Since the Israeli offensive against Gaza in 2008-2009, the cash flow situation has been aggravated to the extent that the economic cycle in the Gaza Strip has ground to a halt. Almost all economic sectors, mainly banking, trade and housing, have been entirely crippled. In effect, a suffocating humanitarian crisis in the wake of the war on Gaza is imminent.
Sami Abu Shamalla is a political and economic analyst in Gaza. He is a senior lecturer of economics at Gaza Community College of Applied Science, holds an MA in financial management and is enrolled in the PhD programme at Utara University in Malaysia. He is the former manager of the International Easy Forex in Gaza, and has written two academic books; the first in financial management and the second in business correspondence.If you happen to go into one of several banks in Gaza, you might see the following scene recur hundreds, if not thousands of times daily:
Customer : I want to withdraw five hundred dollars from my account
Bank teller: I can give you the sum in Israeli Shekel.
Customer: But my money is in dollars!
Bank teller: I am afraid we do not have any foreign currency in this bank.
Customer: OK, what is the exchange rate?
Bank teller: 3.76 per dollar
Customer: But in the market, it is 3:98
Bank teller: This is the rate in our bank
Customer: But this means I am losing 110 shekels, and this is not fair.
Invariably this leads to a heated argument between the customer and the bank which can only end in either an undesirable transaction for the customer or a big punch-up.
Financial crisis
The cash crisis in the besieged Gaza Strip, as hinted above, is not an isolated phenomenon, but part of a crippling financial crisis intricately connected to other humanitarian crises the Gazans have been undergoing since the 2006 election. This is a problem that cannot be described let alone explained outside its context. In fact, the late Israeli offensive on Gaza was only one phase in what has been a comprehensive war on the Palestinian people and all the elements that are essential for a viable state to be established, together with a thriving Palestinian economy.
To the outside world, the 2008- 2009 war on Gaza was a mere military operation that ended up causing horrendous casualities, including the massacre of civilians, the destruction of thousands of houses, and eventually the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. In fact the war on Gaza was a calculated stage in a systematic Israeli campaign against the Palestinian economy in general, and the economic life of the Gaza Strip in particular. In the wake of the war, lasting 22 successive days, the Gazan population opened their eyes to see the full scale of the catastrophe that awaited them. Apart from the shocking toll of fatalities and hopeless condition of thousands of badly injured people, the Gazans were shocked by the devastation of their economic life. Several public economic sectors were entirely paralysed. As a result, unemployment sharply increased, prices soared and commodities, essential as well as luxury, went missing from the local markets. The initial estimate of loss due to the destruction of the infrastructure and basic amenities came to 1.9 million American dollars (USD). However, the most recent report prepared by UNRWA has revealed that the real losses were much larger: final estimates according to this report amount to USD 4 billion. The banking and the construction sectors were the most badly affected, and the ongoing problems of liquidity and cash flow along with the unavailability of construction materials are reducing the Palestinian economy to a standstill.
Liquidity and cash flow problem
In fact the banking sector in the Gaza Strip has been assailed from three distinct directions. The first concerns liquidity and cash flow. The second has to do with the provision of credit. And the third is the increasing lack of credibility of the banking sector in the wake of the world financial crisis.The Israeli occupation has deliberately and systematically aggravated the first problem in several ways. As the Israeli shekel is the main currency Palestinians use in their daily transactions, the occupation has frequently and intermittently stopped the supply of the shekel, each time creating a real crisis in day-to-day transactions. Prices soar and the real value of foreign currency, mainly the dollar and the Jordanian dinar (the currency used by Palestinians for their investments and savings) accordingly plummet.
It is worth mentioning that the monthly requirement on the part of Gaza's banks for the Israeli shekel is 50-100 million shekels; these cover the salaries of public sector employees and the needs of the market. As for the other two types of currency, the Gaza market needs 6-8 million Jordanian dinar (JD) and 16-18 million American dollars per day. Six months ago, the Israelis simply withheld the supply of the shekel and would not allow it in unless the Egyptians and Ramallah's government intervened. According to the Palestinian Monetary Authorities (PMA), the Israelis have allowed only 450 million shekels and 94 million JD since the beginning of 2009. This, many Palestinian economists point out, has not helped in solving the problem of cash flow. Nowadays, however, the Israelis have switched tactics: they allow the shekel to come in but withhold any foreign currency. This problem has been significantly worsened by tunnel trading - a natural consequence of the blockade that has been imposed on Gaza since Hamas took over.
The deliberate shortages in either currency, and in effect, cash flow in Gaza banks and its marketplace do not lie within the jurisdiction of the Israeli financial authorities, but rather within the responsibilities of the military. The security cabinet and the so-called defence ministry are in charge of banning any foreign currency from entering a besieged Gaza. The Israeli pretext is that Palestinians are using this money to smuggle in commodities through their tunnel trading. So far, under the pressure of UNRWA and some NGOs working in Gaza, the Israeli authorities have allowed only limited amounts of foreign currency in. UNRWA has managed to bring in about USD 10-12 million on a monthly basis to cover the salaries of its employees, while the NGOs were able to secure USD 3-4 million to fund their humanitarian operations.
Another related reason for the scarcity of liquidity and cash flow is the drastic economic situation resulting from the 3-year siege imposed on Gaza by the Israeli occupation forces. The Palestinians in the Gaza Strip are totally reduced to consuming rather than producing. The economic cycle has been entirely suspended. There is neither production nor is there any export activity. Accordingly the scarce amounts of foreign currencies that were formerly allowed in have been spent on consumer commodities brought through the thousands of absurd tunnels that link the Gazans with their Egyptian brothers. In this sense hard currency travels one way. The estimated money spent on goods imported through tunnels is about USD 200 million per year. This factor, added to those mentioned above, spells the death of the banking system in Gaza.
Gaza banking services
Indeed the banks in Gaza are on their way to being totally defunct, only currently operating in shekels at 40 % of their capacity. At present, the total available foreign currency in Gaza banks is a mere two million Jordanian dinar and USD 5 million. This combination can keep the banks operating for about seven hours. Almost all Gaza banks are partially unable to provide the public with banking facilities. As a result, all the Jordanian banks operating in Gaza have totally suspended their banking services because of the high level of risk involved in any investment. Furthermore, most of the loans required by the Gazans are for consumer spending, and this in itself is a great risk to the banking sector. Their inability to extend their services to the Palestinian public in Gaza has greatly discredited these banks. They are unable to give loans, or even bring in money for the NGOs operating in Gaza. For instance, UNRWA asked for USD 181 million for humanitarian relief work. They wanted to compensate those whose houses were destroyed in the war and to provide the destitute with the wherewithal to buy food. They wanted to rehabilitate and fix up many of UNRWA's amenities and premises that were destroyed in the war. The dollar funds for such operations exist, but Gazan banks are unable to channel these funds to where they are needed.
Gaza banks and the international financial crisis
Gazan banks were greatly affected by the international financial crisis. Many Gazans and even Palestinian expatriates investing in Gaza have already withdrawn their assets for fear of collapse. As a consequence many of these banks are about to close down, leaving the Palestinians vulnerable to the crazy financial black markets. Then Palestinian investors have been dragged into the unruly business ventures called the tunnel trade. They were forced into this by the relentless closures of the border crossings into and outside Gaza. Of course such a situation will never help any effort to reconstruct post-war Gaza. All pledges, then, to reconstruct the Gaza Strip remain part of an international rhetoric which is awaiting breakthrough to lift the siege imposed on this small geographical entity - the most densely populated place in the world
Comments
If Hamas released Shalit, its kidnapped hostage. if Hamas recognised Israel. if Hamas abandoned its policy of terrorism
then there would be no 'siege' and it would have a normal economy
Michael T. Sager,
Shalit, a member of the occupying force in Palestine would never have been captured if Israel did not use massive military force to maintain an illegal occupation of Palestine, and, under that occupation, to continue to illegally colonise Palestine.
If Israel, a historically recent coloniser, had sought to make redress to its indigenous people and end the occupation and colonisation, there would be no 'war.'
If Israel lived up to its obligations as a developed democracy, and the standards by which it claims to live, there would be no occupation, no colonisation, no siege and no captured Shalit.
By the way, Hamas does recognise the existence of Israel but not on current borders. Why should it? Israel was established as a moral and probably legal wrong, against the wishes of the majority of the people living in Palestine in exactly the same way that the US, Canada, Australia, NZ et al were established. Those nations have admitted to the wrongs inherent in their foundation, sought to make redress and given full and equal rights (as they should) regardless of race or religion, to all citizens.
Israel has not and until Israel does it will be the Palestinians who are the victims of injustice and the Israelis who are the unjust aggressors.
It is just all part of Israel's plan to try to destroy Palestine. It won't work. World opinion has changed. Israel will fail. It is impossible to win a war of occupation and colonisation in the modern age. You have to kill everyone to do that. Israel can neither kill or drive out all of the Palestinians. Even if it did, world outrage would be so great that the millions of Palestinians in refugee camps would immediately be brought back and Israel would be forcibly pushed back to UN mandated borders.
The Palestinians are going nowhere. They have time and right on their side. Either there will be a temporary (because racist states are an anomaly in the modern world) Jewish State on originally mandated borders and a Palestinian State in the rest, or there will be one state with equal rights for all.
It is just a matter of time.
Rossross is, unfortunately, guilty of a terminological inexactitude. Hamas is dedicated to destroying Israel. It took over Gaza in an Iranian-mandated coup d'etat in 2007, and proceeded to start shooting rockets by the hundreds at Israeli cities.
If Hamas hadn't taken over Gaza and used it as a terror base against Israel there'd be no siege and there'd have been no Israeli incursions. It's rather ironic for Hamas to pick fights and then, when Israel reacts as one does against an active foe, with blockade and occasional use of force, to cry "occupation!" Thus the Confederate slaveowning rebels in the US in the 19th century, in the last year of the war, might have cried "siege of civilians!" when President Lincioln's army laid siege to their capital. How heartwrenching. Pardon my skepticism.
A simple solution for Hamas: Throw your guns and rockets in the sea, go back to your mosques, and invite Prime Minister Fayyad to run Gaza. Soon enough there'll be no siege, no occupation, and money in the banks.
This won't happen because Hamas doesn't want an end to the siege. Rather than letting the residents of Gaza develop in peace, they want to use them as cannon fodder in their fight against Israel. They're their own people's biggest enemy.
Yitzhak,
Hamas, as even the Americans and Israel governments admit, is the democratically elected government of the Palestinians. Israel just didn't like the result. The irony of course is that Hamas was initially encouraged and supported by Israel as a foil for the PA. Be careful what you wish for.
And, even if you do not know, the world does, Gaza exists as a concentration camp where Palestinians dispossessed from areas where Israeli settlers are now living, have been herded and imprisoned. Those primitive bombs are in fact fired at the illegal Israeli settlers. In any other situation the Palestinians would be seen as the indigenous dispossessed people fighting against their colonial oppressors ... which they are. The good thing is that more and more people throughout the world now see this clearly.
Israel occupies Palestine, that is a fact. Israel continues to colonise Palestine, that is a fact. While one might argue that the partition of Palestine in order to allow Israel's colonisation of part of the country was immoral and illegal, no doubt one could argue that it should be upheld. Therefore, any legitimacy which Israel might claim is only on the originally mandated borders. Everything else is occupation.
Israel was established on someone else land in the same way that the US, Canada, Australia, NZ etc., were established on someone else's land. The difference is that those historically recent colonisers have given full and equal rights to all citizens and apologised and admitted to the wrongs inherent in their foundation.
I take it that you believe the indigenous people of North and South America, Australia, New Zealand, Africa etc., were all terrorists for resisting occupation and colonisation? And that the French were terrorists for resisting German occupation?
If the indigenous people of Palestine are terrorists then every other indigenous people who have been colonised are also terrorists. If not, perhaps you can explain why not?
Yitzhak,
Can you tell me what you expect the future to hold for Israel if it does not change? You ask the Palestinians to throw away their guns and rockets. Does this mean Israel will throw away its weapons? If not, why should a people living under brutal occupation and continued colonisation do it?
More to the point, do you honestly believe Israel can continue to hold onto its apartheid state, keeping Palestinians in concentration camps and building on their land indefinitely?
Or is the plan to drive out the Palestinians? They won't leave. How can you drive them out? With bombs, bullets? That hasn't worked. Do you try anyway? If Israel did world outrage would be so great that a Palestinian state would appear in an instant and Israel would be back to mandated borders. Ditto if Israel tried to kill the Palestinians. And, even if Israel did try to kill them don't you think world outrage would be so enormous that the five or six million Palestinians sitting in refugee camps would be brought back immediately to a Palestinian state, with possibly a Jewish Israel on originally mandated borders, or possibly not.
Israel cannot win. The more settlements Israel builds and the more impossible it makes a Palestinian state the greater the surety that in 2,5,10 years, but eventually, without a doubt, there will be an end to apartheid as there was in South Africa and there will be one State with equal rights for all. That will be the end of Israel because, the Palestinians are outbreeding Israelis (nature's way of ensuring survival in abused peoples) and in a one state for all situation the majority will be Palestinian and don't you think given more than half a century of appalling abuse at the hands of Israel, the first thing they will do is change the name of the country back to Palestine.
The only way there could ever be any chance of a Jewish Israel suriving, at least for a time, religiously based states are an anachornism in the modern world, but anyway, some hope, is if Israel ensures the Palestinians have their own viable state with contiguous borders. Israel will have to accept the capital of that State as Arab Jerusalem and it will have to compensate those dispossessed by the creation of Israel.
But a two-state solution is the only shred of hope for an ongoing Jewish Israel. What beggars belief is how many Israelis and their supporters think there can be any other outcome that would allow the survival of Israel in some form.
World opinion has changed dramatically. The boycotts and sanctions movement grows. Israel, like South Africa will be forced to end its human rights abuses. If you really cared about helping Israel to survive you would support that.
The reality which you ignore is that the Palestinians will ultimately get their freedom and their State. One way or another. They have time, right and numbers on their side. Israel has none of these things and it dooms itself by not seeing that.
I have an interesting comparison with the Israel/Palestine situation:
The population of Cyprus, taken as a whole, is 80% Greek and 20% Turkish. Those Turks are, of course, a product of Ottoman imperialism to begin with. In 1974, however, the Turkish army invaded Cyprus and occupied the ENTIRE northern half (50%) of Cyprus. 200,000 ethnic Greeks, whose ancestors had lived there for 2,500 years, fled or were forced to flee into the southern half of the island.
In 2004, UN Sec'y General Kofi Annan proposed a "right of return" to the north for those Greek refugees. Yes, indeed. BUT:
1. ONLY Greeks OVER 65 can return to the northern half of Cyprus.
2. And ONLY on condition that their return does not lead to Greeks constituting more than 10% of the total Turkish population in the northern half of Cyprus--for fear of continual ethnic conflict.
The UN proposal on Cyprus gives us an insight into the international community's view of the "right of return" in general--in all places, everywhere, EXCEPT Israel. A total of 10% Greeks will be allowed, for fear of ethnic conflict, and only those over 65 can return.
What's good for the Turks on Cyprus should be more than good for the Israelis in Israel. Think about the implications of the Cyprus situation and the UN Cyprus rules. Israel already has *20%* of its population as Arab/Palestinian. Under the UN Cyprus rules, why should it be forced to accept any more? Let's have no double standards.
Moreover, like all the millions of refugees EXCEPT Palestinians, refugees on Cyprus are officially counted by the UN only in the ORIGINAL refugee population (hence only those who are over 65 in the UN proposal can return--and then only under certain stringent conditions), NOT their descendants as well. This is the UN rule all over the planet--except with the Palestinians. Think about that.
Sami Abu Shamalla leaves out the crucial datum that economic growth in the West Bank will reach 7% this year. So much for Israel's "comprehensive war on the Palestinian people".
This is about Gaza, and Gaza alone, Gaza which is ruled by a terror group that took power in a violent coup d'etat in June 2007, a terror group which overtly approves of suicide bombings against Israeli civilians, which boasts of its use of civilian shields, and which has shot 6,000 rockets at civilian areas of Israel within the 1967 borders--namely, the town of Sderot, which is populated itself primarily by Jewish refugees (get it?) from Morrocco.
This is about Gaza, and Gaza alone
Yes. Not about Morrocco, Cyprus, Post War Eastern Europe, Pakistan or any other red herrings thrown in to deflect attention from the substantive debate.
I do not know why Mr. Michael concentrates only on Shalit and he deliberately does not want to mention the 11000 Palestinian prisoners who have been for decades in the Israeli prisons. Of course Mr. Michael will say these are terrorists and will exonerate Shalit. I think this rhetoric is crooked because the Palestinians are defending their home land against the occupation and Shalit is a soldier of the occupying forces. Let's Mr. Michael for a moment admit that all humans are equal in dignity because thousands of Palestinian families are waiting that Israel would release their loved ones in the same way Sahlit's family is waiting for the release of their son.
If Israel is interested in peace, it should quickly lift this unjust siege which has been imposed on Gaza for more than three years. Then steps of confidence building would follow and peace would be a possibility.
Dr. Akram Habeb
An Independent political analyst
from besieged Gaza
The Palestinians live in the Promised Land of the Jewish people; and they are paying a high price for it.
In a manner of speaking, but as we can read, also literally.
This highly informative piece evokes the usual dialogue of the deaf between pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli commentators. Reading them, one could be forgiven for thinking there are no voices of moderation on either side, no currents of opinion in favour of lasting settlement.
The problem is far more complex and tragic, of course, than any of these commentators pretend with their simplistic notions of moral justice, and repellent justifications of violence and murder. Whatever the historical rights and wrongs on each side, it seems clear to this writer that the Palestinians have suffered and are suffering far more than the Israelis; and that Israeli belligerence, persistent settlement-building on illegally-occupied land, and systematic undermining of civic society in Palestinian territory should evoke only the deepest revulsion and contempt. The cynical use of the Holocaust and of accusations of anti-semitism to silence critics of Israel's anti-Palestianian policy is a notably odious Israeli tactic. Yet to remain silent is to fall into precisely the same kind of fear-driven funk that assailed those many Europeans of World War II who saw the cattle trucks go by and did nothing to stop them, who turned desperate Jews away from their door, who claimed to know nothing about the atrocities taking place in their own town, their own village, their own street.
I believe It is incumbent on all those who see this kind of injustice to speak against it, to do so repeatedly and to give no ground to the self-serving arguments of those who blame the victims for the abuses of their oppressors.
This highly informative piece evokes the usual dialogue of the deaf between pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli commentators. Reading them, one could be forgiven for thinking there are no voices of moderation on either side, no currents of opinion in favour of lasting settlement.
The problem is far more complex and tragic, of course, than any of these commentators pretend with their simplistic notions of moral justice, and repellent justifications of violence and murder. Whatever the historical rights and wrongs on each side, it seems clear to this writer that the Palestinians have suffered and are suffering far more than the Israelis; and that Israeli belligerence, persistent settlement-building on illegally-occupied land, and systematic undermining of civic society in Palestinian territory should evoke only the deepest revulsion and contempt. The cynical use of the Holocaust and of accusations of anti-semitism to silence critics of Israel's anti-Palestianian policy is a notably odious Israeli tactic. Yet to remain silent is to fall into precisely the same kind of fear-driven funk that assailed those many Europeans of World War II who saw the cattle trucks go by and did nothing to stop them, who turned desperate Jews away from their door, who claimed to know nothing about the atrocities taking place in their own town, their own village, their own street.
I believe It is incumbent on all those who see this kind of injustice to speak against it, to do so repeatedly and to give no ground to the self-serving arguments of those who blame the victims for the abuses of their oppressors.
My point about the dead economy of Gaza vs. the booming economy of the West Bank was to refute the author's contention that Israel is waging "a comprehensive war against the Palestinians." This is an obviously untrue statement given the economy of the West Bank and since far more Palestinians live in the booming West Bank than in Gaza. Gaza is in trouble because the policy of Hamas in shooting 6,000 missiles into Israel has--surprise and horror!--evoked an Israeli response.
As for Cyprus, or Jewish refugees, "We learn by comparison," as the historian Polybius said 2,300 years ago. Let us learn from them. Those comparisons are devastating for those who wish to argue that the Palestinians suffer uniquely, and hence the Israelis are unique too (uniquely evil)--which is exactly why some people here don't want to discuss them, and indeed want to erase them. The Cyprus situation is devastating for those who think the Palestinians have suffered uniquely AND devastating for those who now see what the international community's attitude is towards "right of return" in general, everywhere, in all cases EXCEPT Israel. The Cyprus example allows one to see, all too clearly, the double standard.
Here's another example of that, beyond Cyprus. When the Council of Europe faced the request by Palestinian Arabs to press Israel for a "right of return", the argument raised against that proposal was that it would be a precedent for ethnic Germans who sought a right of return to Poland and the Czech Republic. That argument won--the proposal was rejected. Get it? The Council of Europe made the same connection I'm making, BC. It's not just me. And why? Because it's an obvious enough one to those who actually know some history.
This is an obviously untrue statement given the economy of the West
Bank and since far more Palestinians live in the booming West Bank than
in Gaza. Gaza is in trouble because the policy of Hamas in shooting
6,000 missiles into Israel has--surprise and horror!--evoked an Israeli
response
The missiles fired in 2008 were a response to Israel's blockade not the cause of it. The crumbs thrown to the West Bank are Fatah's reward for accepting Bantustan status.
Here's another example of that, beyond Cyprus. When the Council of
Europe faced the request by Palestinian Arabs to press Israel for a
"right of return", the argument raised against that proposal was that
it would be a precedent for ethnic Germans who sought a right of return
to Poland and the Czech Republic. That argument won--the proposal was
rejected. Get it?
Yes. One evil deed left un-corrected because it would highlight the wickedness of others. It's an argument I'm not impressed by.
Big C wrote:
"The missiles fired in 2008 were a response to Israel's blockade not the cause of it."
Between 2005 and 2007, Hamas fired 2,700 rockets into Israel. That, and the bloody Hamas coup d'etat of June 2007 in Gaza, was the *cause* of the blockade of Gaza.
Big C wrote;
"The crumbs thrown to the West Bank are Fatah's reward for accepting Bantustan status."
7% economic growth at a time when the rest of the world is suffering severe recession is not "crumbs." And to repeat: Sami Shamalla's claim was that the economic stagnation in Gaza was an example of the Israelis waging a "comprehensive war against the Palestinians." Evidently not most Palestinians: not with 7% economic growth in the West Bank this year.
As for Cyprus--it shows the general view of what the "right of return" should be, everywhere *except* Israel.
As for the Council of Europe's rejecting the Palestinian right of return because it would set a precedent for a German right of return: they, unlike Big C, take the wider historical view, draw historical parallels, and understand that millions of German can never go back to eastern Europe because that would cause social disruption in Poland, Cz, etc. Perhaps it's unjust, but this decision shows again the general view that that's the way of the world-- Poland, Cz, Hungary, Pakistan, India, Cyprus. Everywhere, that is, except--if BC has his way--for Israel. The double standard is obvious.
That,
and the bloody Hamas coup d'etat of June 2007 in Gaza, was the *cause*
of the blockade of Gaza.
So Israel is going to start blockading every neigbouring country that does not have a democratically elected government?
As for the Council of Europe's rejecting the Palestinian right of
return because it would set a precedent for a German right of return:
they, unlike Big C, take the wider historical view, draw historical
parallels, and understand that millions of German can never go back to
eastern Europe because that would cause social disruption in Poland,
Cz, etc.
Translation: It doesn't suit them. I should be very surprised if many Germans want to return to those countries. If they do then that should be facilitated. For the majority, compensation needs to be discussed. The same applies to expelled Jews. It is often politically expedient to deny justice in the short term but sooner or later these matters have a way of bubbling up again. Or is that a historical phenomenom you choose not to recognise?
Perhaps it's unjust, but this decision shows again the general
view that that's the way of the world-- Poland, Cz, Hungary, Pakistan,
India, Cyprus. Everywhere, that is, except--if BC has his way--for
Israel. The double standard is obvious.
I have stated that I think all should be judged by the same standard. I think you should put your anti-semitism card away professor. It doesn't work here.
1. BC wrote:
"That,
and the bloody Hamas coup d'etat of June 2007 in Gaza, was the *cause*of the blockade of Gaza."
So Israel is going to start blockading every neigbouring country that does not have a democratically elected government?:
BC leaves out the 2,700 Hamas rockets that started the blockade. This is the second time on this thread that he has managed not to refer to that fact: in his version, the blockade started the rockets. Historically, it was the reverse; it's time he realized it. It wasn't only the bloody June 2007 coup, though that was involved too. No country would put up with 2,700 rockets shot across the border at civilians without responding in some way.
2. The German example is important because the Council of Europe drew the same parallel as I did between the German refugee problem and their lack of rights to return and the Palestinians. BC has consistently refused to accept any historical parallels, in order to depict the situation--and the Israelis--as uniquely evil, the Palestinians as uniquely victimized. Neither is true.
3. The general attitude of the international community towards refugee problems is made glaringly clear in the Cyprus case.
a. We have a pre-1974 situation where the 20% of the island population that was Turkish in 1974 was there because originally they had been inserted by force as imperial colonists of imperial race (Turks) by the government of that imperial race (Turks).
By contrast, the Jewish population in 1947 was there as a private project of return (except for those in Jerusalem and other places who had *always* been there), bought the land and did not take it, and were *not* the agents of any government and were *not* an imperial race backed by the government of that same ethnic group.
And half the current Israeli population is of direct Middle East origin because *they* were expelled or fled in 1948-1960 from Arab/Muslim lands, the only difference with the Palestinian refugees being that unlike the Palestinians, they didn't attack their neighbors first. But no one talks about these Jewish refugees--ever.
b. Okay. Then in 1974 there came the outright invasion of Cyprus by a foreign army, the Turkish army, and their conquest of half the island, which half they then turned over to their own ethnic group, the Turks on the island, even though the latter only constituted 20% of the population and had originally been inserted as imperial colonists by the Turkish imperial government.
By contrast, *no* foreign army intervened in the Mandate to help the proto-Israelis in 1947-1948.
c. And *despite* all this, the UN's attitude towards the *Greek* refugees in a plan that only emerged in 2004, from Kofi Annan (whose specialty was refugees by the way) was that (1) only those over 65 could return to northern Cyprus, that is, refugee status would *not* accrue to the next generation, and (2) only if these elderly people never constituted more than 10% of the population of northern Cyprus.
(d) On Cyprus, as with the decision of the Council of Europe regarding the Germans and Eastern Europe and the explicit parallel with the Palestinian situation, the reasoning behind the UN decision not to allow more than 10% of the population to be returned refugees was to prevent social and political conflict and upheaval (despite Big C, it wasn't because "it didn't suit them"). By contrast, Israel *already* has a population that is 20% Palestinian Arab.
5. Cyprus is unjust; perhaps the decision of the Council of Europe is also unjust; but that's not the point I'm making. The point I'm making is the general international attitude towards refugees, even those expelled by an overt invasion by a foreign (Turkish) army in support of imperial (Turkish) colonists in 1974 (not 1947).
To point out all this, to point out that there is a gross double standard, that Israel is being treated in a unique way, a way different from Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, India, Pakistan, and Turkish Northern Cyprus (the latter case being far worse in terms of imperialism and injustice than *anything* that occurred in 1947-1948, and far more recent) is not to accuse anyone of anti-semitism. But it is to point out the existence of a gross double standard. It is to point out how the attitude of the international community is far different towards the problem posed by every other refugee population, and every other tragic situation, than it is towards Israel and the Palestinians. That is the only thing that is unique (and perhaps uniquely evil) about the Israeli-Palestinian situation.
6. BC has perhaps been taken in by all the propaganda, so that he does see the Palestinians as unique (they are not) and Israel as uniquely evil (it is not) " We learn by comparison" (Polybius, 2,300 years ago). This understanding is the first necessary step towards coming to a peaceful political solution to the problem. Such a solution won't come by self-congratuatory "anti-colonial" blather from the far left, now in league with Islamists out of the Middle Ages.
P.S. I have given up trying to delineate the *motives* behind the gross double standard at play here-- a situation where the Palestinian Arab refugee population is treated differently (strikingly more leniently) by the international community than any other refugee population in the world. This includes the fact that for every other refugee population, the designation "refugee" refers to the refugee generation alone and *not* to their descendants (as we see in the Cyprus and Turkey case).
It is enough for me now if people on this blog recognize, on the basis of the weight of historical evidence, that this gross double standard exists. That would be an advance. Once they do, then we could proceed to a serious discussion about a peaceful political settlement, without this blog just being a forum for a lot of ignorant and self-congratulatory "anti-colonial" (sic) blather.
As it is, we see how Sami Abu Shamalla managed in his essay to leave out the background of Hamas violence against Israeli civilians (as well as the coup d'etat of June 2007) that led to the imposition of the "blockade" in the first place. We must stop working from such distorted narratives.
I couldn't convince BC about the *motives* behind this gross double standard in international attitudes towards refugees--why Israel is singled out as a villain while Turkey is unproblematically respected-- even when the evidence for the motive behind that gross double standard stares him in the face. So there's no point in continuing that part of the conversation. That doesn't mean that my own opinion on the origins of this gross double standard have changed.
Pretty suprised that the above passes for comment, particularly on this forum.
Bit suprised at the strength of the reaction, considering that the Palestinians have been reduced to destitution by intransigent (at best) Israeli adminstrations over the past 50 years.
Not at all suprised by the standard reaction of a bully.
Oh, and by the why, got a solution to the conflict: cut US foreign development 'aid' to the Israelis.
Ethan
It's an old hack trick to use a quantity of evidence when none of it has any quality. A little factual correction. North Africa is not part of the Middle East. Morroco, Tunisia, Algeria etc are as far away from Palestine as many Central European countries so your attempt to suggest a local population movement fails miserably.
I do not think the colonisation of Palestine is unique. I've previously made comparisons with South Africa. I think that the Chinese colonisation of Tibet has many similarities. The English attempt to crush Ulster by flooding it with Protestant Scots is another example. There are many more.
And it is flagrant mis-representation to say that I or others fail to criticise Hamas. It is however, in perfect congruence with your increasingly desperate attempts to defend the increasingly indefensible.
Big C: I said "Middle East" but I also said "Muslim/Arab lands", Big C. Muslim--That was precisely so as to include Algeria, Tunisia and Morroco, since you have previously insisted and I see continue to insist that this tiny point is somehow important and undermining of my main points, to which you apparently have no real reply.
The Jews fled or were expelled precisely because of the Arab/Muslim reaction to Israel. Of course these events are connected, Big C. The result was a population exchange. You continue to deny it because it destroys your position, even though the fact is that 850,000 Jews became refugees in this process, as opposed to 750,000 Palestinian Arabs. You want ot erase the 850,000 Jews from history and our conversation. I refuse to let that happen. "We learn through comparison."
Naturally BC has nothing to say about the treatment by the UN of the Greek refugees from direct Turkish imperialism on Cyprus in 1974, and the comparison with the Palestinians since 1947. Naturally--because there is no reply one can make.
Perhaps if those Greek refugees had a lot of oil money to spread their story, did a lot of spectacular killing of Turkish civilians in northern Cyprus (say, children, or old people at a religious event), and were anti-Western, then Big C as a proclaimed anti-colonialist would be more sympathetic.
Really, it is amazing to me how most of the emotions of hatred and contempt of the "anti-colonialist" bloggers here on Opendemoc is restricted to one tiny country, when there are a lot of worse examples in recent history, and bigger refugee populations (the Jews of Muslim/Arab lands; the refugees of India and Pakistan; the Germans of Eastern Europe) or ones similar in size (the Greeks expelled from Egypt in the 1950s, the Greeks expelled from northern Cyprus in 1974).
One has to ask again: We know what Kofi Annan's program for "return" was for the Greeks of Cyprus, in a situation far worse in terms of imperialism, and far more recent, than anything involving Israel. We know that the Turks committed a classic and vicious and racist and imperialist and ethnic cleansing act on Cyprus--but is a respected member of the international community nevertheless Why is Israel then placed in a different box?
Professor. Your referal to the "Middle East" is intended to strengthen your absurd claim that a local population exchange took place. That is why it is not a "small point".
Really, it is amazing to me how most of the emotions of hatred and
contempt of the "anti-colonialist" bloggers here on Opendemoc is
restricted to one tiny country, when there are a lot of worse examples
in recent history, and bigger refugee populations (the Jews of
Muslim/Arab lands; the refugees of India and Pakistan; the Germans of
Eastern Europe) or ones similar in size (the Greeks expelled from Egypt
in the 1950s, the Greeks expelled from northern Cyprus in 1974).
I can't speak for others but my interest is because of my own goverhnment's continued involvement.
We
know that the Turks committed a classic and vicious and racist and
imperialist and ethnic cleansing act on Cyprus--but is a respected
member of the international community nevertheless
No-one is denying that Turkey's response to the US backed Greek Cypriot coup was disproportionate. There are those in the west who regard Turkey as a "respected member of the International community". While it oppresses the Kurds and continues to deny the Armenian holocaust I am not one of them.
Why is Israel then
placed in a different box?
It is not. All your claims that it is treated differently are pure nonsense. You are unable to refute the fact that Israel is a colonial project so you impugn the integrity of those that point it out. The charge of anti-semitism is both libellous and past it's sell by date and it's employment is indicative of your lack of confidence in your own arguments.
Big C:
1. You need to explain why Turkey, whose crime on Cyprus is clearer and more recent than anything Israel has ever done, is a respected member of the international community while Israel is put in a different box, not least by members of this blog. There is no emotional heat about Turkey.
Frankly, I don't believe the emotional heat you generate about Israel has much to do, as you say, with the fact that the British government has a "continued involvement" with Israel. You mean Gordon Brown hasn't been highly critical--hasn/t for instance, demanded a freeze on West Bank settlements? Really? The British government's involvement with Turkey, as a member of Nato, is just as continual. Indeed, there are British troops permanently stationed in Turkey--none in israel. There are *3,000* British troops permanently stationed on Cyprus--again none in Israel. So what's this, Big C's violent heat about Israel derives from "my own government's continual involvement?"
My guess is that BigC's violent heat about Israel derives from at the least, an ignorant and fashionable left wing focus on Israel as a target of "anticolonialism" (SIC). This allows others who have acted much worse--Turkey, China (Tibet), Sudan (genocide)--never to be the focus of the heat, frankly the *hatred", which Big C continually expresses towards Israel.
Big C, I'm asking you to rethink where this hatred and contempt is coming from, in a world where there are worse malefactors, Turkey, China, Sudan to name three. That is, if you really are a humanitarian as you claim to be, and not just an ideologue and a propagandist.
I note that Cyprus, like Israel/Palestine, once belonged to the British too. So it's not as if the British were never involved in Cyprus--and, to repeat, they still have 3,000 troops permanently stationed on Cyprus as we speak--and none in Israel.
2. It is obvious that it was a population exchange as a result of the foundation of Israel: 750,000 Palestinian Arabs, vs. 850,000 Jews. The fleeing or expulsion of both--*both*-- were directly the result of the formation of Israel. Expulsions as far away as Morocco and Iraq had to do with the formation of Israel--and nothing else. Come on, Big C--the formation of Israel didn't lead to the expulsion of Jews from Ireland! It's only in Muslim lands that this occurred Big C--and the reason was Israel.
3. When I google-imaged "Map of the Middle East", the first map that came up included Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia etc. I tried it again, and this map was the first map on the second page. I'm not saying this happens all the time. But that's exactly why I included the term Muslim/Arab lands in talking about the expulsion of the Jews--Big C should not accuse me of trying to mislead anyone. Big C is the person trying to erase the 850,000 Jews from discussion. As I once pointed out, a Palestinian student activist immediately saw the point when he was told about the 850,000--and it made him feel better.
British troops in Cyprus are there as part of NATO. No support for either side is implied by their presence there.
Gordon Brown has repeatedly declared his support for Israel as did his predecessor. Britain not only trades with israel but shares military intelligence and supplies lethal equipment to the Israeli security forces. If you think that demanding a freeze on illegal settlement is hostility then it is time you entered the real world.
Strangely I do not get the same result as you on the Middle East. I wonder why that is. For the sake of argument let's accept that you're not showing your usual contempt for verity and Morrocco and Algeria is regarded by some (whom?) as Middle Eastern . Does that change the fact that Morrocco is as further away from Palestine than Germany, that Algeria is as far away as Poland? The refugees/emigres from these countries are as foreign as Kahane supporters from the Bronx.
I am not attempting to "erase" these people from the issue. I do not need to. They have no part in it in the first place.
And there is no need to agonise over the reason for current interest in this nasty little colony. It is not singled out above all others. In past years it has taken a poor third as attention was directed towards it's South African ally and (in Britain at least) towards Northern ireland.
So continue your slanderous insinuation as much you like Professor. It does not reflect on me (or others in this debate) in the least. It does reveal a great deal about you however.
Big C has no evidentiary response to the obvious fact of the exchange of populations that occurred with the creation of Israel: 750,000 Palestinian Arabs mostly fleeing or (some) expelled from what became Israel, 850,000 Jews fleeing or expelled from Muslim/Arab lands into Israel. He simply continues to reiterate that there's no connection! That's a pretty amazing performance. What was it, Big C--just a coincidence that all those Jews were expelled from Muslim/Arab lands between 1948 and 1960 and hence that there's no connection with the creation of Israel? Do you really believe that?
But if you *do* accept that there's a connection, then you *do* arrive at the conclusion that we are dealing with a population exchange not unlike that which happened when India was split (against the will of the majority) into two countries. The difference was that the scale of violence and the number of refugees generated was hugely greater. But Big C remains obsessed with Israel.
On other threads, Big C has in fact argued that a very significant part of this tragedy of 850,000 Jewish refugees (100,000 *more* people than Palestinian Arabs in the Nakbah) was constituted by people's *voluntary* participation in the evil colonial project of Israel. Sure--all those people left all their property behind to be confiscated by Muslims and arrived penniless in Israel to live in miserable displaced persons camps because they loved doing it. Again-- quite an intellectual performance on Big C's part.
As I said, maps on google-image change: the first time the first map that came up had Morocco and Algeria when I googled "map fo the Middle East"; the second time this map was on the second page. Those 850,000 Jews are called in Hebrew Mizrahi Jews--"Easterners". Does Big C think that means East Glasgow? It means Jews from Muslim countries. But wherever "the map of the Middle East" appears, I repeat that I used the term Arab/Muslim lands as well. And I used it repeatedly. I wasn't trying to mislead anyone in the slightest; that's just desperate slander from Big C on a minor point ("Middle East"), because he knows he has no answer to my major argument.
P.S. The British Forces Cyprus (over 3,000 soldiers) bases are not there as part of NATO. The bases are British soveriegn territory, pre-exist Cypriot independence, and were not placed there by NATO.
Big C was just guessing about this. By bringing in NATO he hoped in that way to deflect the point about how come he's not concerned about all those hundreds of thousands of Greek refugees on Cyprus, victims of real imperialism and ethnic cleansing by Turkey, and yet he evinces no hatred of Turkey as he does of Israel. His argument was that the origin of his obsession with Israel was that he was concerned about Israel b/c of the continuing involvement of the British govt with Israel. It's true that Gordon Brown supports Israel's right to exist--which Big C does not. But Brown has certainly been critical of Israel as well, and Britain has no troops in Israel--while it does have thousands of troops on Cyprus. That's involvement at its most obvious. But Big C has no real interest in Cyprus, or hatred of Turkey for what it did on Cyprus, and no real interest in those refugees--only in Palestinians. How come, if the involvement of the British govt is the key to his concerns?
The reason for Big C's obsession with Israel is not the involvement of the British govt in any specially intense way (say, with troops), nor that Israel is really really bad (Turkey, Sudan, China have done far worse but get no emotional heat from Big C). It is simply because the left has taken up the Palestinian Arab cause and has targeted Israel as "colonialist", and Big C goes along. (I'm not accusing him of anti-semitism, though he does seem to be applying a double standard to Israel that he does not apply elsewhere, as is clear from his hatred and contempt of Israel, and emotion not expressed elsewhere). Big C's hatred and contempt of Israel is not out of any general humanitarianism on Big C's part--otherwise he'd evince the same heat against Turkey, China, Sudan. He doesn't. So... He's just a propagandist masquerading as a general humanitarian.
As I said too, the Palestinian activist student we've talked about immediately saw the historical connection between the Palestinian nakbah and the Jewish one. In his absolute refusal to see the connection, Big C thus out-Palestinians a Palestinian student activist. Tells you a lot.
Calling British troops in Cyprus NATO troops was a purely technical error Professor, and has no bearing on your point. Mine was that their presence there is not to support one side or the other (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4094818.stm). You, on the other hand seek to imply that it demonstrates involvement in the dispute - in any case a completely differnt affair from the palestinian issue. This is pure unadulterated dishonesty. It is a lie Professor. There is no reason to think that any of your other arguments are any different.
Caught purveying outright false information about the nature of British Forces Cyprus because of his ignorance (which didn't stop him from stating as a fact something that wasn't), Big C's response is simply to call all my posts here lies. He offers no evidence of this. The accusation is just a sign of his embarrassment, and his inability to respond to the information I've given here.
Are the 850,000 Jews of the Jewish Nakbah really a lie? Is the connection between their expulsion or flight from Muslim/Arab lands and the creation of Israel a lie? (Big C has made it clear he believes it is! It's a ridiculous position for him to take.)
Is Big C's lack of concern with the 200,000 Cypriot refugees from Turkish imperialism and real ethnic cleansing--compared with his hatred of Israel on alleged humanitarian grounds--a lie?
I note too that both Cyprus and Israel are in the Middle East, the eastern Mediterranean in particular. Cyprus is really not very far from northern Israel. Yet Israel gets SO much of Big C's attention over alleged "human rights" offenses, while the 200,000 Greek refugees on Cyprus gets a bored "ho hum", even though Cyprus is a member of the EU. Well, "We learn through comparison"--Polybius, 2200 years ago.
My point was that Big C's claim that his hatred of Israel was merely because of British involvement with Israel was belied by his lack of interest or emotional regarding the refugee situation in Cyprus, where there is plenty of involvement and where there are actually British troops stationed.
Perhaps we have different defintions of "involvement". But as for the Greek Cypriot attitude towards those British troops vs. the Turkish Cypriot attitude, note the following three items:
1. There are no memorials in Greek southern Cyprus to the almost 400 British troops killed in the guerrilla war of EOKA on Cyprus in the 1950s. But there is a memorial to them being built on Cyprus--oh, yes. And it's in the northern, Turkish-conquered and ethnically-cleansed part of the island. The Turkish govt agreed to this. A major contribution for the memorial came from "President" Rauf Denktas of the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus--i.e., from the puppet installed in conquered and ethnically cleansed north Cyprus by the Turkish army. That is, the memorial is officially backed by the Turks. Some Britons living in Greek southern Cyprus have been horrified by this, saying the creation of the memorial "sends the wrong political message". Yes, indeed. The memorial is scheduled to open on Nov. 11, 2009. see www.britains-smallwars.com/cpyrus/cater.htm.
2. Meanwhile, there were riots against the British bases on Cyprus in 2008, led by the Greek Cypriot student group "Britain Reconsider", which is opposed to British foreign policy regarding Cyprus, and demand as a consequence the immediate closure of the British bases. http://www.cyprus-forum.com/cyprus15182.html
3. And the Greek Cypriot government is officially angered over the agreement reached between Britain and Turkey in 2007, which contains provisions which the Greek Cypriot government says amounts to recognition of the Turkish occupation of northern Cyprus.
According to the Associated Press, 25 January 2008 (title of the article: Status of British military basis in Cyprus to be reconsidered ...):
"The Greek Cypriot government is reconsidering the status of two British military bases on the island, saying Britain implicitly recognized the Turkish Cypriot administration in the north in an agreement signed with Ankara [in 2007]."
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/2009/04/importance-of-cyprus.html
Big C, I'd call this a government "involvement" even by your definition. Big C, I don't think the Greek Cypriots see the British position on Cyprus as neutral, do you?--neither students in the streets, nor the Greek Cypriot government.
So much for my "lies".
My point was that Big C's claim that his hatred of Israel was merely
because of British involvement with Israel was belied by his lack of
interest or emotional regarding the refugee situation in Cyprus, where
there is plenty of involvement and where there are actually British
troops stationed.
You compound your lies by repeating them Professor. Britain's bases in Cyprus have the same status as the US base in Guantanamo. They may not be NATO bases but Britain uses them to fulfill their oblgations under that treaty and other alliances, not to influence events in Cyprus as you so dishonestly attempt to imply. So it is purely a technical error which does not affect my point: Britain does not take sides in the dispute between Greek and Turkish Cypriots. It does however, to our shame, side with Israel against the Palestinians. So no. This does not belie my position. Far from it. It demonstrates that you cannot defend your position without resorting to the most shameless and transparent of lies.
Pretty amazing. I just presented plenty of *evidence* that Britain has sided with Turkey over northern Cyprus, including the British-Turkish 2007 agreement--and that's the official and angry position of the Greek Cypriot government, that Britain has sided with Turkey on this issue, and Greek Cypriot anger at the British govt position is manifested in Greek Cypriot student demonstrators against the bases. What more do you want?
But Big C isn't interested in facts, I guess. So he just says I'm lying. He offers no evidence of that, and he can't, because, as I've just shown, I have much *evidence* on my side. So I ask the reader: who has been caught purveying inaccurate information here?
Big C says he's not interested in the Greek Cypriots because there's no British govt involvement. But there is British govt involvement. Big C isn't interested in the Greek Cypriots because the 200,000 Greek Cypriot refugees driven from their homes by Turkish imperialism, and not allowed to go back ("right of return") are not a left-wing issue. It's that simple. So much for humanitarianism.
You're sawing off the branch you're sitting on Professor. The US wants Turkey in the EU so the UK, doing it's bidding, is attempting to facilitate this. Hence the 2007 agreement. The Greek Cypriot government, mindful of it's own electoral interests is making empty noises about Britain's supposed implicit recognition of the Turkish government in the north when no such thing is occuring.
Britain along with every other European country desires reconciliation in Cyprus, not the victory of one over another. It cannot say this is about Israel where it has refused to condemn repeated breaches of international law such as the invasion of Lebanon and the razing of Gaza and continues to treat it as a valued ally and trading partner.
Meanwhile Greek and Turkish Cypriots are in the process of reclaiming their property in the respective parts of Cyprus. The comparison with the forcing out of the Palestinians by foreign colonists is utterly fatuous.
1. The British govt desires reconciliation re Israel/Palestine. But for Big C that reconciliationhe defines as "victory" for one side b/c Israel would be allowed to exist, which he opposes. It's a strange defintion of reconciliation he seeks, with one side (Israel) destroyed as a nation. I prefer the British position in support of reconciliation--which has not excluded severe British criticism of Israeli actions.
2. I'm not sure what 'reconciliation" would mean on Cyprus. But the British seem pretty well to have accepted the division of the island--which is not a neutral position and which the Greek Cypriots have protested both officially and through demos in the streets. So BC if you're a general humanitarian whose only concern is British govt involvement in a tragedy, where's your hatred of Turkey?
3. BC, what's the *evidence* for your assertion that the British Govt merely slavishly followed the U.S. bidding on Turkey and supports Turkey's admission to the EU for that reason rather than its *own* strategic and economic interests with Turkey. (Which is exactly what the Cypriots are protesting.) *Specific evidence please.* Or did you get this the same place as you got your assertion that the British bases on Cyprus were NATO bases?
Is it your position on this blog that the British govt is a puppet of the United States?
4. The 2007 Anglo-Turkish treaty contained a pledge by Britain to try to end the "isolation" of Turkish northern Cyprus, BC.
BC, if as you now claim the Cypriot govt is lying about the British govt attitude for its own purposes of winning elections, that is because most Cypriots agree with *me*, about what is going on and therefore are hostile to Britain. Don't you see that?
It should be clear to you that I have *lots* of evidence for what I have asserted. If it's not, well, there's nothing I can do as you kick and fume against reality.
Meanwhile, in northern Cyprus many Greek churches have been damaged, or turned into schools or farms, 25 have been destroyed, and some have been turned into mosques. I don't believe for one second that this is going to be rectified.
5. Your argument was that your hatred of Israel had to do with British govt involvement in Israel, which turns out now to mean support for Israel's existence. But your indifference to the plight of the Greek Cypriots at the hands of Turkish invasion cannot now be asserted to be because the British govt isn't involved in this situation. If anything, the British government is *more* deeply involved on Cyprus than it is with Israel. Ask the Cypriot students demonstrating their hostility to Britain in front of the bases of British Forces Cyprus. So that is not the reason for your indifference to this issue.
6. Be honest: your indifference to Cyprus compared to your hatred of Israel, is not because of anything other than the following. The fact is that Cyprus--despite the 200,000 refugees tossed out by the Turkish army in 1974 with their land given to 20% of the population (namely, Turks), and that the Greeks can't return even under the UN Plan of 2004, and that all this happened decades more recently than 1948--the fact is that *this* is not a left-wing cause. Period. And that indicates, BC, that your motivation re Israel is not a motivation from humanitarianism, nor from a general concern for injustice, nor because of British government non-involvement on Cyprus or with Turkey. It's simply political.
So...behind the mask of outraged humanitarianism about Israel stand no general principles but simple left-wing politics and nothing else. Otherwise, I'd expect you to be organizing demos in Trafalgar Square against Turkey, and British govt support for Turkey including admission to the EU, and urging the boycott of Turkish academics because of the invasion of Cyprus, the creating of 200,000 refugees, and the turning over of their property to Turks. And yet I feel I will be waiting a long time for this. BC, no matter how you twist and squirm, you've just been unmasked.
7. BC, it would've have been better for you simply to admit you knew and know nothing about the Cypriot situation. Of course, the reason for that ignorance of a situation which is worse than what happened with the creation of Israel (invasion by a Turkish army which led to huge parcels of Greek land going to Turkish colonists) is that ...despite the injustice and the 200,000 refugees, and no right of return...Cyprus is not a left-wing issue.
And why is that? No Arab money behind the issue? No fashionable "third-worldism" of the left to excuse every ridiculous self-destructive policy and every brutality of suicide bombing and proclaimed genocidal ideology by the Palestinians? Only Israel is subjected to the double standard.
I am not "indifferent" to the fate of either Greek or Turkish Cypriots Professor. I am not an expert on events there but I know enough to see through your hideously partisan distortion of the events themselves and of any British policy towards them.
With regard to Britain and the US you only need to look at British foreign policy for the past 50 years to see that it is umbillically joined to the US.
I note again the resort to an attack on the maturity, intellect or integrity of those that oppose you. Here's a little wake up for you. Israel is not being discussed on this thread because it is a "left-wing issue". It is being discussed because it is what this thread is about. If you wish to initiate discussion on any of the other topics you feel are just as deserving of attention then you are free to submit your doubless learned work for consideration.
1. On most points BC now has no reply to my facts, and admits he's not an expert on Cyprus.
2. As for BC's claim that British policy has been tied umbilically to U.S. policy over the past half century--really? Is that what happened in Suez? Did U.S. forces fight in Malaya or Aden? Did British forces fight in Vietnam? Dominican Republic? Haiti? Grenada? Lebanon? The U.S. has no ties with Iran--does Britain, up to and including embassies?
Though Britain and the U.S. are allies, there's a huge literature on the differences betw British and U.S. foreign policies.
And as for our current topic, what is BC's specific *evidence* for his claim that Britain in her relations with Turkey is not following her own strategic interests, and is merely a cat's paw of the U.S.? You made the accusation, BC--*specific evidence* please!
3. Regarding BC's argument that Israel is being discussed on this thread and therefore nothing else is relevant, the Greek historian Polybius destroyed that argument 2,200 years ago: "We learn through comparison."
Comparison like the Turkish army's invasion of northern Cyprus in 1974, the expulsion of the 200,000 Greeks living there, the turning over of their land to minority Turkish colonists who now conrol it, and the fact that the Greeks have no "right of return". Yet this tragedy is of no interest to the left. Only Israel is.
From a historical point of view, such an approach is called "perspective", esp. since Cyprus is actually not far from northern Israel, and both were once ruled by Britain.
4. Finally, BC writes: "I note again the resort to an attack on the maturity, intellect or integrity of those that oppose you." Gee, BC--wasn't it *you* who repeatedly and directly called me a liar again and again over the last few days here?
Did you learn your arithmetic from the same teacher who taught you geography professor? Britain's ordering out of Suez by Eisenhower took place in 1956 - though it did mark the turning point in the relationship. It was clear who was boss from that point onwards. Iraq and Afghanistan ( as well as Britain's Israel policy) easily trump the other issues. You may recall that the US also had a presence in Iran until a certain incident took place.
Gee, BC--wasn't it *you* who repeatedly and directly called me a liar again and again over the last few days here?
Professor, what you have done is to attempt to de-legitimise by reference to your presumptions about bien pensants, left wingers etc. I pointed out your deliberate attempt to mis-lead by suggesting that the British troops stationed in Cyprus are there to support the Turkish entity in the north. This is a reference to an objective lie not a presumption of a lie based on ill informed prejudice. The difference is massive.
I never said the British Forces on Cyprus were there to support the Turkish entity in the north. The British have other national-strategic ( not "U.S. puppet") reasons for those bases. (Britain has its own foreign policy--something BC wishes nuttily to deny.) These large British bases--and they are very large indeed--were merely presented by me as evidence of deep British involvement on Cyprus: deeper than in Israel. That's all.
But British policy now does support the Turkish entity in the north; at least that's the way the Greek Cypriot govt and the Greek Cypriot people see it, one the result being demos against the British bases. Those are facts, BC.
But Big C had argued earlier that his obsession with Israel was merely because of British involvement with Israel. (Translation: though highly critical of certain Israeli policies, the British govt believes that Israel has a right to exist, which BC does not.) My point: British govt involvement on Cyprus is much more deep, the refugee problem is very large in scale, its cause is totally imperial aggression (Turkey) in favor of a colonial minority (Turkish) and this British involvement includes important military bases (not existant in Israel). But Big C wasn't concerned about any of *that*. How come, if his political passions have to do merely with British government policy?
Therefore, his argument that his obsession with Israel derives solely from the connection to British govt policy falls to the ground in the face of the fact that he has no obsession with Cyprus, where there is a large and unjustly treated refugee problem with no right of return, and where the British involvement is much more direct--and yet no concern about this from Big C, and no hatred of the Turks.
Conclusion I: despite his statement, BC's obsessive hatred of Israel does not derive from British govt support of Israel. If it did, he'd be angry about Cyprus (now that he knows about it.) Nor does it derive purely from the facts on the ground, for the refugee problem on Cyprus is similar, the colonial nature of the enforced flight of the refugees crystal clear (unlike what occurred in 1947-1948), and British involvement more direct--but there's not much concern from BC about any of this, and certainly no hatred of the Turks, as there is of the Israelis.
Conclusion II: BC's obsessive hatred of Israel derives from left-wing politics, and nothing else: it's political, not humanitarian.
Congratulations on your conculsions Professor. Very comforting for you. I can't help noticing that you use the words "obsession" and "hatred" rather a lot. I'll keep my conclusions on that to myself.
Post new comment