Cyprus-Forum.com

[supporttheunderdog]

One must also remember that it was not just the Isrealies who took Palestinian lands but also Jordan and Egypt.

Under the UN resolution setting up both Isreal and the new Arab state passec in 1947 the borders were defined. The Israelis were happy to accept them, provided the Arabs did.

Upon termination of the mandate in 1948 the Surrounding existing Arab states attacked. Jordan took the West bank from the Palestinian state, Egypt the Gaza Strip. Isreal took the rest, having won the war.

People forget that other Arabs took that land.

Ken Livingstone was otherwise compltely out of order. Hitler never supported Zionism. He was looking for a way of getting the Jews out of Germany leaving their property to the German state, and at the same getting some trading advantages. A form of ethnic cleansing.

[Paphitis]

They're all covering up for Naz Shah. She did say something I consider racist and in support of ethnic cleansing. These politicians should really keep their personal agendas out of democratic politics. It's one thing for her to be anti-Israeli, as a Muslim(?) or for whatever reason - but when you are elected and democratically representing people, you should represent everyone not just your chosen few. Otherwise, she should just stick to twitting or whatever she does and stay out of professional politics. Typically, she's now taken down a few others in her wake ...

I agree with Lordo ...... it was all hyped up and taken out of context. If you read between the lines what she was saying was to the Americans in the context "You are so close and such interdependent allies, why don't you move them to the US, you have more than enough room and the Palestinians could then get their lands back?".

Her words were more direct than that and in the end it amounts to approving the displacement of people from their historical lands.

For what its worth, I agree with you on this one.

Now I need to pinch myself.

[Paphitis]

One must also remember that it was not just the Isrealies who took Palestinian lands but also Jordan and Egypt.

Under the UN resolution setting up both Isreal and the new Arab state passec in 1947 the borders were defined. The Israelis were happy to accept them, provided the Arabs did.

Upon termination of the mandate in 1948 the Surrounding existing Arab states attacked. Jordan took the West bank from the Palestinian state, Egypt the Gaza Strip. Isreal took the rest, having won the war.

People forget that other Arabs took that land.

Ken Livingstone was otherwise compltely out of order. Hitler never supported Zionism. He was looking for a way of getting the Jews out of Germany leaving their property to the German state, and at the same getting some trading advantages. A form of ethnic cleansing.

And then they attacked Israel in 1967 and got done over like a roast dinner. They thought they were about to deal Israel a decisive blow, but it was not the case.

[Tim Drayton]

Leaving aside the issue that the comment about moving Israel to the USA was clearly tongue in cheek and the context within which it was made, this has absolutely nothing to do with moving an ‘ancient people’ from their ‘ancient lands’. Israel is an artificial entity that was founded in 1948 (not very ancient) on land that was ethnically cleansed of it its legal occupants for this purpose (no ancient lands, although some Jewish people used to live in Palestine). If indeed the purpose served by Israel is to provide a safe haven for a people who have suffered great discrimination and persecution over many centuries – although less so nowadays (and, if groups of people who are persecuted for their beliefs, then, given that atheism is a capital offence in thirteen countries (see: “Atheists face death in 13 countries, global discrimination: study” @ http://www.reuters.com/article/us-relig ... 0G20131210) while openly professing the Jewish faith is an offence in none, it is clear that atheists face more persecution in the modern world than Jews so why are the latter a special case? Why a tract of territory not be ethnically cleansed of its legitimate occupants and gifted to atheists, or any other group that suffers systematic discrimination and oppression in parts of the world, as a safe haven. I must say that I as an atheist would find this notion to be repulsive as I don’t see that one abuse of human rights justifies another such abuse in the form of ethnic cleansing) - then I think it is perfectly valid to discuss whether this artificial creation could not be situated elsewhere. And this need not imply forcible resettling of people. Those who wish to live in a religious state cleansed of members of other religions and in an atmosphere of supremacy in keeping with the racist ideology of Zionism can surely do so in some other place appointed for the purpose, while those who are prepared to live as equal citizens in Palestine should surely be permitted to do so.

PS Those who fail to criticise Israel for occupying Palestinian land outside the territory that was originally gifted to it and settling its own citizens there after driving Palestinians off their own land have no moral authority to criticise Turkey for doing the same in Cyprus.

[Tim Drayton]

One must also remember that it was not just the Isrealies who took Palestinian lands but also Jordan and Egypt.

Under the UN resolution setting up both Isreal and the new Arab state passec in 1947 the borders were defined. The Israelis were happy to accept them, provided the Arabs did.

Upon termination of the mandate in 1948 the Surrounding existing Arab states attacked. Jordan took the West bank from the Palestinian state, Egypt the Gaza Strip. Isreal took the rest, having won the war.

People forget that other Arabs took that land.

Ken Livingstone was otherwise compltely out of order. Hitler never supported Zionism. He was looking for a way of getting the Jews out of Germany leaving their property to the German state, and at the same getting some trading advantages. A form of ethnic cleansing.

Out of order? You are saying that expressing an opinion about (opinion about not support for) Hitler's early political views constitutes anti-Semitism? How so? Because I don't see it. If you disagree with a statement somebody makes about history, surely the appropriate course of action is to challenge that person to back up their statement with a reliable source.

[GreekIslandGirl]

Leaving aside the issue that the comment about moving Israel to the USA was clearly tongue in cheek ...

I disagree it was tongue in cheek other than perhaps it hid some deeper anti-Semitic sentiments.

Perhaps she thought she would get away with the comment if she made it seem *outrageous* and so can be taken as 'tongue in cheek'. But, she is /was a politician and there's no tongue in cheek about threats of ethnic cleansing!

[Tim Drayton]

Leaving aside the issue that the comment about moving Israel to the USA was clearly tongue in cheek ...

I disagree it was tongue in cheek other than perhaps it hid some deeper anti-Semitic sentiments.

Perhaps she thought she would get away with the comment if she made it seem *outrageous* and so can be taken as 'tongue in cheek'. But, she is /was a politician and there's no tongue in cheek about threats of ethnic cleansing!

It was an anti-Zionist, not an anti-Semitic comment.

[Paphitis]

Leaving aside the issue that the comment about moving Israel to the USA was clearly tongue in cheek and the context within which it was made, this has absolutely nothing to do with moving an ‘ancient people’ from their ‘ancient lands’. Israel is an artificial entity that was founded in 1948 (not very ancient) on land that was ethnically cleansed of it its legal occupants for this purpose (no ancient lands, although some Jewish people used to live in Palestine). If indeed the purpose served by Israel is to provide a safe haven for a people who have suffered great discrimination and persecution over many centuries – although less so nowadays (and, if groups of people who are persecuted for their beliefs, then, given that atheism is a capital offence in thirteen countries (see: “Atheists face death in 13 countries, global discrimination: study” @ http://www.reuters.com/article/us-relig ... 0G20131210) while openly professing the Jewish faith is an offence in none, it is clear that atheists face more persecution in the modern world than Jews so why are the latter a special case? Why a tract of territory not be ethnically cleansed of its legitimate occupants and gifted to atheists, or any other group that suffers systematic discrimination and oppression in parts of the world, as a safe haven. I must say that I as an atheist would find this notion to be repulsive as I don’t see that one abuse of human rights justifies another such abuse in the form of ethnic cleansing) - then I think it is perfectly valid to discuss whether this artificial creation could not be situated elsewhere. And this need not imply forcible resettling of people. Those who wish to live in a religious state cleansed of members of other religions and in an atmosphere of supremacy in keeping with the racist ideology of Zionism can surely do so in some other place appointed for the purpose, while those who are prepared to live as equal citizens in Palestine should surely be permitted to do so.

PS Those who fail to criticise Israel for occupying Palestinian land outside the territory that was originally gifted to it and settling its own citizens there after driving Palestinians off their own land have no moral authority to criticise Turkey for doing the same in Cyprus.

Well then, Falun Gong may deserve their own artificial creation within China. Practitioners of Falun Gong are persecuted.

The Jews were ethnically cleansed from their land by the Roman Empire, and because of the recent holocaust and long history of persecution, the State of Israel was created. I think it is pretty fair, however, the illegal settlements in the West Bank should stop as well as the siege against Gaza.

[Paphitis]

Leaving aside the issue that the comment about moving Israel to the USA was clearly tongue in cheek ...

I disagree it was tongue in cheek other than perhaps it hid some deeper anti-Semitic sentiments.

Perhaps she thought she would get away with the comment if she made it seem *outrageous* and so can be taken as 'tongue in cheek'. But, she is /was a politician and there's no tongue in cheek about threats of ethnic cleansing!

It was an anti-Zionist, not an anti-Semitic comment.

It was antisemitism. Her comments amount to another wave of ethnic cleansing of the Jewish People from the Holy Land.

[Lordo]

Leaving aside the issue that the comment about moving Israel to the USA was clearly tongue in cheek ...

I disagree it was tongue in cheek other than perhaps it hid some deeper anti-Semitic sentiments.

Perhaps she thought she would get away with the comment if she made it seem *outrageous* and so can be taken as 'tongue in cheek'. But, she is /was a politician and there's no tongue in cheek about threats of ethnic cleansing!

you can believe all the shit you like, it does not change history and you will not re-write history either. historical facts are facts and cannot be disputed. have you ever attended a single ward level meeting of a labour party, i suspect not. if you did you would know exactly where the labour party and its members stand on racism in all its forms.

read and learn ffs just for once.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/world-history/adolf-hitler-zionism-zionist-nazis-haavara-agreement-ken-livingstone-labour-antisemitism-row-a7009981.html