the same time dwarfed it.

This piece reads more like a piece of propaganda than an informed analysis.

Didn’t I read we are sidling up to the Syrians to do some sort of deal over information from their intelligence service?

Its pretty amazing. The Americans attack their support of AQI with helicopters. The Israeli’s bomb their nuclear sites. The British send Harry Potter to go and drink tea with their dictator.

Pathetic, really pathetic…

Apparently not. The BBC reported that the pro-Syrian demonstration which occurred at roughly the same time dwarfed it.

The report does indeed say “the crowd dwarfed previous opposition protests urging Syrian troops to leave.” However, it is dated nearly a week before the demonstration mentioned by Garvan Walshe.

Not that the BBC has any record of reproducing Syrian propaganda. I mean, just watch Jeremy Bowen’s report “Hafez Al-Assad, Father of His People.”

I sure have a lot of admiration for the Lebanese March 14 movement, but it’s doubtful whether democracy in the Middle East necessarily means what some in the West imagine — during the Lebanon war in 2006, Egypt’s Kifaya movement launched a campaign to collect 1 million signatures to cancel the peace treaty with Israel.

Of course the settlements aren’t ‘illegal’, despite what assorted antisemites in the foreign office, the BBC etc screech every day.
And of course Millipede is a useless little twerp.

The arab ‘rejectionist’ front was not given that label for nothing. They never fail to hold out for unobtainable demands because they know that the West will eventually start to crack. Western leaders ALWAYS do, so wedded are they to the process of ‘dialogue’ - even with the devil himself. Only three years ago, assad was persona non grata for having the Lebanese PM Rafik Hariri assassinated. Now our witless, pathetic FM goes to him with cup in hand for ‘help’. To what end, miliband? You would be better advised to stay home and mind the kids. Leave foreign policy to the big boys.

Nearly Oxfordian,

If not illegal, how about problematic?

Good post. Western governments are always too ready to lend legitimacy to regimes like Baby Assad’s without really asking anything much in return. As Londoner says, they seem to have caved in on Lebanon. When was the last time western leaders ever extracted a price from Syria on jailed dissidents, bloggers and oppressed Kurds? Pelosi, Sarkozy and now Milliband have all made the pilgrimage to Damascus. What have they achieved? Lately, the Syrian regime has earned brownie points with the US just by going through the motions of talking peace with Israel. But these talks were conducted through Turkey; heaven forbid that a Syrian should deal directly with an Israeli in the same room.

Regardless of whether Israeli settlements on the West Bank beyond the barrier wall are legal or illegal, (whatever that means) can we all agree that they are stupid, inflamatory and no nothing for Israel’s security?

Does Milliband carry a large umbrella? (like Neville Chamberlain)

David All, we cannot agree. The day when you or anyone else buys into the notion that ANY piece of land must be Judenrein to humour the arabs - is the day that clerical fascists can rightfully declare a victory. With the Israelis ceding gaza, all eyes are on the West Bank. The next stop will be pre-1967 Israel, followed by an immigrant enclave in Europe.

Muslims constitute a large part of the immigrant population in the West. Howcome they are not clamouring to ‘go home’? On the contrary, their numbers in the West increase every year. Why do only palestinian Muslims insist on clinging to a ’salmon syndrome’? Everywhere else in the world, only the generation that left its land of birth has ‘refugee’ status. Why are palestinians uniquely considered ‘refugees’ into the fifth generation?

For once, do the palestinians the courtesy of listening to their words. Hamas FM mahmoud zahar has repeated often enough that recognising Israel contradicts the Qur’an. (The simpleton miliband knows something we don’t know - he actually believes he can change this mindset by switching labels on Israeli food exports). Mahmoud abbas is no better than zahar. He refuses to recognise Israel as a Jewish state, despite the endless ‘peace processing’. Like the hamas charter, the fatah ‘covenant’ still seeks the destruction of Israel.

Israel unilaterally evacuated her settlements in gaza, and suffers a constant rocket barrage in return. Ceding the West Bank would be suicidal - it is proving impossible for Israel to protect Sderot and Ashkelon (the two towns nearest to gaza). What would Israel do if the rockets were coming from the length of the West Bank into her main population centres, which are adjacent to the border?

The palestinians can have a state once they overcome their impulse to murder Israelis and destroy their neighbour. That day hasn’t come, and is perversely postponed every time the West pressures Israel to take yet another suicidal step, or prevents her from adequately defending her borders. More than anything else, these two factors entrench palestinian rejectionism by giving them hope of
achieving their aims.

I agree with much of what you said Londoner. But I repeat myself what do Israeli settlements in the West Bank beyond the barrier wall do for Israel? They do not provide protection. They cause the IDF to deploy itself extensively to protect said settlements. They inflame the Arab population by their presence, not to mention the Settlers themsevles often act as if they were the Lords of the Earth and the Arabs their servants. While in theory, the rights of the Jews or any peoples to buy land or live wherever they want are important, in practice, a bit of discretion should apply. Just as in Northern Ireland, the rights of Catholics to live wherever they want to are important, it might be consider practical to forego Catholics moving into the Shankhill. (I believe that is the hardline working class Protestant neighborhood in Belfast.) My fellow Yanks should substitute blacks moving into South Boston or Cicero, Illinois, a subreb of Chicago, for comparison.

Note: Obviously the IDF must go into Gaza and stop the rocket fire by re-occupying part of the Gaza Strip. The same would be true for the West Bank as well. I do not say that Israel should unilaterally cede the West Bank to the Palestinians; as you point out that would only encourage attacks against Israel proper.

Your points are all well-taken, David All. But we are talking about a group of people with a totally different culture. Each concession is interpreted as weakness. hanan ashrawi, a favourite ‘media moderate’ in the West, once famously said: “We arabs are an all or nothing people”. The problem lies with the West, which still believes that pigs can fly.

If you advocate ‘re-occupying part of the Gaza Strip’, why is that different from having settlements? The latter do protect Israel’s long border, which Israel’s army is too overstretched to defend round the clock. Plus they offer real co-existence for those palestinians who want it. Many of them are employed in the settlements, though not for long if miliband has his way.

The settlements are sited on higher ground, for a reason. They are areas that cannot be ceded for defensive purposes while the palestinians remain career terrorists. Israel has no choice but to opt for ‘conflict management’ - ‘conflict resolution’ has never been on offer from her neighbours. During ‘conflict management’, it would be madness to expose her main population centres to rocket attack.

The point about Jews using discretion in where they live was perhaps valid in gaza. The West Bank is a different territory with different considerations - remember how near the airport is to the West Bank border. Note, though, how a large arab population lives in Israel, sometimes agitates against Israel, or even inflicts terrorism on Israel, but refuses to have its all-arab border towns switched to ‘palestinian sovereignty’. Life in Israel is too good, and they know it.

Good points, Londoner. You are right to talk about the inadmissiblility of ‘Judenrein’ territory. It is seldom remembered that Jews lived in so-called Arab lands for millennia - or to be more accurate, Muslims moved into areas first inhabited by Jews and Christians in the Middle East and North Africa. Cities like Baghdad were a third Jewish up until 1940. But these Jews have been driven out by intolerant Arab nationalism, and the Christians have been severely depleted. By advocating a Judenrein West Bank, you are discouraging tolerance and pluralism. The litmus test of peace is if non-Muslims are able to live amongst Muslims without feeling threatened.

Precisely Bataween. Muslim countries, and arabs in particular, have effectively been allowed to ignore minimal standards of tolerance and co-existence towards non-muslims within their borders. (When they immigrate to the West, they automatically expect, and get, equal rights). What incentive is there for them to reform if the West submits not only to their oppression of native minorities, but acquiesces to the spread of ‘dar al-islam’ at the periphery of their borders with non-muslims?

How does the Jewish Settlers in Hebron help Israel’s security. Seem they spend the block of their time picking fights with the local Arab population or the IDF or both. Here is the latest go around:

“Security forces brace as settlers arrive in droves to Hebraon”
at http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3626355,00.html

It is wrong to taint 250,000 law-abiding Jewish residents with the totally insupportable actions of a few. Those Hebron troublemakers will be troublemakers wherever they live.

Londer,

Those immigrants from the Muslim world into the West dont exactly enjoy many rights as natives in their own countries. That you would leverage it against them in the West because of what happens back home is flawed. They are entitled to their Human rights. Humans rights shouldnt be quid pro quo, silly.

Bataween,

“The litmus test of peace is if non-Muslims are able to live amongst Muslims without feeling threatened.”

Does this mean that the Palestinian refugees will return on a trial basis?