British Parliament Votes to Recognize Palestine

You can’t get through to a liberal, was my point. Jews can be and are liberals, both in the US and in Israel. Just like Christians can be.

When was I lecturing you on blanket statements? Since you brought that up and not I, then do you feel that you were making one?

But you did not say who would judge the government to be “panicking”. Saying “those that understand” et cetera is a dodge and specifies nobody.

It has nothing to do with the moral high ground for the most part. It does have an awful lot to do with anti-Semitism.

You people never change. Goyim come to kill Jews and who do the goyim blame but Jews.

I am just very pleased that you live in Nebraska so that very few Jews are compelled to share your fetid air.

“People like me told the Jews this was going to happen. That voting for liberal Socialists would lead to this.”

Can you not read, you dolt? A majority of Jews - a far higher number than in the general population - actually voted for the Conservatives in the UK.

And the lesson of history has been - and you are a living example of this - that however Jews vote and whomever they support, the gentiles will always betray them, if not at first then at last. You cannot help it. You suck it in with your mother’s milk.

I said the Jews voted for this and it’s hard to feel sorry for them.

And you took away from that that I’m in favor of the Holocaust????????

So all you’ve done is call me names and take a snide, condescending tone.

Then you lament that everyone hates the Jews?

Maybe Jews should get over themselves.

But you did not say who would judge the government to be “panicking”. Saying “those that understand” et cetera is a dodge and specifies nobody.

It specifies a large number of people including myself. We don't necessarily fall neatly into any other category.

If I was talking about a similar group of people in America, I'd say "People who understand the Constitution". People who have taken the time and effort to learn about how government works, (or who were made to do so at school - unfortunately, speaking as a teacher, we're somewhat discouraged from teaching our students this nowadays - I wonder why?)

Informed voters. People who actually follow politics in depth, rather than just rely on the soundbites they see on the news. Americans can certainly be forgiven for not understanding the intricacies of the Westminster system - far better that they understand their own and for the same reason.

It's the anti-Israel lobby in Britain that want to make this vote out to be a much bigger deal than it is, because it stokes their ego, and makes them seem more powerful and successful than they are. It's Labour (well, most of Labour - Israel does have some support in the Labour Party, but it's a minority) that wants to make this vote out to be a bigger deal than it is. It's their allies in the left wing media in the UK that want to make this vote out to be more significant than it is.

It's not a tiny matter - it shows that the Labour Party has a major bias towards Palestine and against Israel - but most people already knew that. That could become a very significant problem indeed when they next win a general election. But this vote is being presented by the media as a massive win for that side of politics - in fact, it is a defeat. They couldn't get near a majority in the House even with a whipped vote. That makes the issue a dead letter now as far as the current Parliament is concerned.

It specifies a large number of people including myself. …

Okay, that might answer the who, but how? It seems to be a very subjective POV that I suspect not all share.

The foreign relations between Britain and Israel seem to be deteriorating rapidly in spite of what you regard as prudence by the Commons. Perhaps a bit of “panic” is needed, especially in the face of the already-squalid status quo on the ground in Britain.

I wonder why they didn’t vote to “recognize” Scotland

Recognize Palestine?

I can't even recognize England as we knew it under Thatcher.

Okay, that might answer the who, but how? It seems to be a very subjective POV that I suspect not all share.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'how'. But I'll try and explain why it would be seen as a panic reaction by many who understand the system - no, not all - but I would say most.

Motions to be voted on can come before the British House of Commons in a number of different ways. Some of these ways are far more significant than others and that reflects how important an issue is to the British government.

In this case, this motion came to Parliament via the 'Backbench Business Committee' and that is one of the least significant ways to get a debate into the chamber. It's not that the issues being raised aren't important - while some are quite trivial, sometimes an important issue does come up - but if the only way an issue can get into the Parliament is via the Backbench Business Committee, it means that first of all, the Government (as embodied by the Cabinet) didn't think it was important enough to spend time on, as they have control of most of Parliament's time. Then the Opposition (as embodied by the Shadow Cabinet) didn't think it was important enough to spend time on, as they have the next largest allocation of time. Thirdly it wasn't seen as important enough to be an Early Day Motion (traditionally moved by the most powerful backbenchers), and fourthly it wasn't important enough to be an Adjournment Debate.

It could have been a Westminster Hall debate, which is even less important than a Backbench Business motion before the House, but the form really does indicate, how insignificant this issue is in terms of a change in British government policy.

So it's not a significant vote - and so the government treated it in the ways such insignificant votes are normally treated. As much as possible, they ignored it. Ministers didn't vote - and didn't even turn up. That's what is normal in these cases.

Now, why would it be seen as panic if Cameron had handled it differently?

Because the only reason an incumbent government would turn a vote like this into a big deal is if they thought they were in danger of losing control of the House. The only reason a Prime Minister would want such a vote is to shore up a shaky leadership or a shaky government. It would be a clear message that the government was in trouble.

Now, if the government was in trouble, then acting like it is (while perhaps not wise politically) would be accepting reality not panic - but to act like it is in trouble when it isn't is panic.

And the fact that Labour could only get the vote to 276 indicates that the government isn't in trouble, so if Cameron had acted like it was, panic on his part would be the logical conclusion.

The foreign relations between Britain and Israel seem to be deteriorating rapidly in spite of what you regard as prudence by the Commons.

Not prudence by the Commons. Prudence by the Government and Prime Minister. And, yes, there are problems with Britain's and Israel's relationship - but they would not be improved by a minor meaniningless debate, being raised to a major one that could try to force a change of policy on the government (it would fail to do so).

Nothing positive could have come out of elevating this to a large scale vote. In the best case scenario, the government would win such a vote by about 80 votes. In the worst realistic case scenario, it would only win by about 20 votes (a few different scenarios lead to that type of margin - theoretically an even worse result is possible but if things were that bad, the coalition would have collapsed at this point). That second result would weaken the government. As it is, Labour could clearly only get about the 280 number anyway, associated with the 80 point defeat scenario, and there was no risk of the vote even being close.

I assume that’s satire.

Hey, back off one moment.

Firstly, it was the British with the Balfour Declaration who gave the Jews their own homeland. Balfour wasn’t American.

Secondly, from 1944 to 1948, the British in Palestine were bombed and murdered by Jewish/Zionist terrorist gangs: the Irgun and the Stern Gang. Hundreds of British soldiers and civilians, as well as Jewish and Arab civilians, were killed or maimed by those two groups.

And lastly, if you actually knew your history, you’d know that BRITISH RAF planes and ground crew fought in 1948 WITH the Jewish forces at Ramat David airfield against Arab forces. And if you knew your history, you’d also know that the British made it illegal for any serving British soldier to serve with the Arab Legion in that war.

"New Jerusalem" has turned its back on God.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOFHVXE6yWs

Politicians?.

Yeah, f*ck us.

All we have done for the Jews is give them their own homeland, liberate them from concentration camps, stand alone and longest against Nazism (thanks for turning up late again), fight with Israel in 1956 at Suez (thanks again for stabbing both countries and France in the back). For all that we got bombed and shot by Jewish gangs in 1946 and called anti-Semites in 2014.

BTW, there are 650 MP’s in the UK, didn’t you notice that this (symbolic and non binding) vote was voted on by less than half?. Nearly just a third.

I opposed and oppose this vote and its result, but I also oppose Britain and the British people being attacked as anti-Israeli bigots for something done by a minority of MP’s.

God bless you and your attempts to bring facts and sanity to hysteria.

No offense intended to those that did nothing wrong - and I do sincerely apologize to them.

However, British post-war policy was very decidedly opposed to Jewish independence...until there was enough of a resistance movement to make British policy-makers of the day realize “we have to get the Hell out of here no matter what.” There was no “giving” of independence to Israel - the UN partition vote was only possible because Britain went to the UN and essentially said, “Help us out of this mess, straight away!”

Arms were provided by Britain in massive amounts to the Arabs. Key fortresses and police stations were handed to the Arabs, or “abandoned” by the British Army with notice only to the Arabs. Much of the Foreign Office and British Army was, at the time, virulently anti-Semitic (though, of course, not nearly on the level of Hitler, et al). What the situation is now I cannot comment on, but I think that things have improved a lot as people in your nation have realized that Israel and its people are not Britain’s enemy - any more than Vietnam and its people are enemies of the US. In both cases, the native peoples wanted to be free of foreign domination, and were willing to fight for that essential human right (self-determination). I think that both Britain and the US are better off for having finally realized and understood this...though such offers cold comfort for the thousands or more dead that it took to learn this lesson.

Let’s also not forget the harsh treatment of Jewish refugees from the Holocaust - many beaten, imprisoned and starved, for the “crime” of wanting to get the Hell out of the charnel house of Europe to a place where they would be reasonably safe and among there own people. All that time, a blind eye was turned to Arab immigration, especially immigration of military-aged men and light arms.

Oh, and why didn’t the rest of the British Parliament issue a statement, or vote on a measure, that condemned the 1/3 or so that did vote for this measure? Silence does, in many ways, equal consent.

As for the US “turning up late again” for the fight against Nazism, let’s recap a few things, just so that you know that there’s another perspective:

1) Most Americans of the early and mid-20th Century were either European by birth, or descended from Europeans. Notice that they weren’t in Europe, as either they or their parents, grandparents, etc. didn’t want to have anything to do with that cesspool of a continent that oppressed the Hell out of people for a thousand years or more...that is while its leaders weren’t killing them by the tens of thousands or millions in innumberable wars.

2) The US had nothing to do with European affairs (except trade) in 1914. Your nations over there decided to have a rather nasty fight, and we got dragged in BECAUSE THE GERMANS WERE TICKED OFF THAT WE WERE HELPING YOU. After that, we mobilized 4.7 million of our men and our factories, turned the tide and kicked their arses back into Germany. Note that in approximately 18 months, we lost 53,500 dead and had 200,000 or so wounded, all to settle your fight.

3) Not content with learning the lessons of the prior generation, which consumed over 10 million lives, your wonderful continent decided that a rematch would be appropriate. I guess that learning to live with each other was never viewed as a viable option - validating the decision of millions to GTFO in the decades and centuries beforehand, and to go to the New World. Note that both Britain and France, possessors of the world’s most powerful navy and army of the day, respectively, let a two-bit, half-crazed ex-corporal bsmboozle and intimidate them, thereby allowing another world war to start...and this one resulted in some 40-45 million dead in Europe and Africa. We AGAIN got dragged in, and AGAIN mobilized our men (some 16.1 million had their lives interrupted - not including their families - and our industry was again mobilized to kick Germany’s and its allies’ arses (along with the Russians, primarily). We lost some 291,000 combat dead, and had some 670,000 wounded - again, to fix YOUR continent’s problems. Your vaunted Monty did nothing but hamper a decisive allied invasion in 1944, and definitely was responsible for the war extending into 1945 because his passivity and lack of action allowed tens of thousands of battle-hardened Germans to escape the Falaise Gap, along with a lot of their equipment. FYI, George Patton was on the way to close that gap and either kill or capture those Germans - until, that is, British pressure on Ike forced him to stop. He and the 3rd Army would have defeated the German’s western armies and been halfway into Germany in September, 1944 if Monty hadn’t interfered because he wanted his share of the glory.

OK, enough rancor and discord.

Regardless of our differences in opinion, I am glad that you opposed this resolution, and that you otherwise appear to be a “good bloke.” I just wish that the politicians there that are of the same mindset as you would have spoken up, even if just as symbolically as those jackasses that voted for the resolution.

I am sure you understand that my posts were deliberately snide in order to give a ‘measured’ amount of vitriol in return for your post. Now that’s out of the way......

I will not defend the British policy over Palestine, at least not all of it. However I think a lot of the criticism gets OTT where people claim open anti-Semitism (no the British Army wasn’t anti-Semitic, even if we just refer to the army stationed in the land, some officers and commanders may have been, but not the average soldier).

I see the British as a group stuck between two bitter and violent groups, trying to satisfy both and probably failing both. We took that nation ‘on’ only in 1918 and had it for less than 30 yrs, in which we were hated and even murdered by both sides, had to police a country riven by division and rancour. No thanks and much hate.

As to America (again, what I said was a deliberate attempt to wind you up) and the wars, I have to make a few points:

1—Sorry, but whilst I have nothing but love and respect for the American losses in WW1, its a myth that the American entry turned the tide in 1917-18, or that American troops came in and won the war.

It was the BRITISH, along with the Aussie and Canadian troops, as well as Indians, who had to take the brunt of the ‘Kaiserschlact’ in easter 1918, as well as the huge brunt of the ‘100 Day Offensive’ to drive back the Germans to the border.

There were more Canadians in 1918 on the western front than Americans. The Aussies in 1918 did more fighting on the western front than the US. The US didnt undertake a solo major assault until the battle of St Mihiel in SEPTEMBER 1918, just two months from victory.

The US army also in WW1 had no tanks, planes and heavy artillery of its own and had to use British and French equipment. A fact even super-patriotic historian Stephen Ambrose had to admit in his last book before his death. American forces also had to be combat trained by British and French officers at combat schools in France before being sent forward. Also the Royal Navy had to carry HALF of all US troops from America to Britain in 1917, and ALL American troops from England to France.

AGAIN, this is not being at all disrespectful of the great bravery and sacrifice of the Americans who served and who died, all your men were heroes. We are only talking history, so please don’t take offence. BUT I feel I have correct a myth and restore some rightful history to the British/Commonwealth men of 1918.

2—It was MONTY who expanded the original Frederick Morgan plan for Normandy, from one jump and two beaches, to five beaches and two jumps.

3—It was Bradley who ordered Patton to stop. If you also read Monty’s memoirs, he SUPPORTED Patton being allowed to close the gap. Of course he did, as the German resistance in the south of the gap was fanatical and Monty was happy if Patton could move south and close it up and basically leave Monty less to close himself. It was Bradley who got the jitters about US-UK/Can/Pol forces shooting at each other as they moved south and north.

And the reason Monty couldn’t close the gap was more to do with vicious German action. The Canadian and Poles who tried to close the gap, superb soldiers as both were, took very heavy casualties. The late resistance by the Germans to keep the gap open was fanatical. I know this, as my own grandfather fought in it!.

I am sick (nothing personal) of the criticism the British take about Normandy. I really dont think Americans then and even now realise and grasp just what we took on there in order to allow the larger US forces to break out. WE, the British/Canadians/Poles, took on almost all the German armour in Normandy, and almost all the best Wehrmacht/SS units, in order to tie down the Germans in the east so the Americans could break out in the west.

Your characterisation of the relationship between Britain and the young state of Israel is particularly misleading because of what it omits from what was a very complex history. It omits the close involvement of Britain in the formation of the young state's constitution and institutions, many of which (including its parliamentary system) were based on British models and drawn up with British advice. Politically, it ignores the close links between the then-dominant Labour Party and its British equivalent on which, again, it was in many ways modelled. Culturally, it ignores the widespread admiration of Israel especially among the idealistic British (gentile) young, among whom time working on a kibbutz remained a standard student vacation occupation through the 1950s and 60s. Militarily, it ignores the fact that Britain was the main arms supplier to Israel in those early days, long before the US took over that role (British Centurion tanks defeated the Soviet-made tanks they were facing in the 6-day war.)

Your reference to the treatment of refugees in Britain is somewhat bewildering given the history, not least of the kindertransport and the subsequent enrichment of British life, particularly its intellectual and artistic life, by so many of those refugees.

There has indeed been anti-Semitism in Britian, as, sadly, there has been in every country of the Western world: but it has always been, and remains, at a far lower level than in any country of continental Europe, and has never been any worse than historical anti-Semitism in the U.S.