We can probably safely assume that the Observer editorial of February 21st was not actually intended to be a comedy piece, but the nameless armchair general/diplomat who wrote it certainly achieved that effect. Its anachronistic patronising tone coupled with the irony that a writer from the Guardian group – undoubtedly the main stream media’s foremost de-legitimiser of the world’s one and only Jewish state – should instruct Israel to basically calm down and listen to her elders and betters was quite hilarious, but at the same time a sad indication of just how far removed from reality the writer (and his/her newspaper) is.

The editorial opened with yet another attempt to attribute the apparent execution of Mahmoud al Mabhouh to Israel, despite the fact that with every press release from the Dubai police this is looking further from being the case. Then, some pseudo-psychology supposedly explaining the ‘fears’ and ‘paranoia’ behind Israeli policy; obviously it has not occurred to the writer that after 62 years of an Israeli state in the Middle East we might have a rather better understanding of our neighbours than the average Fleet Street journalist.

“The diplomatic challenge is to help Israel grasp how its failure even to engage with international opinion risks an isolation which will make the country much less secure.”

How are we to define ‘international opinion’? Is the writer’s intention the Muslim bloc dominated UNHRC? The sometimes frankly ridiculous EU? The USA? Or (heaven help us!) the opinions of Guardian readers and journalists? Leaving aside the fact that there cannot be said to exist a homogenous opinion held by all, our armchair general seems to think that whatever it is, ‘international opinion’ must be just and correct. Unfortunately, history has proved time and time again that the Jews cannot rely upon international appraisal of right and wrong for their safety. From Evian to Bermuda, through the 1948 American embargo on arms and Heath’s Yom Kippur embargo to name but a few, the international community’s record is sadly lacking.

Even at this very moment, the international community is allowing Hizbollah to stockpile vast amounts of Iranian weaponry under its collective nose and in direct contravention of its own UN resolution 1701. Right now the international community is failing to come up with any viable solutions to the problem of Iranian nuclear armament. For the past 44 months the International Red Cross has failed to oblige Hamas to comply with international conventions regarding prisoners of war in the case of Gilad Shalit. For eight years prior to Operation Cast Lead the international community ignored Israel’s repeated appeals regarding Hamas rocket fire on Sderot and its environs. Just this week UN envoy Serry made statements regarding the preservation of heritage sites in Hebron and Bethlehem which can only encourage those for whom ridding Judea & Samaria of Jews is merely the first step in their aspirations. If these are examples of the effects ‘international opinion’, then it is obviously both a fickle and dangerous thing.

The most ridiculous part of this editorial (and believe me, it was a close race) is the assertion that “[t]he surest way to accelerate a peace is for Israel to break free of the self-defeating cycle of using extreme force as the preferred form of self-defence. That places obligations on Israel’s neighbours to normalise relations.” Eight years of restraint and a unilateral disengagement from Gaza did not obligate Hamas to do anything of the kind. The withdrawal from Lebanon did not have any such effect on Hizbollah, and of course Israel has never used force, extreme or otherwise, against Iran but relations are far from normal. One therefore has to ask if the writer of this editorial is so appallingly unaware of Middle East history and current affairs that s/he can write such drivel or if the intention is purely to pander to his/her known audience. Whichever it was, the punters did not disappoint.

bass46

21 Feb 2010, 9:30AM

Israeli policy is driven by two fears. The first, quite justified, is that the country is mostly surrounded by hostile states, some of which host terrorist attacks against its civilians. The second, unjustified, is that ­criticism from any quarter includes an implicit question of the legitimacy of the Jewish state.

Israeli policy is driven by three things.

The first, unjustified, is the desire to take occupy more land. Permanent war creates a back drop to continued land theft that suits Netanyahu and most other Israeli’s just fine provided it’s not them who is dying.

The second is a deep self pity which creates a sense of victim hood. Under this anyone killed by Israel is by definition an enemy of Israel and was unavoidably killed, even if they were only 9 years old.

The third is that any criticism simply helps fuel the victim hood and manufacture a self fulfilling prophecy. A self justified, self perpetuating killing spree.

The international community has spent over 40 years appeasing Israel, out of residual guilt and expediency. The result is a belligerent nuclear armed state

in permanent conflict with it’s neighbours, most of whom have had democracy and human rights suppressed by Kings and dictators, with our support, as part of that appeasement. That and oil.

Israel’s greatest weakness is the evolving racism which saw the election of Netanyahu and Lieberman.

The ‘victimhood’ theme was picked up by others too:

donoevil

21 Feb 2010, 12:32PM

Your commented that Israeli policy is driven by a deep self pity which creates a sense of victim hood.

This is typical of your comments on Cif, and brimming with covert racism.

Garry, you’re unbelievable. The sense of self-pity and victimhood is a theme widely discussed in the pages of the JC – why is it taboo here, tell me? FWIW, I think Jews probably do have some right to feel paranoid given their unhappy history at the hands of a hostile Christendom, but that’s the point. There was almost no European-style anti-Semitism prior to the creation of Israel in the Middle East. The antipathy towards Israel (and by unfortunate extension to Jews in general) that has undoubtedly developed there since then is an outcome of the Jewish state’s complete inability to compromise or to accept any outcome other than on its own terms. You have become the oppressor, the bully – the roles have been reversed. Tragic irony of ironies.

Naturally, the usual accusations of false claims of antisemitism were also voiced, coupled with other blatantly antisemitic statements.

SELAVY

21 Feb 2010, 5:52PM

Seymour:

***How about Israel just abide by International law and stop murdering people and stealing land.***

I think the answer is that as “God’s Chosen People” they can take whatever land they want, whenever they want and by whatever means necessary.

No other people are “God’s Chosen People” and thus any criticism is coming from inferior races and can be totally ignored.

Also, any critics of any Israeli activity, from cluster bombs to white phosphorus, to assasinations, can be instantly dismissed as Anti-Semitic.

Perfect people are by definition beyond criticism and above International Law.

Debate is for other people in other lands.

antimutoid

21 Feb 2010, 5:40PM

Project Zionism is a doomed project destined for failure. Any demographic reaility built and sustained with force, and created out of displacement, dispossession, denationalisation can never claim legitimacy.

It’s almost comical these days when you hear from US apologists (particularly indoctrinated and blind Congressmen) that Israel needs protection as a “democracy”. They should judge the criminal state by its actions, legislative record, discrimination and brutality, rather than the polished presentations of the briefing packs from AIPAC.

Shout for peace, work for war.

Cry injustice, discrimination, but do even worse to Palestinians.

The old formula of deception is losing momentum. So now we have Ayalon playing the “dehumanizing, delegitamizing” record for us to listen to. Trouble is, nobody listens or cares anymore. But that dismissal of Israeli propaganda is tactfully interpreted as a denial of self-determination of Jews, which of course is Anti-semitism – thus drowning out criticism and immunising Israel from the condemnation it deserves.

antimutoid

21 Feb 2010, 5:55PM

binthereandbackmate

But some people are trying to turn Israel into a global villain, the new pariah regime to take the place of apartheid-era South Africa.

Making that case is not Anti-Semitism. For arguments sake, if Lemmings lived in Israel and they inflicted the same treatment onto the Palestinians, I would still argue to sustain the above charge against Israel, or whatever Lemmings would choose to call there state. And so you have to accept, when people speak about Apartheid Israel etc it is not an automatic hatred or discrimination against Jews.

For many, the root of the conflict is very simple and one side can be completely exonerated from any responsibility.

maceasy

21 Feb 2010, 11:31AM

The usual craven attitude towards Israel, couched in the doublespeak so familiar in these articles. Restraint and Israel are two diametrically opposed concepts. The systematic dismantling of a Palestinian state, and hope for any future one, is hardly the actions of a state seeking peace, or one remotely concerned with human rights for everybody inside Israel. As usual we must appease the aggressor, tiptoe around their warmongering mentality and their contempt for any other countries, whilst going through the ritual condemnation of the Palestinians, as if they were somehow equally at fault for their dispossession and destruction. Why should you be so intimidated every time Israel is criticised, and they throw their toys out of the pram, with the usual reflex attempts to tar it as antisemitism?

antimutoid

21 Feb 2010, 12:56PM

@exiledlondoner

There was considerable anti-Jewish feeling in the Arab world long before Israel’s creation, and long before Zionism existed.

Delete “considerable” from the above statement renders it open to debate. The racial tensions between Arabs and Jews “long before” the creation of Israel, were due to isolated incidents of intercommunity strife and street criminality. It was the declared goals of Zionism, and its effects on the ground, that created the acrimony operating today.

Far more significant, brutal and racist was the treatment of Jewry by Europeans, who used Arabs as the currency for compensation and redemption.

Conspiracy theories abounded too:

44Kicks

21 Feb 2010, 10:28AM

No comments allowed on the scathing Rory Mccarthy piece and the above pathetic wimper to replace it reeks of a newspaper fearing the lobby.

Get some balls and stand up for whats right.

raymonddelauney

21 Feb 2010, 2:39PM

It is hard to avoid the impression that, had the murder been more discreet, the Foreign Office would have ignored it entirely. Hamas is no friend of Britain

With known Labour Friends of Israel serving as Ministers in the Foreign Office would it have been possible for the FO to downplay matters any more than they already have?

raymonddelauney

21 Feb 2010, 2:51PM

contrarian2

Israel has a strong relationship with the USA. The government of Canada (where I live) is an unequivocally strong supporter and an equally strong opponent of Islamic fundamentalism in general and Hamas in particular. Germany is more supportive of Israel – than the UK, certainly – as are some of the Eastern European countries who are less supine in the face of Islamic fundamentalism than is the UK. Israel has also made important advances in trade, investment and diplomacy with India.

The Labour Friends of Israel, the Conservative Friends of Israel and the Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel all in the ascendancy in their various parties. How does this square with your unsubstantiated analysis?

Brown, Blair, Cameron, Hague, Boris Johnson all are Friends of Israel. All will or have run the UK. Can you please guide me as to where I’m going wrong?

raymonddelauney

21 Feb 2010, 3:27PM

properbostonian

This Labour Friends of Israel has become a leitmotif on CIF. If the existence of this group is so awful to you, why don’t you form a Labour (or whatever) Friends of Hamas, if there isn’t one already (CIF could serve as a pretty good start) . In any case, this particular problem seems more your issue with parliamentary democracy than anything else. Unless, and I have no reason to believe it of you, this is going to turn into one of those “you know who has all the money to buy ministries” deals.

Perhaps you could explain how can Britain can begin to perceived as an honest broker in the middle-east when we have no impartiality or objectivity in our Foreign Office?

Netanyahu would be fully justified in dismissing Britain were the sandal on the other foot and a Friend of Palestine was masquerading as a Foreign Office Minister.

As it is our unelected Attorney General has flown to Israel and promised to change our laws to accommodate the architect of the murderous Cast Lead assault on Gaza.

Less than a few weeks later a nefarious extra-judicial murder takes place putting at risk all British passport holders. Had the victim been an Israeli “defence” procurement minister you can be sure the UK would have been beating a path to the UN and the trappist Quartet Peace Envoy wouldn’t have been off our television screens berating the Palestinians.

With regard to your assertions regarding religious and financial conspiracies – they hold no water around these parts pal – try again.

binthereandbackmate

21 Feb 2010, 4:46PM

raymonddelauney

“It is hard to avoid the impression that, had the murder been more discreet, the Foreign Office would have ignored it entirely. Hamas is no friend of Britain”

With known Labour Friends of Israel serving as Ministers in the Foreign Office would it have been possible for the FO to downplay matters any more than they already have?

Yes… Glaringly obvious, innit? Getting back to the Mossad identity theft outrage and the cosy interaction between this British government and the State of Israel, it is damn well clear that Labour Friends of Israel has a firm and highly influential grip on British foreign policy. The Medusan head of the British “Israel lobby” one could say. Course, we all know what ultimately happened to Medusa.

Then there’s the ‘international law = anything we don’t agree with’ school of thought.

Neil1984

21 Feb 2010, 12:16PM

Did the Israeli war crimes apologists such as Nick Cohen provide content for this editorial?

“…as the occupying power in disputed territory….” The territory is not “disputed” but occupied, for over 40 years, in direct contravention of international law.

Surely The Observer’s editorial writers can do better.

FalseConsciousness

21 Feb 2010, 11:08AM

The editorial is predictably soft on Israel which clearly has no interest in peace. The Israelis use brutal means against all forms of dissent. Israeli barbarism must come to an end no matter what it takes. Israeli war criminals must be tried before the public and properly punished.

The editorial concludes “Israel’s greatest weakness has always been that it does not know its own strength. The international community must act to give it the confidence to compromise.” Yet again, this statement proves the poverty of its writer’s knowledge. Time and time again Israel has endangered and even sacrificed the lives of its own soldiers, often in defiance of internal public opinion, in order to avoid Palestinian and other civilian casualties; Jenin in Operation Defensive Shield being just one example. Time and time again Israel has held back from reacting to murderous attacks to the anger and frustration of its citizens, but this is never seems to reach the radar of the ‘international community’ to whose wisdom, according to the writer, Israel should be bowing.

If the Observer considers itself, as it undoubtedly must, to be an organisation which influences public opinion, and if the results of that influence are to be judged by the comments to this editorial, then that opinion is quite obviously formed not by any objective appraisal of facts, but on the basis of pre-existing bigotry and prejudice. As Aneurin Bevan once said; “I read the newspapers avidly. It is my one form of continuous fiction.” And fiction, of course, should never be mistaken for fact.

Advertisement