You are currently browsing the monthly archive for March 2010.
This is a guest post from Leonard B.L.
The first impression I had of this piece by A. Lerman was the impact of his aggressive tone. The whole of the first paragraph is couched in extremes. He uses adjectives like “vicious McCarthyite” ”falsely” and words like ‘vilification’ and ‘exploiting’. This is the expression of an angry man.
I have read his writings on other occasions and it is mild and ameliorative generally. Was he aware of how weak his case was and that he was actually contradicting himself? Was he arm twisted into writing it? Is he another Labourite bully? We can’t know. However his point is that Im Tirtzu claimed that groups that don’t have the good of the country at heart supplied information that the notorious Goldstone Report used to the detriment of Israel and that these groups are funded by the Nif.
The issue of the funding of the kind of NGOs that Goldstone accepted information from is central to the security and the future of the state. Israel is under constant attack by parties interested in delegitimising the country. It seems obvious that these parties which seek to contribute to the breakdown of the state are not to the benefit of its citizens. It is in addition not a democratic way in which to behave since the future of the state should be determined by its citizens and not by its enemies. A bill to this effect is being discussed in the Knesset at present.
The self-righteous moral indignation meter was shooting off the scale on March 24th when the Guardian had a field day with the subject of the expulsion of an Israeli diplomat. The estimable Robin Shepherd has an excellent post up on his blog about both the editorial and Oliver Miles’ opinion piece on the subject. His conclusion:
“I have tried long and hard to avoid the conclusion that brute anti-Semitism is at the core of the campaign to demonise Israel in Europe, and I still stick to my view that it is an effect of what is going on rather than a cause. But, boy, if ever there were a distinction that is beginning to look difficult to sustain, that is increasingly looking like one of them.”
Robin highlights the use in the editorial of the following sentence. “Both events in London and Washington are the marks of an arrogant nation that has overreached itself.” As he quite rightly points out, it is not the Israeli government which is being criticised here but the nation; all 7 million of us down to the last man, woman and child. Maybe the cats and dogs too, who knows? One cannot but think that such a sweeping and stereotypical statement made about any other nation would have been deemed too bigoted for publication.
Interestingly, someone else was describing Israelis as ‘arrogant’ today too: none other than the Saudis. How much that embellishes the Guardian’s reputation as a liberal publication I will leave for the reader to decide.
Despite all the righteous protestations of the writer of this editorial, neither Miliband nor anyone else has concrete proof two months down the line of Israel’s involvement in the assassination of Mabhouh and “all but accused”, “highly likely” and “compelling reasons to believe that Israel was responsible” amount to nothing more than a fog of blustering insinuation. In the tawdry world of British politics however, proof is apparently an unnecessary luxury. Were there hard evidence to back Miliband’s insinuations, presumably the phantom photocopying Israeli official would be by now facing charges.
When we strip away all the indignant rhetoric, what it boils down to is that an awful lot of people in the Foreign Office, the media and elsewhere have a problem when it comes to Israelis defending themselves. Conventional military operations are inevitably labelled as ‘disproportionate’ and if more clandestine methods are presumed to have been employed the resulting indignation is no less strident. The recent record of the current British government on issues such as the Goldstone report, universal jurisdiction, submission to the BDS campaign being led by fringe elements associated with terror organisations, or engagement with Hizbollah would indicate that there is no issue of importance to Israel which the British government will not sacrifice for the sake of a few marginal seats in the upcoming elections, although such short-sightedness may well come back to haunt the next party in power.
In spite of the rubbish peddled recently on CiF as evidence of the folie-a-deux between Georgina Henry and Matt Seaton about the community policy it seems that our old mucker, Seth Freedman is still afforded special status there. Status, that is, to make as much of a fool of himself as he always has.
Regular readers of CiF and CiFWatch scarcely need to be reminded that Freedman is a very confused person. He vacillates between his own form of sympathy for his adopted country and misguided condemnation of it. In his recent offering, for example, having rooted for the Bil’in and Nil’in protesters in the past, stones and all so to speak, we now see him supporting the non-violent action of Sheikh Jarrah protesters:
The path of violent protest in Bil’in and Nil’in has proved to be a cul-de-sac, with ever-harsher measures taken by the army response and ever-increasing scepticism from those on the Israeli street. In the hiatus resulting from the army’s announced closures in the villages, protest organisers would do well to consider how they proceed when the restrictions are lifted – and taking a leaf out of the Sheikh Jarrah protesters’ book is no bad place to start…..
Now this shows some insight on Freedman’s part, but I am not going to hold my breath that it will last. Non-violent protest is to be preferred to the sort of violence which usually obtains on the West Bank, stoked by the ISM and its hangers on. However, not surprisingly, Freedman’s detractors below the line, whose sympathies lie with more with the bare-knuckle approach of the ISM, are not at all impressed by this new, peaceable (for the moment anyway) Freedman. One of these, boblondon, got into a protracted exchange with Freedman, (both Freedman’s and his posts were subsequently deleted, but not before we got hold of it). Unfortunately we couldn’t get one of the comments but the following should give readers a flavour. My comments are in the text:
Read the rest of this entry »
Here’s a variant of Jewish conspiracy theory on the Gill thread today:
And in the spirit of variants, we have something that is reminiscent of the William Bapthorpe solution, though admittedly more drastic:
This is a cross-post from Judeosphere
Haaretz has just published an interview with Matt Seaton, editor of “Comment is Free” (CiF)—the opinion website of the Guardian, with 3 million unique users and 10 million page-views a month.
It has not gone unnoticed by critics that CiF—and the British media in general—has a bit of an obsession when it comes to Israel. Seaton reacts to this accusation:
We spend a great deal of time thinking how to cover the subject in a balanced and fair way and not in excessive quantity. It’s difficult to do that when the Middle East is setting the news agenda. The Arab-Israeli conflict is also a fault-line in the geopolitics of the region. That’s just a reality…..It’s a region of the world that generates so much news; we’re part of that, but it’s not of our making.
Actually, dude, it is of your making. The fault of the Guardian—and other media outlets and pundits—is constantly reinforcing the idea that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the most important, central issue driving events in the Middle East. (The ongoing Sunni-Shiite dispute is arguably a larger, more influential geopolitical fault-line.)
Ewen MacAskill, the Guardian’s Washington DC bureau chief, had an article on CiF on March 17th straight out of the Hillary Clinton fan club annual. According to him, this is the US administration which will go where no man has ever gone before.
“The secretary of state has an advantage this time round in that the Obama administration signalled at the start of the presidency it was intent on tackling the Israeli-Palestinian question. She and Obama have almost another three years left and possibly almost another seven: long enough to get some sort of peace process underway.”
When one has lived long enough in the Middle East, one gets used to this. At the beginning of his term a new US president comes along with his pristine broom and tries to sweep clean. Then things usually die down a little towards the middle as he gets bogged down with other concerns, but approaching the end of his tenure, the outgoing President will often see a final opportunity to be scribed in the annals of history and a shot at a Nobel Peace Prize, so a final frenzied fling of peacemaking ensues.
Obama already has his Nobel Prize of course and it’s looking as though he has analysed the attempts of his predecessors and grasped that nothing has worked so far, but has he understood why all previous attempts have failed? From the US administration’s performance over the past few weeks, I’m afraid the signs are that he has, but that instead of addressing the core problems, he has elected to take a route with more chance of instant gratification. After his Cairo speech last year the writing was definitely on the wall, but now we see Obama’s priorities in all their naked form. So we had the bizarre spectacle of Joe Biden choosing to be insulted about something his administration has known about for four months: Israel’s agreement to a 10 month freeze of building in disputed areas not including Jerusalem. Then we were treated to the public chastising of Israel’s leaders by Hillary Clinton and the famous 45 minute phone call. Straight after that there was a Quartet meeting in Moscow on March 19th after which a press release was issued. In this document, there are several demands being made of Israel which are of considerable significance as they indicate a shift in the approach and methods of the US administration and the rest of the Quartet.
“The Quartet reiterates its call on Israel and the Palestinians to act on the basis of international law and on their previous agreements and obligations — in particular adherence to the Road Map, irrespective of reciprocity –”
Just Journalism has an interesting post up evaluating the official views of the British broadsheets in reaction to Miliband’s announcement that an Israeli diplomat has been expelled in connection with the purported assassination of Hamas leader, Mahmoud al-Mabhouh. Unsurprisingly, the Guardian’s coverage featured heavily in Just Journalism’s commentary.
“The Guardian, The Independent and The Daily Telegraph all published leading articles today, analysing this latest development. The Guardian took a palpably hostile stance towards Israel. Its editorial accused Israel of being ‘an arrogant nation’ and claimed that Miliband ‘all but accused the Israeli government of participation in a criminal, terrorist conspiracy’. The publication also took the opportunity to berate Israel for its policies in Jerusalem, going as far as to imply that Israel will relinquish the whole city to the Palestinians in final status talks:
‘Jerusalem was not a settlement, he said, it was the capital of Israel. These are not the words of a government prepared to negotiate what all Israelis know is a central demand of final status negotiations – Jerusalem becomes the capital of a Palestinian state.’
The piece also asserted that PM Netanyahu’s policies in east Jerusalem was proof that ‘Israel is pre-empting the shape of the final agreement by creating facts on the ground’ and that ‘No deal with the Palestinians can be made in these conditions.’”
Read the rest here.
We’re not the only ones to notice that the Guardian has a strange obsession with Israel.
This is a cross-post by Zach of The Brothers of Judea, a blog that tracks antisemitism at the Huffington Post
Richard Greener is a Huffington Post blogger who is relatively new to the Israeli/Palestinian situation. He has recently arrived in the “World” section with an essay entitled, “Israeli Settlements: What Are They Really?” As you might expect from the Huffington Post, he has a negative view of the settlements, and there is nothing redeemable about them. Some of Greener’s facts, however, seem to be a bit off. I thought I’d take a minute to take a look at his work.
What immediately jumps to mind is Greener’s now expected use of the legal argument to declare all the settlements illegitimate. Here is the critical quote:
“Article 49 is simple, clear and is not a subject of controversy. It forbids an occupying power from moving its own civilian population onto occupied lands as permanent residents. Despite this prohibition Israel has constructed settlements outside and beyond its borders for more than 40 years.”
“Moving” the civilian population? No, Mr. Greener, the Geneva Convention doesn’t say that. What it actually says is the following:
“Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.”
The key word there is “forcible.” Israel is not forcing the settlers to move to the West Bank by any stretch of the imagination. They are choosing to move of their own free will. This might be illegal or prohibited anyway, I do not know the Geneva Conventions well enough. But the fact that Greener intentionally misrepresented what the Geneva Conventions said is very telling. I find it difficult to believe that he simply got it wrong. Why did he not begin his article with the truth? Could it be because doing so would mean acknowledging that the settlements are not in fact illegal?
Mr. Greener continues with pointing out that the Israeli settlers are considered to be citizens of Israel and gain all the benefits thereof, even though they do not live in Israel. This is true, but more importantly is that he continues to write that the settlements “are not part of Israel.” He implies in his first paragraph, if you care to read it, that the settlements are on land that belongs to the Palestinians, though he does not come right out and say it.
Picking up on the atrocious editorial in “Comment is Free” yesterday, accusing Israel of being an “arrogant nation that has overreached itself”, Robin Shepherd concludes:
I have tried long and hard to avoid the conclusion that brute anti-Semitism is at the core of the campaign to demonise Israel in Europe, and I still stick to my view that it is an effect of what is going on rather than a cause. But, boy, if ever there were a distinction that is beginning to look difficult to sustain, that is increasingly looking like one of them.
Quite so.
To read Robin’s ever insightful analysis click here.
And if you haven’t read Robin Shepherd’s book “A State Beyond Pale: Europe’s Problem with Israel” please take the time to purchase a copy through Amazon by clicking here. For anyone interested in the subject matter of this blog, Robin’s book has to be number one on the list of must reads.
It really is quite difficult to decide which was worse; the below the line comments on Mick Dumper’s piece of March 10th or the above the line article. There is a degree of tedious predictability about many a CiF commentator, but to be frank, one would expect more from a professor of Middle East politics at Exeter University. Even though Professor Dumper is undoubtedly extremely learned and has written several books on Middle East politics and on Jerusalem in particular, as we know from many examples (Dumper’s Exeter colleague Ilan Pappe being a case in point), that is no guarantee of either impartiality or accuracy.
Surreal as it may sound, Exeter University receives funding from the Muslim Brotherhood and on the advisory board of one of the university’s research centres sit such characters as Muhammed Abdul Bari – head of the Muslim Council of Britain and chair of the East London Mosque of recent ‘Dispatches’ fame. Also on the same advisory board is Basheer Nafi; a former senior operative of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad who was deported from the US in 1996 for visa fraud and indicted in that country in 2003 for racketeering on behalf of the Islamic Jihad.
One does have to wonder if the research coming out of an establishment with such funders can be described in all honesty as non-partisan and whether academics such as Dumper and Pappe, who clearly have a very definite political agenda, are attracted to such places because of a certain political climate which exists there, or whether it is people like them who are magnets for funders with an Islamist agenda. Either way, Exeter’s funders must have been very pleased by Dumper’s article.
Dumper paints a picture of “the triumph of the radical settler groups in taking over culturally sensitive parts of the city” as though Jerusalem is some kind of ‘Wild West’ in which anyone can just set up camp wherever they chose. He completely ignores the long background story to the Shimon HaTsadik/ Sheikh Jarrah neigbourhood episode which played out for years in the Israeli courts. He then goes on to claim that “[m]ore importantly it also interrupts the delicate moves towards the resumption of negotiations between the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority/PLO.”
Of course there is no earthly reason why that has to be the case. If the PA were really interested in resuming negotiations, then nothing would have prevented them from coming to the table. But perhaps Professor Dumper neglected to read the list of motions accepted by the Fatah conference last August with regard to its preconditions for resuming peace talks because anyone who has read and understood them must be very aware of the fact that getting the PA to the negotiating table is a very distant prospect, no matter how many high-ranking Americans come to visit or however many concessions Israel is prepared to make. No fewer than 14 pre-conditions for resuming negotiations were decided upon at that conference including the release of all Palestinian prisoners held by Israel, the guarantee of right of return for all Palestinian refugees, a complete freeze on settlement building, a lifting of the embargo on Gaza and a guarantee that both East and West Jerusalem will be given over as the capital of the Palestinian state. One wonders just which part of the word ‘negotiation’ Fatah does not understand.
This is a guest post by AKUS
The Guardian – glee over Israel’s perceived downfall:
The Washington Post – the reality on Capitol Hill:
This is a cross-post by Matt of The Brothers of Judea, a blog that tracks antisemitism on the Huffington Post.
One of our favorite bloggers, MJ Rosenberg, has come out with another exemplary work. His latest blog post on the HP, AIPAC Conference: Who Are These People?, is a paragon of the kind of self-assured, self-promotional writing we’ve come to expect. Mr. Rosenberg, who is Jewish, has taken it upon himself to inform all of us what American Jews are really like (hint: they are nothing like the people at AIPAC).
Mr. Rosenberg attended the AIPAC conference in Washington D.C., and I did not. However, I believe I can still challenge some of his experiences there, or at least point out the fact he did not provide adequate evidence to support his sweeping statements. Let’s examine one:
“AIPAC can be summed up in the words of an American college student on their promotional video. And the sentiment is repeated over and over again…”I love Israel, and I love the US-Israel” relationship.” Get it. American kids, born and bred in America — whose grandparents and grandchildren are or will be Americans — love America because America is Israel’s friend…Who are these people? Have you ever met a Jewish college kid like that?” (emphasis added)
Were the canapés at the JNews launch last week really so delicious that guest Matt Seaton felt the need to commission two CiF articles on the subject in 5 days? On March 15th Miri Weingarten waxed lyrical about her new project and a few days later Keith Kahn-Harris pitched in with one of his signature cloyingly naive articles. Mr. Kahn-Harris may be in for some disappointment; there’s nothing to suggest that JNews is “a potential voice for peace” as stated in his piece, unless of course one considers the undermining of a sovereign state to be peaceful.
So what do JNews claim they will do according to Director Miri Weingarten?
“JNews will bring to public attention the authentic voices of those directly affected by the conflict and highlight the problems facing migrants and asylum seekers in Israel, the poor and the dispossessed, Arab-Palestinian citizens and the Bedouin. More generally in Israel-Palestine it will focus on the conditions of prisoners and detainees, the status and treatment of women, and the political and civil rights of Palestinians living under occupation and under the control of the Palestinian Authority.”
Translation: JNews will push to the fore stories which highlight the viewpoint of everyone except the Jewish Israelis.
“A key theme of JNews’s output will therefore be the provision of information, views and comment from alternative Jewish sources, which will demonstrate that it is perfectly possible maintain a critical Jewish perspective, but one that arises out of deep empathy for both Israelis and Palestinians.”
Hawkeye
Omar2
WellofSense
Medusa
The Alchemist
Louise
Tosca
Maimon
Telling the Truth
Israelinurse
Adam Levick
Margie in Tel Aviv
Guest/Cross Post
Hadar Sela
Thanks But No Thanks
March 26, 2010 in Uncategorized | Tags: Antisemitism, Antony Lerman, Comment is Free, Guardian | by Israelinurse | 5 comments
Antony Lerman is beginning to remind me of my former mother-in-law. Her experience of raising children had been gained in 1950s Casablanca and she had some pretty antiquated ideas (dentists; please look away now) such as tying a spoonful of honey into the corner of a clean cotton diaper to act as a pacifier for a new baby, or swaddling; supposedly to ‘straighten the spine’. As we were obviously newcomers to the job of raising our firstborn, she believed that her experience compared to our lack of it made her an authority to be listened to on every subject and no amount of explanation of the fact that times, practices and place had changed would convince her otherwise. So it is too with Lerman; in his CiF article of February 26th his basic premise is that he knows best when it comes to running a democracy and he proceeds to liberally dispense his unsolicited advice and admonishments.
What exactly has got Mr. Lerman’s boxer shorts in such a twist this time? Well, it is the fact that Israel appears to have finally woken up to the fact (and none too soon) that not only are there numerous organisations working towards the undermining of the very fabric of Israeli society, but that some of them are being funded by foreign organisations and even governments. It is Israel’s realisation that such a situation cannot be allowed to continue unchecked which has irked Lerman to the point of making dramatic diagnoses regarding the supposed ill health of Israel’s democracy and seeing ‘right wing’ bogey men behind every statement or decision with which he happens not to agree.
This raises two questions. The first is on precisely what authority do people like Mr. Lerman and so many others deem it acceptable to try to influence Israel’s internal affairs? On the one hand, Lerman and his comrades at IJV and now JNews are constantly telling us that Zionism is not the only Jewish narrative. Fair enough, but surely in that case those who do not wish to identify with Israel and Zionism should just get on with their own affairs and stop interfering in a project in which they do not wish to play a part. If, however, they do wish to influence internal Israeli policy then the acceptable way to do that is to make aliyah, pay taxes, send their sons and daughters to the army and take part in Israel’s (frequent!) democratic elections. That, Mr. Lerman, is democracy, but of course it is also the more demanding choice: much easier to stay where you are and purchase influence using money channelled through outfits like the New Israel Fund which bypass Israel’s democratic process completely.
Read the rest of this entry »
Share this:
Like this: