Labour MP expresses regret over anti-Zionist comment in 2014 video
Richard Burgon, the shadow justice secretary, has expressed regret over a video in which he said “Zionism is the enemy of peace” in 2014, which prompted Jewish groups to call for an apology.
The senior Labour MP said this was not his view after freelance journalist Iggy Ostanin published the video, which was branded “shameful” by the Board of Deputies of British Jews.
Burgon had denied using the phrase when challenged over it on the BBC in 2018. He said on Tuesday that he had no recollection of making the comment and had previously asked for evidence that he had said it, because it was not his view.
The footage showed that he said: “The enemy of the Palestinian people is not the Jewish people, the enemy of the Palestinian people are Zionists and Zionism is the enemy of peace and the enemy of the Palestinian people. We need to be loud, we need to be proud in support of a free Palestine.”
The comments were criticised by Mike Katz, chair of the Jewish Labour Movement, who said the vast majority of Jewish people identified as Zionists.
“Insulting a core part of their identity and then dissembling about it is shameful behaviour from a senior frontbencher in our party, let alone someone who aspires to administer our justice system,” he said.
Jonathan Goldstein, chairman of the Jewish Leadership Council, also challenged Burgon to issue a “full apology and a clarification as well as a pledge to use responsible language henceforth”.
etc.
Netanyahu’s Brilliant Election Strategy Overcomes Corruption Indictments
Discussion excerpt (emphasis added). “One state”– won’t be democratic, won’t include Gaza or all of the WB, and won’t mean absorbing lots of Palestinians into Israel:
———————————————————————————————-
MARC STEINER: Israel is expanding by taking all of historic Palestine under their rule completely. I mean, is there now something bei[esn’t allow that to happen? Does this election say anything about that? […]
LIA TARACHANSKY: Well, I mean, I think that what you are describing is actually the Naftali Bennett one-state solution. Naftali Bennett in 2013, just before he ran, he was already angling for government, to be a politician. As you know, he is a successful high tech businessman, entrepreneur, who sold his company and became a millionaire, after which he entered politics. He’s a very ideological, very dedicated, very serious man who actually didn’t make it into this election because of the same raised votes situation.
However, already back then he proposed a one-state solution, which at the time–which was only five years ago–was seen so outrageous to the press and is now openly discussed. And his idea was basically that you give–you push as many Palestinians as possible in the rural areas of the West Bank into the urban areas. You surround those urban areas with bigger walls. And then those Palestinians left behind in the rural areas, which is the vast majority of the West Bank, the farmers, you give them citizenship. And according to his estimate it shouldn’t be more than 70,000 people.
And then the vast majority of Palestinians that live in the West Bank would then be living in walled ghettos, forever connected with a system of roads that keeps them connected, but essentially makes their life there nearly impossible. And then Israel can claim sovereignty over the West Bank, settling forever this 50-year-old question of how you can conquer a land without giving any rights to its people.
You can conquer land and keep the people that live on that land in a limbo, which is what the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights, and East Jerusalem has been.
However, from the get-go, the idea with Gaza was that it is just too many people, and there is not enough assets in this territory on the coast, in the Gaza Strip, to keep it. There’s no reason to give those people any access to Israel, and to claim sovereignty over that land.
And so the question has always been how do we convince the Egyptians to take that land? And now what we’ve seen with General Sisi’s government is that in fact the Egyptians are quite warm to the idea, and have been hinting that they are willing to take Gaza.
Which means that with East Jerusalem being more or less completely annexed in the reality on the ground and in the words of the Americans; the Golan Heights, almost the same situation; Israel claiming sovereignty suddenly over the West Bank is not something that I think is going to lead to profound changes on the ground, because of course Israel today is the only sovereign power that dictates the lives of all of the Palestinians.
Nathan: ….the Palestinians do not accept the Partition Plan, and they envision the city’s being part of their future state (the entire city).
—————————————————————————————–
The Palestinians have officially accepted far LESS than what the Partition Plan allotted to them–they’ve accepted the 1967 “Green Line” border established via the 1949 Armistice Agreements. And they claim only East Jerusalem, not the entire city.
Cf. The State of Palestine/PLO Negotiation Affairs Department:
What is the 1967 border?
The June 4, 1967 border, also known as green line, is the internationally recognized border between the occupied Palestinian territory (i.e. West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip) and the State of Israel. The occupied Palestinian territory (oPt) represents an area equivalent to 22 percent of historic Palestine. The boundaries of the oPt were established through the signing of armistice agreements between Egypt and Jordan on the one hand, and Israel, on the other, following the war of 1948, and the subsequent creation of the State of Israel on 78 percent of historic Palestine […]
* * * * *
Does the recognition of the State of Palestine in the 1967 border represent an attempt to delegitimize the State of Israel?
No. Recognition of the State of Palestine along the 1967 border represents a re-affirmation of the two-state solution. Recognition of Palestine at the UN is about legitimizing Palestine rather than delegitimizing Israel. Such recognition would reinforce the standing of the 1967 border as the basis of a comprehensive Palestinian-Israeli peace. By colonizing Palestinian land and attempting to erode the standing of the 1967 border, Israel has undermined its own standing in the global community and nearly destroyed the two-state solution as a means for achieving Palestinian-Israeli peace […]
* * * * *
[…]The PLO seeks a sovereign and independent Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders as per UN resolutions, the Arab Peace Initiative, and other clearly-defined and internationally accepted terms of reference
.
https://www.nad.ps/en/publication-resources/factsheets/green-line-red-line-1967-border-and-two-state
Because Israel, backed by the U.S., has done everything possible to undermine a two-state solution based on the international consensus one state solutions are now being increasingly advocated.
Misterioso quoting Ilene Beatty: [the Palestinians’ (the ‘Arab population of Palestine’s)] legal right to the country stems… from the fact that the Canaanites were first…
—————————————————–
Nonsense.
Nathan: … the establishment of peace includes the acceptance of Israel and her right to live in recognized and secured boundaries.
——————————————————-
Cf.
LETTER FROM YASSER ARAFAT TO PRIME MINISTER RABIN:
September 9, 1993
Yitzhak Rabin
Prime Minister of Israel
Mr. Prime Minister,
The signing of the Declaration of Principles marks a new era in the history of the Middle East. In firm conviction thereof, I would like to confirm the following PLO commitments:
The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security.
The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.
The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process, and to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations.
[Etc.]
Sincerely,
Yasser Arafat
Chairman
The Palestine Liberation Organization
https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/36917473237100E285257028006C0BC5
[emphasis added]
Annie’s contributions here have been huge and greatly inspiring and cannot possibly be overstated.
For me at least, she represents the very best of MW.
@Peter in SF
Palestine […] is a de jure sovereign state[16][17] in Western Asia claiming the West Bank (bordering Israel and Jordan) and Gaza Strip (bordering Israel and Egypt)[3] with Jerusalem as the designated capital…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Palestine
As of 3 August 2018, 137 of the 193 United Nations (UN) member states and two non-member states have recognized it. Furthermore, Palestine has been a non-member observer state of the UN since November 2012.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_the_State_of_Palestine
Peter in SF: Palestine is a geographic area. Israel is a state. .
—————————————–
Palestine is a state as well.
O’Rourke says special relationship with Israel goes against US values of equality and dignity
———————————-
I didn’t hear him say that. I just heard him regurgitate carefully- crafted, well-rehearsed two-state talking points. Two states is the only answer. It’s not happening. Because:
“We have problems on both sides. I don’t know that we have a willing partner on the part of the Palestinian Authority. I know that in Prime Minister Netanyahu we have someone who has openly sided with racists in that country, someone who has warned about Arabs coming to the polls, someone who seeks to exploit division and fear and hatred, that is not somebody who is negotiating in good faith.”
What’s noteworthy is how unrestrained the attack on Netanyahu is. But that’s permissible for Democrats–if not required– now that Netanyahu has been identified as an alter-ego of Trump, the supreme master of exploiting fear and hatred.
An attack on the Netanyahu/Trump monster, is not, however, an attack on America’s “special relationship with Israel .” Far from it. It’s ultimately a bid to restore its legitimacy.
JWalters: …modern standards of international justice are overruled by an ancient Jewish book.
—————————————————————————————————–
An ancient Christian book as well.
“… in an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network, President Donald Trump’s Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, chose to mark the occasion by suggesting that Trump is, in fact, a modern-day Queen Esther who could have been chosen by God to save Israel from Iran.
“Jews worldwide and in Jerusalem are talking about the fact that Esther 2,500 years ago saved the Jewish people, with God’s help, from Haman,” the interviewers asked him. “And now, 2,500 years later, there’s a new Haman here in the Middle East that wants to eradicate the Jewish people just like Hama did: the state of Iran. Could it be that President Trump right now has been sort of raised for such a time as this, just like Queen Esther, to help save the Jewish people from the Iranian menace?”
“As a Christian, I certainly believe that’s possible,” said Pompeo. “It was remarkable … to see the remarkable history of the faith in this place and the work that our administration’s done to make sure that this democracy in the Middle East, that this Jewish state remains. I am confident that the Lord is at work here.”