UK journalist who dated Ehud Olmert corrupts Gaza War casualty figures

Mira Bar-Hillel, the British journalist who has admitted to being prejudiced against Jews, penned an op-ed on April 1 at the Independent which contained an even more startling revelation:
mira

In what reads at first glance as an April Fool’s joke, Bar-Hillel writes the following about the former Israeli Prime Minister.

Reader, I didn’t marry him. Not even close. But I did once go out with the former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who has just been convicted of bribery and corruption.

Back in late 1969 a blind date was arranged for us. We moved in the same circles for a few years: he as an aspiring politician, me as a journalist. Then as now, Olmert was highly intelligent, with a sharp legal mind. On the downside was his raw ambition.

Olmert was the accidental PM. ‘Arik’ Sharon made him his deputy mainly to force him to toe the line. But when Sharon fell into a coma in 2004, Olmert inherited the job without having to bother with an election which he would probably not have won.

His legacy as PM includes the ill-fated adventure in Lebanon in August 2006, which killed over 1,000 people, mostly civilians, devastated civil infrastructure and displaced approximately one million Lebanese. Two years later, he ordered the molten lead attack on Gaza in December 2008, which again left over 1,000 Palestinian civilians dead, many of them, as in Lebanon, children.

First, she of course got the date of Ariel Sharon’s coma wrong, which occurred in 2006, not 2004.

Additionally, Bar-Hillel significantly inflates the casualty figures in the 2008-09 war in Gaza.

Even such politicized pro-Palestinian NGOs such as B’tselem haven’t claimed that the three-week conflict between Israel and Hamas “left over 1,000 Palestinian civilians dead”.  While other sources (including, quite tellingly, Hamas) place the civilian casualty figures dramatically lower, B’tselem has claimed that 773 of the 1387 Palestinians they claim were killed in the war “did not take part in hostilities” – more than 20 percent less than the figure cited by Bar-Hillel.

While Bar-Hillel acknowledges that the failed shidduch with the disgraced former PM didn’t provide an opportunity to really get to know the man, readers of the Independent would likely benefit from an equally frank admission that the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is an issue about which she knows even less about.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Zionist ‘Big Bang’ Theory: Guardian once echoed recent French claim that Israel is root of Mideast problems

Quite a few commentators have rightly taken the French foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, to task for his recent absurd suggestion that the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict represents the root cause of instability in the Middle East.  

Fabius’s remarkably myopic understanding of the region prompted Binyamin Netanyahu to point out the obvious: that if peace with the Palestinians were achieved today, the centrifuges won’t stop spinning in Iran, the savage civil war in Syria won’t abate, the instability in Egypt wouldn’t end, and attacks on the West will continue.

However, when I read Laurent’s comments, uttered in Ramallah after he met with Mahmoud Abbas, it reminded me of something the Guardian once claimed at the dawn of what they still were calling the “Arab Spring.” Sure enough:

A Guardian Feb. 2011 official editorial (“The Middle East: People, Power, Politics“) on Muammar Gaddafi’s brutal crackdown against protesters at the dawn of their civil war, and the broader political upheavals in the region, included this risible line:

“the Libyan leader may still be considered too valuable to lose, as US influence in the region decreases. Nowhere is that truer than in the cockpit of the crisis, Palestine.

The Guardian’s surreal editorial, which though dealing with Libya somehow managed to devote 200 of 675 words to the issue of ‘Palestine’, was indicative of the paper’s shameful misreading of the political upheavals which had occurred, or were to occur, in Bahrain, Yemen, Tunisia, Egypt, Syria and elsewhere.

Such framing of events in the Middle East – which attributes most political maladies to Israel’s ‘injurious’ effects on the region – represents more than mere hostility to Israel, but is part of a broader political framework which often shows itself impervious to facts, logic, and new information.

Whilst the Guardian’s editorial line no longer seems wedded to this absurd Zionist causality, the fact that their initial response was to draw a line from Tripoli to Jerusalem speaks volumes about the intellectually crippling effects of their far-left ideology. 

Is the Guardian’s ‘Israel Obsessive Disorder’ in remission?

Over the past several years the Guardian has averaged over 1000 reports or commentaries annually tagged with “Israel”, an average of over 2.7  Israel-related posts per day, representing a statistically disproportionate (overwhelmingly negative) focus on the Jewish state in comparison to other nations – a dynamic we’ve noted continually at this blog.

However, recently there has been a brief but noticeable change to this pattern. Remarkably, there has not been an Israel related entry at the Guardian since June 30 – an unprecedented ten-day respite from the jaundiced and obsessive coverage of the region which, as much as anything, has come to define their institution’s brand of pseudo liberal activist journalism.

Israel page

Snapshot of Guardian’s Israel page, July 10th.

Additionally, save for one piece in the culture section of The Observer (sister site of the Guardian) about Arab films, there has been nothing on the Guardian’s ‘Palestine’ page since June 30, and nothing new on their Gaza page since June 24.

Whilst it’s possible that the civil war in Syria and the political upheavals currently taking place in Egypt have (organically) driven Israel off the ‘front page’, such a theory doesn’t square with the fact that, up until now, the violence and unrest throughout the Middle East since the start of the “Arab Spring” in 2011 hasn’t even minimally resulted in less Israel-related coverage at Guardian Group sites.

However, one thing is certain: the failure of the “Arab Spring” to bring genuine democracy or nurture even a minimal ethos of tolerance and pluralism – and the contradictions within Arab nationalism more broadly – contrasts markedly with the success of Jewish nationalism and the state’s thriving, progressive polity, and demonstrates the irrelevance of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict to the political pathos which haunts the Arab Middle East. 

Far be it from us to even suggest that Guardian editors may have actually learned something and allowed new information to penetrate their ideologically-inspired myopia, but it would certainly represent an invaluable gift to their readers if the recent dearth of Israel-related content reflected even a minimal awareness of the supreme folly of their long-time obsession with the Jewish state.

David Hearst complains of a “disgusting” site which monitors the Guardian

Yesterday, we cross posted a piece by the CST on a forum held at the Front Line Club in London which was titled “Critiquing the media’s approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict” and included British Islamist, Ibrahim Hewitt, ex-BBC Middle East correspondent Tim Llewellyn, and Guardian foreign leader writer David Hearst.  The discussion was chaired by Mark McDonald, a founder of Labour Friends of Palestine & the Middle East.

Sure enough, the event did not disappoint, with participants continually attempting to explain the dangerous influence of the Israel lobby (which was alternately referred to as the Zionist lobby and the Jewish lobby) on media coverage of the Middle East.

Highlights include this from Llewellyn about the apparent fear of the Jewish lobby within the UK media:

Why are we afraid of [the Jewish lobby]? That’s what I don’t understand.

Is it because. I can see it in the BBC. They’re frighten’, these people are quite aggressive, right. The Jewish Lobby is not much fun. They come at you from every direction.

Here’s Hewitt on Zionist “sleepers” all around the world:

It’s very telling that…the Israeli Foreign Ministry actually issued a directive to the hasbara people, the propaganda people, around the world, start placing articles…so they were very confident that they had the ability, the people in place to be able to do that…said a lot, if they can just basically give this directive and all these sleepers all of a sudden wake up and start doing things. There are clearly people in positions of influence who are able to do this.

Here’s a clip of some of the more inflammatory comments:

However, there’s another fascinating glimpse into the mind of the British anti-Zionist left in comments offered by Hearst, which you can hear if you forward to the 24 minute mark of the full video.   Here’s part of what Hearst says:

In my short time as lead writer [at the Guardian] I felt that pressure very, very personally, both within and outside the organization.

 If you just Google my name you’ll see…there’s a whole organization which is there to monitor everything I write from a point of view of antisemitism. I mean, the who thing is disgusting….but it’s pressure. It really is pressure.

In addition to his pejorative reference to our blog, what most stands out is that Hearst genuinely seems shocked by the criticism of his work by monitor organizations like CiF Watch – groups which use the power of the written word (and other democratic mechanisms) to hold his colleagues accountable to the EU Working Definition of Antisemitism and the professional standards of the UK editors’ code.

In monitoring the Guardian and ‘Comment is Free’ for antisemitism we’re often struck most by their contributors’ appalling hubris and over-sensitivity to criticism – convinced, it seems, that they should reap the privileges associated with their profession without the corresponding responsibility to engage in accurate, ethical reporting.

In case Hearst needs to be reminded, here are the words of  C.P. Scott, the Guardian’s former editor and owner, which appear on our masthead:

‘The voice of opponents no less than that of friends have a right to be heard’. 

Regardless of the smears directed against this blog by the likes of Hearst, we will continue holding them to account, and certainly won’t cease in our efforts to expose their relentless, often bigoted assault on the legitimacy of the Jewish state and on the integrity of its passionate supporters ‘all around the world’.

Harriet Sherwood and Phoebe Greenwood take steps towards understanding Palestinian incitement

gaza_2548597bThe failure of many to truly understand the ‘root causes’ of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and accurately contextualize news in the region is based in part on the MSM’s general tendency to ignore or significantly downplay the pervasive antisemitism and anti-Zionist agitation within Palestinian society.

This blog’s ‘What the Guardian won’t report‘ series often focuses on such disturbing stories about the official Palestinian glorification of violence, racist indoctrination of their children and other such grossly underreported examples of the reactionary Palestinian political ethos which ‘genuine’ advocates for peace can not reasonably ignore.

Whilst reasonable people can argue over what degree such Palestinian incitement represents an impediment to peace relative to other factors, such as the issue of Israeli “settlements”, the Guardian’s obsessive focus on the latter and their almost total silence about the former serves to grossly misinform their readers on the politics of the region.

As such, it was encouraging to read a recent story by the Guardian’s Harriet Sherwood, entitled ‘Gaza schoolboys being trained to use Kalashnikovs, April 28, which reports on news that Hamas is now providing Gaza schools with military training for young boys.  The program, which includes the use of firearms and explosives, will likely be extended to girls next year.

Sherwood even quotes Al Mezan, a Gaza-based “human rights organisation”, criticizing the program thusly:

“It’s unbelievable. Hamas has been cutting sports activities in schools for the past six years, saying there is no time in the curriculum, but now they find the time to have military training inside schools,”

Additionally, on the very same day that Sherwood filed her story, Phoebe Greenwood published a piece at The Telegraph entitled ‘Hamas teaches Palestinian schoolboys to how to fire Kalashnikovs’ – a report which is especially noteworthy in the context of a CiF Watch post back in 2011 which noted Greenwood’s skepticism over ‘claims’ made by Israeli officials regarding Palestinian incitement. 

Though both reports are problematic in many respects, and indeed ignore the broader problem of Palestinian incitement in both the West Bank and Gaza, it’s certainly a step in the right direction.

Further, we can at least hope that Sherwood and Greenwood will follow-up on their stories and continue to inform their readers on the pathos within Palestinian political culture which inspires the constant vilification of Israel and dehumanization of Jews - a dynamic which makes most Israelis wary of the conventional wisdom which uncritically accepts that a two-state solution will necessarily result in peace.

The Dead Baby War: Fisking Max Fisher

Cross posted by Richard Landes at Augean Stables under the full title: “The Dead Baby War: Reflections on Palestinian Thanatography and Western Stupefication”.

Max Fisher, formerly of the Atlantic Monthly, now the WaPo’s “foreign policy advisor,”  just posted a reflection on the war of images in the current Gaza operation. In it he makes every effort to be “even-handed.” And in the end, comes up empty-handed. A remarkable example of how intelligent people can look carefully at evidence and learn nothing. If I didn’t know better (which I don’t), I might think he was doing some “damage control,” if not for Hamas (in which case, presumably it would be unconscious), then for the paradigm that permits him not to acknowledge Hamas’ character.

The Israeli-Palestinian politics of a bloodied child’s photo

Posted by Max Fisher on November 16, 2012 at 3:17 pm

 

Left, a journalist for BBC Arabic holds his son’s body. Center, an emergency worker carries an Israeli infant from the site of a rocket strike. Right, Egypt’s prime minister and a Hamas official bend over a young boy’s body. (AP, Reuters, Reuters)

Wars are often defined by their images, and the renewed fighting between Israel and Gaza-based Hamas has already produced three such photographs in as many days. In the first, displayed on the front page of Thursday’s Washington Post, BBC journalist Jihad Misharawi carries the body of his 11-month-old son, killed when a munition landed on his Gaza home. An almost parallel image shows an emergency worker carrying an Israeli infant, bloody but alive, from the scene of a rocket attack that had killed three adults. The third, from Friday, captures Egyptian Prime Minister Hisham Kandil, in his visit to a Gazan hospital, resting his hand on the head of a boy killed in an airstrike.

Each tells a similar story: a child’s body, struck by a heartless enemy, held by those who must go on. It’s a narrative that speaks to the pain of a grieving people, to the anger at those responsible, and to a determination for the world to bear witness. But the conversations around these photos, and around the stories that they tell, are themselves a microcosm of the distrust and feelings of victimhood that have long plagued the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Studiously even-handed. One of my favorite memes: “both sides…”

The old arguments of the Middle East are so entrenched that the photos, for all their emotional power, were almost immediately pressed into the service of one side or another.

Actually, there’s a huge difference between the sides. Israel has, over the years, shown enormous reluctance to use the photos of their dead and wounded to appeal for public sympathy; whereas Palestinians have actually created victims in order to parade their suffering in front of the public. Indeed, Palestinian TV revels in pictures of the dead (so much so, that when my daughter wanted to help me with some logging of PLO TV footage, I had to decline lest she be brutalized by the material). They systematically use the media to both arouse sympathy from an “empathic” West, and to arouse hatred and a desire for revenge among Arabs and Muslims. Nothing uglier.

Israel, on the other hand, studiously avoids pictures of the dead, and only a shocking incident like Ramallah can break those taboos. They were so reluctant to exploit these images that, even at the height of the suicide campaign (2002-3) they refused to release pictures of the dead victims. The two cultures could not be more different on this score, and yet, Fisher has no problem finding his symmetry.

To obfuscate this fundamental difference with a pleasing even-handedness symbolizes the literal stupefication of our culture that necessarily accompanies the politically correct paradigm (PCP1), founded on a dogmatic cognitive egocentrism. It forces one not to see critical information. It’s as if we were under orders to not notice everything that a good detective should pick up on, as if we were required to assist the clean-up crews that want to frame the story to their advantage. In such a world, the protagonists of the Mentalist, Lie to Me, Elementary, CSI, House, are not merely unwelcome, they are banished.

Real ‘impediments to peace’ vs those imagined by the Guardian: Maps, facts & figures

Conventional wisdom – as advanced by the mainstream media (MSM) including the Guardian – regarding the factors representing the main obstacles to ending the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict rarely faces much critical scrutiny. Indeed, assumptions regarding the primacy of issues such as “settlements” and “the occupation” are often impervious to contradictory evidence. 

The Guardian’s coverage of the region is constantly colored by such assumptions.

Here are a few facts which, if more widely disseminated, would at least allow for a more honest debate about the conflict.

Settlements

Percentage of West Bank land inhabited by Israeli “settlers”, per even Palestinian sources: 1.1 %.

Occupation 

Percentage of Palestinians in West Bank under Palestinian civilian rule: Between 96 and 98%.

Palestinian’s want peace?

Percentage of Palestinians who accept Israel’s right to exist: 23%.

Palestinian support for terrorism

Percentage of Palestinians who support suicide bombing: 68% (Highest percentage of any nation/polity in the Arab world).

Palestinian antisemitism

Percentage of Palestinians who openly express an unfavorable view of Jews (and not merely Israelis): 97%.

“Expansionist” Israel 

Percentage of land from which Israel withdrew in the 45 years since the Six Day War: More than two-thirds. (Sinai, Gaza, South Lebanon and much of the West Bank)

Logic of land for peace:

Israel withdrew from 100% of South Lebanon in 2000, 100% of Gaza in 2005 and 40% of the West Bank under the Oslo Accords.  

Contrary to expectations, Israeli withdrawal from South Lebanon dramatically strengthened the political influence and military capacity of Hezbollah and arguably led to the Second Lebanon War.  

Similarly, Israeli withdrawal from Gaza resulted in the territory being taken over by Hamas, more than 8,000 rockets fired at Israeli communities and, ultimately, the Gaza War.  

Israel’s military pullout from much of the West Bank created a vacuum which was filled by Palestinian terrorists, thus creating the dynamics which prepared the ground for the 2nd Intifada. 

Lessons learned:

Finally, whilst none of these facts should necessarily preclude negotiations between the two parties, it is vital that the clichés, distortions and outright lies about what truly prevents a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian (and Israeli-Arab) Conflict be abandoned and a more sober, and factual, understanding of the moral and political dynamics embraced.

David Frost’s interviews with Benny Morris & Suhu Arafat: A stark contrast in political sympathy

David Frost’s seven minute interview with Israeli historian Benny Morris – on July 3rd, concerning the prospects for two-state solution – is quite revealing as regards the sclerotic mindset of many when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.

Briefly, Frost was a daytime TV game-show host early in his career but is best known for his years conducting serious interviews with various political figures - the most notable being Richard Nixon in 1977.  Since 2006, he has been working for AlJazeera, and is also said to be among the wealthiest journalists in the UK, worth up to £200 million.

In a few brief questions posed to Morris, Frost reveals a hardened and fixed position about Israeli culpability which simply cannot  wrap its mind around the fact that Palestinian Arab malevolence towards Israel – and a refusal to accept the legitimacy of a Jewish state –  represents a profound obstacle to achieving genuine peace.

While watching the interview, you will observe Frost dismiss (as a minor “academic detail”) Morris’ concern that PA leaders (and the broader Arab world) have never recognized the legitimacy of a Jewish state in the region.  You will also see the veteran  British journalist suggest that Palestinian/Arab intransigence and rejectionism pale in comparison to the real problem preventing peace – the settlements. 

While it would have been helpful had Morris raised the issues of Palestinian antisemitism and the glorification of terrorism, my guess is that Frost would not have been moved by even the most egregious examples of these phenomena. 

Frost’s March 26, 2012, interview with Suha Arafat and the producers of a documentary about Yasser Arafat’s life, titled “The Price of Kings“, presents quite a contrast. During the interview, Suha – who once publicly accused Israel of  contaminating Palestinian cities with poison gas – accused the Mossad of spreading false rumors of about her and characterized Yasser Arafat as a “great” selfless, tolerant man, full of “humanity”, who championed peace and co-existence.

This narrative of the terrorist leader - similarly parroted by the film makers – went unchallenged by Frost, who failed to ask one difficult question of Mrs. Arafat and made no attempt to hide his affection for her. (You can see the interview here.)

The contrast in Frosts’s tone when interviewing Morris and Arafat is a perfect illustration of the British media elite’s institutional bias when covering the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict – representing a political dogma impervious to facts challenging the meme that Jewish homes in the disputed territories represent a far greater threat to peace than terrorism and incitement. 

The “Peace and Justice” Charade

This is cross posted by A. Jay Adler at The Sad Red Earth (Adler also blogs at Times of Israel, where this essay first appeared.)

We have it from Aesop that “a doubtful friend is worse than a certain enemy. Let a man be one thing or the other, and we then know how to meet him.” Let there be no doubt, then, for Israel, and for those who would, in whatever words, pretend to be its friends.

In On War, a different kind of sage, Carl von Clausewitz, famously wrote that “War is not a mere act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political activity by other means.”

However, Clausewitz also said, “The aim of war should be the defeat of the enemy.  But what constitutes defeat? The conquest of his whole territory is not always necessary, and total occupation of his territory may not be enough.”

Israel has always militarily defeated its enemies, but that has meant neither an end to all conflict with these enemies nor a cessation of the challenges to Israel’s existence. Total occupation of the enemy’s territory has not been enough for Israel – a state of affairs from which it has already receded – and defeat without the military conquest of territory is what Israel’s enemies pursue. Guerilla wars and insurgencies pursue such victory, too. In today’s media world, an almost totally mediated political reality, those who oppose the existence of Israel believe they can destroy the nation through a campaign of negative commentary, cultural assault, symbolic misrepresentation, and tactical military loss that will direct the political responses of other nations. The Israeli historical narrative is daily being ideologically reconstructed by committed enemies for whom the activating belief is that delegitimization begins in the mind.

“When we speak of destroying the enemy’s forces,” said Clausewitz, “we must emphasize that nothing obliges us to limit this idea to physical forces: the moral element must also be considered.”

This, to invert Clausewitz, means politics as a continuation of war by other means.

But what is the nature of Israel’s enemies? Here we find a highly unusual phenomenon.

An observable truth of conflict between peoples is that the contending parties will hold to genuinely differing – which is not to say equally true – perceptions of the grounds of their conflict and that most members of warring groups will demand, up until some point of human and political exhaustion has been reached (or an outcome of total victory and defeat, as in the Second World War or the case of the Tamil Tigers), that the conflict be maintained until the ascendancy of their claims has been achieved. This is to say that Palestinians and Israelis are, in a sense, supposed to be, in the very nature of any uprising in conflict between two groups, angry and unyielding with each other – until the point of some hoped for compromise. That such point of exhaustion might seem rationally to have been reached long and many times ago in this conflict, and thus the moment of compromise have arrived, and that neither has, in fact, come to pass is an entirely different subject of consideration. What I describe is the normal and not very remarkably observed general case.

What of outside parties? Outside parties will commonly remain uninvested in a conflict – even, for so many reasons, when there may be a fair consensus of belief that one party is in the wrong and insupportably belligerent. They are rare and extreme cases in which there is an intervention – Kosovo and Libya; so far, not even in Syria. Non-state actors, such as expatriated descendents now resident in other cultures, may feel, and even at times act on sympathies with one group (Irish-Catholic supporters of the IRA in the U.S., for instance), and allied states may materially support their sides in ongoing conflicts that promote an interest of the ally (Iran, against Israel, as one example), but overwhelmingly it is the case, and the enunciated position of almost any outsider, that whatever terms of settlement to the local conditions of conflict are acceptable to the warring groups themselves – the invested parties – are certainly acceptable to the outside world. This has been so even during most of the current Syrian uprising. At least, the antagonistic groups will enjoy the distant best wishes of the outside world; at best, as in the long efforts of the United States in the Israeli-Arab conflict (or the U.N. with typical fecklessness in Syria), a third-party will invest its energies to serve as honest broker, conciliator, and mediator.

In very rare instances, non-state outsiders, believing that profound moral and transnational stakes are present in a local conflict, will take sides: the International Brigades in the Spanish Civil War. This example is profoundly instructive, too. Certainly, there was every reason properly to believe a fight against fascism a noble cause. Certainly, the brigades allied themselves naively with cynical communist forces and what was, ultimately, even more massive evil.

How shall we relate these observations to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? This is the unusual phenomenon. The ongoing conflict draws more third party attention and involvement than any other antagonism in the world, very probably greater than any in world history. However, the framing of this involvement is unique, beyond the numbers it includes. What is most outstanding about these outside parties is how they cast themselves, both disingenuously and in bad faith, as proponents of “peace and justice.” “Peace and justice” are not only common terms in a post New Left representation of the goals of grassroots activism; they are terms meaningfully employed in considerations of conflict intervention. What is sought between the parties in conflict is peace, at first by cease-fire, and social justice, definable in part by each party’s sense of the relative equity in any final resolution, or as is sometimes said in conflict resolution research these days, transformation of the conflict.

A fundamental consideration of third-party intervention in conflict is whether it is constructive:

the crucial feature is the presence of indicators of these kinds of constructive learning-processes: agreement on the definition of the conflict, or at least willingness to ›agree to disagree‹ (which, in the case of ethnopolitical disputes, is one of the very first hurdles); signs that differences in standpoints are acknowledged as legitimate.1

These features are precisely what cannot be found in the issue-framing, activism, and interventions of most third-party non-state actors in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, who frequently name, or if not, identify themselves to be “peace and justice” organizations. For instance, the organization aptly named, for this analysis, United for Peace and Justice, states at it website,

We will continue to work to end U.S. military and economic aid to Israel that facilitates the Israeli occupation of Palestine and the apartheid policies of the Israeli government.

There is no balanced call for an end to Palestinian anti-Semitic indoctrination or terror attacks, no “signs that differences in standpoints are acknowledged as legitimate.”

There is, too, the variation of United for Justice with Peace, which tells us that

United for Justice with Peace is a coalition of peace and justice organizations and community peace groups in the Greater Boston region. The UJP Coalition, formed after September 11th, seeks global peace through social and economic justice.

Among its principles, UJP calls, in pursuit of “global peace,”

for root causes to be addressed. Millions of ordinary people in the Middle East are angered at US support for the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.

Millions of ordinary people in the Middle East, where geography tells us Israel is located, are angered by Arab anti-Semitism and rejectionism and terror, none of which are part of UJP’s announced “global peace through social and economic justice” agenda.

In the UK and U.S., such organizations can be found at small local levels, such as in Wichita Kansas, where the Peace and Social Justice Center of South Central Kansas is committed to

the worldwide struggle for justice and peace through education, conflict mediation and non-violent action.

Kansas has a reported Jewish population of .6 of one percent; it’s Arab population is variously reported as anywhere from half to fifty percent more than that. Kansas should be as close to as uninvested in the conflict as any geographic location can be. Seemingly in keeping with that likelihood, the Center declares

Members of the Peace and Social Justice Center of South Central Kansas believe in working for a just and lasting Palestinian-Israeli peace based on human rights and international law. We recognize that a just and lasting peace should take into account the legitimate needs and aspirations of both Palestinians and Israelis and that such a peace will benefit both peoples.

Sounds promising, like an even-handed desire for two parties in conflict to be able to resolve their disputes in accordance with the “legitimate needs and aspirations of both.” And the specific program of resolution? Adapted from the Statement of Principles and Policies of United for Peace and Justice, it begins

Members of the Peace and Social Justice Center recognize that ending Israel’s military occupation and settlement of the Occupied Palestinian Territories (O.P.T.), i.e. the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem, is a necessary, though insufficient, condition for achieving a just and lasting peace.

Members of the Peace and Social Justice Center recognize that ending all policies and actions of the Israeli government, both inside the Green Line and within the O.P.T., that deny equal rights to Palestinians, is a necessary, though insufficient, condition for achieving a just and lasting peace.

It continues in that vein for three more paragraphs. A culminating paragraph reads thus:

Members of the Peace and Social Justice Center oppose attacks on civilians-be they carried out by the Israeli military forces or by Palestinian groups-because they deny the inherent value and dignity of all human life and violate human rights and international law. Furthermore, Palestinian attacks on civilians make it easier for Israel’s government to build support for its violent policies toward the Palestinian people with claims that it is “fighting terror.” At the same time, members of the Peace and Social Justice Center recognize the fundamental power imbalance between Israelis and Palestinians and the systemic violence inflicted on the Palestinian people through Israel’s military occupation. Members of the Peace and Social Justice Center recognize that until the Israeli government ceases its systemic violence towards Palestinians and takes genuine steps to achieve a just and lasting peace consistent with the principles articulated above, it is unlikely that Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians will stop. [Emphasis added]

There is, at the opposite end of renown and active reach, Code Pink,

a women-initiated grassroots peace and social justice movement.

Code Pink

stands in solidarity with Palestinian and Israeli nonviolent activists and human rights advocates

-  oh, sounds promising… advocates who are

working to hold Israel accountable for its violations [sic] international law and to promote the rights of Palestinians.

What we see, then, in these and so many more groups like them is a thoroughly Orwellian infection of language. Non-state organizations, as outside parties under the ideal banner of peace and justice conciliators, actually promote the claims of only one side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They promote agendas and engage in actions not intended to conciliate at all, but to advocate, even act, for one side in the conflict. As with the Peace and Social Justice Center of South Central Kansas, only somewhat more explicitly than the other groups, the violence of the Palestinian side is not only rationalized, but humanly motivated in reaction to circumstance. Israeli violence, in contrast, is unattributed, without account or cause, a sheer malevolence.

The unavoidable truth is that these organizations, far from the third-party advocates of peace they pretend to be, act rather as advocates for the victory of one side over the other. What other inspiration shall Palestinian forces take from such outside partisanship? How might many Palestinians assess their circumstance and their prospects if there were not these myriad “peace and justice” organizations encouraging them to believe that the world was coming to their side and that they can ultimately prevail? These organizations are like corner men in a boxing match who advise a bloodied fighter not that he should play it safe and settle for the decision, but who whisper, instead, fervently in his ear, “You can win this thing!” They do not offer resolution of the conflict. They are perpetuators of conflict.

Peace is antagonism, antagonism to victory. Victory is ours.

Justice.

Why is U.S. based Israel-Palestinian peace program, ‘Encounter’, legitimizing one-state solution?

This post was made possible by the first hand account of a friend who was one of  15-20 Jewish/Israeli  participants in a program in Bethlehem, sponsored by the group, Encounter.

The Encounter program is “dedi­cated to strength­ening the capacity of the Jewish people to be construc­tive agents of change in trans­forming the Israeli-Palestinian conflict [to enhance the] next generation’s…commitment to Israel.”

What they do:

“Founded by American rabbis, Encounter is a conflict trans­for­ma­tion orga­ni­za­tion, equip­ping…Jewish leaders from across the polit­ical…spectra with access to Palestinian perspec­tives. Encounter’s two-day lead­er­ship seminar bring Jewish partic­i­pants to the West Bank on tours to meet with Palestinian leaders in busi­ness, media, non-violence activism, educa­tion, and poli­tics so that our youth are more equipped and committed to act as informed change agents and less inclined to give up the “Israel project” alto­gether. [emphasis added]

Impact:

“We are reaching “tipping point” in terms of our cred­i­bility and repu­ta­tion among Jewish leaders from across the country. Encounter’s Executive Directors are invited to speak at forums and confer­ences nation­wide along­side AIPAC and Birthright Executive staff about “what it means to be pro-Israel” and “next gener­a­tion Israel engage­ment”. Encounter staff reach thou­sands of people through speaking engage­ments spon­sored by the…Jewish Theological Seminary…UJA-Federation-NY...New Israel Fundand numerous other synagogues…”

Core values:

“Encounter is an educa­tional orga­ni­za­tion that culti­vates informed Jewish lead­er­ship on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We do not take specific posi­tions regarding the outcome of the conflict….” [emphasis added]

Strategy:

“…we are not a dialogue orga­ni­za­tion. Encounter encour­ages partic­i­pants to listen to and absorb Palestinian narra­tives and claims…”

Encounter’s funders:

Foundation for Middle East Peace (promotes peace between Israel and Palestine, via two states, that meets the fundamental needs of both peoples.

The Ford Foundation

The Russell Berrie Foundation (Promoting the continuity of the Jewish people…)

Nathan Cummings Foundation (Rooted in the Jewish tradition…promotion of understanding across cultures…)

Naomi and Nehemia Cohen Foundaion (…promoting the welfare of the Jewish people.)

The Blaustein Philantropic Group (…strengthening Israeli democracy)

Righteous Persons Foundation (…promoting understanding between Jews and those of other faiths and backgrounds)

Bikkurim (an incubator of new Jewish ideas…a joint project of the Jewish Federations of North America and the Kaminer Family.)

The Germanacos Foundation (supports educational programs that utilize a broad range of perspectives to foster a critical scrutiny of society)

Dorot Foundation (The Foundation’s support for Social Change in Israel takes place through a partnership with the New Israel Fund.)

Lopatin Family Fund

Dobkin Family Foundation

Slingshot Fund (Slingshot’s mission is to strengthen innovation in Jewish life by developing next-generation funders and providing resources to leverage their impact in the Jewish community…by growing and supporting Jewish innovation)

Oreg Foundation

My friend provided me with the itinerary of her Bethlehem trip, scanned here:

Click to Enlarge

Click to Enlarge

Below, in bullet points, are my friend’s more important observations while participating in group discussions, in Bethlehem, with Palestinians. 

The following aren’t exact quotes, but accurately reflect her observations.

  • The Jewish participants spent the entire time listening to Palestinian views. There was never an opportunity by Jewish participants to even briefly explain the Jewish/Israeli narrative. Indeed, such ‘counter narratives’ were explicitly forbidden by the program organizers.
  • Not one Palestinian, when discussing their long-term vision for the region, advocated a two-state solution, nor expressed any empathy for Jewish aspirations.
  • Several presenters (such as ‘Comment is Free’ contributor Sam Bahour) quite explicitly advocated a one-state solution.
  • One Palestinian presenter, named Shirin, told us that, in the absence of a one-state solution, there is going to be a bloodbath. In response to this, most participants clapped. 
  • The resentment towards us (Jews/Israelis) was really intense. They clearly hate Zionism, and Zionists, with a passion.

To put this “peaceful” encounter, organized by Americans who fancy themselves progressive, in some perspective, note that one of the featured speakers was ‘Comment is Free’ contributor, Sam Bahour

Bahour is affiliated with ‘Al Shabaka’ (a group which opposes all Palestinian Authority negotiations with Israel), has signed the Stuttgart declaration calling for a one-state solution (a resolution signed by activists representing both Islamism and the radical left), and, in a previous CiF piece, sanitized the death and carnage of the 2nd intifada as a mere “civil uprising” which the Arab world would be wise to emulate.

Does it really need to be asked how anyone claiming the mantle of peace can legitimize the call for the end of the Jewish state?

At the end of the day, what programs like ‘Encounter’ truly represent are efforts to tell morally vulnerable U.S. Jews that their spiritual salvation, their moral redemption for the original sin of the Jewish state’s creation, lie in Israel’s complete capitulation.

Thankfully, the overwhelming majority of Israelis, indeed most Jews in the diaspora, realize that the Jewish state’s existence is simply not open for negotiation – her legitimacy, paraphrasing Abba Eban, is not a negotiable concession.

Her borders may be one day be somewhat redrawn, but the results of 1948 will never, ever be undone.

Perhaps, looking back at her Bethlehem”encounter”, my friend’s only fond memory will be the program’s complete irrelevance.  

Fight or flight? CiF Watch, David Yehuda Stern & Ben White

David Yehuda Stern

I have no doubt that David Yehuda Stern is a decent, honorable, committed activist and proponent of social justice.  

Nor, based on his resume and a quick search of his writing, is there any question that he’s passionate about both his Jewish identity and Israel.

However, though I’ve only just come across Stern’s blog (Cartoon Kippah: The voice of animated British Jewry), there’s something in the title of his latest post alone which gets to the heart of the skewed political reasoning which informs the views of many well-intended leftist Jews regarding the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.

Here’s the title of Stern’s latest blog entry.

Words that destroy, words that build: CiF Watch and Ben White

Stern opens his post thusly:

For those of you not familiar, CIF Watch is an online blog, “Combating the assault on Israel’s legitimacy in the UK Guardian’s ‘Comment is Free’ blog.”

On an altogether different mission is writer and activist Ben White, who has dedicated his professional life to advancing the rights of Palestinians.

Both CIF Watch and Ben White have admirable goals but it is their aggressive, often intimidating rhetoric, that disengages the majority of the public from their important messages leaving all but the bitter taste of hate in the mouths of many who come into contact with their work.

So, immediately, there’s a suggestion that  CiF Watch and Ben White are both pursuing admirable goals but are compromised by hyperbolic rhetoric.

Perhaps Stern can be forgiven for such a comparison, as he’s evidently not aware of White’s record

So, here’s a snapshot.

White is the author of the book “Israeli Apartheid: A Beginner’s Guide”, an obsessive anti-Zionist and supporter of the one-state solution. He also routinely accuses Israel of ethnic cleansing, and has even used language suggesting parallels between Nazi Germany and Zionism.

White also recommended an essay by a prominent Holocaust denier.

Further, in an article entitled Is It ‘Possible’ to Understand the Rise in ‘Anti-Semitism’?, for the radical anti-Zionist site CounterPunch, White stated, “I do not consider myself an anti-Semite, yet I can also understand why some are”.

He then linked the rise of antisemitism with “the widespread bias and subservience to the Israeli cause in the Western media”.

Stern, in his blog post, writes:

Ben White’s attitude to the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict may be the mirror opposite to that of CiF Watch but his tone is practically identical. Like CiF Watch his tweets present only one side of a very complicated situation, resulting in the dehumanization of Israeli citizens and Israel’s supporters.

He then concludes:

Legitimate frustration seems to fuel both CiF Watch and Ben White’s aggressive tones and they certainly have the freedom to tweet as they see fit. But will their current approach best serve their causes? I think not.

And, herein lies the heart of the matter.

While Stern admirably condemns White’s dehumanizing vitriol towards Israelis, he suggests that employing passionate, uncompromising rhetoric to combat such moral assaults on Jews is out-of-bounds.

As an Israeli citizen, I’d really like to know how I’m supposed to civilly respond to those, like White, who don’t think my nation deserves the right to exist under any circumstances – within any borders.

And, similarly, I’m at a lost to understand how to calmly, respectfully exchange views with those who find antisemtism an understandable reaction to Israeli behavior.

The degree to which CiF Watch aggressively refutes anti-Zionist and antisemitic commentary – both by posts on our blog, and within the necessarily less expansive rhetorical parameters of social media such as Twitter – is informed by a quite sober understanding of Jewish history, and an intimate familiarity with the limits of reasonableness and the assumption of good intentions.

This blog certainly believes in what’s known as “Big Tent Zionism”, and we’ll certainly continue to civilly debate those who don’t necessarily share our views on how best to defend against the assaults on Israel’s legitimacy – and, similarly, how most effectively to fight antisemitism – but, of course, the key word in the phrase “Big Tent Zionism” is, “Zionism”.

I won’t engage in a calm tête-à-tête with those who defend, rationalize or excuse antisemitism, nor those who find my nation’s existence morally abhorrent, not worth fighting for, or in any way expendable.

In psychology there’s a phrase called “fight or flight response”, which refers to the human capacity, or lack thereof, to accurately identify threats and respond accordingly.

There is a time for compromise and a time to fight.

Jewish history – indeed world history – is replete with the injurious effects of the failure of just, sensitive souls to discern the former from the latter.

Jews – especially Israeli Jews – simply do not have the luxury of making such mistakes again.

Israel’s critical security needs for a real and sustainable peace

One of Israel’s diplomatic challenges in arguing their position vis-a-vis the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is that it is difficult to explain their requirements in a pithy sound bite.

While Palestinians can simply say that “all they want” is an end to “the Occupation”, explaining the myriad of complex strategic and security implications of further territorial withdrawal simply does not lend itself to a simple slogan or set of catch phrases.

While I’ve repeatedly noted that the common assumption, that withdrawing from more land (in Judea and Samaria) would inevitably bring peace, has been contradicted by the subsequent political results, and strategic consequences, of Israel’s withdrawals from South Lebanon in 2000, and from Gaza in 2005, its vital to clearly stress the dangers Israel would face in the aftermath of a withdrawal which didn’t take this recent history (where terrorists movements, Hezbollah and Hamas respectively, filled the vacuum created by the IDF’s absence) into account.

The following video was produced by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and serves as brief yet clear primer on Israel’s vital security issues in the context of negotiations with the Palestinians over a final peace agreement.