Wednesday, January 11, 2017


My very good friend Whaleoil and some of my co-bloggers here have taken upon themselves to shill for Israel following the NZL led 14-0 zip vote in the Security Council condemning the creation of new Jewish settlements on the occupied West Bank.

That initiative, that vote, has my support in trying to broker a solution to the Palestinian question.   It's a problem that has to be solved because, until it is, both the Israeli and Palestinian peoples will never live in peace.

Too much of the debate is about slogans.  Too much of the debate is argued in terms of black and white.   You're either for Israel or against it.   You're either for the Palestinians or against them.   There is no middle ground.   To that I say crap because the alternative is perpetual war or near war.  Is that the way 'you' want it to be?   I'm not interested in slogans.  I'm only interested in solutions

Now, unless my right wing colleagues think I've gone soft in the head, can I state unequivocally my support for the Jewish State.   Indeed, I have just finished reading David Cesarani's book 'The Final Solution ... The fate of the Jews 1933-1949'.    No-one can read that book and not fail to understand the mantra that underpins Israel and Israeli politics ... 'Never Again'.    But in saying that you cannot ignore the simple fact that 4.50 million Palestinians live in the occupied West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

First, let's get the history right.   In the 1993 Olso Accords Israel (yes Israel) acknowledged the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) as representing the Palestinian people.   In return, the PLO recognised the right of Israel to exist in 'peace'.   The region has been short on peace ever since.   In 1994 the Palestine National Authority was established.   It exercises  governance (of a sort) over Gaza and parts of the Occupied West Bank. 

Subsequent to that Palestine has been accorded the status of a de jure sovereign state recognised by 136 countries.

Having said that we need to acknowledge there are elements in Israeli society that view the Palestinians as 'unterminch' (and I use that term deliberately) while in Palestinian society too there are elements, led by HAMAS and supported by Iran, dedicated to the destruction of the Israeli state.    Both the Israeli and Palestinian governments include what might be termed 'extremist' elements who view concessions of any sort as selling out to the other side.   Indeed, the Israeli PM, Netanyahu, is under particular pressure to hang tough given that he is the subject of a criminal investigation launched by his own Attorney-General into allegations of corruption.

Put all that to one side and it is accepted there are two and two only possible solutions to the problem ... the one state and two state solutions.   I hold the view that the one state solution is a no-goer.  The enmity alone between the Israelis and the Palestinians would tend to rule that out.   It is predicated on (for the time being) a Jewish dominated state (8.5 million Israelis vs 4.5 million Palestinians ... 2.7m in the West Bank and 1.8m in the Gaza Strip).   Even assuming the Palestinians were to be accorded full citizenship rights (and I doubt whether Israel is prepared to go that far) the reality is that the birth rate among Palestinians (26.5 births per 1,000 in the West Bank and 39.4 in the Gaza Strip) far outstrips that of Israel (21.3).   In time Palestinians would outnumber Israelis.   Israel would be mad to agree to a one state solution.

That leaves us with the two state solution endorsed by most countries in the world.   The sticking point is boundaries particularly those in respect of the West Bank.    And that leads us back to the UN resolution because the continued encroachment of new Israeli settlements on disputed West Bank land pushes back attempts to resolve the boundary dispute.   Put simply, new settlements are adding to and perpetuating the problem and Trump and Julie Bishop (Oz Foreign Minister) in criticising the UN resolution are associating themselves and their respective administrations with the problem rather than the solution.

The one issue I have with the two state solution relates to the status of Jerusalem.   Israel holds that Jerusalem is their capital city.   That notwithstanding, many countries treat Tel Aviv as such and have their embassys there.    Jerusalem has holy sites of significance to the Jewish, Christian and Muslim religions.   There is underlying tension between the faiths over the treatment of the holy places.   It seems to me a possible way round that might be to designate Jerusalem as a city state in its own right under a UN mandate and protection with free access to all peoples.   

Some will disagree with this post.   That is your right and privilege.  But if you're going to have a go at me don't resort to slogans.   Spell out precisely your alternative to the two state solution and how it is to be achieved in a way that is fair to both the Jewish and Palestinian peoples.

And BTW.   I don't appreciate some dipstick Oz senator from the One Nation Party calling for sanctions against NZL over its co-sponsoring of the resolution.   Senator Roberts is hardly justified to in making such a call which is at odds with the ONP policy which calls for it to be easier for New Zealanders to gain Australian citizenship and access to social security benefits.  He would be better explaining why he attempted to rort the Oz taxpayer of $30,000 wrongly claimed as a tax deduction and why he thinks that international bankers (the Rothchilds, Goldman Sachs, the Rockefellers and the Warburg family) supported by the US Federal Reserve, are part of a Jewish conspiracy to introduce global socialism.   In short, he's a nutter in a Party that's had its fair share of nutters.



Anonymous said...

I'm afraid you wont get many comments here Veteran. You have effectively disarmed the spoilers and the trolls......reasoned argument is not acceptable by some on this blog, in fact censorship is becoming the norm when replies don't fit with agenda. Why should a blogger delete Ms Streep's speech that had no comment attached???

Lord Egbut

David said...

Careful, Veteran, or Adolf will delete this post.

Gerald said...

There have been interesting threads on this blog but I agree with Egbut.
I'm off to search for another blog that has free speech as the mantra..

The Veteran said...

David/Gerald ... no-one deletes anything on 'My' blog except me and I'll only do that in extremis ... obscene content, calling me a liar, that's about it.

TimS said...

Thank you, thank you, thank you! So balanced, so reasonable and so fair. I agree entirely. As a fellow right-winger I'm tired of being abused by "friends" because I support the NZ vote at the Security Council. No matter how much I say I firmly support the State of Israel's right to exist in peace, behind defensible borders that might well be changed from the 1967 ones, I am called a supporter of Islamic terrorism etc etc. No matter how many times I point out that NZ's vote was entirely consistent with the position we have taken at the UN for over 40 years, my "friends" say Minister McCully has acted immorally. No matter how many times I point out that the US, while using its veto to shelter Israel from less balanced resolutions, has in fact opposed the West Bank settlements consistently through both Republican and Democrat administrations, I still get abused. No matter how many times I point out the SC resolution was focussed specifically on the undoubted breach of Article 49 of the Geneva Convention, I still get heated arguments saying the land was all part of Judea & Sumaria and was given by God to the Jews and so legal niceties shouldn't apply (WTF?). I would have thought that Israel, of all countries, would want to support and respect the Geneva Convention and I consider it perfectly fair for their friends and neighbours to hold the continual breaches to account. So, again, thank you for your well-expressed and well-reasoned argument. I applaud most warmly!

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

The elephant in your room Vet is the embedded attitude of the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians.

There ain't ever going to be a two state solution. Thy were offered just that by Bill Clinton and refused because they wanted the lot. In other words they wanted to destroy Israel and the still do and they always will.

David - the only posts deleted from my blog are those from people banned for consistently abusing the few simple rules of the blog. They don't appear to have enough brains to read or to start their own blogs.

The Veteran said...

So Adolf ... your solution?

Ghost Of Greenwood said...

Sadly, there is no solution. Adolf is right, the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians don't want a two-state solution, their leaders have said that time and time again. They will fight to have Israel destroyed, Israel will fight to preserve itself. A state of both Israel and Palestine are mutually exclusive. This impasse has been going on long enough and it's high time people got used to it .

The Veteran said...

GoG ... so the Oslo Accords were a farce then ... the bothg the Israelis and the Palestinians lied. One thing for sure ... the impasse, as you so quaintly put it, can't continue. There will be war ... is that what you want? Some solution ... perhaps the final one. Sigh.

Psycho Milt said...

The elephant in your room Vet is the embedded attitude of the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians.

Well, that and the embedded attitude of the Jews who call themselves Israelis.

There ain't ever going to be a two state solution.

No, indeed. The Israeli government is actively preventing any possibility of that. They also don't want a one-state solution - basically, they don't want a solution. The status quo is working out fine for them.

The rest of the world, of course, isn't as happy with the status quo as the Israeli government is, and would like to see a solution - hence the UN resolution. The wailing and gnashing of teeth over at Whaleoil would be comical if it wasn't so likely it's being done in the service of the Israeli government.

The Veteran said...

PM ... you've nailed it and it is for the world community to say to both sides enough is enough ... do it or we will do it for you. Acceptance of the status quo or, more precisely, the abrogating of 'our' collective responsibility to help engineer a lasting solution advocated by Adolf and GoG is a cop out of the Munich variety.

Ghost Of Greenwood said...

Oslo Accords:

"the bothg (sic) the (sic) Israelis and the Palestinians lied."

Having been a bureaucrat for most of your professional life Ross, you may believe that the results of these transnational talk-fests make a difference. They don't. The Jewish/ Islam impasse is an existential matter. It will come to war in the end, unfortunately.

The Veteran said...

GoG ... pse don't use my name. WSC said jaw jaw is preferable to war war. I agree.
Under your scenario we might as well pack up and wait for the nuclear rain to fall.

Not sure I agree with your bureaucrat bit but I guess we could argue about that.

Anonymous said...

I have no respect for the UN as time and again they have proved to be antisemitic and anti Israel.

When was the last time they passed a resolution condemning Palestinian terrorism??

You can't tell me that running trucks into crowds, stabbing pedestrians, and suicide bombers in crowded nightclubs is less of an obstacle to peace than a few buildings.

There will be no peace while Islamic Palestinians teach their young that Jews/Israelis are dirt and that their mission in life is to kill them.

The Palestinians don't want peace - they want land - all of it. and they want it drenched in the blood of Jews.

They have never given any indication for wanting peace.

As for Jerusalem - what a crock. Why should the Israelis give it up to some 'international' city when they won their historic city fair and square in combat?

When the Poms beat up the Turks should they have given Jerusalem back to them?

When the Muslims beat up the Romans and took Jerusalem should they have given it back?

The Israelis allow all religions to worship freely in Jerusalem except their own. Israelis are barred from the Temple Mount. Why should they give it up??

I think you have brought into some fault reasoning Veteran - you are usually more objective than this.


Anonymous said...

I don't think there is an answer to it at all. As I understand it the diaspora of the Jews a couple of thousand years ago left a vacuum of land ownership which was filled ultimately by the Palestinians. Then in 1947 the UN simply told the occupiers that the Jews were coming back and they should bugger off. I can understand the sense of injustice. The "Holocaust" (which is a load of crap) is the emotional justification. The Jews are a prickly bunch and do not take criticism at all.

Anonymous said...

Veteran....pointless asking Adolph for a solution, it is not a part of his job description. His sole purpose is to bring distrust of our institutions and sow dissent and fake news. One of the great success's of the troll brigade is changing the attitude of people to "MSN". These are the organisation that had 150 journalists killed last year
and now it is trendy and clever to diss MSN as though the speaker has his own unimpeachable news source. Where MSN did not exist like Aleppo it was news by social media which is, was and forever will be manipulated bullshit. Yes MSN can and is sometimes slanted depending on the paper but dedicated career journalists are the only thing we have to protect us against the excess's of our own leaders.

Adolphs rules....Never post anything that is truthful and never supply links which make him look a fool.

Jimmie......UN anti semite or anti Zionist...references please. Put up or shut up.

Anonymous said...

Whoops so incensed forgot to sign off

Lord Egbut

Anonymous said...

Jimmie......your ability to reduce the largest and longest lasting empire in history to few words "Poms and Turks" is depressing. It was the Ottoman Empire (1245) of which the Turks were a small part and Jerusalem remained in the hands of the people of the Ottoman empire until it's final demise in the 20's.

A little known fact is that the 9th Ottoman army was mainly Arabs from Baghdad and was the 9th army that gave us such a hard time at Gallipoli. We like to think of Johnny Turk as a brave and honourable fighter or so goes the narrative but to be beaten by camel jockeys who can't fight.....

Lord Egbut

Anonymous said...

For 9th Army read 19th Division.....


Psycho Milt said...

When was the last time they passed a resolution condemning Palestinian terrorism??

I don't know, but my money would be on "Never,"because:

1. There isn't any country called "Palestine"to condemn, and is unlikely ever to be if Israel and the USA have anything to do with it.

2. There's also no "terrorism to condemn, because you're allowed to kill people who are occupying and colonising your country".

Anonymous said...

Psycho......I posted an example a few posts ago but the Troll deleted it
UN Resolution 45 I think...can't be bothered to look it up again.

Lord Egbut

The Veteran said...

PM ... if you read my post you would have picked up that Palestine is afforded teh status of a de jure soveregn state recognised by 136 countries. OK, not NZL or Oz or the US and others simply because it has not been possible to obtain agreement on boundaries ... and that was what the UN resolution was designed to facilitate.

Terrorists are terrorists pure and simple. You mean the Basque terrorists arn't terrorists? ... you mean the Moro ILF in the Philippines ain't a terrorist organisation? I could go on. Methinks you are indulging in selective morality.

Anonymous said...

Terrorist. A person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

David said...

"Terrorists are terrorists pure and simple."

"Terrorist. A person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."

Sorry, far too simplistic.

The French Resistance were terrorists.

The Viet Cong were terrorists.

The American Revolutionaries were terrorists.

The Irgun were terrorists.

Fretelin were terrorists.

The Free Aceh movement are terrorists.

The Bader Meinfoff gang were terrorists.

Falun Gong are terrorists.

You got one thing right, Veteran; morality IS selective.

Noel said...

Conclusion in this one defines it best.

Angry Tory said...

Hmm. Latest resolution condemning Palestinian terrorism. I guess that'd be UN2334:

"Condemning all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation, incitement and destruction,


Calls for immediate steps to prevent all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation and destruction, calls for accountability in this regard, and calls for compliance with obligations under international law for the strengthening of ongoing efforts to combat terrorism, including through existing security coordination, and to clearly condemn all acts of terrorism"

Angry Tory said...

But all this is moot. Looks like TRUMP is heading out of the UN - more to the point if TRUMP can deport 16 million then Bibi can deport 6 million (don't forget the Israeli
Arabs that Friedman Bennett etc want to deport too)

Anonymous said...

Trump can't deport one let alone 16,000,000. I wish you would talk sense.

Lord Egbut

Angry Tory said...

Sure TRUMP can. Clinton deported 13 million GWB 10 million. 2 million per year is doable.

Brutal but doable.

Angry Tory said...

UK-NZ FTA fast-tracked after BREXIT.

So yeah, working with the U.K. at the UN has already got us more than working with TRUMP ever would.

I mean who really thinks trade sanctions against China and giving what's left of Europe to Putin are good ideas?

The Veteran said...

AT .... don't thread jack. You've been warned.