Tag Archives: Palestinian territories

May 19 2013

Harriet Sherwood and the myth of olive oil shortages in Gaza

Hadar Sela recently commented on Harriet Sherwood’s report in the Guardian (“Gaza gastronomy”, May 14) which focused on a food collective in Gaza called Zeitun, as well as a recently published book titled ‘The Gaza Kitchen: A Palestinian Culinary Journey‘ co-written by Maggie Schmitt and ‘Comment is Free’ contributor Laila Haddad.

olives

In addition to the important questions raised by Sela about Haddad – a one-stater who has previously ‘informed’ readers at ‘Comment is Free’ that Gaza is worse than a prison camp, and has used Electronic Intifada to warn of an impending “Gaza genocide” – the Guardian report is notable for the following claims made by Sherwood in the context of explaining the broader challenges of cooking in the Palestinian run territory:

In Gaza, almost 1 million people – more than half the population – receive basic food assistance from the United Nations. The 13 women of the Zeitun Kitchen co-operative [a women's co-operative, which caters for weddings and family parties in Gaza] have learned to adapt to the privations of life in Gaza: shortages of power and cooking oil; Israel’s ban on many foodstuffs during the three years in which a stringent blockade was in place; the fluctuations in black market supplies through the tunnels to Egypt; the destruction of and restrictions on access to prime agricultural land; the imposition of strict limits on how far from shore Gaza’s fishermen can lower their nets.

Olive oil is just one example. An essential ingredient in most Palestinian dishes, the uprooting of olive trees in both Gaza and the West Bank has made the once-abundant oil prohibitively expensive for many families. Now it is often used just to dress a dish, rather than create it.

So, is there a shortage of olives or olive oil in Gaza, as Sherwood contends?

OliveOil

An increase in Palestinian olive trees:

  • CAMERA’s Tamar Sternthal, in fisking a Los Angeles Times review of ‘Gaza Kitchen’ by Carol J. Williams, addressed the specific contention by Williams – similar to Sherwood’s claim – that “locally made olive oil has disappeared” due to the Israeli blockade, and was able to demonstrate that there are actually “significantly more olive trees in Gaza now than in the years before Israel imposed a blockade.”  

An increase in olive oil production

  • Additionally, the Palestinian Bureau of Statistics (PCBS) on March 17, 2013 noted that there was a significant “increase in olive oil production in Palestine [West Bank and Gaza] in 2012“. The quantity of olive oil extracted in “Palestine” in 2012 rose, PCBS statistics demonstrated, by 10.6% compared to 2011. (Additionally, there is evidence that olive oil production in Gaza specifically increased significantly in 2012)

A surplus of olive oil:

  • A detailed economic report by the PCBS in 2012 indicated that Palestinian olive oil production was expected to be 18 thousand tons in 2012. Taking into account the 6 thousand ton surplus from the previous year, the total available supply of olive oil in the Palestinian territories was expected to be nearly 24 thousand tons.  Since the local annual consumption of olive oil, again per the PCBS, is about 14 thousand tons, there was an expected surplus of approximately 10 thousand tons of olive oil in “Palestine” for the current year. 
  • Additional data by the World Bank supports the PCBS conclusion that olive oil production in the Palestinian territories greatly exceeds local consumption.

Exports of olives and olive oil

Data suggests that olive oil prices have recently decreased in Gaza.

  • The economic analysis of Gaza by the PCBS cited above suggested a decrease in the price of olive oil in the Palestinian territories in 2012, compared to 2011. [Table 6.2]

So, not only is there no evidence to support Harriet Sherwood’s claim that there is a shortage of olive oil in Gaza (and related higher prices) due to ”the uprooting of olive trees” by Israel, but PCBS data suggests an abundant supply of olives and olive oil in the West Bank and Gaza, and that prices, if anything, may have fallen a bit from 2011 levels.

Once again, it seems likely that the Guardian’s Jerusalem correspondent relied solely on anecdotal evidence from ‘Palestinian sources‘, without fact-checking the specific claims using readily available open source information.

Related articles
May 1 2013

Buried by the Guardian: Disturbing data on Palestinian support for suicide bombing

Following a disturbingly high number of Palestinian terrorist attacks against Israelis in recent months, including the lethal stabbing assault of a 32-year-old Israeli man in the northern West Bank on Tuesday, Israeli defense officials have expressed concerns that the conflict could lead to a Third Intifada.

Whilst recent violence by Palestinians has involved rock throwing, knife attacks, shootings and the hurling of fire bombs, the fear that such a coordinated outbreak of Palestinian violence could include suicide bombings – which caused so much death and carnage during the Second Intifada – was amplified by a new Pew poll released on April 30.

The new ‘Pew Research Center Survey of Muslims around the Globe‘ finds that Muslim support for suicide bombing in the Palestinian territories is the highest among the the twenty countries surveyed – with 40% of Palestinians agreeing that ‘suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are often/sometimes justified’.

Here’s the Pew graphic illustrating the data:

suicide bombing

Additional poll findings on Palestinian opinion includes the following:

  • Homosexuality: 89% of Palestinians think it’s immoral.
  • Women’s rights: 89% of Palestinians think women must always “obey” their husband.
  • Sharia Law: 89% favor the imposition of Sharia Law into their society.
  • Honor killings: 45% of Palestinians think it’s sometimes justifiable.

Whilst the Guardian’s Ewan MacAskill did briefly note, in passing, the findings on Palestinian support for suicide bombing, in a broader April 30 report which centered on the moderate views of American Muslims, the report was not tagged with the term ‘Palestinian territories‘ – nor did it appear on the Israel, Palestinian territories, or Gaza pages.

Moreover, whilst Harriet Sherwood did recently take a tepid step towards acknowledging the problem of Palestinian incitement, it seems unlikely that she will properly incorporate this disturbing new data into future reports on violence in the region.

final_suicide_belt_picture_facebook

Glorifying Suicide Bombing: Official Fatah Facebook Page, Oct. 2012

As we’ve argued repeatedly on this blog, it is impossible to honestly debate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without an honest assessment of Palestinian values and social mores, which are, by any measure, on the extremist right end of the political spectrum and, it would seem, irreconcilable with the ideals of peace and coexistence.

Related articles
Apr 4 2013

Glenn Greenwald’s dishonesty on the rights of women and gays in the Mid-East

g

In Glenn Greenwald’s latest column at ‘Comment is Free’ (Sam Harris, the New Atheists and anti-Muslim animus, April 3) he attacks the ”New Atheists” such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens for promoting what he claims is “Islamophobia under the guise of rational atheism”.  

Greenwald lambasts Harris – and, to a lesser extent, Dawkins and Hitchens – for suggesting that the threat posed by Islamic traditions and doctrines to Western political freedom is greater than that of Christianity and Judaism.

Greenwald’s response includes the following passage, which accurately sums up the gist of his narrative.

One can legitimately criticize Islam without being bigoted or racist. That’s self-evident, and nobody is contesting it. And of course there are some Muslim individuals who do heinous things in the name of their religion just like there are extremists in all religions who do awful and violent things in the name of that religion, yet receive far less attention than the bad acts of Muslims Yes, “honor killings” and the suppression of women by some Muslims are heinous, just as the collaboration of US and Ugandan Christians to enact laws to execute homosexuals is heinous, and just as the religious-driven, violent occupation of Palestine, attacks on gays, and suppression of women by some Israeli Jews in the name of Judaism is heinous. That some Muslims commit atrocities in the name of their religion (like some people of every religion do) is also too self-evident to merit debate, but it has nothing to do with the criticisms of Harris.

If you’re wondering how Greenwald backs up his rhetorical inference – that there is moral parity between Muslim countries and Israel regarding the oppression of women and gays – his first link opens to a July 1, 2005 report about a Jerusalem Gay Pride Parade (the previous day) in which one ultra-orthodox man stabbed and lightly wounded three gay participants.

Gay rights in Israel

First, it’s telling that in researching attacks on gays in Israel he had to go back nearly eight years, and chose to focus on one isolated incidence of violence in a country which is – certainly by Mid-East standards and even in comparison to European countries – decidedly gay-friendly. Whilst even in Jerusalem, since the mid 2000′s, the gay pride parade has grown, and has been staged without incident (see CiF Watch’s coverage of last year’s  parade here), in Tel Aviv, as many within the LGBT community knows, they hold one of the most prominent and raucous annual gay pride parades in the world.  In fact, the city was recently voted ‘best gay city’ on a LGBT travel website.  

Additionally, Israeli laws guarantee equal rights for gays.  Israeli gays have represented their country in the Knesset and have been serving openly in the IDF since 1993 (years ahead of the US on such laws). And, in 1994, an Israeli court ruled that same-sex couples are entitled to the same common law benefits as opposite-sex couples.  Israel is also the only country in the Middle East with legal protections for gays from discrimination and hate crimes.

Gay rights in the the Arab and Muslim Middle East

In contrast to Israel, merely engaging in same-sex acts is illegal in most Muslim and Arab countries in the Middle East (including in Gaza), with sentences for such proscribed sexual activity including imprisonment and (in countries like Yemen, Iran and Saudi Arabia) even state execution.  Additionally, gays in some Arab countries are murdered due to their sexuality by extra-judicial “vigilante squads”.  Even in Middle East countries where homosexuality isn’t explicitly outlawed (like in the PA), gays often face harassment, arrests, beatings and even death.

Greenwald’s other link, from the passage cited above, opens to a report on protests by women in Jerusalem over gender based restrictions on davening (praying) at the Kotel (Western Wall).

Women’s rights in Israel: 

Though such issues are of course a legitimate cause for criticism (see our report on the row over praying at the Kotel here), no reasonable person could seriously take issue with the fact that women in Israel enjoy a level of freedom which not only surpasses non-Jewish Middle Eastern countries, but are on par with that of other Western democracies.

Israel codified gender equality within their basic law in 1949 and was the third country in the world to be led by a female prime minister, Golda Meir.  Further, Israeli women continue to be represented in all levels of Israeli society.  They have served as Supreme Court justices, as government ministers, and, in 2013, 23% of the nation’s 120-member Knesset are women.    

As Freedom House reported: ”Women have achieved substantial parity at almost all levels of Israeli society“.

Women’s rights in the Arab and Muslim Middle East:

In contrast to Israel, in the Arab and Muslim Middle East discriminatory laws and misogynistic customs are pervasive.  Here are some examples:

In Egypt, spousal rape is not illegal, the penal code allows for leniency in so-called honor killings, and female genital mutilation is still widely practiced.

In Iran, women cannot obtain a passport without the permission of her husband or a male relative, do not enjoy equal rights under Sharia-based statutes governing divorce, inheritance, and child custody, and “a women’s testimony in court is given only half the weight of a man’s”.  

In Saudi Arabia, women are almost completely excluded from the political process, are not allowed to drive a car, and cannot travel within or outside of the country without a male relative. The religious police “enforce a strict policy of gender segregation” and often use physical punishment to ensure that they dress “modestly” in public. 

In the Palestinian territories, due to laws and societal norms derived (or inspired) in part from Sharia, women are also at a disadvantage in matters of marriage, divorce, and inheritance. Rape and domestic abuse are pervasive, and even “honor killings” are not uncommon and are rarely prosecuted. Under Hamas, “women’s dress and movements in public have been increasingly restricted by the so-called morality police”, who are tasked with enforcing orthodox Islamic customs.

A 2010 Freedom House report on systemic gender discrimination in the Middle East noted that the overall conditions for women have actually worsened (since their previous report in 2005) in three places: Iraq, Yemen, and the West Bank and Gaza.

Finally, though most essays published by Greenwald contain serious distortions, the suggestion in his recent post that there is anything resembling moral equivalence between Israel and its Muslim and Arab neighbors in the rights afforded to women and gays is an out-and-out lie – and effectively illustrates the propagandistic style constantly employed by such Guardian Left activists. 

israel_freedom

Map of political freedom in the Mid-East, per the human rights group ‘Freedom House’. (courtesy of CAMERA)

UPDATE: Read a great post on Greenwald’s egregious misrepresentation of Sam Harris’s views here.

Related articles
Mar 21 2013

Following CiF Watch post, Guardian amends false Jewish demography claim

corrections to storiesWe posted yesterday about a March 19 Guardian report by Chris McGreal, ‘Obama urged: act tough on Israel or risk collapse of a two-state solution‘, which contained an egregious error regarding the Jewish population in Israel.

In the context of warning about the ‘urgent need’ to quickly create a Palestinian state, McGreal grossly mischaracterized a recent study on Jewish demography.

Here’s the passage:

Others have pointed up a recent Hebrew University demographic study, which showed that Jews are now in a minority in the occupied territories – suggesting that Israel’s democratic and Jewish character are threatened by its reluctance to give up territory to an independent Palestine.

We noted that even causal Israel observers would surely know that Jews are of course a minority in “occupied territories” and have been so since Israel’s founding. Further, in locating the Hebrew University professor who he was citing, we demonstrated that the demographic study in question was in fact only claiming that Jews are a minority (relative to non-Jews) in the historic land of Israel – from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River, including Gaza, the West Bank and Israel proper.  (As we noted, the political significance of citing the Jewish population within these territorial parameters, which includes Gaza, is uncertain.)

McGreal either conflated the data, or, at least by inference, was characterizing all of Israel (including the state within pre-67 boundaries) as ‘occupied’ Palestinian territory.

Roughly eight hours after our post, which we Tweeted directly to McGreal, the Guardian revised their erroneous claim (which was also originally included in the caption of the accompanying photo) and noted the error.

Here’s the editor’s note:

correctionWhilst in unclear how an “editing error” could explain the original misleading claim, we’re pleased of course whenever the Guardian is prodded into recognizing a factual error and acts promptly to correct it. 

Related articles
Mar 17 2013

Jonathan Freedland promotes the myth of ‘non-violent’ Palestinian protests in Bil’in

Jonathan Freedland’s latest essay at ‘Comment is Free’, about President Obama’s upcoming visit to Israel, is boilerplate Guardian: It promotes the idea that a US President needs to coax truculent Israelis who have lost their soul to ‘the occupation’ into pursuing peace, while failing to acknowledge Israeli concerns and ignoring Palestinian responsibility for the conflict.

Indeed, while much of what Freedland writes, in ‘You’re not a tourist, Obama, go to Israel with a message‘, March 15, is quite consistent with the ideological left’s tendency to view Palestinians as a mere abstraction, the following passage in the essay is worth examining. 

It’s too late to change Obama’s itinerary, but perhaps not too late to influence the in-flight entertainment on Air Force One. It’s a long journey, so the president should have time to see two films, both Oscar nominees. The first is not Les Miz or Argo, but 5 Broken Cameras. Shot by an amateur Palestinian film-maker in the West Bank village of Bil’in, it is a powerful eyewitness account of the everyday reality of the occupation, from unarmed villagers clashing with Israeli soldiers to Bil’in’s cherished olive trees set aflame by nearby settlers.

The depiction of Palestinian protests in the film which Freedland is referring to, however, is egregiously skewed.

The documentary, ’5 Broken Cameras’, focuses on the Palestinian village of Bi’lin, where the local population, in conjunction with international (largely European) supporters, has been demonstrating on a weekly basis to protest the Israeli security fence a few kilometers east of Modi’in.

int'l

European and Palestinian protesters, Bil’in, Aug 2012

The protests, which commenced eight years ago, have continued each week despite the relocation of the fence as the result of an Israeli Supreme Court ruling which enlarged Palestinian territory, making the village more suitable for Palestinian agricultural.

english-map-of-new-sec-fence

Map outlining the new security fence route bordering the Palestinian village of Bil’in 

The film never mentions that the security fence which is the object of protest was erected as a result of the Palestinian terror war in 2000-2005, in which waves of suicide bombers attacked Jewish civilians indiscriminately – constructed for the sole purpose of preventing terrorists from walking into Israeli cities and blowing themselves up.

2-1024x682

A photojournalist covering Bil’in security fence protest, Aug 2012.

More importantly, the narrative, advanced in the film and evidently accepted by Freedland, that protests are staged by “villagers” who are “unarmed”, represents a gross distortion.  

Indeed, the film reportedly edited out scenes of the Palestinian ‘protagonists’ engaging in violence against Israeli soldiers.  And, while they may not possess firearms as such, they certainly engage in violent rioting each week, typically throwing rocks and metal objects, as well as firebombs, at Israeli security forces.

Over the past several years more than 200 Israeli security personnel have been injured by Palestinian rioters in Bil’in.

Like so many symbols of the Palestinian “resistance”, the weekly protests at the security fence near Bil’in are not spontaneous, grassroots acts of civil disobedience but, rather, choreographed, media-friendly acts of violence.

Related articles
Mar 11 2013

Another Guardian post lamenting that news of misogyny in Gaza deflects focus from Israel

On March 7 we posted about a ‘Comment is Free’ essay by Nabila Ramdani titled ‘Hamas’s ban on women running Gaza marathon is a missed opportunity‘, March 6. We noted that the main concern of Ramdani, a Paris based journalist, was that Hamas’s decision to ban women from running in the UNRWA sponsored charity run, which resulted in the cancellation of the competition, would deflect attention away from the Israeli “occupation”.

The decision by Hamas, argued Ramdani, “wastes what should have been yet another huge blow against Israel’s illegal [sic] occupation and blockade of the Palestinian territories.”

Ramdani isn’t alone in her political myopia.

The Guardian published a piece on March 9 titled ‘Format photography festival: from sharks to axe-wielding women – audio slideshow, which includes photos from a cultural event in the UK called ‘Format photography festival‘, as well audio from four of the festival’s photographers.  Here’s a clip from the first woman, Tanya Habjouqa, which I edited from a longer Guardian audio. Especially note what Habjouqa says at the 1 minute mark.

Habjouqa advances a truly a remarkable argument.  Like Ramdani, she seems especially concerned that those focusing on the oppression of women by a reactionary Islamist terror group are deflecting attention away from the Israeli blockade.

The sensitive artist evidently is unconcerned about hundreds of thousands of Palestinian women who suffer under a Hamas regime which has imposed personal status law derived from Sharia, placing them at a stark disadvantage in matters such as domestic abuse.  And, she would much rather discuss the “siege” than the misogynistic social mores in the Palestinian controlled territory which results in rape, domestic abuse, and “honor killings” often going unpunished by Gaza’s courts.

Habjouqa may fancy herself a feminist, but her selective outrage, which obsesses over Israel while ignoring the backwardness of Hamas’s theocratic tyranny – which promotes gender apartheid – undermines any claim she may have to being a genuine defender of women’s rights.  

Related articles
Mar 7 2013

The inevitable CiF essay using nixed Gaza marathon as fodder to demonize Israel

The decision by UNRWA to cancel the upcoming Gaza marathon, due to Hamas’s refusal to allow women to run with men, inspired a ‘Comment is Free’ piece by Nabila Ramdani (a Paris-born journalist and academic of Algerian descent), titled ‘Hamas’s ban on women running Gaza marathon is a missed opportunity‘, March 6.

nabila

Sure enough Ramdani continues in the tried and true pattern of framing nearly any morally indefensible act by Palestinian leaders as problematic, not in itself, but due to the fact that it deflects attention from the Israeli “occupation”.  Typical of her polemical strategy is the following passage:

Hamas’s decision to ban women – 119 from abroad and 266 from Gaza itself – is wrong for all the most basic reasons. It is sexist, discriminatory and regressive, and – crucially – it wastes what should have been yet another huge blow against Israel’s illegal occupation and blockade of the Palestinian territories.

So, evidently, Ramdani’s primary concern is that Hamas made a tactical mistake by forcing the cancellation of a charity marathon (raising money for Gaza’s children) which would have had the effect of exposing Israeli oppression.  Note also that Ramdani falsely characterizes Israel’s blockade as illegal when, in fact, the UN Palmer Report definitively concluded that the blockade was indeed legal under international law.

Further in the essay, Ramdani even manages to implicitly blame Israel for Hamas’s misogynistic and repressive policies against its own citizens.

War and occupation inevitably lead to authoritarian government, and Hamas is asserting its traditional conservatism in a manner that is of great concern to thousands of Palestinians.

To those under the ideological influence of such post-colonial inspired liberal racism, Palestinians are rarely fully responsible for their own actions. Of course, Ramdani doesn’t mention that Hamas won a plurality of votes in the 2006 Palestinian elections after Israel withdrew all of its citizens and soldiers from Gaza, and before there was a blockade.  Basic ’cause and effect’ is ignored.   

The political reality of Gaza since 2007 (the year of Hamas’s violent takeover of the strip) is consistent with the fact that Islamist doctrine, as codified in Hamas’s founding charter, inevitably leads to illiberal, authoritarian governance  – one which is intolerant towards women, gays, religious minorities and even (slightly less radical) Palestinian political opponents.

Ramdani continues:

This shortsighted ban comes as Israel introduces segregated buses travelling from the West Bank into Israel.

As we definitively argued yesterday, reports, in the Guardian and elsewhere, that Israel introduced ‘Palestinian-only’ buses are flatly untrue.

Again, Ramdani:

Israel maintains control of Gaza’s land and sea borders, its territorial waters, its natural resources, its airspace, its food and energy supplies, and its telecommunications network.

As even the Guardian readers’ editor acknowledged, following a CiF Watch complaint in Dec. 2011, regarding a similar claim by Sarah Irving, Israel does not control all of Gaza’s land borders.  As a simple map will demonstrate, Egypt maintains control over Gaza’s southern border.

Finally, here’s Ramdani’s conclusion.

Israel had no control whatsoever over the marathon, which was due to take place on 10 April, and the race was certain to draw attention to what is arguably the most pressing political problem in the Middle East, if not the world,

A more exquisite example of the extreme left’s obsession with Israel – one which is often completely unmoored from reason or moral common sense –  would be hard to find.

A look at the following numbers is instructive.  While there were 177 Palestinians killed in the November war in Gaza (the majority of which were terrorists), there are reportedly up to 70,000 dead in the Syrian civil war (including up to 1,000 Palestinians), and up to 1 million refugees – a bloody Arab on Arab conflict which has spread to Lebanon and even Iraq.

Further, Hamas’s tyrannical rule over Palestinians in Gaza represents but a small geographical element of a broader Islamist iron curtain which has spread to, or is ascendant in, Tunisia, Egypt, Lebanon, Turkey – and, likely, after Assad falls, in Syria.

The notion that the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict represents anything resembling the most pressing political problem in the Middle East (let alone in the entire world) represents a supreme abdication from political sobriety – one which continues to find currency within the reactionary ideological space occupied by the Guardian Left.

Related articles
Nov 9 2012

Following our post, Guardian amends story claiming Hezbollah drone was shot down over Palestinian territory

On Oct. 14 we posted about a Guardian video story on Oct. 12 which falsely claimed that the Hezbollah drone which flew into Israel on Oct. 6 was shot down by the IDF over “Palestinian” territory.

Note the text on the screen (a screen shot from the original Guardian video) claiming that the drone was shot down over “Palestinian territory”.

However, the drone, which was launched from Lebanon, was not shot down over Palestinian territory.  

As we noted at the time, the UAV traveled down the Mediterranean coast before crossing into Israel from Gaza. Then, it traveled east across Israel’s Negev desert, and was shot down above the Yatir Forest - south of the border with the West Bank, clearly inside Israel.

Here’s a map we included in our post.

A = Israeli Yatir Forrest

Towards the end of our post, we asked readers to contact Chris Elliott, the Guardian’s Readers’ Editor, to point out the error.

It just came to our attention that on Oct. 17, a few days after our post, the Guardian corrected their error.  Here’s the text from their ‘Corrections and Clarifications‘ page.

Here’s a sincere thanks to those of you who heeded our suggestion and alerted the Guardian about their mistake.

(Final note: On the same Guardian ‘Corrections‘ page linked to above, there is another correction based on a CiF Watch report, concerning a false claim by ‘CiF’ columnist John Pilger about the death toll during the Gaza War.)

Related articles
Oct 23 2012

Immutable Israeli guilt watch: Jewish state “accused” of ensuring Gazans had proper nutrition

The most interesting aspect of the Guardian/AP report on Oct. 17, ‘Israel used calorie count to limit Gaza food during the blockade‘, in addition to the extremely misleading headline, is that there is little if anything in the story which demonstrates that Israel did anything improper whatsoever.

However, as we’ve seen time and again, the mere absence of information pointing to Israeli villainy is often no obstacle for Guardian editors.

Though Israel maintains a legal blockade on Gaza to prevent deadly weapons from entering the strip,  thousands of tons of supplies for Palestinians in Gaza arrive weekly from Israel, aid which includes medical supplies, food, and consumer goods, and there is simply no humanitarian crisis to speak of in the strip.

However, the Guardian, in classic propagandistic style, begins by employing the requisite photo of a Palestinian boy crying,

Yet, the strap line begins to provide a clue that there is, in fact, no real story here:

Unpacking this strap line, it seems to acknowledge that Israel was careful to “avoid” civilian malnutrition in Gaza.

So, what exactly is Israel’s crime?

The report begins, thus.

“The Israeli military made precise calculations of Gaza’s daily calorie needs to avoid malnutrition during a blockade imposed on the Palestinian territory between 2007 and mid-2010..” [emphasis added]

So far, we have a story corroborating Israeli claims that, since the blockade was launched, Israeli officials were careful to allow in enough food to avoid malnutrition.

Again, what is Israel’s crime? 

Here’s where it gets strange:

“Israel says it never limited how many calories were available to Gaza, but critics claimed the document was proof the government limited food supplies to put pressure on Hamas.

Major Guy Inbar, an Israeli military spokesman, said the calculation, based on a person’s average requirement of 2,300 calories a day, was meant to identify warning signs to help avoid a humanitarian crisis…” [emphasis added]

The average recommended calorie intake according to the UK National Health System is 2500 for men and 2000 for women, indicating that Israel was making sure they supplied Gaza with enough food for Palestinians to consume the the calories necessary for proper nutrition.

So, what’s Israel’s crime?

Indeed, further in the report, Israel is again vindicated.

“The food calculation, made in January 2008, applied the average daily requirement of 2,279 calories per person, in line with World Health Organisation’s guidelines, according to the document.

“The stability of the humanitarian effort is critical to prevent the development of malnutrition,” the document said.

Further in the report, we learn the following:

“...at no point did observers identify a food crisis developing in the territory, whose residents rely heavily on international food aid.” [emphasis added]

Ok, in summary:

Israel maintained a blockade of deadly weapons sent to the Hamas run territory to protect their citizens from harm, but carefully avoided a humanitarian crisis from developing in the enemy territory by ensuring the availability of the recommended number calories as determined by international health organizations.

Again, I ask, what’s Israel’s crime?

Related articles
Oct 18 2012

Guardian contributor tells Palestinians to boycott Western aid if it ‘disempowers’ terrorist groups

The Guardian’s ‘Poverty Matters Blog’ (funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) published a post about Palestinian development by Nora Lester Murad, titled ‘Should the Palestinians boycott international aid?‘, Oct. 18.

Murad, an American Jew who married a Palestinian Muslim and now lives in “Palestine” (East Jerusalem), on the Guardian’s site dedicated to fighting poverty, makes several arguments.

First, on the obstacles to Palestinian development:

“We know the main obstacle to development is the occupation, colonisation and dispossession of the Palestinian people.”

What do Palestinians want?

“Palestinians at least don’t want “aid” at all. They want political intervention and the financial support they are entitled to in order to pursue their own development. Moreover, they advocated rejection of false development projects that are, at best, distractions, and at worst, harmful to Palestinian dignity, independence and sustainability.” [emphasis added]

How are current development projects harmful to Palestinian dignity?

“I’ve been disillusioned with aid-funded development in Palestine since I arrived in 2004 and found local NGOs chasing international funding by modifying their programmes…

…

 A huge swath of global civil society now appears to be co-opted into a formal process of “aid reform” that has a diluted vision, wastes precious resources and often can’t practise what it preaches – all because society groups work within the unacceptably narrow constraints prescribed by donors. [emphasis added]

What constraints is she referring to?

“I helped found the Dalia Association, a Palestinian NGO that promotes self-determination through local control over resources. Dalia’s articles “Does the international aid system violate Palestinian rights?”…framed aid in Palestine as a right.”

The article she cites includes this:

‏”Donor countries and aid actors are obliged to provide humanitarian assistance in a lawful manner,‭ ‬without discrimination on the basis of political belief.‭ ‬

…

‬…the donor countries‭’ ‬policy of isolating Hamas risks undermining the effectiveness of the humanitarian response in Gaza implicating all those in the aid process.‭ ‬We call on aid actors to engage in civil disobedience against these unlawful and immoral anti-terrorism policies by refusing to be contractually obligated to enforce them.”

Murad’s views on development are spelled out even more clearly in a comment she posted at an international development website, in a story titled ‘Global Giving Workshops in Israel and the Palestinian Territories“.

Click to Enlarge

What Murad objects to is the USAID requirement that NGOs operating in the West Bank and Gaza pledge not to engage in activity with terrorist groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and al-Aksa Martyrs Brigades.

The Guardian contributor is evidently offended by the requirement that US funds not support Islamist terror groups which reject the existence of Israel within any borders, and openly call for the murder of Jews.

Murad, after arguing in her Guardian piece that that Palestinians should boycott aid which stipulates that terrorist groups be excluded from receiving funds, makes the following point:

“Maybe we can’t change donors’ aid policies, but Palestinians can stop participating in their own oppression by refusing aid offered on detrimental terms. Through boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS), Palestinians and their supporters refuse to do business with people or entities that undermine the prospects for a just peace. Should BDS expand to target aid? I think it should. By focusing on what they can control – their own policy about what aid they will accept or reject – Palestinians can take control of their development.”

The challenge is formidable. There will be political pressure, millions may become even poorer, and the elite may fight efforts to change a system they profit from. [emphasis added]

Astonishingly, the Guardian contributor would rather millions become poor rather than have development funds denied to terrorist groups.

According to Murad, not only should Palestinians be entitled to billions in Western aid, but absolutely nothing should be required of them in return – not even, evidently, the demand that they disassociate themselves from the most reactionary and dangerous movements within their communities.

How much lower can you possibly set the bar?  

Perhaps so-called humanitarian activists like Murad may want to consider the possibility that the “dignity” of Palestinians would most likely be enhanced if they were to boldly reject the shameful antisemtism, incitement and violence of radical Islamist groups who speak in their name. 

Related articles
Oct 3 2012

British government promises new cooperation with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation

This essay was written by CiF Watch’s Hadar Sela and published at The Commentator

Following the recent lethal violence and rioting which broke out across the Middle East and North Africa – on the pretext of being offended by a third-rate, amateurish YouTube video – the subject of the defence of the right to free speech is once more upon the agenda in the Western world.

Strangely, the British government has chosen this time to sign a new agreement with the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (formerly known as the Organisation of the Islamic Conference or OIC) which it describes as a “Cooperation Framework” designed to lead to “closer dialogue”.

“Baroness Warsi, who in 2010 became the first Muslim to serve in a British cabinet, said, ‘This agreement is another significant step in strengthening the vital relationship between the UK and the OIC. When I addressed the OIC Conference in Kazakhstan in June 2011, I said we face the global challenges together. This agreement formalises that establishing our many, many areas of co-operation, from security to conflict prevention; from religious freedom to human rights. One of the central aims of my new role will be to strengthen this relationship further and I am looking forward to ensuring we continue to work closely to achieve our mutual goals.’”

In the same year that Sayeeda Warsi became the first British Minister to address the OIC annual conference, the government appointed Mohammed Shokat as UK Special Representative to the OIC.

The new Memorandum of Understanding was signed at the UN General Assembly in New York, even as OIC members such as Iran and the Palestinian Territories took advantage of  the UN platform to talk of Israel being “eliminated” and to accuse it of threatening Muslim holy places and “colonial occupation”.

Bizarrely, following the signing of the agreement, Saeeda Warsi was to be found championing the OIC’s “interest” in human rights, conflict prevention, and religious freedom on Twitter. 

Click to Enlarge

 

READ THE REST OF THE ESSAY HERE.

Jul 13 2012

The birth of Palestine: What happens the day after?

The belief that settlements are the main obstacle to ending the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, and the related assumption that withdrawal from the disputed territories would bring peace, represents a narrative strongly ingrained in the political imagination of Israel’s critics. Indeed, much like any faith, such assumptions are often impervious to contradictory evidence.  

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

Among the many problems with the land-for-peace religion is Israel’s history since Oslo.

West Bank

Israel’s military withdrawal from major Palestinian population centers in the West Bank (representing a total of 40% of the territory), per the Oslo Accords, resulted in a dramatic increase in Palestinian terrorism, and served as an incubus for the 2nd Intifada.

Per journalist Martin Krossel:

“In the first 31 months following the signing of first Oslo Accords, Palestinian terrorists murdered 213 Israelis. That was the largest number of fatalities for any time period of the same length in the country’s history to that point. The attacks on Israel only ended after 2002, when Israel reoccupied parts of the territory that it had abandoned in 1993, a move which allowed it pursue individual terrorists and the heads of terrorist network who had found sanctuary within the lands controlled by the PA.”

The 2nd Intifada killed over 1100 Israelis.

South Lebanon

Israel’s withdrawal from their buffer zone in South Lebanon, contrary to the predictions of most analysts, only emboldened the Iranian backed Islamist terror group, Hezbollah, whose political power and military might expanded dramatically as a result.

Today, Israeli intelligence estimates that Hezbollah possesses around 42,000 missiles and rockets, including long-range weapons capable of hitting anywhere in Israel.

A report in UPI stated:

[Hezbollah's current arsenal represents] more than three times the number of missiles Hezbollah had at the outset of the 34-day war in July-August 2006. Hezbollah fired nearly 4,000 rockets and missiles, or around 200 a day, into Israel’s northern Galilee region during that conflict.  That was the heaviest bombardment Israel’s civilian population endured since the state was founded in 1948.

Hezbollah’s rocket and missile arsenal is larger than that of most national armies.”

Gaza

After Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005, driving thousands of settlers from their homes by force, Hamas claimed it was a victory over Israel, and then started firing Kassam rockets (and more sophisticated Grads) from Gaza into southern Israeli cities. Subsequently, Hamas took over the entire Gaza strip from the Palestinian Authority, violently expelling all Fatah opposition, and has been ruling there ever since.

Since 2005, terrorists in Gaza have fired over 8,000 rockets into Israel, killing 45 Israelis and injuring over 1500.

Faith in the efficacy of withdrawal.

While most proponents of Israeli withdrawal claimed that such moves would weaken the more radical Palestinian movements (by taking away their major raison d’être, resisting “the occupation”), the ascendancy of Hezbollah and Hamas since Israel’s disengagement demonstrates the inherent fallacy of this theory.

So, it seems reasonable to ask why we should assume that history wouldn’t indeed repeat itself in the event that Israel withdrawals from the entire West Bank (and possibly “East” Jerusalem), and a new Palestinian state is born.

The impassioned proponents of Israeli withdrawal, and the creation of a Palestinian state, rarely seem to so much as acknowledge the history of such retreats since Oslo, and the dangers inherent in further territorial concessions.

And, they equally rarely spend much time thinking about what kind of Palestinian state will be born.

Will Palestine be democratic and progressive in even the broadest sense of these words?  But, more importantly, will the Palestinians elect leaders who will finally declare an end to their conflict with the Jewish state or, rather, use the mechanisms of their sovereign state to continue a conflict without end?

Palestinian radicalism

The Free Beacon reported on a new poll of Palestinian public opinion, which certainly isn’t promising regarding the future direction of such a state, demonstrating that Palestinians would vote into the presidency Marwan Barghouti, the terrorist currently serving five life sentences in an Israeli jail.

The Free Beacon reports:

“Asked whom they would support if a presidential election were held today, Marwan Barghouti—a career terrorist and Fatah Party leader jailed since 2002 over his prominent role in directing suicide bombings against Israelis who headed the Tanzim militia and founder of the Al-Aqsa Martyr’s Brigades—garnered the most votes.

Israel’s indictment of Barghouti states that he oversaw 37 terrorist attacks that resulted in the murder of 26 Israelis.

In a three-way race between Barghouti, Hamas leader Ismail Haniya, and Mahmoud Abbas (the current president), the vote would be split 37, 33, and 25 respectively. In a direct matchup between Barghouti and Haniya, the former would win overwhelmingly, 60-34.”

Of course, anyone familiar with Palestinian society wouldn’t be surprised by such results, as they seem to accurately reflect a culture, and government, which glorifies terrorism, promotes antisemitism and rejects the very idea of peace and co-existence with the Zionists.

Indeed, another poll in 2010, by Stanley Greenberg, found that almost two-thirds of Palestinians (59 percent in the West Bank and 63 percent in Gaza‏) support the two-state solution ‏(Israel and Palestine‏) but eventually hope that one state − Palestine − will prevail. Only 23 percent said they believed in Israel’s right to exist as the national homeland of the Jews.

“Palestine”, beyond the abstraction

So, while most Israelis support, in principle, a two-state solution, many also fear that such an outcome would be dangerous given the current PA leadership, and broader Palestinian political culture.

To much of the Western Left, which unconditionally supports the immediate fulfillment of Palestinian national aspirations, the question of what kind of state will be created (if it is pondered at all) does not seem to weigh heavily.  A Palestinian state, much like Palestinians themselves, remains, for many, merely a political abstraction.    

Israelis, who will have to deal with the reality of this new polity, however, don’t have the luxury of entertaining fanciful notions of the imminent arrival of a newly progressive, suddenly peaceful Palestinian neighbor.  

If those of us who are citizens of the Jewish state, and therefore necessarily wed to its destiny, are to take our critics seriously, we must be convinced that they have soberly and honestly wrestled with the real world consequences of Palestinian independence – what happens when Palestine is born.

And, what will happen the day after?

Related articles
Jul 10 2012

Oxfam Distorts, BBC Reports: Jews Stealing land and water from Palestinians

A guest post by Gidon Ben-Zvi, who blogs at Jerusalem State of Mind

On July 5, the BBC published the shocking results of a study recently conducted by the UK charity, Oxfam.

Regurgitating stale stereotypes, the thrust of Oxfam’s report is that Palestinian communities in the Jordan Valley area of the West Bank live in a ‘wretched reality’ as a result of settlement expansion and the related restrictions imposed on Palestinians on the use of land, water and movement – all of which, Oxfam claims, are destroying the viability of a future Palestinian state.

Oxfam is correct in its assessment of the Palestinian economy as a veritable basket case. Where this integral part of the “global movement for change” veers into tired dogma is in its singling out of Israel for approbation. Blame Israel first, investigate the facts never.

Regarding Israel’s restrictions on Palestinians’ access to water, this is an old myth that’s occasionally gussied up and tweaked for contemporary audiences. Truth is, Palestinians’ share of aquifers actually increased dramatically once control of the West Bank passed from Jordan to Israel in 1967, despite Israel’s limited water supply.  Indeed much of the water related issues in the Palestinian territories are caused by the failure of the PA to implement Israeli approved projects.  Over half of the wells approved for exploitation of the territory’s Eastern aquifer, for instance, have still not been drilled, though Israel approved permits for the project in 2000. (You can read a detailed fisking of the claim that Israel doesn’t supply Palestinians with enough water, here.)

Palestinian swimming pools in the West Bank. See more such images here: http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=12&x_article=1486

Another piece of propaganda passing for fact is the unexamined belief that Israeli settlements are being built on land that has been set aside for a future Palestinian state. While Palestinians can and often do challenge Israeli land seizures in court, the very definitions of private and state land in the disputed territories are a legal morass.  Based on titles and deeds, land that is registered becomes private property. But what if there are no documents to prove ownership?

What’s now commonly referred to as the West Bank is territory that fell under the successive administrations of the Ottoman Empire, the British mandate, Jordan and now Israel. During the Ottoman Empire, only small areas of the West Bank were registered to specific owners. Often, villagers would hold land in common to avoid taxes. The British began a more formal land registry based on land use, taxation or house ownership that continued through the Jordanian period.

Legally speaking, and in stark contrast to the BBC’s assertion that “settlements are considered illegal under international law…”, it is worth noting Israel captured the West Bank and Gaza Strip in a war of survival. In fact, Israel’s seizing of land in 1967 was, arguably, the ONLY legal acquisition of this territory in the 20th century. As such, the ultimate fate of all disputed territory is a matter to be left for the oft-stalled final status negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

While the 1993 Oslo Accords attempted to find a resolution to the issues of settlements and borders, a settlement freeze was never a precondition for peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

With regards to the Jordan Valley, its strategic importance along the eastern border of the West Bank makes Israel’s withdrawal a virtual non-starter in future peace talks with the Palestinians.

Since the end of the 1967 war, every Israeli government has considered the Jordan Valley to be the “eastern border” of Israel with Jordan. Most of the strip lying in present-day Israel and the West Bank has been declared state land by the Israeli government. As part of the Oslo Agreements, the strip was classified as Area C, with the exception of the enclave around Jericho

Next, Oxfam goes for the trifecta by reporting that the Palestinians could generate an extra £1bn ($1.5bn) a year if restrictions on their movements, along with the aforementioned land encroachment and water theft, were removed.

Like any other country, Israel must balance humanitarian and economic concerns (of Palestinians, in Israel’s case) with the very real security concerns of its citizens. Barriers, checkpoints and other limitations on mobility are an unfortunate yet vital necessity. Once a comprehensive peace agreement is signed between the Israelis and Palestinians, such security measures will become unnecessary and summarily voided.

For now, however, the best that can be hoped for is the occasional easing of restrictions on movement – dependent, of course, on the diminution of security threats. And Israel has made concerted efforts to oblige. In 2010, for example, Israel issued more than 651,000 entry permits to West Bank residents wishing to travel to Israel, an increase of 42 percent over 2009. In 2009-10, Israel removed more than 200 roadblocks and reduced the number of manned checkpoints from 41 to 14.

Going forward, Oxfam may want to consider laying off the double standards and obsessive condemnations of reasonable responses to terror vis-à-vis Israel. Continuing to do so only serves to cheapen its stated purpose of building “a future free from the injustice of poverty.”

As for the BBC, its publication of the Oxfam report lends credence to the widely held belief that the broadcasting organization relies solely on the Palestinian perspective, and consistently parrots the narrative of “partisan, agenda-driven” Israeli organizations critical of Israel.

Related articles
Jul 5 2012

It’s the Settlements, Stupid: Alon Liel’s Fantastic Vision for Peace in our Time

A guest post by Gidon Ben-Zvi, who blogs at Jerusalem State of Mind

The road to peace? A Jewish child sits in front of the rubble of a structure demolished by Israeli police in a settlement outside Ramallah, on Sept. 5, 2011.

A frenzy of sorts has broken out surrounding a former Israeli ambassador to South Africa’s recent backing of international efforts to prevent produce originating in Jewish settlements in the West Bank from being labeled “Made in Israel”.

The goal of such a policy, according to former ambassador Alon Liel, would be to protect and reinforce the pre-1967 border. Liel goes on to commend the decision of South African and Danish governments to delineate between products originating in Israel and those coming out of “settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories…” since such settlements “…are not [in] Israel [but] are built on occupied land outside Israel’s internationally recognised borders and are illegal under international law.”                                                                                                     

While Liel’s piece is loaded down with references to “international law”, the esteemed former diplomat fails to communicate a most basic fact: international law makes a clear distinction between land occupied during a war of aggression and land taken as a result of a defensive war.

Israel captured the West Bank and Gaza Strip in a war of survival. In fact, Israel’s seizing of land in 1967 was, arguably, the ONLY legal acquisition of this territory in the 20th century. In contrast, Jordan’s occupation of the West Bank from 1947 to 1967 had been the result of an offensive war launched against the fledgling Jewish state in 1948. With the exception of Great Britain and Pakistan, this particular occupation was never recognized by the international community, including the Arab states.

Having delegitimized Israel’s claim to the territory it acquired during the Six Day War, Liel then takes aim at that pesky, perpetual enemy of peace in the Middle East: the settlements. According to the former ambassador: “[t]he continuing settlement expansion threatens to make a two-state solution to the conflict impossible.”

Indeed, concern over Israeli settlement construction is not a new issue. Yet, despite the “the expansionist policy of Israel’s rightwing government led by Binyamin Netanyahu”, serious, concerted efforts have been made to determine and cement the legal status of the outposts in the “occupied territories”.

On July 3rd, 2012, a committee tasked with examining the legality of Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria, headed by a retired Israeli Supreme Court justice, concluded that international law does not preclude Israeli construction on land owned by the state. The committee also declared that communities built with government assistance were implicitly authorized.

However, the report that the committee, established by Prime Minister Netanyahu, issued went far beyond merely asserting Israeli sovereignty over the disputed territories. It also made a concerted effort to address lingering legal issues regarding communities which were not built on privately owned Palestinian land, but whose status was still in doubt due to legal bureaucracy.

The report also criticized Israeli government action in the territories, stating that “dozens of new neighborhoods have been erected, without government authorization and at times without a contiguous link to the mother community… several were built outside the legal jurisdiction allotted to the community.”

Having whitewashed the existential threat faced by Israel that precipitated its military response in June, 1967 – against Arab nations openly committed to the destruction of the Jewish State - Liel then proceeds to demonize the Jewish inhabitants of homes that were subsequently built in these territories.

Liel aims to shock with his presentation of the old and intellectually fuzzy demographic time bomb argument: 550,000 Jewish settlers now squatting in the “occupied” lands. Truth be told, over two-thirds of the Jews in the West Bank live in five settlement “blocs” that are all near the 1967 border.

Most Israelis believe these blocs should become part of Israel when final borders are drawn.

Furthermore, built-up settlement area is less than two percent of the disputed territories. An estimated 70 percent of the settlers live in what are in effect suburbs of major Israeli cities such as Jerusalem. These are areas that virtually the entire Jewish population believes Israel must retain to ensure its security.

In short, the main obstacle to peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors has never been the territories, or the settlements, or the settlers – it has been the very existence of Israel. From 1949–67, when Jews were forbidden to live in the West Bank and “East” Jerusalem, the Arabs nonetheless refused to make peace with the “Zionist Entity”.

It is worth considering that the growth in the Jewish population in the territories may actually serve as a catalyst for peace since the Palestinians now realize that time is on the side of Israel, which can build settlements and create facts on the ground. Realizing this, Israel’s peace partners may finally acknowledge that the only way out of its dilemma is face-to-face negotiations, without preconditions. 

Ultimately, the disposition of settlements is a matter for final status negotiations. While one may legitimately support or challenge Israeli settlements in the disputed territories, they are not illegal. Furthermore, Alon Liel’s favorite obstacles to peace have neither the size, population, nor placement to have a serious impact on sincere efforts to reach a comprehensive agreement with the Palestinians on issues of disputed territories.

Jun 20 2012

Palestinian woman on hunger strike for 3 weeks. She’s not in Israel, so the Guardian yawns

The following was written by McGonagall at the blog, Israel, Norway and the Jews:

“I don’t think the following strategy for dealing with Palestinian inmates on hunger strikes in Israeli prisons would be wise for Israel; if they were to follow Norway’s example here, I am pretty sure we would have very angry condemnations from the FM, the general press and the usual suspects from the NGO’s. Double standards, anyone?”

Here’s an excerpt from the report at the Norwegian English newspaper, The Foreigner:

Both family members and doctors are worried that the woman, who began her protest three weeks ago, could die at any time.

Nevertheless, the ethics council for the hospital concluded, Monday, that doctors must not force feed her, and that the woman can continue as long as she can continue to communicate.

The woman began her hunger strike after her asylum application was denied, she feels that returning to the Gaza strip is too dangerous for her husband and three-year-old son.

“She is sure that it is dangerous for us in Gaza, where we come from. She believes it is better to die in Norway than we lose each other in Palestine”, her husband told [Norway's] TV2.

Sure enough, a quick glance at the Gaza, Palestinian territories and Norway pages of the Guardian doesn’t turn up a thing about the 31-year-old Palestinian hunger striker. 

For some reason, the Guardian hasn’t followed the story at all, yet alone published the kind of sensational reports they did about Khader Adnan and Mahmoud Sarsak, two Palestinian “hunger strikers”, held by Israel, affiliated with Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

I simply can’t imagine why. 

Related articles