The suffering of Palestinians in Iraq
This is a guest post by Gsirrah.
At the moment so much is being said by so many people about the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza, but none of them seem to care about another group of Palestinians who very rarely make the news but whose suffering is no less real:
After 18 members of her family were brutally murdered by Shi’ite militiamen in Baghdad, Nadia Othman, a 36-year-old Palestinian mother of three, finally managed to escape to Jordan together with hundreds of Palestinian families that had been living in Iraq for decades.
In 2006, more than 600 Palestinians were killed in the Iraqi capital in what Palestinian leaders and political activists are describing as a “systematic campaign of ethnic cleansing.” [...]
Today, Nadia said, “There are less than 10,000 Palestinians living in Iraq and most of them are afraid to walk out of their homes. My sister, who stayed behind, told me this week that she hasn’t left her apartment in the Baladiyat suburb of Baghdad for the past three weeks for fear of being killed by Shi’ite militiamen. I’m very concerned for the safety of my mother and five brothers who have still not been able to escape from Iraq.”
Nadia’s decision to leave her home came shortly after one of her brothers, Muhammad Rashid, was killed by Shi’ite gunmen as he was on his way to the school where he worked as an Arabic language teacher.
“The murderers stopped him in the street, asked for his ID documents, and when they saw that he was a Palestinian refugee, they immediately fired three bullets at his head,” she said. “On the same day, they kidnapped and murdered Farid Al-Sayed, chairman of the Palestinian-controlled Haifa Sports Club in Iraq.”
Thousands of Palestinians have been forced to flee Iraq, either to surrounding countries or to camps on the Syria-Iraq border: al-Hol (inside the Syrian borders), al-Tanf (in no-man’s-land), or al-Waleed (inside Iraq). The scale of this situation is shown by the most recent UNHCR figures, from October last year:
Of the estimated 34,000 Palestinians in Iraq in 2003, less than 15,000 remain in Iraq – including 2,943 Palestinian refugees currently living in the border camps at the Iraq-Syrian border. Of those in the border camps, 358 families (1,278 persons) are considered to be highly vulnerable – having life-threatening diseases, needing urgent medical treatment or fearing persecution if they return – and therefore are in urgent need of resettlement.
The majority fled Baghdad since 2003 because of threats, torture, detention, or after friends and family members were killed. The steady drain on financial resources has forced middle class families into the ranks of the poor, needing housing, food, medical, and cash assistance. And things have got worse since then, with the border camps being hit by flooding.
This is how Amnesty International described the situation in the camps at the end of last year:
Al Hol was originally built by the Syrian government for refugees it anticipated would flee from Iraq during the first Gulf War. It now houses about 340 Palestinians. Its location in Syria provides a measure of protection and stability compared to Al Tanf and Al Waleed. The problems stem from the camp’s extreme isolation and the restrictions placed by the Syrian government on the rights of the residents to travel and work. The Palestinians here had their travel documents confiscated by the Syrian government upon arrival. The residents are quite frustrated with their isolation and the fact that although they were the first group to leave Iraq they have yet to benefit from resettlement opportunities.
Al Tanf, with a population of 940, is one of the worst situated refugee camps in the world. It lies in the no-man’s-land between Syria and Iraq. It is completely exposed on one side to a highway, where trucks alternately speed by or sit idle for hours at a time waiting to make the border crossing. The site itself is in a culvert about 10 feet below the highway, making it a flood plain when it rains heavily. While about 300 people have been resettled out of the camp over the past year, the camp population is actually increasing as Palestinian refugees from Iraq are forced out of Damascus into the camp due to deportation by the Syrian authorities, severe economic hardship, and the lure of a solution to their tenuous situation.
Al Waleed, located inside Iraq just across the border from Al Tanf, was the last of the three camps to be established when the Iraqi authorities decided to prevent Palestinians from leaving Iraq altogether. With a population of 1,750, it is the largest of the three. Like Al Tanf, it is located along the highway and has the added disadvantage of being close to a Multi-National Forces (MNF) military base, which does not provide security for refugees. Conditions in the camp have been abysmal, with poor shelter and lack of water and sanitation facilities, but the UNHCR has just facilitated the transfer of the residents to a new camp on the other side of the highway. The school and health clinic remain in the original location, however, and the worry is that children will risk the dash across the highway rather than using an underpass that requires a round trip walk of nearly a kilometre. But the fundamental problem with Al Waleed is that it is in Iraq, where Palestinians remain highly vulnerable to violence from militias and the government.
If you remain in any doubt about the terrible conditions of those living in the camps, read about the plight of two Palestinian boys who died whilst waiting for resettlement; or about Ahmed Mohammad, who lost his pregnant wife when fire raced through the crammed together, overcrowded tents. He could only rescue his son.
Between 2006 and 2008, only 381 Palestinians could be resettled by UNHCR. Few countries want to help them escape the torture and targetted killings they face in Iraq. Iceland, Sweden, Brazil, and Chile are some of the very few to have stepped up to the mark. Oh, and Israel has allowed “dozens” to travel to the West Bank whilst the British government has recently agreed to accept 30 widows with children from the border camps. Much as these countries are to be praised, not nearly enough is being done yet.
But nobody seems to care about this. In January 2007, this alert from UNHCR appeared on Reuters. Only the Washington Post wrote an article in response. The next attempt to raise awareness of the Palestinians in Iraq was even less successful: in March 2008 UNHCR put out this alert and only the Kuwaiti News Agency responded. Certainly, there has been some coverage of this story, notably from the Jerusalem Post and the IHT/NY Times but, despite a couple of articles in the UK press this month, such examples remain rare and public awareness close to non-existent.
Which raises the question – with so many people focussed on the suffering of the Palestinians in Gaza, why does nobody give a damn about Palestinians when they are in Iraq?
UNHCR, the Red Crescent and others are doing an admirable job supporting them, but the Palestinians in these camps and the other Palestinians in Iraq need a permanent, safe home – this will only happen if the outside world knows and cares that they exist.
At the moment it doesn’t.
Comments
| 22 February 2009, 7:13 pm |
Or Yasser Arafat, and the Kuwaiti Royal Family.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Expulsion_from_Kuwait
So many “supporters of the Palestinian cause” in this country don’t even know this happened.
| 22 February 2009, 7:19 pm |
Or the situation in Lebanon:
A tragedy normally takes place when there is a Palestinian who needs surgery, or intensive care, or long-term treatment. Public hospitals in Lebanon don’t admit Palestinians for treatment. The National Security Fund does not allow Palestinians to be registered in its lists to receive medical health in private hospitals … Palestinian workers are not allowed to receive a pension, or severance pay at the end of their work in any institution or firm either in case of suspension or termination of employment. Moreover, they are not allowed to join any syndicate or union, or guild of any type … Elaborating on a different topic, a very discriminating and unfair law has been enforced for more than a decade which deprives the Palestinians of the right to own any kind of land or property: including a house, an apartment or a field … Even when a Palestinian dies, his sons or daughters cannot inherit his house.
Systematic discrimination faces Palestinian refugees in Lebanon
| 22 February 2009, 7:33 pm |
Great post Gsirrah. It exposes the hypocrisy of supposed leftist pro-palestinian pro-arab, anti Zionists all to well.
The treatment of Palestinians in Arab and Muslim lands, often denied the most basic of civic and social rights let alone the legal and political rights of citizenship or permanent residence is an enduring crime against an ethnic group which constitutes a crime against humanity.
At least the Islamists, have the entirely theoretical, but morally consistent defence that such treatment is not permissable in a politically perceived Umma.
No wonder most Arab regimes treat islamist dissidents even worse than they treat their Palestinian refugees.
| 22 February 2009, 7:41 pm |
mettaculture (Venezuela)
What you have forgotten to say is the following: The Arab regimes are quite happy, if Muslim Brothers incite hate against Jews. They are quite well tolerated in most Arab countries. So do not make out of this ilk Sahids.
The news about the plight of those borne 3rd and 4th generation in Iraq shows the cynical antisemitic attitudes of those who see only one people
to blame in the Middle East: The Jews
| 22 February 2009, 7:46 pm |
On the topic of Arab leaders’ “solidarity” with the Palestinians, the Syrian government prevents press access to these camps (although it did let this article get published in Syria Today). It is also rounding up any Palestinians who do sneak through to safety in Damascus and returning them to the camps.
UN workers in Syria have told me that the UN is unwilling to press hard for any real changes to this situation, or to too heavily publicise it, for fear of annoying the Syrian regime and thereby risk prejudicing other UN programmes inside Syria. Also, they fear that their superiors in the UN have no real desire to treat the situation of the Palestinians stuck on the Iraq-Syria border because their resources are so overstretched already: it’s easier to let them languish in the camps far from the public eye than to make too much of a fuss then be unable to do much to help them and thereby tarnish the UN’s reputation.
| 22 February 2009, 7:54 pm |
These ‘palestinians’ are natives of Iraq and should have all the rights of citizenship that Iraqi’s enjoy; I was told that by
“Dan
21 February 2009, 11:38 pm
DocMartyn: It is because some people refuse to regard ethnic minorities as native to the UK (native is anyone who is born here) that we need legislation to tackle discrimination against them.”
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/02/21/bnp-racsit-wins-while-berlin-challenges-deniers/#comments
Essentially, if you set one foot in an European country and you can stay, and get benefits.
‘palestinians’ are deprived of citizenship in the ME outside of Jordan and Israel. However, the UK and Israelis are always accused of racism, and the Arabs are not.
| 22 February 2009, 8:01 pm |
While Palestinians are being shat on in many Arab countries, I think your use of Iraq as an example will come back to bite you in the ass.
Their situation seemed to deteriorate from 2003 onwards. I wonder what major event happened in Iraq during that year?
| 22 February 2009, 8:03 pm |
Doc,
I am sure you are familiar with what King Hussein of Jordan said back in 1960
“Since 1948 Arab leaders have approached the Palestine problem in an irresponsible manner…. they have used the Palestine people for selfish political purposes. This is ridiculous and, I could say, even criminal. ”
True today as it was in 1960
| 22 February 2009, 8:05 pm |
I claim the obvious “because there is not real anti-Israel mileage in it”.
I remember very well the broadcast news about the Palestinians stuck in Iraq near the border – but haven’t thought about it since.
Have there been any appeals by Abbas to airlift these Palestinians back to the West Bank?
Isn’t it a truism that the Arabs don’t actually care about the Palestinians except when they can be used as a hate proxy against Israel and Jews?
| 22 February 2009, 8:08 pm |
Prunus Absurdus:
Isn’t it a truism that the Arabs don’t actually care about the Palestinians except when they can be used as a hate proxy against Israel and Jews?
Absolutely not. It would be a truism to state that Arab leaders don’t actually care about the Palestinians etc.
| 22 February 2009, 8:09 pm |
David T,
Just as a sidebar, it is also interesting that the cause of the Kurds has been lost as well. Well before the Palestinans, the Kurdish struggle was THE cause of the Left and until 2003, you could read stuff by Pilger, Chomsky, Ali, and others about how the Kurds have been given the shaft time and time again by USA realpolitik.
Where are the Pilger’s and Chomsky’s now that the Kurds are American allies?
Their silence is quite deafening.
| 22 February 2009, 8:14 pm |
“Andrew Murphy
Doc, I am sure you are familiar with what King Hussein of Jordan said back in 1960″
Andrew, are you aware that between 1948 and 1967 that the West Bank was part of Jordan and that Gaza was part of Egypt. Do you know that the ‘palestinians’, in the form of the PLO, abandoned all claims to the West Bank and Gaza in 1965?
The Original Palestine National Charter
This Covenant was written by the first Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, Ahmed Shukeiry.
Article 24. This Organization does not exercise any regional sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or the Himmah Area. Its activities will be on the national popular level in the liberational, organizational, political and financial fields.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/cove1.html
Ost that on CiF and you get your post removed.
| 22 February 2009, 8:14 pm |
Gsirrah:
” it’s easier to let them languish in the camps far from the public eye than to make too much of a fuss then be unable to do much to help them and thereby tarnish the UN’s reputation.”
After the scandalous activities of the UN in recent years, the UN has no reputation left to tarnish. The organisation has welcomed some of the most vicious tyrannical regimes onto UN human rights bodies- this is what happens as a result. The UN is now a liability to the world.
| 22 February 2009, 8:15 pm |
Good post Gsirrah. I never realised that there were so many Palestinians inside Iraq. The same is true of Egyptian ex-pats working over there and in other Gulf countries. Christians, Jews, Sunni and Shi’ah, Yazdis etc. have all been victims of ethnic cleansing in Iraq.
I don’t support more Palestinians coming to the UK though, and not because they’re persons of Transjordanian heritage either. Arab governments should do more and so should Israel. As a nation, Britain bears no responsibility for Palestinian refugees or other migrants from that part of the world.
if Muslim Brothers incite hate against Jews. They are quite well tolerated in most Arab countries
So SOME might, but members/leaders of MB orgs. face significant sanctions in Egypt, Jordan and Algeria to name 3 countries.
| 22 February 2009, 8:17 pm |
Why are these Palestinians being cared for second class (when they are allowed to do so at all by the Syrians) by UNHCR instead of the first class special Palestinian dedicated UNWRA?
| 22 February 2009, 8:20 pm |
By the way, there’s been an attack in Cairo – Khan el-Khalili
see here.
| 22 February 2009, 8:23 pm |
Yes, the Shia in Iraq dont like the Palestinians very much. There is a problem in that the Palestinians in Iraq were an unfairly favoured community under Saddam, who for obvious reasons was rather fond of them. This resulted in them receiving excessive benefits. Iraqi Shia living under the terrible oppression of the regime noticed this. Its a sad fact that now the Saddam dictatorship has gone, there has been a certain settling of accounts. Absolutely to be condemned, of course, when innocents suffer, but thats the background.
Re the reference to the Kurds, its worth mentioning that, astonishingly, without the support of the European left, the Kurds in northern Iraq are in the process of building one of the better-run near-states in their region. They had a problem for a while at the height of the insurgency with Arabic-speakers from further south wanting to come live with them. Oh, the irony.
So the Palestinians had and have the support of the european left, various fascist Arab dictators and the mullahs in Iran and are living in the shit.
The Iraqi Kurds have the support of the US and (some say) Israel, and are doing rather well.
The lesson: pick your friends carefully.
| 22 February 2009, 8:33 pm |
Absolutely not. It would be a truism to state that Arab leaders don’t actually care about the Palestinians etc.
I accept the correction. Yes, its the leaders who have used the Palestinians as political pawns.
| 22 February 2009, 8:49 pm |
Arab governments should do more and so should Israel.
And that is because …?
| 22 February 2009, 8:49 pm |
“Palestinians” are the whipping boys of Islam. Doomed to howl at the gates of Israel until that painful bone is removed from the throat of Islam. There will be no peace until Israel is dissolved and the Jews dead or dhimmified. Or Islam is deposed and the Muslims are freed from their darkness. Whats it going to be?
| 22 February 2009, 9:14 pm |
I don’t believe the issue is that the world doesn’t care about the sad plight of Palestinians in Iraq (or in Lebanon or anywhere else). The chattering classes care only about issues to the extend they can be used to attack Israel. Since, for instance, Israel isn’t a factor in Darfur, or Chad, or the DRC horrors (5 million dead and counting); or Tibet or any other place, these issues just lack oomph. Sure, you can get a few actors like Gere to decry the treatment of Tibetans, or some other luckless group, but if there isn’t an Israeli connection, no school group, no union, no clutch of professors will give a fart about them and they don’t. But if Israel is accused in the Arab press of, say, lobbing some phony chemical on people, the UN and Belgium will be sure to expend a lot of greenhouse gas on the issue.
The only issue of importance to the UN and to the so-called human rights groups is the perfidy of Israel. From their point of view, everyone else can go fuck off. Sad, but true. And has been true for long time.
| 22 February 2009, 9:22 pm |
Absolutely, Think of England.
And on the other thread, we see that using Israel’s Nazi treatment of the poor inmates of the Warsaw gh… oops, Gaza as a metaphor has now penetrated the darkest recesses of what passes for the brains of Britain’s antisemitic media.
What IS it about Belgium? I mean, I could never stand the &^%$, ever since everyone refused to help me when my car broke down as I drove through Belgium as a student on my way to Holland (the help I received in Holland, after just about managing to limp there, was out of this world). But why the frothing antisemitism?
| 22 February 2009, 9:34 pm |
Gsirrah –
AN interesting and informative post.
I don’t agree Palestinians should be encouraged to seek a home in the West any more than I support Hamas’s policy of driving the Jews to the West (or murdering them if they don’t go). Surely Arab brother nations should be helping them more effectively.
You don’t explain why the Shiahs launched these horrible attacks. Were the associated with the Saddam regime in some way?
I know Saddam had some fanatical paramilitaries (the ones who tore up the wolf with their bare hands – remember that delightful video?).
| 22 February 2009, 9:41 pm |
The Bar Human Rights Committee
http://www.barhumanrights.org.uk/wherewework/middle_east.php#Syria
Which claims to be an independent arm of the Bar Council of England and Wales focussing on International Human Rights violations (also known as Mark Muller QC (quite conceited) personal photogallery) pays an awful lot of attention to ‘training’ for assorted academics judges and members of internal security of the totalitarian regime of Syria.
They have an ongoing programme (Mark Muller goes to Syria a lot) funded by the British council/Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
Syrian participants have concentrated on israel/palestine, the US and illegality of the iraq War, Guantanamo bay etc.
The BHRC also has an even more extensive training programme in the Occupied Territories and has produced extensive training including materials provision for Palestinian human rights defenders.
Lots of barristers from Tooks Court, matrix, 1 Pump Court and Garden Court have even paid visits to Ramallah to provide their skills pro Bono.
Given such an active concern for the human rights of palestinians and their defenders, this might be an excellent area for the impartial, independent and neutral (notwithstanding the hard left backgrounds of many members) Bar Human Rights Committe to pay some attention to.
The meetings of the BHRC are ostensibly on the 3rd wednesday of the month and ostensibly open to all (though the records of the minutes do not reflect a degree of participation that is no doubt wished for).
People are welcomed to attend and put this as a matter for consideration, despite the fact that fliers, or information, advertising the content of meetings are occaisionally posted after they have occured.
I mean we wouldn’t want the Bar Council to get a tarnished reputataion like the UN because of an overfocussed set of initiatives launched by its grandiloquently self appointed world human rights monitor, would we?
| 22 February 2009, 9:44 pm |
What IS it about Belgium? I mean, I could never stand the &^%$, ever since everyone refused to help me when my car broke down as I drove through Belgium as a student on my way to Holland (the help I received in Holland, after just about managing to limp there, was out of this world). But why the frothing antisemitism?
-Nearly Oxfordian
–
Indeed – Belgium will pamper their potential of homegrown islamists all the way, even more so than Holland does. I know Belgium quite well, can’t think of a reason though.
So it’s amazing that EU über-dhimmi Louis Michel recently held hamas “overwhelmingly responsible” for the consequences of Cast Lead.
| 22 February 2009, 9:46 pm |
Gsirrah -great article.
| 22 February 2009, 9:51 pm |
“Arab governments should do more and so should Israel.”
Given all the property that was taken from Iraqi Jews in 1948, I think Israel has already donated its part.
| 22 February 2009, 9:52 pm |
Why does not Syria Jordan Egypt Turkey Libya Saudi Arabia Tunis and all the other Arabic Islamic countries resettle them with the UN?
After all they’ve had 40 years to do so, India and Pakistan and other places have resettled just as many.
Why Not? because they are a weapon to be used against Israel by the UN and OIC.
By all means highlight their daily [problems but also be honest and name the perpetrators too. starting with the anti-semetic UN and OIC.
| 22 February 2009, 9:55 pm |
Well there’s refugees and there are refugees. The Iraqi Palestinians were specifically invited there by Saddam and given preferential treatment up to and including expulsion of Iraqis from their homes and jobs to give them to Palestinians. They were handed money and an elevated position in Saddam’s society. They weren’t refugees in Iraq before, they are internally displaced persons inside Iraq now.
In either case, simply fold them under UNRWA, the official Palestinian refugee agency and blame it all on the Jews. Give them a few hundred million dollars and in 30 years they’ll still be living in ‘refugee camps’.
| 22 February 2009, 10:03 pm |
Field:
You don’t explain why the Shiahs launched these horrible attacks. Were the associated with the Saddam regime in some way?
Weiss at 8:23 has covered the background to this matter. I specifically omitted this from my original post because the actions of a deposed despot do not, in any way, transfer any guilt onto Palestinians in Iraq today.
Furthermore, (and in response to Tagnuzlsx as well) my only concern in writing this post was to highlight the suffering of these thousands of individuals. Suffering which is currently being ignored and which is in no way tempered by memories of preferential treatment under Saddam.
| 22 February 2009, 10:08 pm |
“…now that the Kurds are American allies?”
That news will come as a shock to the 80% of Kurds that don’t live in Iraq, particularly those in Turkey. You ignorant buffoon.
| 22 February 2009, 10:10 pm |
Arab governments should do more and so should Israel.
And that is because …?
“Arab governments should do more and so should Israel.”
Given all the property that was taken from Iraqi Jews in 1948, I think Israel has already donated its part.
I mentioned Israel before you attack dogs (grrrrrr..woof, bark, mieoow) leapt in because it’s supposedly part of the Middle East and the ancestors of some of those known today as Palestinians lived inside the borders of Israel proper. To be honest, it makes no difference to me (wait for it…), as long as they don’t come to the UK (racist! xenophobe! enrichment! diversity! social justice! blah blah blah, wah wah wah). The irony is that, once the ultimate goals of EuroMed are realised, we’ll all be fellow citizens worshipping at the shrine of secular human rights…Bernard Kouchner and Denis Macshane will be clerics in the new order.
funded by the British council/Foreign and Commonwealth Office
No surprises there. The BC is probably one of the most corrupt organisations on earth. They make an absolute fortune, but the money seems to find itself into the pockets of corrupt local staff, junkets for Neil Kinnock’s son (cockweasel) and for utter berks, with no interest in the language in which they’re immersed, sitting around drinking coffee and talking about ‘innovation in EFL’.
| 22 February 2009, 10:27 pm |
Oh, and Israel has allowed “dozens” to travel to the West Bank
So they can drop white phosphorous onto them?
| 22 February 2009, 10:28 pm |
From the Arab/Muslim point of view, the Palestinians are but pawns to use for political purposes, as many here have already written.
For the hard-left stop the war crowd in the west, palestinians only matter when they are being oppressed by Israelis. In other words, they are used as a stick to beat up Israel, in the exact same way that Iraqis are used as a stick to beat Americans.
That’s why Muslim on Muslim, Arab on Arab and Pal on Pal violence merits nary a mention. Of course, they’ll never admit it, but that doesn’t matter. It was always thus: think back to Black September (1970 Jordanians kill thousands of Palestinians); Hama (1982 Syrians kill 10,000 Islamists); Nahr-el-Bared in northern lebanon (Leb troops kill 300 Pals). World condemnation? hardly.
It all relates to what that very clever Palestinian poet (no friend of Israel’s by the way), Mahmoud Darwish said: “”Do you know why we Palestinians are famous? Because you are our enemy. The interest in us stems from the interest in the Jewish issue. The interest is in you, not in me. So we have the misfortune of having Israel as an enemy, because it enjoys unlimited support. And we have the good fortune of having Israel as our enemy, because the Jews are the center of attention. You’ve brought us defeat and renown.”
| 22 February 2009, 10:42 pm |
If anyone feels like some light entertainment, can I suggest a trip to ‘Cabalamat’s’ blog.
It’s absolutely shite.
| 22 February 2009, 10:53 pm |
Grissrah is entirely correct; the actions of Saddam in no way excuse anything done to the Palestinians of Iraq and should not be mentioned except for historical reasons.
As for Belgium, I have no idea what makes them so utterly obnoxious and full of themselves. Does this apply both to the Walloons and the Flemmings? My only experience with Belgium apart from steak frites is an awful flight on Sabena (which I believe stood for “Such A Bad Experience, Never Again.”
| 22 February 2009, 10:58 pm |
Mike,
I was speaking of the ones in Iraq.
Yes or no, the Peshmerga has been working in concert with US forces since 2003 hunting down Al Qaeda in Iraq?
| 22 February 2009, 11:03 pm |
If anyone feels like some light entertainment, can I suggest a trip to ‘Cabalamat’s’ blog.
It’s absolutely shite.
Shite can be used as fertiliser….cabalamat has no use or value whatsoever.
| 22 February 2009, 11:04 pm |
“the actions of Saddam in no way excuse anything done to the Palestinians of Iraq and should not be mentioned”
Why should Palestinians who collaborated with Saddam Hussein, be treated any better than Iraqis who collaborated with Saddam Hussein? From all accounts, they lived rather high on the hog while he was in power. Now they have learned that it doesn’t last forever. What goes around, comes around.
| 22 February 2009, 11:27 pm |
Monty. Receiving preferential treatment from a despotic regime is not the same as collaborating with it.
| 22 February 2009, 11:33 pm |
Also, half the occupants of the camps are children. Do you really think they were “collaborators”?
And no, “What goes around, comes around.” is not an argument. We are talking about murder and torture here.
| 22 February 2009, 11:49 pm |
” Receiving preferential treatment from a despotic regime is not the same as collaborating with it.”
It is, when you know the aforementioned despotic regime is giving you the legally owned property of dissidents. But I guess they didn’t think about that while they were moving in.
| 22 February 2009, 11:55 pm |
Also, how many of the inmates of North Korean prison camps are children? Or the casualties of Darfur, or the victims of the police hit squads of Sau Paulo?
Apparently, murder and torture are relative evils, dependant upon the status of their victims.
How many of Saddam Hussein’s favoured Palestinians complained about his predatory actions against the babies and children of Iraq?
| 23 February 2009, 12:03 am |
The root of the problem here is surely the “principled” position of Arab governments that resettlement of Palestinian refugees is fundamentally undesirable, as allowing them to settle anywhere in the region would detract from the principle that they all belong back in what is now Israel. The lack of practical help from Arab regimes for the Palestinians is one of a long string of reasons for utter contempt for all these regimes. But that is obviously racist and it’s much better to blame it all on the Jooooos.
| 23 February 2009, 12:08 am |
There is no way you are going to convince me that the suffering of a Palestinian, is greater, or more pressing, than the suffering of any other human being.
Also, rather a lot of the Israeli victims of terrorism have been children. You get to gloss over that, because the mainstream media refer to them as “settlers”, without telling us they were only two year olds.
If you want to improve the situation of Palestinians, disengage them from the OIC, and the rest of the Arab states. Set them free.
But of course, you wont.
| 23 February 2009, 12:14 am |
I first went to university in 1980, and knew a lot of Iranian exiles, the first were Shah supporters and the second wave were the socialists/trade unionist and professionals. This latter bunch swore that Arafat had supplied the imams with muscle that allowed the clerics to overthrow the (mostly) left-wing revolution.
I have never seen this in writing though, I really should do some Iranian history as it appears that the IRI is soon going to be history.
| 23 February 2009, 12:15 am |
Monty – sorry, but it not that we won’t, it’s that we can’t. I’d love to. They’re thoroughly infiltrated by people who tell them that they have to go along with these blasted organisations, and of course benighted nationalism plays a part as well. If the Christian Palestinians had converted the Muslims rather than the latter driving out the former, they’d all be better off. But they won’t listen to that sort of argument.
| 23 February 2009, 2:26 am |
Sanilav: Shite can be used as fertiliser….cabalamat has no use or value whatsoever
LOL — thanks for that, I enjoy a good laugh. I think I’ll quote it on my blog.
| 23 February 2009, 2:28 am |
BTW, sanilav, do you have a URL so I can attribute the quote properly?
| 23 February 2009, 5:16 am |
I’m guessing the trolls in the Galloway thread will avoid this thread like the plague since it gives lie to their assumption that they alone are the standard bearers of rights for Palestinians.
| 23 February 2009, 7:45 am |
Monty
“There is no way you are going to convince me that the suffering of a Palestinian, is greater, or more pressing, than the suffering of any other human being.”
Yes, but what is your motivation for saying this? Suffering is suffering, no matter the historical circumstances, and is intolerable You use the phrase “more pressing” as though to say there is no reason to fuss too much about these sufferings.The lack of concern about one example of suffering as opposed to another is politically motivated. Israel is the scapegoat which blinds many liberals and so-called leftists and makes them turn a blind eye to injustices that are rife in the world
| 23 February 2009, 8:12 am |
Cabalamat, I do believe you are getting flushed.
| 23 February 2009, 8:53 am |
Cabalamat -
a classic case of a Jew-hater, who will latch onto any old blood libel and quote it in the most irrelevant context, just so he can feel smug that he’s done his daily quota of antisemitic screeching.
| 23 February 2009, 1:17 pm |
The only reason Palestinians are dispersed throughout the Middle East, almost invariably in oppression and poverty, is because they are the victims of a political movement YOU support. It is because of the theory and practice of Zionism that these people have no land, home, State or security. A theory and practice YOU resolutely defend. It is because of Zionism, a political and religious theory YOU support, that their right to return to the land stolen from, their right to reverse their status as refugees in other countries, is denied to them. It is because of Zionism, a political system YOU support, that their attempts to defend themselves, reconstitute themselves in their homeland and live in dignity are attacked, demonized, vilified and denigrated.
Why do you never speak about this, you simpering moron?
| 23 February 2009, 1:20 pm |
Callum, do take your pills. You are foaming at the mouth with stupid lies. Or maybe you are really a complete ignoramus about ME history.
| 23 February 2009, 1:25 pm |
I’m fine thanks, NO. Perhaps you could elucidate my historical innacuracies, comrade? I’m always willing to learn.
| 23 February 2009, 1:41 pm |
Gsirrah, thank you for this, which has been very enlightening.
The cognitive dissonance involved in the realisation that the oppression of Palestinians is much worse by their Muslim brothers than by Israel has obviously unhinged Callum and Cabalamat.
David T please don’t assume that those of us who have no brief with Hamas or its fellow travellers in Gaza have no sympathy for the Palestinian people there or elsewhere. No-one reading Gsirrah’s article, unless they were as mean-spirited as Callum and Cabalamat, could fail to feel sorry as for the plight of Palestinians in Muslim countries as they are for the Palestinians’ plight under Hamas.
| 23 February 2009, 2:35 pm |
Callum,
You are aware that in 1937, the British were willing to give the Palestinians nearly 60% of the land and they turned it down. It was all or nothing back then for their leadership.
Here is map of the Peel Commission recommendation.
| 23 February 2009, 3:19 pm |
Why are you guys fighting. Life is too short, enjoy it whilst you can. Don’t know how you guys can find time to argue over trivial things. I can’t even spare time to find love, spread love and make love. Just fu*cked a gorgeous American Christian gal who came to see the Western Wall. God she was great.
| 23 February 2009, 3:22 pm |
It was all or nothing back then for their leadership.
And hasn’t changed since.
| 23 February 2009, 3:31 pm |
“You are aware that in 1937, the British were willing to give the Palestinians nearly 60% of the land and they turned it down. It was all or nothing back then for their leadership.”
The problem is, of course, with the word “give”. You can’t “give” someone something they already own. I can’t “give” you the house you live in right now, for two reasons:
1) I don’t own it, so I can’t give it to anyone
2) To give someone something they already own is a logical impossibility
Similarly, you can’t “give” Palestinians the land they had lived on for centuries. You can steal it and then hold them to ransom, which is what both the British and then the Zionists have done.
Before the Nakba, the Jews owned 7% of the land and were 30% of the population. They now dominate the entire land. The charge of “all or nothing” is directed at the wrong side, comrade.
| 23 February 2009, 3:43 pm |
Callum, the Cletus of the hard left.
| 23 February 2009, 3:51 pm |
Well done JewishLoveGod, good man!
Andrew, showing Callum actual facts and data is pointless. You might as well show them to my dog. He (the dog I mean) is a Field Labrador and he’s one dense fucker.
However I absolutely PROMISE you it will mean more to him than it would to Callum.
| 23 February 2009, 4:20 pm |
Callum the pompous ‘comrade’:
Similarly, you can’t “give” Palestinians the land they had lived on for centuries. You can steal it and then hold them to ransom, which is what both the British and then the Zionists have done.
Nonsense. There isn’t such an entity as a centuries-old ‘Palestinian’ nation that ‘owned’ the land in any sane sense. The Arabs invaded a country belonging to the Jews and stole it. The Jews are reclaiming it. Suck it up, antisemite.
Before the Nakba, the Jews owned 7% of the land and were 30% of the population. They now dominate the entire land. The charge of “all or nothing” is directed at the wrong side, comrade.
The Jews were forcibly expelled (but never left entirely). I love it when the ‘humanitarian’ Western useful fools screech about ‘nakba’, to show how much they empathise with the Arabs (about whom they couldn’t give a flying fuck).
| 23 February 2009, 4:23 pm |
(And Callum might want to explain to us how 23% of the historical ‘Palestine’, i.e. the land west of the Jordan, constitutes ‘all’. I suspect he failed primary school maths just as he failed history and geography and human decency).
| 23 February 2009, 4:35 pm |
“(And Callum might want to explain to us how 23% of the historical ‘Palestine’, i.e. the land west of the Jordan, constitutes ‘all’. I suspect he failed primary school maths just as he failed history and geography and human decency).”
Did I mention “historical Palestine”? I was specifically referring to the point another poster made, which was about the area under the Mandate, not “historical Palestine”. You see, this is the problem, if you work yourself up and invent strawmen because you can’t construct a coherent argument then you’re just going to get yourself in a right muddle, comrade.
As for the version of History related in your other post: it’s not really worth anyone’s time, is it?
And I’m not an antisemite. You’d be wise to desist throwing about meaningless insults – onlookers might get the impression that the scope of your reason ends at ad hominem, comrade.
| 23 February 2009, 4:53 pm |
Sorry comrade, but you most definately ARE an antisemite. And a pretty experienced and devoted one to boot. Luckily you’re also astoundingly thick, which tends to limit the damage you do.
| 23 February 2009, 5:50 pm |
Before the Nakba, the Jews owned 7% of the land and were 30% of the population. They now dominate the entire land. The charge of “all or nothing” is directed at the wrong side, comrade.
Brilliant!!!
So, “Palestinians” had 93% of the land and 70% of the population. How greedy when the Mandate for Palestine 192 said that Jews and Arabs had the same right to live in Palestine.
What’s a “Nakba” and when did it take place?
Before 1967 Jordan and Egypt illegally occupied West Bank and Gaza. In 1967 Israel liberated back the land to which Palestinians now make exclusive claim. Ungrateful land stealers I say. They don;t want any Jews living there. Ethnic Cleansing antisemites they are.
| 23 February 2009, 5:50 pm |
Callum your reasoning is very similar to that of the BNP. You say the land belonged to the Palestinians. The BNP reasons, the land belonged to the English before the mass invasion of foreigners.
Callum I believe you belong to the racist ilk.
Karl Marx noted in “Declaration of War. – On the History of the Eastern Question”
________________________________________
Written: on March 28, 1854;
First published: in the New-York Daily Tribune, April 15;
Signed: Karl Marx: “To finish the picture, be it remembered that the fathers of the Latin Church, almost exclusively composed of Romans, Sardinians, Neapolitans, Spaniards and Austrians, are all of them jealous of the French protectorate, and would like to substitute that of Austria, Sardinia or Naples, the Kings of the two latter countries both assuming the title of King of Jerusalem; and that the sedentary population of Jerusalem numbers about 15,500 souls, of whom 4,000 are Mussulmans and 8,000 Jews. The Mussulmans, forming about a fourth part of the whole, and consisting of Turks, Arabs and Moors, are, of course, the masters in every respect, as they are in no way affected with the weakness of their Government at Constantinople. Nothing equals the misery and the sufferings of the Jews at Jerusalem, inhabiting the most filthy quarter of the town, called hareth-el-yahoud, the quarter of dirt, between the Zion and the Moriah, where their synagogues are situated – the constant objects of Mussulman oppression and intolerance, insulted by the Greeks, persecuted by the Latins, and living only upon the scanty alms transmitted by their European brethren. ”
So already in 1854 the Jews were majority in Jerusalem.
By the way do you also condemn New Zealand and Australia? There also land was taken from the natives. And the Brits who went there never had there any historical roots.
Do you also deny Pakistan the right to exist? Pakistan seceded from India on religious grounds.
So why don’t you learn history?
| 23 February 2009, 5:54 pm |
I was specifically referring to the point another poster made, which was about the area under the Mandate, not “historical Palestine”.
Err … look up the extent of the original Mandate, thicko.
| 23 February 2009, 5:54 pm |
You see, this is the problem, if you work yourself up and invent strawmen because you can’t construct a coherent argument then you’re just going to get yourself in a right muddle, comrade.
As you proved. You simply don’t know the history – except from what you’ve read on Islamists sites that use words like “Al Knacker”.
And I’m not an antisemite. You’d be wise to desist throwing about meaningless insults – onlookers might get the impression that the scope of your reason ends at ad hominem, comrade.
….. you’re still a pig!
I agree with another poster. You would seem to be too thick and ignorant to pass any valid comment.
| 23 February 2009, 5:55 pm |
You simply don’t know the history – except from what you’ve read on Islamists sites that use words like “Al Knacker”.
I imagine it tends to be websites called Aryan Truth and suchlike.
| 23 February 2009, 5:58 pm |
Karl -
By the way do you also condemn New Zealand and Australia? There also land was taken from the natives.
I am afraid your analogy is back-to-front … the Jews ARE the native population, therefore your ‘also’ is misplaced …
| 23 February 2009, 6:49 pm |
Callum your reasoning is very similar to that of the BNP.
Why bring the BNP into this? You spoil the sound groundwork established by your good posts with illogical and extravagant comparisons.
You say the land belonged to the Palestinians. The BNP reasons, the land belonged to the English before the mass invasion of foreigners.
It’s very easy coming from a landlocked country, historically invaded and criss-crossed by various cultures and peoples, to charge residents of an island with xenophobia and racism. Isn’t it time you empathised with those disaffected Britons who don’t share your vision of a multicultural utopia?
I note that Hitler was born in Austria NOT in the UK and that all of the contemporary plans to unite Europe under totalitarian rule have originated from Germany and France.
Callum I believe you belong to the racist ilk.
Don’t forget to accuse Callum of racism now, will you? He might very well be utterly wrong but I see no evidence of racism in his comments.
By the way do you also condemn New Zealand and Australia? There also land was taken from the natives. And the Brits who went there never had there any historical roots.
How precisely was land taken from the ‘natives’ in NZ and Australia in the genocidal sense that you would have it?
Why do you concede the right of indigenous peoples of Australasia to be classed as ‘natives’ but not the peoples of the British Isles? Can one be concerned about the future of the country of one’s birth without being racist in your world view?
| 23 February 2009, 7:23 pm |
hareth-el-yahoud, the quarter of dirt
Thankfully, I’ve never had the misfortune of reading any writings by Karl Marx, but judging by his Arabic and the way he twists the meaning of the phrase above, I never want to.
You’ll find the word ‘harth’ (حرث) means ’tilth’ or ‘fertile ground’ amongst other things and to my knowledge it’s not used in a negative context. So, only a warped, bigoted fellow would state that ‘harth ul-yahood’ (حرث اليهود) meant ‘the quarter of dirt’.
I note that the phrase appears NOWHERE on the net in Arabic and, unsurprisingly, your transliteration (or the translator of Marx…whatever) appears in all the ‘right’ places.
Isn’t it time that this Marx quote was amended and discredited?
| 23 February 2009, 7:58 pm |
Roman Kevorkian,
You connect what I did not connect. Land of natives was taken by the Pakeha in New Zealand (Pakeha means white men) and by the British who came to Australia. They did not commit a genocide. But in Australia the natives had to suffer a lot under the rule of the white British.
So is there anybody in the UK who is denying New Zealand or Australia the right of existence?
Your remarks about Marx are those of somebody who writes about a subject matter he does not know and is even proud not to know. Marx was never in the Middle East, he wrote for this American paper in order to earn money. But he was very well informed. So to show off that you do know Arabic while Marx did not know that language is ridiculous.
I did not charge the Brits to be racist. I charge the BNP to be racist. And what you do is the old method of Stalinist and Nazis, you put things into my mouth I have never said and what is worse you equate the UK with the BNP. And your silly remark on Austria does not make it better.
Again you imply that I am for a “multicultural utopia” also this is a regular accusation of Austrian neo-Nazi and their ilk against anybody who wants to see the values of democracy respected. Are you advocating the policy proposed by BNP?
| 23 February 2009, 8:12 pm |
Callum,
It was under British mandate at the time. If you want to discuss titbits and history of western colonialism, perhaps, we could do that at another time.
The point was they refused an offer to have 60% of the land given BACK to them.
| 23 February 2009, 9:07 pm |
Don’t forget to accuse Callum of racism now, will you?
He did, and rightly so.
He might very well be utterly wrong but I see no evidence of racism in his comments
Antisemitism is a subset of racism. Casting the Jews, who are indigenous, in the role of colonialist foreigners is antisemitic.
| 23 February 2009, 9:09 pm |
You connect what I did not connect. Land of natives was taken by the Pakeha in New Zealand (Pakeha means white men) and by the British who came to Australia. They did not commit a genocide
They most certainly did in Tasmania.
| 23 February 2009, 9:10 pm |
The point was they refused an offer to have 60% of the land given BACK to them.
You can’t give something ‘back’ if it wasn’t owned in the first place.
| 23 February 2009, 9:17 pm |
You connect what I did not connect. Land of natives was taken by the Pakeha in New Zealand (Pakeha means white men) and by the British who came to Australia.
Vikings, Romans, Normans etc. seized land in the British Isles, but you don’t see people jumping up and down calling for ‘compensation’ from the modern day inhabitants of Sweden, Rome or Normandy. That would be plainly absurd. Which is pretty much the same as your position with regard to support for the right of some ‘groups’ to self-identify along mythical and unscientific ethnic lines but not for others.
The central point here is that the BNP’s rationale has nothing whatsoever to do with the respective claims and counter-claims of Israelis and Transjordanians to the same piece of land.
They did not commit a genocide. But in Australia the natives had to suffer a lot under the rule of the white British.
And no doubt they still do suffer today to a certain extent. Britons too suffered at the hands of invaders and yet nobody is idiotic enough to wring their hands about this.
So is there anybody in the UK who is denying New Zealand or Australia the right of existence?
Not as far as I’m aware, no.
Your remarks about Marx are those of somebody who writes about a subject matter he does not know and is even proud not to know.
Yes, I acknowledged this. Marx doesn’t interest me in the slightest.
Marx was never in the Middle East, he wrote for this American paper in order to earn money. But he was very well informed.
Okay. I’ve learned something today, thank you. If he was so ‘well informed’ as you assert, why did he so egregiously mistranslate an Arabic expression that, to the best of my knowledge, never existed as the eponym of the Jewish ‘quarter’ of Jerusalem? Hmmmm?
So to show off that you do know Arabic while Marx did not know that language is ridiculous.
What a ridiculous off the cuff ad hominem! So let’s get this straight: YOU quote Marx transliterating an Arabic expression that, from the evidence: a) has never existed as the name of an area of Jerusalem and b) is grossly mistranslated by Marx evidently with malice or forethought, and you accuse me of ’showing off’ when I highlight Marx’s error and yours?
I did not charge the Brits to be racist. I charge the BNP to be racist.
Okay. Every last member, or the organisation as a whole and by extension every member?
And what you do is the old method of Stalinist and Nazis, you put things into my mouth I have never said and what is worse you equate the UK with the BNP. And your silly remark on Austria does not make it better.
If I’ve misquoted you or attributed something that you did not actually say, then I apologise. However, it is YOU who first made the ridiculous comparison between (and it is a ridiculous one) between someone on this thread prioritising the eternal and pre-eminent rights of Transjordanians to land and claims that the BNP and its members make towards the British Isles being some sort of Folkland. It is partly thanks to you and your ‘ilk’ that any discussion of immigration in the UK immediately becomes one of race and is defined on your terms.
Again you imply that I am for a “multicultural utopia”
Yes, you’re right, you made no such claim. Apologies.
also this is a regular accusation of Austrian neo-Nazi and their ilk against anybody who wants to see the values of democracy respected.
I’m not sure about Austrian neo-Nazis but the fallacy you enlist here is indicative of a particularly malevolent train of thought.
Are you advocating the policy proposed by BNP?
And to cap it all off, yet another red herring…and which might that be Aristotle?
| 23 February 2009, 10:09 pm |
Karl:
Don’t waste any more of your time on Kevorkian who leaps to the questionable conclusion that Marx was attempting to translate the Arabic expression for Jewish Quarter when that is far from clear.
Without seeing the original quote, let alone the larger context of the piece, it’s more than likely that Marx, despite his low estimation of religion and distance from his Jewish heritage was more likely emphasising the sorry conditions endured by a native Jewish majority, quite in keeping with the journalistic style of the times (think Mark Twain and Charles Dickens).
The point of the paragraph, clearly, was that the Jews lived in misery before Ashkenazim were making aliyah in any number, sustained only by support from the Jewish diaspora; held in contempt by Christians and Muslims alike, the latter not comprised of a native population, but a mixture:
[...] and that the sedentary population of Jerusalem numbers about 15,500 souls, of whom 4,000 are Mussulmans and 8,000 Jews. The Mussulmans, forming about a fourth part of the whole, and consisting of Turks, Arabs and Moors, are, of course, the masters in every respect, as they are in no way affected with the weakness of their Government at Constantinople. Nothing equals the misery and the sufferings of the Jews at Jerusalem, inhabiting the most filthy quarter of the town, called hareth-el-yahoud, the quarter of dirt, between the Zion and the Moriah, where their synagogues are situated – the constant objects of Mussulman oppression and intolerance, insulted by the Greeks, persecuted by the Latins, and living only upon the scanty alms transmitted by their European brethren. ”
That part wouldn’t interest Kevorkian in the slightest.
| 23 February 2009, 10:48 pm |
Nothing equals the misery and the sufferings of the Jews at Jerusalem, inhabiting the most filthy quarter of the town, called hareth-el-yahoud, the quarter of dirt, between the Zion and the Moriah, where their synagogues are situated – the constant objects of Mussulman oppression and intolerance
Don’t waste any more of your time on Kevorkian who leaps to the questionable conclusion that Marx was attempting to translate the Arabic expression for Jewish Quarter when that is far from clear.
Without seeing the original quote, let alone the larger context of the piece, it’s more than likely that Marx, despite his low estimation of religion and distance from his Jewish heritage was more likely emphasising the sorry conditions endured by a native Jewish majority
Your gymnastics are touching, but it’s quite clear to me that Marx is translating the phrase he transliterates from the Arabic. Would he just assume that Americans were well versed in Arabic? Clearly, that is not the case and he, from my perspective with malice or forethought, snidely makes out that حرث means ‘dirt’ with all the negative connotations that it can have in English.
As for the context, it’s quite clear that he is emphasising the maltreatment of Jews and by evily mistranslating this phrase he associates the idea in the mind of English readers that the Arabs refer to Jews as ‘dirt’. What a colossal liar! What’s worse though is Mr Pfeifer quotes Marx and his mistranslation as ‘evidence’ in response to the machinations of Callum. I simple Google of ‘hareth el-yahoud’ and similiar transliterations produces thousands of instances where persons have used Marx’s quote to reinforce the notion that Arabs treated Jews abominably. I don’t doubt they did, and still do, but to use this quote and rely on this Marx character is to, to use the hegemonic vocabulary of your ‘ilk’, endorse ‘institutionalised racism’ against Arabs.
And why do you assume that ‘that part wouldn’t interest Kevorkian in the slightest’? Yet another red herring I see, from the same school as ‘Are you advocating the policy proposed by BNP?’
| 24 February 2009, 12:12 am |
Callum? …… [door slams, footsteps recede]
…. Callum?
| 24 February 2009, 7:42 am |
Callum I am not going to discuss about the only positive reference of Karl Marx on Jews. Ad hominem or not, it is completely irrelevant, that you do know Arabic and that Marx did not. The relevant fact is, Jews were already 150 years ago majority in Jerusalem.
As far as the BNP is concerned you try again the stalinist-nazi tactic to put things into my mouth I have never said. I spoke about the party and not about its members. The policy of BNP is racist.
The Nazi party was antisemitic, but of course not every Nazi was an antisemite. Does that allow us to whitewash the Nazi party?
| 24 February 2009, 1:52 pm |
Callum I am not going to discuss about the only positive reference of Karl Marx on Jews. Ad hominem or not, it is completely irrelevant, that you do know Arabic and that Marx did not. The relevant fact is, Jews were already 150 years ago majority in Jerusalem.
As far as the BNP is concerned you try again the stalinist-nazi tactic to put things into my mouth I have never said. I spoke about the party and not about its members. The policy of BNP is racist.
The Nazi party was antisemitic, but of course not every Nazi was an antisemite. Does that allow us to whitewash the Nazi party?
Firstly, if I were Callum, then my stance would be pro-Israel as opposed to anti-Zionist.
Secondly, enough with the Marx memes already, suffice to say that, like his fellow stinky chums Engels and Gramsci, the man was a liar. I accept your assertion that Jews were the majority in Jerusalem 150 years ago, but that being the case does not give Marx the intellectual freedom to manipulate Arabic in order to stress the suffering of the Jews.
Thirdly, your red herrings disappoint: in terms of misleading political typology, Stalinism and national socialism are about as far left as anyone can go. I have no wish to be tarred with the crimes of either criminal political ideology.
Fourthly, as far as the BNP are concerned, there was a time in the UK when race was not an issue; I yearn for those days. However, and the situation has significantly deteriorated in the last decade or so, we now find ourselves in the position as UK citizens of having a political class and fellow hegemonic travellers who utilise the pseudo-scientific construct of race in order to facilitate their cultural revolution. I object to this vociferously with every right-thinking sinew of my body. The BNP, in terms of race, merely articulate what is approved of for other special interest groups…and it stinks.
Of course I don’t subscribe to or endorse the policies of the Nazis or the BNP.
With my very best wishes and keep writing your invaluable posts here on HP…I shall no doubt enjoy them very much indeed.
Pax tecum
| 24 February 2009, 2:44 pm |
Nearly Oxfordian – YOU ARE A TRUE D*CK
| 24 February 2009, 3:43 pm |
Roman Kevorkian Excuse me. Of course it was not Callum but you who came up with Karl Marx not knowing Arabic.
You write: “However, and the situation has significantly deteriorated in the last decade or so, we now find ourselves in the position as UK citizens of having a political class and fellow hegemonic travellers who utilise the pseudo-scientific construct of race in order to facilitate their cultural revolution. I object to this vociferously with every right-thinking sinew of my body. The BNP, in terms of race, merely articulate what is approved of for other special interest groups…and it stinks.”
Not being British, not living in the U.K. I cannot understand what you wrote. Can you explain?
| 24 February 2009, 4:44 pm |
Roman Kevorkian Excuse me. Of course it was not Callum but you who came up with Karl Marx not knowing Arabic.
You write: “However, and the situation has significantly deteriorated in the last decade or so, we now find ourselves in the position as UK citizens of having a political class and fellow hegemonic travellers who utilise the pseudo-scientific construct of race in order to facilitate their cultural revolution. I object to this vociferously with every right-thinking sinew of my body. The BNP, in terms of race, merely articulate what is approved of for other special interest groups…and it stinks.”
Not being British, not living in the U.K. I cannot understand what you wrote. Can you explain?
Yes. Apologies for my verbosity and general opacity of my prose.
We now live (I constantly travel back and forth – so not at the moment, but next week I shall be again) in a country (the UK), which is literally obsessed with race, ethnicity and diversity. You cannot apply for a job, teach in a school or have any interaction whatsoever with the State (and increasingly private organisations) without in some way being asked to engage in sociology. We are told that, in order to eradicate racism and prejudice, we must confer special advantages on certain special interest groups unscientifically grouped together under racial or ethnic categories and ‘celebrate’ these so-called differences. We are also told that, despite the massive influx of immigrants in particular over the last ten years or so, this is normal and that despite many of these people naturally possessing often radically different mores and customs to the Britons, any attempt to challenge this phenomenon or question its democratic legitimacy is wrong; ‘racist’; xenophobic.
I have a personal interest in this: my daughter has a slightly higher melanin content skin than I do. She was born in the UK and is already very smart: she knows there is a significant difference between her parents’ features and skin tones. What I don’t want, is that my daughter (and another on the way) grows up in a society which looks at her first and wants to know ‘where she’s from’, ‘what religion she follows’ etc. rather than accepting her as a HUMAN BEING first. I don’t want her to have to answer voting forms, census forms and job applications on which she has to differentiate herself from others because of an utterly evil mindset (in fact a Nazi mindset) that says ‘you’re different’ so ‘tell us about it so we can log it and compile statistics’. I want her and her sibling to treat others based on their humanity, not their race, religion or sexual orientation.
The point about ‘race consciousness’ in every area of daily life is that it fosters racism. It seems self-evident to me. The government co-opt the diversity agenda for their own ends (I’m buggered if I could tell you what those are – they’re not very clear). One of these ends appears to be the destruction of tradition and the elimination of any sense of pride in British history.
You, Mr Standing and others are correct to point out the anti-Semitism grounded in the BNP leadership. Yet, getting rid of the BNP will not solve the grievances at the heart of British society: educational nihilism, Europe, immigration, law and order, punitive taxation and poor value for money and the government’s cultural revolution, these are the issues that really matter to the public. Alas, only the BNP appear to be engaging with voters on a critical mass of these issues.
The British are not predisposed towards anti-Semitism or even voting for fascistic parties as ’some’ posters on HP would like to make out, but, unfortunately, I dare say the growing preponderance and incidence of anti-Semitism in the UK is mostly anathema to them.
As far as other special interest groups organising around religion, race and ethnicity are concerned, well this should happen in a free society, why not? What I object to, is when the State turns round and says ‘this group can organise along ethnic/racial/religious lines with the tacit exclusion of others that it entails, but this group can’t’. This is quite clearly the hypocrisy demonstrated by allowing literally thousands of groups to exist in the UK that, whilst they claim not to exclude others and be for the benefit of all, by their very nature, composition and branding they stand as monuments to exceptionalism.
Pax tecum
Yes, I agree.
There will probably be some people in this thread who will mention Saddam Hussein’s support for suicide bombers, and will suggest that we shouldn’t care about the plight of Palestinians – stateless people, particularly if they’re terrorised out of Iraq, as many have been – for that reason. I hope there won’t be, but you know how these things go.
There is no linkage between these two factors. Blameless refugees do not bear the guilt of either Saddam’s actions, or that of Hamas.