Orange supporters in Israel?

Well not in the way you might think. But Nuala Haughey has picked up a accidental parallel (subs needed) with the colours of loyality in Northern Ireland. The orange in question is in the form of ribbons worn by members of the Israeli public to support the settlers in Gaza, who are under imminent threat of eviction by the Israeli government. Support for the government’s proposed action has slumped:

Support for the government’s proposed action has slumped:

…two polls released last week, one by Israel’s public radio station and the other by a political talk show on Israeli television, showed that support for the pull-out has dropped to about 50 per cent from two-thirds of Israelis just a few months ago.

The parallel with NI continues:

As the summer of disengagement heats up, left-wing supporters of the plan seem to have been outrun by their opponents. There were reports that a coalition of left-wing groups tried to counter the orange ribbon phenomenon by introducing green ribbons, but these are nowhere to be seen.

And the meaning of orange:

he Gaza settlers say the choice of the colour orange is a combination of the yellow of the sun and the golden sand of the beaches and represents optimism and hope. So what does colour analysis say of their selection? According to the fabric online website, orange is the colour of practicality and creativity.

“Your energy levels are high and you are sometimes restless. You have a forceful will and tend to be active and competitive. You are also excitable and can seek domination over the others. But the same site also cautions that “bright orange and burnt orange can make you feel frustrated and blocked. Try wearing peach, which will direct your energy to the others in a more caring way.”

  • Keith M

    Talking to people while in Kyiv, I discovered that Orange is apparently seen as the colour of freshness and of a new begining. “The future’s bright, the future’s Orange” indeed.

  • David

    Orange was the colour of the opposition in Hungary during the communist era, due to a scene in a banned comedy movie where the bumbling hero is given orders by his communist superiors that a lemon is actually an orange.

  • martin

    Its also very convienient that the sacred colour of their Arab neighbours is green.

  • archie

    Totally unrelated topic

    Just looking at BBC headlines online

    “Ice cream man has assets frosen”


  • Felix Quigley


    Although your covering of the issue is very welcome I think it is a bit more serious than a discussion about colour. But I will stick to the main idea of your post, the similarities or not between Northern Ireland with its Orange and the pioneering Jews of Yesha and their choice of colour. There is a link but not colour.

    The area of Israel and the Disputed Territories comprise only 20% of the original – the area mandated by the League of Nations for a Jewish Homeland.

    What is a Mandate? An instruction, I think. Britain was instructed by the League of Nations to provide a Homeland for the Jews of the world and this took the form of an international treaty which was ratified in San Remo, Italy in 1921.

    Britain proceeded to break every article, in spirit and deed, of this Mandate.

    Why should Britain do this? Surely Lord Balfour was a friend of the Jews. He was but he very soon found himself in a minority. But surely Britain needed a friendly outpost in the Middle East. But there were 2 other factors to consider.

    1. There was and is deep anti-Semitism inside the British establishment and in 1921 inside the British Army top brass.
    2. Soon the issue of oil came to the fore.

    Anyhow almost immediately the British Government split quite illegally from this Mandated area 80% and handed it to the Arabs. This became Cisjordan, now the independent state of Jordan.


    In short Israel is now sitting on 10% of the original Mandate. If that is not an expression of anti-Semitism I don’t know what is.

    Northern Ireland was formed in 1921, again by treaty.

    The Protestants of Northern Irelamnd have held on to their state, though threatened by power sharing imposed from the outside. That is a big difference. There is a difference between 100% and 10%! Another difference is that the Irish southern state was not granted a million square miles covering two continents.


    Sorry for the beginning, I thought I had made a mistake and posted twice. The above post referred to what I thought I had posted by mistake.

  • felix quigley

    I am amazed that there is not more comment on your site in response to your lead on the Gaza pullout.

    One thing I have noticed on rereading your introduction is the use of left and right wing, the settlers (a name which I dislike) being right wing, Sharon and Peres being left wing.

    I feel this is very wrong and I have argued against this use of terminology on Jewish sites as well.

    In what way are the Jewish pioneers of Yesha right wing, certainly not in the capitalist socvialist sense?

    Sharon descends from the Labourist and Mapai variety of israeli politics, and it was heavily influenced by Stalinism in the 40s and 50s. The Stalinists were just emerging out of their great betrayal in Germany in 1933 and in Spain in 1936 and they were the butchers of the revolution in Spain. I think these terms are meaningless in Israel and I never use them.

    I am writing a piece this weekend and I think it is relevant. The gist of it is that the Road Map was the result of pressure from the Wahhadist Saudi Arabian government and it emanated from a conspiracy at the top of Bush, Powell, the US ambassador to Israel and Prince Bandar,of the Saudis in the days just befoe 9-11

  • David


    The new British media code is

    “left wing” = “the guy we support”
    “right wing” = “the guy we oppose”

    it no longer has anything to do with socio-economic issues. I remember particularly the reports during Yeltsin’s time when a group of unreconstructed communist army officers tried to have a coup, the British media kept describing them as “right wing”.

  • Felix Quigley

    Thanks David for your comment.

    To my mind the big news over the weekend was two-fold and both related:

    First the statement of the new Iranian leader that he was going for the nuclear bomb (coded of course)

    Second the action by Sharon Bush and Rice in Gaza. How can Israel defend itself against Iran in this situation?

    What Sharon is doing in Gaza and Northern Shamron will go down in Jewish history as the greatest ever betrayal and Sharon the worst ever traitor, and those who helped him. The Israeli haters in Ireland I can see them laughing into their Guinness.

    From Jerusalem Post
    ‘Father tells ‘Post’: Proud of soldier son’s refusal
    “I am proud that he was able to stand up and say what he feels,” declared Ralph Bieber – father of IDF soldier Avi Bieber, who refused his military orders during the demolition of a row of abandoned homes in Gush Katif on Sunday.

    “We have been getting phone calls from people who are proud of what he did and that he was able to say what he feels,” Bieber told The Jerusalem Post late Sunday night.

    The Bieber family moved to Israel from New Jersey nine years ago and, following two years in Efrat, moved to the nearby settlement of Tekoa. Ralph, an insurance broker, said he spoke at length with Avi, 19, about what he would do the day the army called on him to participate in the disengagement.

    “He discussed this with me and I said to him ‘I can’t tell you what to feel. You should do what is in your heart,” Bieber recalled Sunday night.

    On Sunday, Bieber said, in the middle of the violent clashes with the settlers, he received a phone call from his son.

    “He saw his officers beating up other Jews,” Bieber recalled. “He never saw anything like this, Jews beating other Jews. He called me in the middle and said ‘Abba [father], what should I do?’ He said: ‘Jews are beating. Jews are beating Jews.’ I said go to your commanders and that is what he did.” ‘

  • George

    here’s some other other proud IDF soldiers refusing:

    Over 550 serving IDF members who would give their lives in the defence of Israel but the “missions of occupation and oppression do not serve this purpose – and we shall take no part in them.”

    These guys seem pretty principled and honourable Israelis or are they traitors and the settlers who threaten violence patriots?

  • felix quigley

    Ah, the issue of the Palestinian State, is it not?

    This is not an easy issue. I base my politics on seeing this in its historical context of which I have spoken about before. That includes the whole history of the Jews as a persecuted race.

    Judging from the above intervention you do not, and that is a big difference between us.

    I believe things are changing fast in Israeli society. Despite Gaza the Arabs do not let up. Just a few days ago a Fatah ie Abbas Party woman planned to kill using a suicide bomb many Jews in the Hospital Service which had been helping her etc etc

    Israelis are now seeing there is no WAY OUT but to fight for life.

    NOTE No where else to go

    Of course there will be traitors. The biggest of all is Sharon

  • Young Fogey

    Hi Felix.

    Maybe the Brits weren’t up for ethnically cleansing 10 million or so people from their homes?

  • sara lisa

    Young Fogey, you have your facts wrong.

    590,000 Arabs fled the fledgling state of Israel by choice. Not 10 million potentials. In fact, the Arabs who stayed became prosperous Israeli citizens with representation in the Knesset and were afforded equal rights for women.

    By contracts nearly 1 million Jews were expelled by Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Morocco and Lebanon in the 1940s and 50s.

    In addition, Israel allows all peaceful Arabs to live and work within her borders. The Palestinians cannot stand to have 8,000 Jews living in their midst. They want to be “judenfrei”. Why is this fair?

    Look, we have an oppressed people who seek self-determination in their homeland. They are willing to risk their lives and the lives of others to see that they have this freedom from strife.

    If one would defend the right of the Palestinians to acheive this goal, why not the Jews? If you are a peace loving person who is tolerant and fair, you would agree that the Israeli’s have to right to use force to ensure the continuity of their homeland. Only an anti-Semite would suggest that Muslims can blow themselves up, but not Jews.

    Any honest peace partner (ie; Jordan and Egypt) have found that Israel will agree to honest peace agreement. I believe the Palestinians want to be oppressed and occupied by Israel so that they can continue their struggle against the “infidels”.