Israel, Zionism and the Media

Category: Israel-Palestine (Page 5 of 19)

Relations between Israel and Palestine and the peace process

Left-wing luvvies gang up on Israeli artists

H/T Barry Shaw

I don’t read the Guardian. I used to when it was a decent newspaper.

However…

when I was alerted to this letter

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/29/dismay-globe-invitation-israeli-theatre?newsfeed=true

(no,  I am not going to give them the benefit of a link even from my modest website – on principal)

I was outraged at the list of people, who claim to be artists, that are objecting to the appearance of Israeli theatre group Habima at the Globe.

The reason is that this company has performed at and co-operated with ‘halls of culture’ in Israeli ‘settlements’.

Here are these morally outraged Thespian signatories so YOU know who to boycott in the future:

David Aukin producer
Poppy Burton-Morgan artistic director, Metta Theatre
Leo Butler playwright
Niall Buggy actor
David Calder actor
Jonathan Chadwick director
Caryl Churchill playwright
Michael Darlow writer, director
John Graham Davies actor, writer
Trevor Griffiths playwright
Annie Firbank actor
Paul Freeman actor
Matyelok Gibbs actor
Tony Graham director
Janet Henfrey actor
James Ivens artistic director, Flood Theatre
Andrew Jarvis actor, director, teacher
Neville Jason actor
Ursula Jones actor
Professor Adah Kay academic, playwright
Mike Leigh film-maker, dramatist
Sonja Linden playwright, iceandfire theatre
Roger Lloyd Pack actor
Cherie Lunghi actor
Miriam Margolyes actor
Kika Markham actor
Jonathan Miller director, author and broadcaster
Frances Rifkin director
Mark Rylance actor
Alexei Sayle comedian, writer
Farhana Sheikh writer
Emma Thompson actor, screenwriter
Andy de la Tour actor, director
Harriet Walter actor
Hilary Westlake director
Richard Wilson actor, director
Susan Wooldridge actor, writer

I’m sure, like me, you have admired many of these names for years.

I would hazard a guess that very few of them know the history of the conflict and have accepted the narrative of ‘Occupation’ and ‘colonialism’.

How many of them have ever protested about anything else?

How many of them know that although settlements are illegal under certain interpretations of international law there is no ‘Occupation’ in any legal sense and there has never been any legal ruling that Israel is an occupier.  And before you knee-jerk, just check. Here’s a useful link for the sceptics

Maybe American actors should be boycotted and made pariahs because of Guantanamo or Iraq?

It’s only ever Israel and the ‘Occupation’ which gets these people frothing at the mouth and hearts bleeding.

But, you see, this is the Left’s favourite cause. The Lord forfend that they should be tainted by association with Israeli actors who have committed the terrible crime of setting foot in a ‘settlement’.

“The villainy you teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.”

As individuals they are entitled not to go to see Habima.

As indivduals we are entitled to never watch any film, play or documentary any of these people appear in.

Keep the list handy.

 

BBC, Gaza and continued illegitimate reporting

The blatant misreporting and misrepresentation of Israel’s self-defensive action against rocket fire from Gaza continues to be a national disgrace.

There’s something very rotten in the State of the BBC’s Middle East desk on its news website.

Only today did the continuing murderous barrage of southern Israel which puts a million lives at risk, not to mention property and treasure, actually make it to the website’s home page. Although even that small mention now seems to have disappeared.

And what was the headline to direct us to this sudden escalation in rocket fire from Gaza which has seen over 200 missiles launched since Friday? Was it “Miltitants in Gaza launch rocket barrage against southern Israel’?

Not bloody likely. This is the BBC, remember and they seem only interested, for the sake of balance, of course, to highlight Israel’s response in defence of its citizens.

‘Israel launches fresh airstrikes on Gaza’

This was the disgusting headline.

“Israeli (sic) says almost 100 rockets fired from Gaza have struck Israel since the exchange of fire began.”

Subtle, no? Israel ‘says’ – after all, you take what Israel ‘says’ with a strong dose of scepticism, no? And ‘since the exchange of fire’. Thus, in a sentence, neutralising and sanitising the assault on Israel and characterising it as morally equivalent that Israel’s fire, in response to the rockets, is somehow a justification for the rocket fire from the Gaza side. So, once again,  cause and response are turned on their head.

In fact, the report lies and implies that Israel is responsible for the escalation:

“The latest flare-up began on Friday when an Israeli air strike on a car in Gaza City killed militant commander Zohair al-Qaisi, secretary general of the Popular Resistance Committees (PRC), and two of his associates.”

What it does not mention is that al-Qaisi was plotting a terrorist attack. When the British or Americans take out terrorist leaders in Afghanistan that is justified but because the BBC is ‘neutral’ about the Israel-Palestine conflict and terrorists are ‘activists’ or ‘militants’, taking them out is an ‘escalation’ not a defensive act.

The Arab League, which has proved useless in preventing the horrors in Homs in Syria, characterised the 15 deaths of terrorists and rocket firers as a ‘massacre’. I wonder what the minimum number of Palestinians is to be called a ‘massacre’ ? 5? 10? In Syria it appears to be several hundred. Are innocent Syrian lives worth so much less than Palestinian militants in the debased arithmetic of the Arab world?

And just to show how even-handed the BBC is, what picture do they show us? The school in Beersheva hit by a rocket? No, they show us the results of an airstrike on Rafah where one person was killed.

UN spokesman Richard Miron called the situation in Gaza “very fragile and unsustainable”.

“We deplore the fact that civilians are once again paying the price,” he said.

I wonder whose civilians he means? Could it be the 1 million Israelis who are indiscriminately targeted by rockets and mortars? Or those in Gaza who are unfortunate enough to pay the price for the actions of groups who care nothing for the safety of their own fellow citizens? Maybe he means both? But I doubt it.

And whilst Israel closes its schools (and it’s lucky it did, as one rocket hit a school in Beersheva as I mentioned above) to protect its children, in Gaza, no doubt as has always been the case, schoolyards and hospitals, mosques and residential areas are used as bases for rocket launchers with the callous, deliberate and cynical hope that Israel will strike and injure or kill ‘martyrs’ and bring opprobrium on itself.

It is instructive to muse what would be the situation if Israel were Syria and Netanyahu Assad. What response would there be to hundreds of rockets aimed at civilians? Israel’s restraint is in gross contrast to Assad’s brutal massacre of his own people. Indeed, as the rockets rained down, Israel was discussing how to continue to deliver humanitarian aid through its crossings.

Assad, lays a real siege to his own people cutting off electricity and starving the populace whilst Israel feeds its enemies and provides them with the wherewithal to live.

Yet, no doubt, sooner or later, the UN will be stirring itself to condemn Israel for defending itself

 

 

Aya’s story

How often do we hear or read about how terrible Israel is preventing Palestinians in dire need of medical treatment getting through checkpoints and borders quickly enough?

How many reports have you read which characterise the massive humanitarian efforts of the Israeli medical community as somehow being part of the ‘occupation’?

I have written before about the extraordinary Rambam Medical Centre in Haifa.

I have no problem reproducing in full this story I received today which is just one example of hundreds, thousands, which are simply overlooked by the likes of the Guardian because it is a positive story which undermines all the negativity and false spin some of the media puts on anything positive which comes out of Israel.

So here is the report from the Rambam by David Ratner, Director:

Haifa, 5 February 2012

Just a Heartbeat Away…

Aya and Prof. Avraham Lorber : Photo by Pioter Filter-RHCC

When Aya Almasal, 12, left her Gaza home approximately one month ago and headed for Rambam, she didn’t know that this trip would save her life. For several years Aya had suffered from sudden bouts of unconsciousness, and her doctors couldn’t find the cause. About a month ago, Aya set out for Rambam to treat this problem, which had accompanied her since birth. Upon leaving Gaza, she felt ill and the situation steadily deteriorated. As the girl neared Rambam, in Haifa, her heart stopped working and she was, in effect, dead. After repeated attempts at resuscitation, the girl’s heart began to pump and she arrived at Rambam, artificially respirated and in serious danger. At the hospital, Aya was diagnosed as suffering from Long QT Syndrome, a disorder of the heart’s electrical system that causes irregular and rapid heart rate, and had prevented blood from reaching her brain. This had caused Aya to lose consciousness suddenly, and could have killed her.

Shortly after the diagnosis, Aya was hospitalized in Rambam’s Department of Pediatric Intensive Care, where she remained for a week. Doctors there stabilized her condition, and Dr Munder Bolus, director of the Unit of Electrophysiology implanted her with a defibrillator pacemaker. Accompanying drug treatment, the pacemaker supplies an electrical shock which ‘jump starts’ the heart during irregularities. After almost a month of hospitalization, Aya felt better, was discharged last Thursday, 2.2.12, and returned to her home in Gaza, standing on her own two feet.

According to Aya’s treating physician, Prof Avraham Lorber, who is head of Rambam’s Department of Pediatric Cardiology and Adult Congenital Heart Defects, Long QT Sydrome is a widespread heart defect that can be controlled with appropriate treatment. “Aya will need a pacemaker all her life,” said Prof Lorber. “She will be monitored to be sure the pacemaker and battery are working correctly.”

Fortunately, Aya had arrived at Rambam in time to receive life-saving treatment. But the girl did not have to die in order to live. Aya’s congenital defect should have been detected earlier. “Every year we treat a number of children with these types of problems,” says Prof Lorber. “Some patients are diagnosed when they seek treatment for their irregular heart rates, and others in regular check-ups. This early detection of life-threatening problems illustrates the far-ranging implications of preventive medicine.”

Rambam’s Department of Pediatric Cardiology and Congenital Heart Defects treats a wide range of disorders, like Aya’s. A large number of patients, some 650 children and youth, arrive from neighboring countries and are treated on a humanitarian basis. A number of Palestinian patients are currently at the department, among them a three-week old infant scheduled for heart surgery, and a 40-day old baby who needs a stent procedure. “Other Palestinian patients are now receiving treatment here or will soon be transferred to Rambam,” states Prof Lorber. Our experience in general medicine, and in cardiology, specifically, allows us to help most of these patients.”

I doubt we will see Guardian reporter Harriet Sherwood and all the others mentioning this any time soon. Unless they can find a way of making it an anti-Israel story.

Mr Cameron, you are needed in Tahrir Square again

According to the BBC, Islamists in Egypt have won the election.

All the warnings about Islamists and the Arab Spring which were so poo-poohed by over-optimistic Western leaders seem to be coming true.

Tunisia, the first country to experience a revolution, also returned an Islamist government which saw fit to invite Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh to Tunis as a baying mob shouted ‘Kill the Jews’. Nice.

It is almost a year since I sat watching the upheaval in Egypt in my hotel bedroom TV in Eilat, Israel. I was impressed but cynical. I hoped the true secular democrats would win. I feared they would not. I also noticed the many banners which accused Mubarak of being a Zionist and others which said unpleasant things about Israel and Jews.

Israel was criticised for not embracing the changes across the region. Any suggestion by its politicians or supporters that this was an opportunity to unleash forces that had been held under control by dictators, was dismissed as Israel being a country that claimed to be a democracy but would deny such freedoms for its neighbours.

Soon after President Hosni Mubarak’s ouster, Prime Minister David Cameron flew to Egypt to join in the crowds in Tahrir Square declaring how happy he was to see the Egyptian people free at last.

The BBC reported at that time the following:

He said Egypt had a “great opportunity” to push for democracy.

“This is a great opportunity for us to go and talk to those currently running Egypt to make sure this really is a genuine transition from military rule to civilian rule, and see what friendly countries like Britain and others in Europe can do to help.”

How naive was that. It’s typical of a government that is purblind to the real intentions of the Palestinian Authority to engage in the politics of wishful thinking.

If Cameron was so ignorant about the almost certain outcome of a democratic election in Egypt installing the Muslim Brotherhood as the party of government (and joined by a hefty number of Salafist extremists, apparently), then his and his government’s belief that the PA is moderate, just because they would like it be true, is pretty much indicative of the politics of hope and delusion that is now endemic in Europe.

But it is more toxic than delusion.

If you see events in the Middle East through a haze of hope instead of clear-eyed reality you can assert that the impasse in the Israel-Palestine peace negotiations are due to Israeli incalcitrance and the settlements, and not Palestinian rejectionism and Jew-hatred.

You also get involved in the hypocrisy of a UK government, as part of NATO, helping rebel Libyans to unseat a government that it and its predecessors have been cosying up to in order to protect their commercial interests.

It leads to the Gibson Inquiry into claims, as reported by the Daily Mail and othersthat:

MI6 was involved in the illegal transfer of two Libyans into the hands of Colonel Gaddafi.

Democrats are only worth supporting, it seems, when they have a chance of success. Otherwise, tyrants will do just fine.
So Mr Cameron should return to Egypt and Tahrir Square to view the new Egypt, the Egypt of reality where pipelines to Israel are blown up by out of control Hamas supporters in the Sinai, where the Israeli embassy can be attacked with almost lethal consequences, where international peace agreements are likely to be dishonoured.
I happen to be old enough to remember the last great victory of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt: the assassination of President Sadat who was bold enough to make peace with Israel and perhaps because he did so.
As a result the Brotherhood was suppressed and its activities deemed illegal.
Now it has won. It was the long game for the Brotherhood just is it is for the PA.
So, off you go, Mr Prime Minister, go and see the new Egypt and tell us now about that opportunity for democracy you saw last year.
It’s the same democracy that elects Hamas in Gaza or Ghannouchi in Tunisia.
It’s a strange democracy indeed where the people vote to be enthralled by religious fanatics in place of hardline military dictatorships.
Maybe they need a lesson in democracy from Mr Hague and Mr Cameron; or why not send Cleggy; after all, he is now an expert on the Middle East.
No doubt Mr Cameron will express his hope that the Brotherhood will be democratic and ‘moderate’. Then Hague will announce that it is in Britain’s vital interest to do business with the new regime in Cairo.
Yes, moderate; maybe only 50,000 Christians will have to flee the country this year instead of the 100,000 that left last year.
If there are 50,000 left, that is.

Alistair Burt, Israel and the hypocrisy of hope

About 20 years ago I was travelling back to Manchester from London on a crowded train.

As the train was about to leave the station, a man sat down opposite me carrying a dark briefcase and proceeded to take out his mobile phone.

That man I instantly recognised as Alastair Burt who was the MP for the constituency neighbouring mine.

These were the heady days of the John Major government in the interregnum between Thatcher and Blair.

When Mr Burt began speaking to ‘John’ on his mobile phone I wondered whether this was the PM at the other end with instructions for his Under Secretary of State at the Department of Social Security.

Being a Labour party voter at the time, I’d remained decidedly unimpressed by Mr Burt. He lost his seat in 1997 and returned to a safe Tory seat in 2001, but he all but disappeared during the Blair and Brown years, so I gave him little thought.

But politicians have stamina. With the return of Tories to power, albeit as part of a coalition, Mr Burt was back in business and soon found himself as Under Secretary of State At the Foreign and Commonwealth office with a Middle East portfolio.

So, when I heard that Mr Burt was in Israel and had made a speech at Bar Ilan University, I was intrigued to hear what he had to say and prepared to not be impressed.

A link to this speech (edited and audio only) can be found here.

After what appeared to be a nervous start Mr Burt both surprised me and didn’t.

He surprised me after a slow beginning because he was quite convincing on his and his government’s commitment to, and support for Israel. He surprised me due to the often charming and sincere way he delivered the medicine.

He’s no great orator but he is a competent speaker.

It was the medicine which did not surprise me; the toeing of the party line about how illegal settlements detract from Israel’s image abroad and how the occupation weighs heavily on the Palestinians; how the stringent restrictions against Gaza are counter-productive to Israel’s interests; how building in ‘occupied East Jerusalem’ is illegal.

He told his student audience how those that were always against Israel will remain so, but many who used to support Israel now remain silent. Mr Burt is a ‘former’ member of Conservative Friends of Israel. Hmm.

Although there was nothing exceptional or new in this, and Mr Burt went on to praise Israeli high-tech, medicine and Nobel laureates, a couple of things struck me whilst I listened.

Firstly, as ever, it always has to be Israel that has to make ‘painful compromises’ and see the ‘Arab Spring’ as a reason for greater urgency in negotiations and not an excuse to avoid them.

Her Majesty’s government never acknowledges that the PA is still dedicated to Israel’s destruction, refuses to recognise its right to exist and daily demonises Israel and Jews in its policies, institutions, schools and media.

Neither does Mr Burt and his party appear to wonder for one moment whether a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza would pose a threat to Israel given that there is no guarantee that it would not become a proxy for Iran with a Hamas government.

With Egypt apparently willing to tear up its treaties with Israel, with the Road Map ditched by the Palestinians and Jordanians also making noises about the existing peace agreement with Israel, any deal with the Palestinians can be dishonoured in a heartbeat. But Mr Burt does not live in Tel Aviv, a short missile distance from prospective Hamas launch sites.

HMG appears to be labouring under the same delusion as the Left and appeasers in Israel itself, namely that Israel must do everything in its power to create a political reality that presents a clear and present existential threat, whilst the Palestinians need do nothing except make demands which make that thereat more lethal.

So I wondered why, if HMG so loves Israel and claims to be its strong ally and friend, it wants it to speed along its own self-destruction.

This is what is known as politics, diplomacy or realpolitik. We can’t really blame politicians for issuing platitudes posing as policy; is that not what politicians always do? Problem is, they believe their own rhetoric and spend much time and diplomatic effort pursuing illusion and refusing to see the truth. The truth cannot be confronted because it means that they would have to confess the futility of peace talks where one of the parties has never wanted a peace which will destroy its own raison d’être – namely the destruction of Israel.

It also struck me and at least one member of the audience, why it is that Britain has arrogated to itself the right to travel the world criticising the policies of other countries. I don’t see Indians or Brazilians or the Japanese coming to the UK and putting its policies under a microscope. Israelis neither. Maybe they should every time an Afghan is abused or a missile goes astray in Helmand and wipes out a village. Maybe some junior minister from the Knesset with a north west Europe portfolio should go to the LSE and berate the Met for poor policing of the riots or using disproportionate force in kettling demonstrators or for taking money from journalists. At least he won’t be arrested as a war criminal now the moment he steps off the El Al plane at Heathrow.

And this so often comes pretty close to patronising. It goes something like this: we are your friend and trading partner (nudge, nudge) and we believe that that relationship would be even stronger, and your country will be a better place, if you were as good as us at human rights, civil liberties and, oh yes, democracy. Yeah, we know you are surrounded by millions of people who want to destroy you, but peace is never that easy. Once you have dismantled the settlements and withdrawn behind the 1967 lines the Palestinians will be so happy about their freedom that peace will reign and all will be well with the world. What’s that you say? You did that in Gaza and look what happened. Ah.

So it is a bit rich when Mr Cameron swans off to Saudi Arabia, a country with an appalling civil and human rights record, where thieves have their hands amputated and people have their head hacked off for offences which would be minor in most Western countries, where women’s rights are non-existent, freedom of religion is curtailed and democracy absent.

Yes, that Saudi Arabia, birth place of Osama bin Laden, center of Salafism and cradle of Wahhabism, the source of funding for UK schools which teach antisemitic tropes and encourage hatred of Jews.

Yes, the same Saudi Arabia which has lots of oil and spends shed loads of money on British arms and tries to hush up any investigation into illegal sweeteners for defence contracts.

Yes, Saudi Arabia whose king gets a full-blown state visit with all the trimmings.

The same Saudi Arabia where no Under Secretary of State visits to tell them that cutting off people’s heads and oppressing women, funding Islamist schools and sending troops into Bahrain to suppress the same Arab Spring which shot Mr Cameron to Tahrir Square to proclaim victory for democracy, is wrong and gives them a bad image.

But that’s what politics is about, isn’t it? It’s about hypocrisy, fudges, and defence contracts. It’s about not upsetting your constituents so you get re-elected. It’s about looking after your country’s self-interests and telling your friends ‘do as I preach’.

Politics is a dirty business, especially when you have to do that business with regimes you don’t like, as William Hague has said when challenged.

Look, “nobody’s poyfect!”.

So don’t ask me to put too much faith in an Under Secretary’s ability to be of any relevance whatsoever. Mr Burt is a nice man but he isn’t going to change anything. Don’t expect him to appear at a Damascus university criticising the Assad regime any time soon.

Oh yes, friends may criticise, but is it not also incumbent upon these friends to criticise even more the actions of those who would destroy your friend and are not that shy to publicise that fact? Instead, we get Obama-esque audacious hope with a good helping of cant thrown in for good measure.

Syria and anti-Zionist hypocrisy in the UK

Watching the news coming out of Syria daily, the reports off 5000 dead troops firing on unarmed protestors, cities being shelled, the wounded dragged from hospitals, I couldn’t help notice how little outrage has been evident within the very righteous anti-Zionist community.

Whenever Israel is in conflict with Hamas, defending its citizens from rocket attack or intercepting ships which seek to break Israel’s maritime blockade of the Gaza strip, we can expect marches, demonstrations, statements of solidarity with the Palestinians, Hamas and Hizbullah, headline news articles, debates in Parliament, public meetings, a Twitter deluge of anti-Zionist hatred, outrage in The Guardian and the full panoply of anti-Israel hatred orchestrated against it.

Yet, what do we see? Despite condemnation in Parliament and daily news reports with horrendous images of the dead and abused, including women and children, there have been no demonstrations in London or any siege of the Syrian embassy.

Does it not strike you as a little odd that so many people are motivated by outrage to take to the streets to take sides in a conflict in the Middle-East when Israel is involved, but when a tyrannical regime is suppressing democracy by declaring war on its own civilians, the same people who are so self-righteously opposed to anything Israel does are mute.

Where is the Syrian Solidarity Campaign? Where is the Free Syria Movement?

Could it be perhaps that when Israelis and, therefore, Jews are killing Muslims as part of an on-going existential conflict, this is not acceptable to the sensibilities of those take the side of Muslims in that conflict, for the declared reason that it is all about justice and historical wrongs? But when Muslim is killing Muslim (and – would it be too mischievous to suggest – when Muslim is killing Christian) this is of less importance for multitudes of the self-righteous, anti-israel activists.

Perish the thought. Yes, perish the thought that it is the Jewish element of the conflict rather than the righteousness of the cause that is at the heart of all that breast-beating and outraged indignation.

After all, if it were all about saving the innocent, then the pro-Pal/anti-Israel brigade would be out on the streets with the same anger and violence of expression calling for the destruction of the Syrian dictatorship and the implementation of a democratic government.

But they don’t, do they?

Gingrich and Palestinian Identity [2]

Well, my last blog post ‘Why Newt Gingrich is wrong about Palestinian identity‘ appears to have placed me as one swimming against the tide or rather, outside the shoal.

Notice I said he was wrong about Palestinian identity and not the fact of the invention of a Palestinian people.

These two things, identity and peoplehood are subtly different. But one does lead to the other.

Most of what I wrote is echoed by many commentators:

Commentary Magazine

Melanie Phillips

Elder of Ziyon

CifWatch

The most important point is that the Palestinians created an identity in order to destroy another – Jewish peoplehood.

We all agree on that.

We also agree that this identity is being used in a continuing war of delegitimisation of the Jewish people’s connection to Israel.

I stated, however, that any people who consider themselves a nation has a right to be considered as such. Clearly, not in the Passport to Pimlico sense. Let’s leave aside the absurdities that my statement above could be used to imply.

There is a Palestinian identity- however that identity came about. And that identity is tied to a scrap of land in the Middle East.

It is pointless and irrelevant to deny this, however cynical we are about the origins of that identity.

Let me put it another way. If that identity is denied simply because of the way it is used as a weapon to be wielded against  Jewish identity, where does it leave several million people who cannot and would not be Israelis, cannot and would not be Jordanians?

My point was that Gingrich does not move us nearer peace by stating the historical truth. He, and all of us, should recognise the current reality.

Palestinian identity and peoplehood has emerged out of their own perverse insistence on destroying another nation and out of their inexhaustible stamina in the pursuit of prolonged victimhood and grievance.

But it is, nevertheless, an identity and, like it or not, that identity will lead to peoplehood and nationality at some stage in the future. The confirmation of that identity can only be achieved if they recognise the Jewish identity of Israel. This is why UNESCO’s recognition of a Palestinian state is wrong and is a regressive and hostile act against Israel. This is why there is no peace.

If Mahmoud Abbas and the Arab league declared tomorrow that they recognise Israel’s right to exist based on the 1967 lines with land-swaps, Israel would be the first country to recognise Palestine and, by implication, a Palestinian identity and peoplehood. Prime Minister Netanyahu stated this clearly at the UN a few weeks ago. And this would be exactly the scenario envisaged in the UN Partition Plan of 1947 , albeit with rather different borders.

So how does using the term ‘invented’ help us move toward that goal?

Recognition of Palestinian peoplehood is almost universal. Israel and its supporters will have to live with it. It may be a ruse invented as a weapon of mass destruction, but the Palestinians have, if you will, turned themselves into a people despite themselves.

Let’s assume Gingrich becomes President or Vice President and has to have some role in advancing peace in the Middle East. How is bringing up the ‘invention’ of a Palestinian identity going to help?

The two-state solution is the only game in town. two states for two peoples. Isn’t this what all of the commentators above support, even grudgingly. So what it is it about ‘two peoples’ that we are not supposed to understand?

Is it the Jews and and a assorted bunch of Arab and Bedouin tribes or is it Israel and Palestine. And if Palestine, why not the Palestinians.

It is quite legitimate to point out how Palestinian nationality is being used against Israel and to oppose its use to further illegitimate recognition. But I stand by what I wrote. Gingrich’s statement is irrelevant. It does not matter that he is historically correct because it’s the history of the last 60 years that will matter and the history of the next hundred years, not the status quo ante.

 

 

Why Newt Gingrich is wrong about Palestinian identity

Newt Gingrich’s leaked comments which describe Palestinian identity as ‘invented’ have a profound importance in the Middle East conflict and these remarks have to be challenged.

One of the reasons that the Gingrich view has to be confronted is that when Jewish peoplehood is questioned by the Palestinians and their cheerleaders on the Left, Muslims and Arabs remain silent in tacit agreement. The Palestinians’ outrage at Gingrich’s remarks are, therefore, hypocritical.

The Mail Online reports Gingrich’s words here.

This is the quote which has caused the outrage which comes from an interview with a Jewish news channel:

‘Remember, there was no Palestine as a state — (it was) part of the Ottoman Empire. I think we have an invented Palestinian people who are in fact Arabs and historically part of the Arab community and they had the chance to go many places,’ Gingrich said, according to a video excerpt posted online.

In a way, he is right; Palestinian peoplehood may be the first instance of a nation being formed explicitly and deliberately to destroy another nation – the Jewish national home – Israel.

You may wonder what would have happened if the forces of the Arab League had triumphed in 1949. Would the land ‘from the River to the Sea’ be a separate state called ‘Palestine’?

Perhaps we already have the answer to that conundrum.

From 1949 to 1967 the West Bank and Gaza were occupied by Jordan and Egypt respectively. Did they create a Palestinian state on the land which subsequently became the focus of Palestinian national aspirations? No.

Why not?

The PLO, which I remind you stands for the Palestine Liberation Organisation, was formed in 1964. What ‘Palestine’ were they trying to liberate in 1964 before Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza?  For those of you too young to remember or starved of facts, let me explain. The PLO’s ‘Palestine’ included Israel. In other words, the PLO and its offshoots, Fatah and the current Palestinian Authority leadership, were formed with a single objective: to destroy Israel, to wipe it off the map, and to create an Arab state in all of the Western portion of the original British Mandate for Palestine.

The PLO was, therefore, formed to deny Jewish peoplehood, and it has not shifted one iota from that position. It has had at least three chances to create its own own nation but because it was more interested in destroying the Jewish nation, it has consistently failed to do so.

Not only has it not shifted, it continues to demonise Jews in its education system, deny Jewish connection to the land, Islamise Jewish holy sites and support narratives which pervert the history of the Jewish people and seek to delegitimise their claim to their historic homeland.

So whilst Palestinian peoplehood could be seen as a ruse with which to deny Jewish peoplehood, and is, in that sense ‘an invention’, nevertheless, as a result of this 100 year conflict, and as a result of the PLO’s half century of establishing a Palestinian identity, the Palestinians, a nation no older than 100 years, has as much right to peoplehood and nationhood as the Jews, a people whose roots are at least 3,500 years old.

It could easily be argued that all nations are inventions. Gingrich’s own nation, the United States is as much an invention as any other. Many of the countries in the Middle East whose borders are not in dispute – Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan – are recent ‘inventions’ of colonial Britain and France. No-one denies that Syrians are a nation or that they are merely a bunch of Arabs living in a particular place.

Denying Palestinian peoplehood gets us nowhere. When enough people regard themselves as a nation then no-one has a right to deny them their nationhood.

The problem with Palestinian nationhood is that it refuses to live alongside Jewish nationhood.

The problem with Palestinian nationhood is that because it is a relatively recent occurrence (or invention if you like) it struggles to place itself as a separate Arab culture with a distinct history, civilisation, art, music, literature.

But none of that matters; the same could be said for Jordan or Syria. In fact, it has all these things. The problem is that it spends too much of its cultural patrimony in denying someone else’s. It spends too much time in ‘inventing’ its own history. It has no need to do that. It only does it to air-brush out Jewish history and connection to the Land. It is why Jesus is a Palestinian not a Jewish Rabbi; it is why Ibrahim is a Muslim not a Jewish Patriarch who founded monotheism.

Newt Gingrich did no-one any favours when he denied Palestinian peoplehood.

He, like everyone else, should concentrate on ensuring that there are two recognised peoples in the conflict: the Jewish people and the Palestinians, and only recognition of the former by the latter can ever be the foundation of a meaningful and lasting peace.

This week I heard Israeli ambassador to the UK, Daniel Taub, tell us that the conflict is not a zero-sum game; support for Israel does not mean that you cannot also support the Palestinians. Too often supporters of both sides see the conflict that way. It continues to be the position of Israel’s neighbours. It continues to be the position of Israel-haters across the world. Their solution to the problem is to deny to the Jews what they claim for the Palestinians.

So, it may surprise you that I take this view, but let’s think what not taking this view will mean. For the Palestinians it means that they dream of a day when the Jews will disappear and they can have their ‘Palestine’. But would that really be an ideal scenario for them? Decidedly not; and the reason why not is because they have invested so much treasure and so much political and religious capital in basing their identity on hate for Israel and Jews that were the object of that hatred to vanish, their peoplehood would lose its meaning.

This is not a sound basis for national aspirations.

The same cannot be said for the Jews of Israel. If the Palestinians were to disappear one morning the national identity of the Jews would not be affected. The Israelis have not based their cultural identity on hatred. It is based on shared history, culture and values. The Israeli experience is the very epitome of nation-building. Very few Israelis want the Palestinians to ‘disappear’; those that do are decidedly in the minority.

So forget Gingrich and his ignorance. Israelis and Jews must not be seduced by these negative narratives.

But neither must the Palestinians.

 

 

“Life is a lot happier when you don’t hate as much”

Thus said Kasim “Kaz” Hafeez in the final session of the Politics thread at the Big Tent For Israel in Manchester on November 27th.

Kaz was part of a panel discussing “How to change the narrative in the Muslim community”.

He told an enraptured audience how he had very nearly ended up in a Jihadi training camp; how he was brought up to hate Israel and Jews.

Kaz, whose website theisraelcampaign.org, attempts to describe the current anti-Israel and antisemitic trends of Islam in the UK and abroad and put the record straight, made a huge impression on several hundred people, mostly Jewish, assembled in the International Suite of the Piccadilly Hotel in central Manchester.

Even though I knew his story, I was moved to simultaneous tears and laughter as Kaz told us how he is a Zionist and has the Israeli flag on his desk at work.

Tears, because the idea of any non-Jew, let alone a Muslim, proudly declaring himself a Zionist and lover of Israel is profoundly moving. We, the Jewish people, are so inured to hate and being despised that when we find we are not alone, that we have friends, that is worth a few tears of pride and relief.

Laughter, because the idea of a proud, practising Muslim displaying the Israeli flag at work is very amusing.

Then Kaz came out with the quote of the year: “Life is a lot happier when you don’t hate as much”.

Everything is contained in that one phrase; life, love, happiness, toleration, respect.

This perfectly describes the solution to what troubles so much of the world today.

Hate. Unthinking, bigoted, hatred fuels the world’s ills.

Such is the hatred much of the Arab and Muslim world feels, especially for Jews. It is this hatred which drives Islamists to acts of violence, not just against Jews, but against other Muslims, Christians and Hindus.

Are they happy in their hate? I doubt it. How can you be happy to hate?

Hatred is not confined to Muslims. Yet it is Islamist terror and intolerance that characterises the beginning of the 21st century.

Kaz made me cry because he offers hope. He offers hope  that Muslims and Jews, Israel and Palestine, can put aside hate and learn tolerance and respect.

It gives me the hope that, in this country, Kaz and those like him, such as Hasan Afzal, can have some influence in their community to stop the hate and lies and half-truths.

If Kaz can do a 180 degree turn, surely many more can manage 90?

How did Kaz learn to be happier? He read, he studied and he had the strength of character and moral courage to go see for himself. He had the honesty to see that everything he had been taught was wrong.

I said to another Muslim at the conference: “We don’t expect Muslims to be Zionists, we just want a fair hearing”. Not the most profound statement I’ve ever made, but it’s true.

Cut the hate and have an honest discussion. Criticise, don’t demonise. Tolerate don’t delegitmise.

It was a great conference and I heard many wonderful things, but Kaz’s simple, heartfelt, unprepared statement will always be the memory and the inspiration I carry from the conference. All the hours, all the hard work, all the arguments and stress were worth it to hear that one axiomatic utterance –

“Life is a lot happier when you don’t hate as much”

 

 

Some thoughts on the eve of the Big Tent for Israel conference in Manchester, UK

It’s only a few hours away now and I am beginning to get a feeling in the pit of my stomach similar to that I felt on the eve on my wedding, or my sons’ barmitzvahs.

I have never been so closely involved with an event of this magnitude, and I am proud to be a part of it.

Despite political, community and other problems and issues, we now have the buzz and excitement we wanted with more than 600 people attending the event in central Manchester tomorrow.

Even now I hear that more people from London want to come even though the registration was officially closed at 2pm yesterday.

I have met, communicated with, phoned and emailed dozens of people across the UK and Israel and even the USA.

With a very few exceptions everyone has been incredibly supportive and appreciative of the work that the Organising Committee has carried out in what, in the end, had to be a very short space of time.

We’ve had many ups and downs, a few laughs, several arguments, huge pressure and stress, but tomorrow we shall see that it has all been worthwhile.

A Big, Big Tent thank you to all the team and a special shout out for Debbie Marks of Qube Events who has been and continues to be heroic. Kol HaKavod to Rabbi Jonathan Guttentag whose vision made this event possible.

This is only the beginning of the fight back against the haters and delegitimisers. This is not just about the Jewish community in the UK, it’s about bringing together all those who see the dangers facing Israel from without and within and passionately believe in its survival, in peace and justice for the entire Middle East.

No doubt I’ll be reporting and posting about the event next week.

I can then get back to blogging again which is how I got involved in this in the first place.

 

« Older posts Newer posts »