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.
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.
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.
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.
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”
The Big Tent for Israel conference at the Mercure Piccadilly hotel in Manchester city centre on Sunday November 27th was an outstanding success for the organisers, the Manchester Jewish community and the inspiration behind the conference, Rabbi Jonathan Guttentag of the Whitefield Hebrew Congregation.
More than 700 people came from throughout the country to the event aimed at encouraging grass-roots advocacy and activism to counter the delegitimisation of the State of Israel in the UK.
The Reut Institute in Tel Aviv has identified five streams of delegitimisation in public life: politics, media, churches, academia and trades unions.
The conference invited speakers, experts and trainers from the UK, Israel and the United States to facilitate discussion, learning and workshops in these five spheres.
The keynote speaker at the opening plenary was Israel’s Ambassador H.E. Daniel Taub who thrilled the audience in a packed International Suite with a stirring speech outlining Israel’s many successes and achievements and castigating the lies of its detractors.
Well-known speakers at the many sessions included Douglas Murray and Lorna Fitzsimons of BICOM who delivered a rousing keynote finale in the closing Plenary telling the delegates that each and every one of them can, and should, contribute to advocacy.
Other speakers included Eran Shayshon of the Reut Institute, Yakov Triptou of Israeli Trades Unions organisation, Histadrut. Bishop Dr Doye Agama, Revd Steve Williams and the Revd Alan Morris were just three of many leading Christian supporters of Israel.
The Muslim community was also represented by two outstanding speakers: Mohammed Amin of the The Muslim Jewish Forum of Greater Manchester and Kasim Hafeez. Kasim amazed and moved the audience with the story of his journey from anti-Semite to Zionist.
Other outstanding contributors were professor of international law, Prof. Ronnie Sabel of the Hebrew University, Marcus Sheff of The Israel Project, Andrew White of Beyond Images and Stuart Palmer – an expert in Social Media.
The presence and participation of the British Jewish leadership organisations gave a huge boost and endorsement to the conference. These included Vivian Wineman and Jon Benjamin from the Board of Deputies, Jeremy Newmark from the Jewish Leadership Council and Harvey Rose of the Zionist Federation. A video message from Mick Davis, head of the UJIA and the JLC was well received.
There were also student and youth sessions and a special reception for students provided by the Israeli Embassy.
The event was a triumph for Debbie Marks of Qube Events who made all the arrangements for the venue and whose efforts brought great praise from the organisers and delegates.
The CST provided an amazing security regime and ensured the safety of everyone.
Reaction and feedback from the event has been very positive, and the organisers hope to use the conference to support grassroots activism in the community.
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.
Yesterday the Israeli navy intercepted two yachts trying to break the naval blockade of Gaza.
This blockade has been declared legal by the Palmer Report into the Mavi Marmara incident last year when IDF soldiers killed 9 Turkish ‘activists’ leading a convoy to bring aid to the Gaza Strip.
The two yachts were the rump of a second flotilla which tried unsuccessfully to sail from Greece earlier this year.
This time they decided to sail from Turkey.
As often happens with the BBC website, it is constantly updating its stories as events unfold.
The IDF spokesperson on Twitter Avital Leibovich created the hashtag #provocatilla and those who supported this flagrant attempt to break international law used the hashtag #freedomwaves.
Of course, those aboard the flotilla, mainly Americans and journalists, apparently, have a right to protest and even challenge international law. As long as they realise that they will have to take the consequences if they break it.
These same people are the first to condemn Israel if they are judged to have broken international law. So this was an exercise in hypocrisy. It was also a stunt which was dangerous as their boats struggled in rough seas.
There was a huge irony when the Israelis offered them medical assistance if required. I tweeted that the Israelis were “… offering humanitarian aid to those carrying ‘humanitarian aid’ ” in the full knowledge, unlike the BBC, that the boats carried no such thing.
In fact, when asked what they were carrying by the IDF, the activists told them that they were not carrying anything. So no aid. Yet this seems to have been lost on the BBC journos who characterised this as an aid flotilla thwarted by those dastardly Israelis who will stop at nothing to prevent the beleaguered Gazans from receiving that aid.
This is the first headline the BBC carried:
4 November 2011 Last updated at 14:23
Israel blocks protest boats trying to get to Gaza
Ok, so far not so bad. They were, indeed, protest boats.
The Israeli navy has intercepted and boarded two boats which were trying to break the blockade of the Gaza Strip.
Exactly right.
The Irish Saoirse (Gaelic for freedom) and the Canadian Tahrir (Arabic for liberation) were travelling about 50 nautical miles from the shore when they were contacted by the Israeli navy and told to turn back, the flotilla organisers told the AFP news agency.
The navy said it “advised the vessels that they may turn back at any point, thereby not breaking the maritime security blockade” or could sail to Ashdod port in Israel or to Egypt.
“The activists refused to co-operate,” AFP quoted the navy as saying.
Nothing about the fact that the blockade is deemed legal by the UN Palmer report but illegal by other UN bodies who do not know or wish to understand international law.
There is also an interesting mention of Turkey not sending warships to accompany these boats. Could it be that the Turks were quietly taken to one side by the Americans? Or is it they already knew that no aid whatsoever was being carried on these boats?
No mention in this article that hundreds of trucks pass everyday from Israel into Gaza (1500 this week, in fact) to feed their enemy and its captive population and to deliver medical supplies.
Then, a few hours later the headline changed to this:
Israel boards protest boats taking medical aid to Gaza
Wha!!? What ‘medical aid’? Did they not hear what I heard that there was nothing on these boats except some tins of tuna?
Immediately the headline conjures up an image of bad guys, the Israelis, stopping good guys, Gazans, from receiving medical aid – and it’s a complete lie which is still not corrected.
But it’s worse than that: the Israelis offered to escort the boats to Ashdod and, after inspection, take the aid through its regular crossing points.
Yet it still says in plain text:
They were carrying medical supplies for the coastal enclave.
And still no mention of the daily convoys crossing into Gaza.
You would never guess that Israel was supplying vast quantities of aid daily and that the activists had no intention of bringing anything to Gaza but themselves in an act of self-righteous self-promotion that brings peace not one iota closer.
So what image would you display to illustrate this article? A line of trucks entering Gaza from Israel? The flotilla boats? Their empty hulls? No, it was this:
People in the West Bank have staged protests in support of the Gaza flotilla
Again, the support for the flotilla is highlighted when there were apparently a mere handful of people there.
You would think that staging protests would mean a significant number. It’s another misrepresentation of facts.
So much for egregious reporting of the provocatilla.
A day earlier we were subjected to this headline:
Israeli troops ‘kill two in Gaza’
This is elaborated thus:
Israeli security forces have killed two people in a clash on the border of the Gaza Strip, local medics say.
Palestinian sources said Israeli troops had crossed over into northern Gaza.
The Israeli military said it had carried out a strike after a routine patrol came under attack. It said “hits” were confirmed, but said it had no information on casualties.
Why is the headline not:
Gaza militants attack Israeli border patrol
This would place cause and effect, attack and response in the correct chronological order. But no, the BBC always has to tell us what the Israelis did in their headlines regardless of who initiated the incident.
How about if two British soldiers were blown up by a landmine in Helmand and the perpetrators hunted down and killed; would the headline be:
Four Taliban militants killed by British troops in Helmand
I think not.
So what, then, would you expect the BBC to use by way of illustration of this incident? Maybe a picture of militants firing RPG’s? Or IDF troops firing tank rounds? Uh,uh. This is the image they used:
Thursday's clash interrupted a lull in recent cross-border violence
Huh? What the…?
What the heck has an apparently injured young Palestinian against a whitewashed wall with a motorbike nearby got to do with this story? Why is there a young boy looking on?
To me, this is a clear attempt to shift the balance of sympathy for this incident toward the Palestinians. Look, young innocents hurt by the the evil Israelis – again!
It’s a ludicrous photo to use.
The Guardian would be proud of this type of manipulation of news items under the cover of objective reporting. And that just about sums up the depths to which the BBC News website’s Middle East desk has sunk.
This is a follow-up to Scott Piro’s guest post on ‘Pink-washing’ which he was kind enough to allow me to publish.
I wanted to add my two cents.
It should be beyond belief that anyone in the LGBT community should stand with groups who are inimical to that community. For these people their hatred of Israel blinds them to prejudices that can be literally deadly.
It is the same blindness that leads Jews to make alliances with those who would destroy them.
Surely the LGBT community can be critical of some aspects of Israel’s policies whilst applauding and supporting a liberal society that allows freedom of sexual orientation without fear.
In both cases their ideological antipathy to Israel trumps the absurd paradox of their position.
I would parody Monty Python’s Life of Brian when addressing those in the LGBT community who are cheerleading for Palestinian rights whilst ignoring a clear and present danger to their own well-being and their Palestinian counterparts’:
“So, apart from the freedom of religion, freedom of sexual orientation, freedom of political views, freedom of the press, access to world class health care, access to world class academic institutions, a vibrant democracy, the right to protest and several Nobel prize winners, what has Israel ever done to persuade us that we should not seek its destruction?”
This is a superb guest post by Scott Piro (@ScottPiro) which exposes the utter hypocrisy of the ‘pink-washing’ slur on Israel. (RC)
In 2007, the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs initiated a nation-branding campaign informally known as ‘Beyond the Conflict.’ The goal was to change people’s perception of Israel from a war zone populated by the ultra-religious into a more normal place – rich with culture, dominated by high-tech and scientific achievement and grounded in identifiable, Western values.
American nonprofit organizations joined the effort by making sure non-conflict stories saw the light of day – everything from Israeli companies being listed on the NASDAQ and Israeli-made computer chips powering everyday products, to stories about Tel Aviv’s nightlife and Israeli model Bar Rafaeli gracing the cover of Sports Illustrated’s Swimsuit Issue.
Nation-branding is practiced by many states, from established democracies like the U.S., Canada, France, Japan, South Korea, South Africa and New Zealand to developing countries like Tanzania, Colombia and Guatemala. It’s not unique to Israel.
In addition to the cultural and technology stories, the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs sought ways to emphasize Israeli values. Israel’s record on LGBT rights was smartly identified as a way to highlight its societal tolerance and diversity, and draw contrast with more repressive regimes in the region and around the world. In reality, Israel is the only Middle Eastern country where people are not persecuted because of their sexual or gender identity. Here are the facts for LGBTs in Israel:
Anti-discrimination laws protecting LGBTs
Recognition of same-sex marriages performed abroad
Legalized LGBT adoption rights
LGBT soldiers serve openly in all military branches, including special units; discrimination is prohibited
Same-sex couples have the same inheritance rights as heterosexual, married couples
LGBTs enjoy these rights nowhere else in the Middle East. In fact, every other Middle Eastern country makes homosexuality a crime punishable by death (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, Yemen) or jail time (Gaza, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Morocco, Algeria), or LGBTs face risks of violence, torture and “honor killings” by militias or their own families (the West Bank, Iraq, Turkey) or harassment and crackdowns from the government and non-state actors (Bahrain, Jordan). In fact, when compared to states outside the region – including most Western democracies – Israel has one of the strongest records for LGBT rights in the world.
Israel’s enemies recognized how favorable this record was for Israel, and that it threatened their efforts to demonize the Jewish state. So they shrewdly maneuvered to use it against her, and link promotion of Israel’s LGBT record to the conflict in the West Bank and Gaza – even though there is none. The idea that the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ campaign is part of a diabolical scheme to cover up abuses of ‘the occupation’ is completely anti-Israel queer activists’ invention; it is their great lie.
Beginning in Toronto in 2008, and later in San Francisco and New York, LGBT anti-Israel groups formed and sought to make being anti-Israel a queer value. Some of these activists are anti-Semitic – whether or not they admit it, even to themselves. The frustrating thing is that many more of them work to brand Israel an ‘apartheid state’ for all the right reasons. They are being manipulated by the combination of deceptive Palestinian leadership, biased Western media and anti-Semites into believing a counterfeit narrative where Israelis are the aggressors and Palestinians are her ultimate victims. It exploits LGBTs’ natural empathy for the oppressed.
Activists who claim to not hate Israel and say they support her right to exist, yet still accuse her of brutal oppression and apartheid, are complicit in preventing a peace deal, propagating terror, and endangering Jews and the State of Israel.
The sad reality is that LGBT anti-Israel groups are throwing our queer Palestinian brothers and sisters under the bus. LGBT persecution in the disputed territories is horrendous – it comes from Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, militias and even the victims’ own families. In the academic report “Nowhere to Run: Gay Palestinian Asylum Seekers in Israel,” there is testimony from Palestinian LGBTs who escaped to Israel to seek asylum status. The torture they received in the West Bank is shocking (pages 13-17). For example, one man recounts a horror story of being dragged from his home by PA officers because he was gay, then submerged in sewage water up to his neck for five hours at a time, every day for three weeks (pg. 15). The report comes from Tel Aviv University’s Public Interest Law Program, but it shouldn’t be dismissed for that reason; it’s critical of Israel for not accepting more LGBT Palestinian refugees.
Once peace comes and the IDF pulls out of the West Bank, Palestinian queers will be much worse off. Palestinian LGBT testimony confirms this is what happened when the PA took over Gaza in 2005 (pg. 10). Eighty-two percent of Palestinians support making homosexuality illegal. Many more queers will die in Palestine once a state is achieved. I am not advocating for the status quo, but I do believe energy from queer anti-Israel activists would be better spent educating straight Palestinians not to kill their LGBT brothers and sisters once Israelis leave, instead of vilifying Israel.
Elsewhere in the region, Iran executed three men in September, 2011 for being gay (and two in 2005). The Assad regime in Syria has now murdered over 3,000 of its own people. And Palestinians in Lebanese, Syrian, Egyptian and Jordanian refugee camps face conditions much more akin to apartheid than anything experienced within Israel (where they are citizens with the same rights as Jewish Israelis) or the disputed territories (where they are governed by the Palestinian Authority and Hamas). Yet where are the Queers Against Iranian Persecution, Queers Against Syrian Torture and Queers Against Lebanese Apartheid groups?
“Palestine is a queer issue,” Israel’s LGBT critics insist. But Iranian torture and execution of LGBTs is not a queer issue? Syrian brutality against its own people is not a queer issue? Lebanese apartheid against Palestinians is not also a queer issue? Why not?
The fact that no LGBT groups protest any of these human rights abuses, but we see a proliferation of queer groups against Israel, meets one of the key criteria in Alan Dershowitz’s list of “factors that tend to indicate anti-Semitism“: “Singling out only Israel for sanctions for policies that are widespread among other nations, or demanding that Jews be better or more moral than others because of their history as victims.” The rest of Dershowitz’s list is worth reading, and he contrasts it to “factors that tend to indicate legitimate criticism of Israel.”
Also worth reading is this letter from Senior Editor of Middle East Quarterly, former professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies at Edinburgh University and non-Jew Dr. Denis MacEoin: “It seems bizarre to me that LGBT groups call for a boycott of Israel and say nothing about countries like Iran, where gay men are hanged or stoned to death…Thinking it’s better to be silent about regimes that kill gay people, but good to condemn the only country in the Middle East that rescues and protects gay people. Is that supposed to be a sick joke?”
Ironically, some of Israel’s loudest queer critics are Palestinian LGBT organizations. How can this be true, given the documented atrocities LGBTs face from their own government and families inside the Palestinian territories? Perhaps they are looking to gain respect from homophobic, straight Palestinian organizations by bashing Israel, so that conditions for LGBTs inside the future Palestinian state will not meet the worst case scenario. How’s this for hypocrisy – do you know where the Palestinian queer group alQaws for Sexual and Gender Diversity in Palestinian Society held their “Palestinian Queer Party” on October 21, 2011? At a Tel Aviv club! Was the reason because it’s not safe for LGBTs to congregate inside a public place in the West Bank at a pre-announced time and place?
Israel’s queer enemies can hurl ‘Pinkwashing!’ claims at her all they want. I, for one, celebrate the fact that the Israel’s government is proud enough of its LGBT rights record to use it for nation-branding. What would happen if the governments of Libya, Iran, Palestine and Syria bragged about their LGBT rights records, too? It would mean more LGBTs around the world would be protected and safe.
Israel’s queer foes are the real pinkwashers, because they conveniently ignore the horrors committed against LGBTs throughout the Middle East in order to focus only on the Jewish state. If the term “pinkwashing” is about covering up facts to push one’s agenda, then anti-Israel queer activists are choking on their own hypocrisy and self-righteousness.
This is a short blog just to demonstrate the complete one-sided and biased reporting that is being spewed from the BBC website.
This is what passes for journalism on the UK’s premier news site. A brilliant website which I use a lot, but something has to be done about this crude anti-Israel propaganda that passes for balanced comment.
New Israeli air strike into Gaza after ‘ceasefire’
Now what to you think that implies?
It implies that Israel broke the ceasefire. LIES. There was never any ceasefire despite the vaunted Egyptian brokerage. Islamic Jihad kept firing and ignored it.
One Palestinian was killed in a new Israeli air strike in Gaza, hours after Egypt apparently brokered a ceasefire.
Those perfidious Jews are at it again – they cannot be trusted to sit by and watch rockets fired at cities of more than 200,000 people and they completely ignore the BBC’s attempts to mendaciously and cynically make its readers believe Israel is at fault.
Then there’s a picture of Israeli fire crew dousing a car. What do you think their caption should be? Maybe ‘Israeli cities under constant barrage, hundreds of thousands in bomb shelters, schools closed’?
No. This is what the caption says:
Palestinian militants fired rockets into Israel, after five militants were killed in an Israeli air strike
So what does that imply, pray tell? It implies, dear reader, that the ‘militants’ are responding to an Israeli air strike. It does not tell you that this very air strike was in response to ‘rockets’ – read missiles – being fired at Israeli cities.
The BBC turns this deadly attack on Israel into a schoolyard game of ‘he started it, miss’.
So for those of you who still are not sure, here’s the actual truth:
There would be no Israeli air strikes if there were no missiles from Gaza.
Now if you read the article I am referring to, it actually gives a reasonable account – so why do they spoil it by letting someone from Respect write the headlines and the captions? Am I contradicting myself? No. Anyone who does not know the realities of this conflict would read the headline first, have their opinion formed for them, then read the rest in the light of that headline.
And the BBC know it. The same person who wrote the article surely did not write the headline. Someone is saying ‘hmm, a balanced article, let’s see what I can do to spin it against Israel and still get away with it’.
