It's official. As of 24th September 2016, 62% of those eligible to vote in the Labour Party's leadership election do not care about antisemitism. Approximately 50% of those will read that sentence and, ironically, accuse me of a smear campaign against Jeremy Corbyn. They will not ask me why I feel this way. Instead, they will tell me Jeremy Corbyn is a thoroughly decent man. They will probably tell me that he is just pro-Palestinian, even though I have not mentioned Israel. And finally, they will tell me that there is no antisemitism problem in Labour. Because, apparently, I am just an embittered Blairite or a right-wing conspiracy theorist out to cause trouble and lie about Corbyn.
Supporting Jeremy Corbyn does not automatically make one an antisemite. Dismissing his supporters as such is unhelpful and wrong. It is to misunderstand his considerable appeal completely. I have friends, ones that I know for a fact are not antisemitic, that support Corbyn and I think it is easy to see why. They, like me, have left university with thousands of pounds worth of debt they see saddled on them by this Tory government. They, like me, care about the environment. They, like me, think that spending billions on a nuclear deterrent that we will never use is madness when we have record numbers at food-banks. They, like me, are tired of the same old politics and politicians. Rightly or wrongly, Jeremy Corbyn is seen as the answer to many of the issues they care about. He is seen as the opposite of your normal politician. Principled and decent. Nevermind this is all nonsense. That's another article for another time. I get his appeal. Truly I do. But I could never support him or a Labour Party under his leadership.
Because I, unlike them, care about antisemitism. They can't care about antisemitism, because if they did, they'd be appalled by Jeremy Corbyn. They'd be appalled by Diane Abbott and John McDonnell. They'd be appalled by Ken Livingstone and the fact he remains in the party. They'd be appalled by the Chakrabarti report and her peerage. They'd be appalled by the video Corbyn released where his supporters make it clear they think anti-Semitism is not a problem and do not care even if it were because it was the Tories who were really anti-Semitic 70 years ago. They'd be appalled by any claims (from, for example, Len McCluksey and Diane Abbott) that antisemitism accusations are a slur against Labour. They'd be appalled that Corbyn himself dismisses the allegations, demonstrating a remarkable arrogance and an ignorance and apathy towards antisemitism. They'd be appalled that instead of rooting out and expelling members who express antisemitic views, Corbyn and McDonnell appear alongside them and endorse them. They'd be appalled by Corbyn's association with Holocaust deniers. They'd be appalled by the fact Jewish MPs now require protection. They'd be appalled by the abuse directed at Jewish MPs in Corbyn's name. They'd be appalled that Ruth Smeeth left the event launching the antisemitism report in tears, rather than dismissing her as a CIA agent.
But they aren't. Because they do not care about antisemitism. If that upsets you as a Corbyn supporter, then it should. You should be deeply upset that you have chosen to ignore the vast majority of the Jewish population in this country and tell us that you care about all forms of discrimination apart from discrimination against us. You should be deeply upset that you have decided to either ignore the crisis of antisemitism in Labour or, worse, dismiss it as a smear against the dear leader. You should be deeply upset that you have not asked Jews like me (and the 92% of the Jewish Labour Movement that endorsed Owen Smith) why we feel there is a problem in the Labour Party and with Jeremy Corbyn (see above and here). You should be deeply upset that the Labour Party Conference 2016 has been riddled with antisemitism. You should be deeply upset that Momentum calls for the expulsion of the Jewish Labour Movement, an affiliate since 1920. You should be deeply upset that instead, you have simply dismissed our concerns. And you should be deeply upset that your response to this article won't be to consider for the briefest of moments that you might be wrong. That maybe, just maybe, glorious, infallible Jeremy Corbyn might have a glaring, despicable flaw that you missed despite the thousands of Jewish and non-Jewish voices trying to point it out.
And personally, I do not know what upsets me more. The antisemitism in Labour or the fact so many people, both friends and people I do not know, care so little about antisemitism. But it's fine, you can just dismiss me as a member of the worldwide Zionist conspiracy. After all, the allegations are just invented. That's a lot easier than facing up to the fact that you, the self-confessed anti-racist and self-appointed moral authority, do not care about antisemitism. You do not care even a little bit.
This article was updated on 25th September 2016 to reflect the antisemitism that has occurred at the Labour Party Conference 2016.
This article was further updated on 19th September 2017 to correct the spelling of antisemitism and antisemitic.
Showing posts with label Palestinians. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Palestinians. Show all posts
Saturday, 24 September 2016
Wednesday, 18 March 2015
Chelsea 2 - 4 Bibi
Netanyahu's victory last night was, to put it mildly, somewhat unexpected. If members of his camp pay attention to English football, they may have suggested Bradford's victory against Chelsea was slightly more likely so as to ground their election chances. However, unlike that Bradford victory, I am much more isolated when it comes to being delighted with the outcome that I attempted to have an impact on. I flew to Israel to exercise my rights as an Israeli citizen and voted - proudly might I add - for the only man I wanted to see leading my country. It seems the majority of friends I have on Facebook and people I follow in twitter are somewhat downhearted by the Israeli electorate's decision.
My decision to vote for Bibi was an easy one. He is the only man I trust to speak for Israelis. He is the only man I trust with Israel's security. He is the only man I trust to stand up for Israelis in the face of a world that is increasingly trying to delegitimise Israelis and Israel. The West cannot control Netanyahu and that infuriates them. If nothing else, that is worth voting for. I don't want to be led by a man that is scared and weak. There is this view that Israel needs a more docile leader. One that will pander to the whims of the USA and Europeans as if they have our best interests at heart and know what is best. One that views the peace process as the most important single issue facing Israel as if somehow it is the West who can choose what that issue is. The criticism of Bibi highlights this. We are told to object to his re-election because it somehow means that peace is now less likely. Ignoring the fact that peace will, unfortunately, never be as simple as who is in charge, that charge assumes that everyone in Israel should be voting as if that were the most important issue that they face. It is not, nor does anyone in the West have the right to dictate Israelis that it should be.
The most important issue for me was Israeli security. In a world where the threat from Iran is downplayed and commonly ignored, it is no surprise that people outside Israel cannot understand voting for Netanyahu when it seems being tough on security is all he brings to the table. Believe me when I tell you that I do not care what you think the threat posed by Iran is. We've done that before. We've done the trusting other people to fight our battles for us before. Never again. It has only been 70 years since the Jews emerged from the Holocaust after years of inaction from Western powers who did not believe and chose to ignore what was going on. It may have been Hitler's SS who constructed the gas chambers and threw the Jews into the crematoria, but it was the willful ignorance of the West in the face of unspeakable evil that meant they almost succeeded. Forgive me for caring not one iota whether you think this genocidal threat from Iran is a real one. The time has gone when Jews are powerless and silent in the face of a genocidal enemy that is bent on Jewish destruction. And Bibi is the only man I trust to speak for me in the fact of a genocidal enemy that is bent on Jewish destruction. Something tells me people would prefer it if Israel were quiet, if the Jews were quiet, just like we have been throughout history.
Netanyahu is not everyone's cup of tea. I accept that. But you'll find the reasons who despise him often turn out to be the very reasons I am proud he is my Prime Minister and speaks for me.
My decision to vote for Bibi was an easy one. He is the only man I trust to speak for Israelis. He is the only man I trust with Israel's security. He is the only man I trust to stand up for Israelis in the face of a world that is increasingly trying to delegitimise Israelis and Israel. The West cannot control Netanyahu and that infuriates them. If nothing else, that is worth voting for. I don't want to be led by a man that is scared and weak. There is this view that Israel needs a more docile leader. One that will pander to the whims of the USA and Europeans as if they have our best interests at heart and know what is best. One that views the peace process as the most important single issue facing Israel as if somehow it is the West who can choose what that issue is. The criticism of Bibi highlights this. We are told to object to his re-election because it somehow means that peace is now less likely. Ignoring the fact that peace will, unfortunately, never be as simple as who is in charge, that charge assumes that everyone in Israel should be voting as if that were the most important issue that they face. It is not, nor does anyone in the West have the right to dictate Israelis that it should be.
The most important issue for me was Israeli security. In a world where the threat from Iran is downplayed and commonly ignored, it is no surprise that people outside Israel cannot understand voting for Netanyahu when it seems being tough on security is all he brings to the table. Believe me when I tell you that I do not care what you think the threat posed by Iran is. We've done that before. We've done the trusting other people to fight our battles for us before. Never again. It has only been 70 years since the Jews emerged from the Holocaust after years of inaction from Western powers who did not believe and chose to ignore what was going on. It may have been Hitler's SS who constructed the gas chambers and threw the Jews into the crematoria, but it was the willful ignorance of the West in the face of unspeakable evil that meant they almost succeeded. Forgive me for caring not one iota whether you think this genocidal threat from Iran is a real one. The time has gone when Jews are powerless and silent in the face of a genocidal enemy that is bent on Jewish destruction. And Bibi is the only man I trust to speak for me in the fact of a genocidal enemy that is bent on Jewish destruction. Something tells me people would prefer it if Israel were quiet, if the Jews were quiet, just like we have been throughout history.
Netanyahu is not everyone's cup of tea. I accept that. But you'll find the reasons who despise him often turn out to be the very reasons I am proud he is my Prime Minister and speaks for me.
Monday, 25 August 2014
They should have been friends
This photo I came across recently courtesy of the Peace Factory and the Palestine/Israel loves Israel/Palestine groups on Facebook gives me chills every time I see it. It sums up the horrific situation Israelis and Gazans find themselves in. It is a beautiful, yet heartbreaking photo of two young boys with a remarkably simple message.
Two young boys who never knew each other, despite living within mortar range of each other. Two young boys who have no opinion on the situation. Two young boys who are now dead because their leaders cannot seem to find anything better to do than relentlessly shoot at each other. Two young boys whose tragic deaths are being used on either side to score political points. Two young boys who did not live to see their 5th birthdays yet saw two wars. Two young boys who could have loved but were trapped in a cycle of hate and violence. Two young boys who should and could have grown up together as friends rather than have their parents' generation's hate forced upon them.
Two young boys who could still be alive today if we had chosen peace not war; reconciliation not revenge; and love not hate.
Two young boys who never knew each other, despite living within mortar range of each other. Two young boys who have no opinion on the situation. Two young boys who are now dead because their leaders cannot seem to find anything better to do than relentlessly shoot at each other. Two young boys whose tragic deaths are being used on either side to score political points. Two young boys who did not live to see their 5th birthdays yet saw two wars. Two young boys who could have loved but were trapped in a cycle of hate and violence. Two young boys who should and could have grown up together as friends rather than have their parents' generation's hate forced upon them.
Two young boys who could still be alive today if we had chosen peace not war; reconciliation not revenge; and love not hate.
Saturday, 16 August 2014
The JC, Gaza and Charities
The Jewish Chronicle this week has apologised for running a Gaza Appeal advert by the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) after complaints from its readers. There is a fundamental problem with complaining about running an advert from a charity. It's a charity. We like charities, we think they do good work helping people who suffer for all manner of reasons. There is an even bigger problem when a Jewish newspaper receives complaints about an advert calling to help Gaza's children. It looks like the Jewish readership of the JC somehow fundamentally objects to helping Gaza's children, or at least objects to advertising an appeal for Gaza's children. It also strikes me as incredibly unlikely that one of these readers complained to The Guardian after they published arguably a far more controversial advert than the JC have and they probably responded to those who did by crying for free speech. There is a problem with the DEC however, which I will get to later.
The JC's apology, first off, is worth noting. They claim that the advert is "not an expression of the JC's view". What? An advert calling for money to go to the children suffering in Gaza? I would very much hope it was an expression of the JC's view, an expression of every decent human being's view. As I have repeated, you can support Israel vehemently (as I do) and still support the Palestinians, have sympathy for their plight (whoever you blame for it) and wish to help them. This idea that somehow publishing (=supporting?) anything that highlights the situation in Gaza is anti-Israel/pro-Hamas is ludicrous and needs to go. No, it does not even matter if the advert does not mention Hamas and just focuses on children suffering. The cause is irrelevant.
I have no doubt, for a minute, that some of those objecting to the JC's publication of the advert do so because they feel to have any support for Gaza or the plight of Palestinians in Gaza is somehow to support Hamas, the group that is undoubtedly (also) responsible for their suffering. If you have been reading my last few blogs, you will know that I am not interested in the blame game and frankly even if you had the most convincing arguments regarding Hamas' complicity in the plight of Gazans, that does not make any appeals on their [Gazans] behalf any less important. Just because you believe Hamas, and not Israel, is to blame for the situation Palestinians in Gaza find themselves in, you cannot object to organisations trying to alleviate that suffering. 'Hamas is to blame therefore we don't have to care'?
Nor do I buy this idea that any money going into Gaza somehow ends up in the hands of Hamas. I don't really want to have this argument, but it is incredibly lazy just to state 'Gaza = Hamas' and somehow any money donated to relieve the undoubted suffering of Palestinians in Gaza must be going to Hamas. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that you have to be careful with donations and charities have to be careful when working in areas with such immense corruption, but to simply dogmatically assert that money going to Gaza goes to Hamas will not do.
There is a small facebook group calling for a boycott of the JC until they apologise, which I suppose is unsurprising. Upon receiving the apology, the group's admin posted a status complaining that it was not good enough. It commits an awful example of genuine 'whataboutery' (as opposed to those Owen Jones and Mehdi Hasan often like to complain about) asking why the JC chose to print a Gaza appeal and not one for an Israeli charity as if somehow the JC was faced with a direct choice. As if somehow advertising a Gaza appeal means you do not support the work of Israeli charities. It then asks if an Islamic paper would post a Magen David Adom appeal. I am inclined to agree that such a paper would not. Does this make an iota of difference? Of course not! Just because an Islamic paper may not publish a Magen David Adom advert does not mean a Jewish paper cannot publish a Gaza appeal advert. What a nonsense. It then tells me that the JC has chosen money over the sensitivity of the Jewish Community. I do not wish to be part of this Jewish Community then. Anyway, the group has fewer likes than my average per-post readership so I suppose I should leave them alone.
Inspite of all of that, there is reason to object to supporting the DEC (and by extension the JC's decision to run an advert by them). Obviously the JC do not support the organisation and were merely advertising a worthy message. Rather than object to the cause it supports, it is possible to object to the charities that collectively form the DEC. This idea that somehow charities are all saintly organisations is as much a nonsense as the idea that supporting the plight of Palestinians is anti-Semitic or pro-Hamas. Of the charities that form the DEC, three have been reported on by Stand For Peace an organisation that I have previously worked for, as having links to extremism. Those are Christian Aid, Oxfam and Islamic Relief. These are worrying reports and reports that do mean supporting the DEC should be approached with some caution - though it is worth noting there are 10 other charities that make up the organisation. We all have a right to know that our money going to Gaza to help children that need help right now will not end up in the hands of Hamas and be used to build terror tunnels or rockets. It is a great tragedy for the Israeli civilians that live at risk of these attacks but it is an even greater tragedy for the Palestinians who could so benefit from the money flooding into Gaza if it were all used correctly and to alleviate their suffering rather than to inflict it upon Israelis.
It is a tricky one for me. I do not think the DEC intends for its donations to be abused but it is a sorry fact that they will be. And it won't just mean the Palestinians continue to suffer, it will mean the money flows directly to terrorism. So we should be vigilant and careful and lobby hard to ensure the charities mentioned, and others, know exactly where their money goes but object to a Jewish Paper running an advert for Gaza? Do me a favour.
The JC's apology, first off, is worth noting. They claim that the advert is "not an expression of the JC's view". What? An advert calling for money to go to the children suffering in Gaza? I would very much hope it was an expression of the JC's view, an expression of every decent human being's view. As I have repeated, you can support Israel vehemently (as I do) and still support the Palestinians, have sympathy for their plight (whoever you blame for it) and wish to help them. This idea that somehow publishing (=supporting?) anything that highlights the situation in Gaza is anti-Israel/pro-Hamas is ludicrous and needs to go. No, it does not even matter if the advert does not mention Hamas and just focuses on children suffering. The cause is irrelevant.
I have no doubt, for a minute, that some of those objecting to the JC's publication of the advert do so because they feel to have any support for Gaza or the plight of Palestinians in Gaza is somehow to support Hamas, the group that is undoubtedly (also) responsible for their suffering. If you have been reading my last few blogs, you will know that I am not interested in the blame game and frankly even if you had the most convincing arguments regarding Hamas' complicity in the plight of Gazans, that does not make any appeals on their [Gazans] behalf any less important. Just because you believe Hamas, and not Israel, is to blame for the situation Palestinians in Gaza find themselves in, you cannot object to organisations trying to alleviate that suffering. 'Hamas is to blame therefore we don't have to care'?
Nor do I buy this idea that any money going into Gaza somehow ends up in the hands of Hamas. I don't really want to have this argument, but it is incredibly lazy just to state 'Gaza = Hamas' and somehow any money donated to relieve the undoubted suffering of Palestinians in Gaza must be going to Hamas. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that you have to be careful with donations and charities have to be careful when working in areas with such immense corruption, but to simply dogmatically assert that money going to Gaza goes to Hamas will not do.
There is a small facebook group calling for a boycott of the JC until they apologise, which I suppose is unsurprising. Upon receiving the apology, the group's admin posted a status complaining that it was not good enough. It commits an awful example of genuine 'whataboutery' (as opposed to those Owen Jones and Mehdi Hasan often like to complain about) asking why the JC chose to print a Gaza appeal and not one for an Israeli charity as if somehow the JC was faced with a direct choice. As if somehow advertising a Gaza appeal means you do not support the work of Israeli charities. It then asks if an Islamic paper would post a Magen David Adom appeal. I am inclined to agree that such a paper would not. Does this make an iota of difference? Of course not! Just because an Islamic paper may not publish a Magen David Adom advert does not mean a Jewish paper cannot publish a Gaza appeal advert. What a nonsense. It then tells me that the JC has chosen money over the sensitivity of the Jewish Community. I do not wish to be part of this Jewish Community then. Anyway, the group has fewer likes than my average per-post readership so I suppose I should leave them alone.
Inspite of all of that, there is reason to object to supporting the DEC (and by extension the JC's decision to run an advert by them). Obviously the JC do not support the organisation and were merely advertising a worthy message. Rather than object to the cause it supports, it is possible to object to the charities that collectively form the DEC. This idea that somehow charities are all saintly organisations is as much a nonsense as the idea that supporting the plight of Palestinians is anti-Semitic or pro-Hamas. Of the charities that form the DEC, three have been reported on by Stand For Peace an organisation that I have previously worked for, as having links to extremism. Those are Christian Aid, Oxfam and Islamic Relief. These are worrying reports and reports that do mean supporting the DEC should be approached with some caution - though it is worth noting there are 10 other charities that make up the organisation. We all have a right to know that our money going to Gaza to help children that need help right now will not end up in the hands of Hamas and be used to build terror tunnels or rockets. It is a great tragedy for the Israeli civilians that live at risk of these attacks but it is an even greater tragedy for the Palestinians who could so benefit from the money flooding into Gaza if it were all used correctly and to alleviate their suffering rather than to inflict it upon Israelis.
It is a tricky one for me. I do not think the DEC intends for its donations to be abused but it is a sorry fact that they will be. And it won't just mean the Palestinians continue to suffer, it will mean the money flows directly to terrorism. So we should be vigilant and careful and lobby hard to ensure the charities mentioned, and others, know exactly where their money goes but object to a Jewish Paper running an advert for Gaza? Do me a favour.
Saturday, 12 July 2014
The Tragedy of Palestinian life
Israel should not and will not make any apologies for investing heavily in the Iron Dome defence system as well as bomb shelters to protect her citizens. That Hamas choose to keep its leaders safe in bunkers and bomb shelters, leaving its civilian population to look after the rockets kept in homes, schools and places of worship is a horrific war crime, one that leaves ordinary Palestinians fearful for their lives. But it makes you wonder, what exactly is Hamas hoping to achieve? Their genocidal intent is unquestionable and it seems to me that often when I read someone tell me that Hamas rockets don't kill, I sense a twinge of disappointment. Regardless of their obvious dreams to murder as many Israelis as possible, you have to feel that if they cared about Palestinian lives they would not fire rockets at a country they know will respond. It seems an obvious point, but one that is conveniently ignored whenever rockets are dismissed as (usually) ineffectual.
Whatever you think of Israel's response, you must admit that firing rockets into Israel is a ludicrously stupid thing to do - unless you are comfortable with placing every Gazan under the threat of one of the world's largest militaries. Indeed, that rockets have hit the supposedly holy should-be-our-capital Jerusalem as well as actually Palestinian cities in Hebron and Bethlehem, one is inclined to doubt Hamas has any commitment to the Palestinian cause and Palestinian life, rather they are willing to jeopardise both in order to score propaganda victories against Israel. When a Hamas rocket falls short, landing in Gaza, leaves UNRWA warehouses ablaze I think one is entitled to question Hamas' true motives. Palestinian lives are reduced to mere point-scoring machines and when Israel does not kill enough, pictures from Syria that are never before seen in the western media are circulated to make a dire situation seem worse. Over 100 Palestinians, terrorists and civilians, have been killed since the launch of Operation Protective Edge. The only thing more tragic than this number is the fact that Hamas and pro-Palestinian activists on twitter do not deem this enough. Instead, they must steal pictures of dead Palestinians from Syria that no one cared about because Assad, not Israel, was to blame and claim they too are amongst the Gazan dead.
No one truly cares about the Palestinians. Not Hamas and Fatah, the political entities that are supposed to represent them yet endanger their lives by firing indiscriminately at Israeli towns and cities and refusing them access to bomb shelters. Not Arab countries that surround them who either restrict their rights (Lebanon/Egypt/Jordan) or murder them (Syria). Not Western governments who are too busy falling over themselves to confirm that killing people is indeed a bad thing. Not the pro-Palestinian activists littered about on Twitter who value Palestinian life so highly that dead Palestinians outside Gaza are only worthy of mention when not enough die in Gaza for their liking. And certainly not the antisemites who point out that hundreds more Palestinians die than Israelis and this proves the disproportionate nature of the Israeli response, implying that if hundreds of Israelis died too, the Palestinian deaths would be less tragic.
I wish there was a way for Israel to stop rockets raining down on her people without responding with air strikes that will kill innocents. I wish equally, perhaps even more, for the Palestinian people to be represented by political entities and supported by activists that value their lives above delegitimising Israel. That they are not is the real tragedy of Palestinian life.
Whatever you think of Israel's response, you must admit that firing rockets into Israel is a ludicrously stupid thing to do - unless you are comfortable with placing every Gazan under the threat of one of the world's largest militaries. Indeed, that rockets have hit the supposedly holy should-be-our-capital Jerusalem as well as actually Palestinian cities in Hebron and Bethlehem, one is inclined to doubt Hamas has any commitment to the Palestinian cause and Palestinian life, rather they are willing to jeopardise both in order to score propaganda victories against Israel. When a Hamas rocket falls short, landing in Gaza, leaves UNRWA warehouses ablaze I think one is entitled to question Hamas' true motives. Palestinian lives are reduced to mere point-scoring machines and when Israel does not kill enough, pictures from Syria that are never before seen in the western media are circulated to make a dire situation seem worse. Over 100 Palestinians, terrorists and civilians, have been killed since the launch of Operation Protective Edge. The only thing more tragic than this number is the fact that Hamas and pro-Palestinian activists on twitter do not deem this enough. Instead, they must steal pictures of dead Palestinians from Syria that no one cared about because Assad, not Israel, was to blame and claim they too are amongst the Gazan dead.
No one truly cares about the Palestinians. Not Hamas and Fatah, the political entities that are supposed to represent them yet endanger their lives by firing indiscriminately at Israeli towns and cities and refusing them access to bomb shelters. Not Arab countries that surround them who either restrict their rights (Lebanon/Egypt/Jordan) or murder them (Syria). Not Western governments who are too busy falling over themselves to confirm that killing people is indeed a bad thing. Not the pro-Palestinian activists littered about on Twitter who value Palestinian life so highly that dead Palestinians outside Gaza are only worthy of mention when not enough die in Gaza for their liking. And certainly not the antisemites who point out that hundreds more Palestinians die than Israelis and this proves the disproportionate nature of the Israeli response, implying that if hundreds of Israelis died too, the Palestinian deaths would be less tragic.
I wish there was a way for Israel to stop rockets raining down on her people without responding with air strikes that will kill innocents. I wish equally, perhaps even more, for the Palestinian people to be represented by political entities and supported by activists that value their lives above delegitimising Israel. That they are not is the real tragedy of Palestinian life.
Friday, 11 July 2014
There should be no 'but'
One of my pet hates is starting a sentence like, "I'm not racist..." and following it with a 'but'. Invariably what follows is a racist statement, or a statement justifying racism. There is no but. It should just be "I'm not racist." I've noticed few examples of this that have frustrated me.
The first is "The Palestinian deaths are tragic but..." The next bit is, "Israel must defend herself," and something about how they are unavoidable and/or, "It is Hamas' fault." Both are true. Both are/should be irrelevant when discussing the tragic nature of Palestinian deaths. We need to distance ourselves from this culture where justifying death is permissible. There should be no but, there is no justification for the deaths of innocent Palestinian civilians. Rather, let's say, and mean, "The Palestinian deaths are tragic and we pray there is a way to end them whilst still protecting Israeli civilians." Because you know what? There is. The removal of Hamas, but that is a political point we do not need to argue here.
This works the other way, the second is: "Israel has a right to defend herself but..." or "The rocket attacks are terrible but..." The but is usually followed by some reference to no Israelis dying or the fact that Palestinians do or some other statement contradicting the principle of the bit before the but. Again, there is no but. Israel has a right to defend itself, full stop. The rockets are terrible full stop. It's the same as above, stop justifying rocket attacks and stop reducing the capacity of Israel to defend herself.
Owen Jones is responsible for an awful example of the above, whilst his latest piece in The Guardian is horrific for other reasons.
Firstly, he quotes a human rights activist saying that Israel is targeted by "shitty rockets" and that Israel has bomb shelters etc whilst Gaza does not. The former is an example of "The rockets are wrong but..." That the rockets aren't very good is no excuse, is no justification for their use. This reward for Hamas' incompetence vs Israel's ability to protect her civilians is bizarre. The latter is simply false. Gaza is awash with bomb shelters. It's just that the civilians are not allowed to use them, Hamas forces them into the firing line using them as human shields.
Secondly, Owen, in one brilliant paragraph manages to both justify Hamas rockets into civilian areas *and* belittle the fear amongst Israelis that he states you should not belittle. It really is a feat of journalism not to be sniffed at. The first sentence of the second paragraph gets off to a good start. There is no defence for Hamas' firing of rockets into civilian areas and you should not belittle the fear that it causes Israelis in the bomb shelters. What he then goes to do is say 'but Israel has weapons and the rockets aren't very good' defending exactly what he states there is no defence for and belittling exactly that which he claims should not be belittled. What relevance does the ineffective nature of the rockets (which do kill, which do injure and which do damage property all whilst instilling a sense of fear into Israelis running for the bomb shelters) have? Similarly, why should the fact that Israel can defend herself and defend herself well make any difference to whether Hamas rockets are indefensible or Israelis should be scared of them? These two facts bear no relevance, not to media coverage (I mean, if Hamas fires a rocket into Israel, should the fact that Israel has "nuclear bombs" change the fact that Hamas fired a rocket into Israel?) and not to the initial statements that Owen makes and then dismisses.
Owen then tells us that 565 Palestinians were killed since January 2009. He also tells us that 28 Israeli civilians and 10 Israeli security personnel have been killed in the same period. Seems a huge difference, right? Firstly, this has the horrible implication that somehow if 565 Israelis died, this would be okay. It is not Owen's intention, but the implication is some sort of barbaric bible-style eye for an eye justice would be preferable, as if somehow the 565 Palestinian deaths would be less bad if 565 Israelis had died. What's worse is Owen's deliberate misleading of his readers. In order to make it seem like more Palestinian civilians have been killed, he does not distinguish between, civilians and terrorists on the Palestinian side, but does distinguish between civilians and security personnel on the Israeli side. If you click on the link he provides, you will find that the number of civilians that died is about half that which Owen suggests it is, an intentional misrepresentation of the facts. Why distinguish on the Israeli side but not the Palestinian side? Is it because 565 reads much worse than the lower figure representing solely civilian casualties? Anything to make Israel seem even worse, eh? The irony of it all is, is that 242 civilians killed in the Gaza strip is still a horrifically high number, 242 higher than Israel wanted. 242 is still a tragically shocking number. Owen Jones, however, feels he needs to distort the facts to paint Israel in a bad light to suit his agenda. 242 deaths is not enough for Owen apparently.
Finally, in a bizarre move, Owen tells us that Human Rights Watch is not a "den of lefties." Perhaps. The organisation has its own anti-Israel bias that Owen would no doubt agree with. Its director, for example, finds it impossible to condemn unequivocally the kidnapping of Israeli teens. Every time he tried to, he managed to criticise Israel for her actions or mention the teens were settlers. As if either justifies the kidnapping and murder of innocents. Kidnapping teens is awful but...
Update 12/07/2014
I've just read Mira Bar Hillel's piece in the independent. Her overriding point is bizarre - because, in a democracy, there are politicians who believe and say horrible things, she is considering burning her Israeli passport. By her logic when Nick Griffin became an MEP we should have all been on the verge of burning our passports. Regardless, that's not what is wrong with the article. No, what's wrong with it is that she commits the cardinal 'but' sin. Not only does she make the same mistake as our friend Jones above, justifying Hamas terror because Israel can defend herself but she also places Israel and the Nazis on the same level. "I'm Jewish and the Holocaust was terrible - I should know right? My aunt and children perished but..."
Frankly, burn your passport Mira. Burn it now. We don't want Hamas apologists and Jews who compare Israel to the Nazis on our side.
Update 13/07/2014
Mira Bar Hillel read my blog. But she didn't read it very well.
The first is "The Palestinian deaths are tragic but..." The next bit is, "Israel must defend herself," and something about how they are unavoidable and/or, "It is Hamas' fault." Both are true. Both are/should be irrelevant when discussing the tragic nature of Palestinian deaths. We need to distance ourselves from this culture where justifying death is permissible. There should be no but, there is no justification for the deaths of innocent Palestinian civilians. Rather, let's say, and mean, "The Palestinian deaths are tragic and we pray there is a way to end them whilst still protecting Israeli civilians." Because you know what? There is. The removal of Hamas, but that is a political point we do not need to argue here.
This works the other way, the second is: "Israel has a right to defend herself but..." or "The rocket attacks are terrible but..." The but is usually followed by some reference to no Israelis dying or the fact that Palestinians do or some other statement contradicting the principle of the bit before the but. Again, there is no but. Israel has a right to defend itself, full stop. The rockets are terrible full stop. It's the same as above, stop justifying rocket attacks and stop reducing the capacity of Israel to defend herself.
Owen Jones is responsible for an awful example of the above, whilst his latest piece in The Guardian is horrific for other reasons.
Firstly, he quotes a human rights activist saying that Israel is targeted by "shitty rockets" and that Israel has bomb shelters etc whilst Gaza does not. The former is an example of "The rockets are wrong but..." That the rockets aren't very good is no excuse, is no justification for their use. This reward for Hamas' incompetence vs Israel's ability to protect her civilians is bizarre. The latter is simply false. Gaza is awash with bomb shelters. It's just that the civilians are not allowed to use them, Hamas forces them into the firing line using them as human shields.
Secondly, Owen, in one brilliant paragraph manages to both justify Hamas rockets into civilian areas *and* belittle the fear amongst Israelis that he states you should not belittle. It really is a feat of journalism not to be sniffed at. The first sentence of the second paragraph gets off to a good start. There is no defence for Hamas' firing of rockets into civilian areas and you should not belittle the fear that it causes Israelis in the bomb shelters. What he then goes to do is say 'but Israel has weapons and the rockets aren't very good' defending exactly what he states there is no defence for and belittling exactly that which he claims should not be belittled. What relevance does the ineffective nature of the rockets (which do kill, which do injure and which do damage property all whilst instilling a sense of fear into Israelis running for the bomb shelters) have? Similarly, why should the fact that Israel can defend herself and defend herself well make any difference to whether Hamas rockets are indefensible or Israelis should be scared of them? These two facts bear no relevance, not to media coverage (I mean, if Hamas fires a rocket into Israel, should the fact that Israel has "nuclear bombs" change the fact that Hamas fired a rocket into Israel?) and not to the initial statements that Owen makes and then dismisses.
Owen then tells us that 565 Palestinians were killed since January 2009. He also tells us that 28 Israeli civilians and 10 Israeli security personnel have been killed in the same period. Seems a huge difference, right? Firstly, this has the horrible implication that somehow if 565 Israelis died, this would be okay. It is not Owen's intention, but the implication is some sort of barbaric bible-style eye for an eye justice would be preferable, as if somehow the 565 Palestinian deaths would be less bad if 565 Israelis had died. What's worse is Owen's deliberate misleading of his readers. In order to make it seem like more Palestinian civilians have been killed, he does not distinguish between, civilians and terrorists on the Palestinian side, but does distinguish between civilians and security personnel on the Israeli side. If you click on the link he provides, you will find that the number of civilians that died is about half that which Owen suggests it is, an intentional misrepresentation of the facts. Why distinguish on the Israeli side but not the Palestinian side? Is it because 565 reads much worse than the lower figure representing solely civilian casualties? Anything to make Israel seem even worse, eh? The irony of it all is, is that 242 civilians killed in the Gaza strip is still a horrifically high number, 242 higher than Israel wanted. 242 is still a tragically shocking number. Owen Jones, however, feels he needs to distort the facts to paint Israel in a bad light to suit his agenda. 242 deaths is not enough for Owen apparently.
Finally, in a bizarre move, Owen tells us that Human Rights Watch is not a "den of lefties." Perhaps. The organisation has its own anti-Israel bias that Owen would no doubt agree with. Its director, for example, finds it impossible to condemn unequivocally the kidnapping of Israeli teens. Every time he tried to, he managed to criticise Israel for her actions or mention the teens were settlers. As if either justifies the kidnapping and murder of innocents. Kidnapping teens is awful but...
Update 12/07/2014
I've just read Mira Bar Hillel's piece in the independent. Her overriding point is bizarre - because, in a democracy, there are politicians who believe and say horrible things, she is considering burning her Israeli passport. By her logic when Nick Griffin became an MEP we should have all been on the verge of burning our passports. Regardless, that's not what is wrong with the article. No, what's wrong with it is that she commits the cardinal 'but' sin. Not only does she make the same mistake as our friend Jones above, justifying Hamas terror because Israel can defend herself but she also places Israel and the Nazis on the same level. "I'm Jewish and the Holocaust was terrible - I should know right? My aunt and children perished but..."
Frankly, burn your passport Mira. Burn it now. We don't want Hamas apologists and Jews who compare Israel to the Nazis on our side.
Update 13/07/2014
Mira Bar Hillel read my blog. But she didn't read it very well.
Monday, 2 June 2014
So, you both agree that 'hummus' is good?
One of my favourite Bruno moments is when he goes to the Middle East to try and solve the Israel-Palestine conflict and manages to get agreement that hummus is good. For your amusement, the clip can be found here. The relevance, albeit tenuous, is the news that Hamas and Fatah have reconciled and are forming a unity government. Personally, I'm not sure how you can have peace talks with an entity that is now backed by an organisation that opposes them - ignoring the added complication of that organisation being a terrorist organisation sworn to Israel's destruction. I am also confused as to how Abbas can claim any commitment to peace if he is seeking unity deals with such organisations.
There are some positives:
1. If (a huge huge huge if) Hamas commits to peace talks and Israel's right to exist, there may actually be some viability in the peace accords.
For ages I have thought the peace process was a complete sham - Abbas had absolutely no authority to negotiate on behalf of the Gazans. (He barely has any authority to negotiate on behalf of the West Bank Palestinians considering he is 4 years beyond his term, but let's ignore that.) Considering any peace deal presumably included Gaza as Palestinian territory, this was hugely problematic. Assuming a return to peace talks (a huge assumption, of course), this is no longer a problem and makes a peace deal that little bit more viable.
2. Elections
Fresh elections, long overdue, can only be a good thing.
3. A government including Hamas need not be 'Hamas' inspired.
In other words, the new government could decide to not oppose peace talks and to not be committed to Israel's destruction. It's unlikely but it is possible. A new Palestinian government controlling Gaza and the West Bank could extend security co-operation existing in the West Bank to Gaza, which could prevent future terrorist attacks. Or it would, at least, be a start. If the status quo remains, if Hamas remains sworn to Israel's destruction and terrorist activity out of Gaza continues then Abbas has made his intentions perfectly clear. It is true that you don't make peace with your friends, but with your enemies, but Fatah were enemies enough for Israel. In short, If Hamas remains Hamas within a new unified Palestinian government, I fail to see how peace can be negotiated.
Israel is correct to halt peace negotiations with any Hamas backed government - for the time being. Only time will tell what the make-up and ideology of a new elected, unified, Palestinian government would be. Netanyahu and myself fear that Abbas' cuddling up to Hamas only means it will be more extreme than it currently is, which ends the peace process. Crucially, it need not be so. If nothing else, however, this reconciliation may just confirm what many Israelis have argued since the split - Hamas and Fatah are two sides of the same coin. And that is not a positive. Not for peace, not for Israel, not for the Palestinians.
There are some positives:
1. If (a huge huge huge if) Hamas commits to peace talks and Israel's right to exist, there may actually be some viability in the peace accords.
For ages I have thought the peace process was a complete sham - Abbas had absolutely no authority to negotiate on behalf of the Gazans. (He barely has any authority to negotiate on behalf of the West Bank Palestinians considering he is 4 years beyond his term, but let's ignore that.) Considering any peace deal presumably included Gaza as Palestinian territory, this was hugely problematic. Assuming a return to peace talks (a huge assumption, of course), this is no longer a problem and makes a peace deal that little bit more viable.
2. Elections
Fresh elections, long overdue, can only be a good thing.
3. A government including Hamas need not be 'Hamas' inspired.
In other words, the new government could decide to not oppose peace talks and to not be committed to Israel's destruction. It's unlikely but it is possible. A new Palestinian government controlling Gaza and the West Bank could extend security co-operation existing in the West Bank to Gaza, which could prevent future terrorist attacks. Or it would, at least, be a start. If the status quo remains, if Hamas remains sworn to Israel's destruction and terrorist activity out of Gaza continues then Abbas has made his intentions perfectly clear. It is true that you don't make peace with your friends, but with your enemies, but Fatah were enemies enough for Israel. In short, If Hamas remains Hamas within a new unified Palestinian government, I fail to see how peace can be negotiated.
Israel is correct to halt peace negotiations with any Hamas backed government - for the time being. Only time will tell what the make-up and ideology of a new elected, unified, Palestinian government would be. Netanyahu and myself fear that Abbas' cuddling up to Hamas only means it will be more extreme than it currently is, which ends the peace process. Crucially, it need not be so. If nothing else, however, this reconciliation may just confirm what many Israelis have argued since the split - Hamas and Fatah are two sides of the same coin. And that is not a positive. Not for peace, not for Israel, not for the Palestinians.
Saturday, 17 May 2014
The Guardian: Wrong about everything, all the time
Sometimes you read something that has you shaking your head in disbelief. Very often that 'something' is in The Guardian, my newspaper of choice for anti-Zionism, pro-Hamas and terrorist propaganda and general anti-Semitism. Because, you know, I like having my views challenged. A piece in response to the ADL's report on anti-Semitism (here) is no different, unsurprisingly. My favourite thing about the piece is that it describes anti-Semitism as a serious issue...The Guardian, ever masters of irony.
Anti-Semitism amongst all, not least Palestinians, appears to be an inconvenient truth as far as The Guardian is concerned.
*This paragraph has been edited in light of comments from a friend.
The end of the second paragraph is so laughable, I almost didn't carry on reading. It states that "common sense" (The Guardian invoking common sense - more of that irony) would have almost anyone in the world answer affirmatively to the question of whether another ethnic group thinks more highly of themselves. Seriously? I don't happen to think any ethnic group thinks more highly of themselves. This question, however, confirms that many subscribe to the view that us Jews view ourselves as the chosen people and thus as superior to others. "Oh those Jews, thinking they are better than us." Try saying that sentence without it sounding like you harbour resentment for that fact and/or for Jews.
The next paragraph is horrifically misleading. It suggests that the question, "Do the Jews have too much power in the business world," was only asked in the Palestinian territories where the answer was bound to be yes. The question itself is quite simple, "Do you subscribe to the anti-Semitic conspiracy theory that Jews rule the (business) world." Answering yes, regardless of location, is anti-Semitism. That The Guardian think there is discussion on this point is worrying. What, however, is much more disturbing is the strong implication that this question was not asked in other regions. I randomly clicked and discovered that 51% of French respondents and 57% of Polish respondents also subscribe to the view that Jews have too much power in the business world. Let's grant The Guardian's claim that Palestinians could not be expected to answer anything but yes (ignoring that the Middle East and Northern Africa region where anti-Semitism is the highest is made of, shock horror, more than just the Palestinians), and ask whether the French could also not be expected to answer anything but yes? The answer, of course, is 'don't be so ridiculous'. The Guardian would have you believe that only the Palestinians were asked this "leading question".
The next paragraph is the worst of the lot. Believing that Jews talk about the Holocaust too much and, as implied, use it to justify the existence of Israel is, in my opinion, anti-Semitic. The latter is certainly anti-Semitic by any normal definition of the term. Secondly, The Guardian is justifying such anti-Semitism. It is apparently understandable why Palestinians believe the Jews talk too much about the Holocaust (bear in mind, again, that 62% of Poles, for example, also believe the same). Anti-semitism, therefore, is understandable. We can argue for centuries about the plight of Palestinians in Gaza, and indeed it seems we are destined to do so, but to suggest that Palestinians have any justification for their belief that Jews talk about the Holocaust too much, i.e., their anti-Semitism, is a horrible horrible claim.*
At the initial time of writing, The Guardian piece included a paragraph on a question regarding loyalty to Israel, which has since been deleted for not being in line with "editorial standards". Interestingly, justification of anti-Semitism obviously is...(A CIFWatch piece on this article contains this paragraph in full and can be found here.)
At the initial time of writing, The Guardian piece included a paragraph on a question regarding loyalty to Israel, which has since been deleted for not being in line with "editorial standards". Interestingly, justification of anti-Semitism obviously is...(A CIFWatch piece on this article contains this paragraph in full and can be found here.)
Anti-Semitism amongst all, not least Palestinians, appears to be an inconvenient truth as far as The Guardian is concerned.
*This paragraph has been edited in light of comments from a friend.
Wednesday, 12 March 2014
Israel Apartheid Week: Rethink
Every so often you read something that makes you shake your head in disbelief and wonder if it is really worth your time to even engage with the material. Today was one of those days. A friend pointed in me in the direction of an article written in Warwick's student newspaper, The Boar, on Israel Apartheid Week. The piece, worth reading only to give this response some context, can be found here. Frankly, I should have stopped reading when gender segregation in universities was described as, “...sometimes questionable.” No, ma’am, it is not just sometimes questionable, it is always wrong. Anyway.
Let’s ignore the debate about Israeli policy, we’ll be here until the cows come home for Kosher slaughter. Rather, let’s focus on some horrific comments in the article that simply must be challenged:
IAW is an attempt to associate Israeli policy towards the Palestinians with the Apartheid policies in South Africa, a comparison not only insulting to Israel (and wrong) but also to those South Africans who suffered under Apartheid. Anti-Israel campaigners would do well to avoid such inaccurate, harmful and insulting comparisons.
(Note, the US state department designates Saudi Arabia as an Islamic state; Wikipedia as an Arab state.)
Perhaps I can suggest an addition to the writer’s list at the end. We can support the Palestinian cause, we can oppose Putin’s homophobia, we can deplore Assad’s slaughter and we can oppose anti-Semitism and the poison, lies and hate that is Israeli Apartheid Week. And damn it, we should.
Let’s ignore the debate about Israeli policy, we’ll be here until the cows come home for Kosher slaughter. Rather, let’s focus on some horrific comments in the article that simply must be challenged:
- Israeli Apartheid week is about raising awareness of apartheid in Israel.
IAW is an attempt to associate Israeli policy towards the Palestinians with the Apartheid policies in South Africa, a comparison not only insulting to Israel (and wrong) but also to those South Africans who suffered under Apartheid. Anti-Israel campaigners would do well to avoid such inaccurate, harmful and insulting comparisons.
- “...We should concentrate on more ‘pressing’ or ‘worthy’ issues such as civil war in Syria, or gay rights in Russia”
- Mandela supported the Palestinian plight
- IAW is important because Ariel Sharon was painted as a hero in Western media
- Ariel Sharon was painted as a hero
- We must paint Israel as an Apartheid state
- "To critique the politics of the state of Israel is not anti-Semitism – indeed, many Jewish organisations such as Jews for Justice for Palestinians also oppose Israel“
- "I abhor the politics of Saudi Arabia – does that make me an Islamophobe?”
(Note, the US state department designates Saudi Arabia as an Islamic state; Wikipedia as an Arab state.)
- "We must not ignore Palestinian blood because the news has deemed Syrian blood more worthy of attention”
Perhaps I can suggest an addition to the writer’s list at the end. We can support the Palestinian cause, we can oppose Putin’s homophobia, we can deplore Assad’s slaughter and we can oppose anti-Semitism and the poison, lies and hate that is Israeli Apartheid Week. And damn it, we should.
Sunday, 21 July 2013
Peace In Our Time
The big news coming out of the Middle East, if one ignores Syria as so many seem so capable of doing, is the announcement of a return to peace talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians. I'm an Economist, so let's make a few assumptions. Let's assume that peace talks begin; that both sides want peace; that negotiations could be fruitful and heck, that a solution is reached. Picture the scene, Netanyahu and Abbas could stand arm in arm on Temple Mount each waving a piece of paper to the gathered masses. Palestinians and Jews would embrace, the status of hummus as a joint Israeli-Arab dish would be assured and the respective leaders heads of state would proclaim, "(real) Peace in our time," or whatever the Hebrew and Arabic equivalent is, ignoring the previous connotations of that phrase. We could head to my uncle's bakery for a sandwich and then on to a local falafel and shawarma joint to really kick-start the party, sharing many a tale from the past few centuries of conflict joking about how we have managed to fool the West into believing it all began in 1948. Does that not sound all so amazing? I cannot wait.
But then you come back to the real world. You realise that even with the best of intentions on both sides, the above picture is a distant dream regardless of whether Abbas and Netanyahu want peace or can negotiate peace. Many will argue that neither truly wants peace in the first place, so there is not much point in starting them off on whether a negotiated settlement is possible. And even pulling on our Economist caps on, assuming those problems away, it does not look much better. There are many obstacles to peace, on both sides. There are many that a good, honest desire for peace could help erode. There is (at least) one, however, that no desire for peace can erode; one that makes the smell of falafel and hummus together on a sunny evening disappear quicker than you can say 'pitta bread'. That one obstacle is Hamas and the Gaza/West Bank divide.
Abbas may command (minimal) legitimacy in the West Bank (ignoring, as you must, the lack of elections and rampant corruption to mention but two problems with his leadership), but he cannot even see the other half of the territory that he claims to represent with binoculars, let alone step foot inside it. Whether you want to argue that Hamas is the legitimate representatives of those Palestinians (some will argue they were democratically elected) is neither here nor there. What is impossible to argue is that Abbas represents the Gazans. He simply does not, that is just the cold hard truth. For him to be negotiating a peace deal that Hamas has already rejected (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/05/201353144052527593.html), on behalf of Palestinians under Hamas rule, makes a mockery of the proposal. Abbas simply has no authority to negotiate a Palestinian state that includes Gaza which it surely would.
I hope you can forgive my obvious pessimism about the latest announcement. I do sincerely hope, pray and (dare I say it) dream that we will see peace in our time. The Palestinian and Jewish people deserve a lasting peace that has a viable Palestinian state alongside a Jewish state with its security guaranteed. The latest round peace talks, however, can, at best, end with Abbas declaring a Palestinian state in the West Bank with Gaza continuing to provide the home for rocket fire into Israel. That is not a peace that any Israeli leader can or will accept.
Turn off the ovens Binyamin, falafel and shawarma will have to wait.
But then you come back to the real world. You realise that even with the best of intentions on both sides, the above picture is a distant dream regardless of whether Abbas and Netanyahu want peace or can negotiate peace. Many will argue that neither truly wants peace in the first place, so there is not much point in starting them off on whether a negotiated settlement is possible. And even pulling on our Economist caps on, assuming those problems away, it does not look much better. There are many obstacles to peace, on both sides. There are many that a good, honest desire for peace could help erode. There is (at least) one, however, that no desire for peace can erode; one that makes the smell of falafel and hummus together on a sunny evening disappear quicker than you can say 'pitta bread'. That one obstacle is Hamas and the Gaza/West Bank divide.
Abbas may command (minimal) legitimacy in the West Bank (ignoring, as you must, the lack of elections and rampant corruption to mention but two problems with his leadership), but he cannot even see the other half of the territory that he claims to represent with binoculars, let alone step foot inside it. Whether you want to argue that Hamas is the legitimate representatives of those Palestinians (some will argue they were democratically elected) is neither here nor there. What is impossible to argue is that Abbas represents the Gazans. He simply does not, that is just the cold hard truth. For him to be negotiating a peace deal that Hamas has already rejected (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/05/201353144052527593.html), on behalf of Palestinians under Hamas rule, makes a mockery of the proposal. Abbas simply has no authority to negotiate a Palestinian state that includes Gaza which it surely would.
I hope you can forgive my obvious pessimism about the latest announcement. I do sincerely hope, pray and (dare I say it) dream that we will see peace in our time. The Palestinian and Jewish people deserve a lasting peace that has a viable Palestinian state alongside a Jewish state with its security guaranteed. The latest round peace talks, however, can, at best, end with Abbas declaring a Palestinian state in the West Bank with Gaza continuing to provide the home for rocket fire into Israel. That is not a peace that any Israeli leader can or will accept.
Turn off the ovens Binyamin, falafel and shawarma will have to wait.
Thursday, 21 February 2013
My Letter To George Galloway
Below is a letter I have just sent to George Galloway MP regarding his upcoming attendance at Warwick University's Middle East and Africa Forum.
"Dear Mr Galloway,
I am a Warwick University Student who has recently purchased a ticket to attend the Middle East and Africa Forum you will be attending on 2nd March. In light of recent events at the University of Oxford, I feel I should inform you ahead of time that there may be Israelis present at the event. Indeed, for what it is worth, I, myself, hold an Israeli passport (with some pride I may add). I hope you will see my good intentions for I only do so because I do not want a situation where you feel that you have been misled in anyway as you claimed to have been with the Oxford University debate you so superbly stormed out of.
I look forward to an engaging debate and forum where all opinions are heard, listened to and respected regardless of already held beliefs.
Yours Sincerely,
Raphael Levy (Oh I am Jewish as well)"
I doubt I will get a reply. Maybe, just maybe, Mr Galloway will surprise us all and inform me that he shares my anticipation for a proper debate with all those present on the topics that will be discussed at the forum in question. Seeing as he has blocked me on Twitter I do not think I will hold out much hope.
"Dear Mr Galloway,
I am a Warwick University Student who has recently purchased a ticket to attend the Middle East and Africa Forum you will be attending on 2nd March. In light of recent events at the University of Oxford, I feel I should inform you ahead of time that there may be Israelis present at the event. Indeed, for what it is worth, I, myself, hold an Israeli passport (with some pride I may add). I hope you will see my good intentions for I only do so because I do not want a situation where you feel that you have been misled in anyway as you claimed to have been with the Oxford University debate you so superbly stormed out of.
I look forward to an engaging debate and forum where all opinions are heard, listened to and respected regardless of already held beliefs.
Yours Sincerely,
Raphael Levy (Oh I am Jewish as well)"
I doubt I will get a reply. Maybe, just maybe, Mr Galloway will surprise us all and inform me that he shares my anticipation for a proper debate with all those present on the topics that will be discussed at the forum in question. Seeing as he has blocked me on Twitter I do not think I will hold out much hope.
Thursday, 6 December 2012
The World's Gone Crazy
I live in a Western Liberal Democracy. My mum as a woman has full human rights; I am free to practise my religion; I do not live in fear of suicide bombers or a repressive regime. I really have no reason to be fed up, to have had enough, to be frustrated but for some reason, I am. Why? Because the world's gone crazy.
I live in a world where it is debated by Human Rights Watch whether Iran's repeated calls for the destruction of Israel are illegal with the ultimate conclusion, so far, that this is just fine but the worlds' leaders and media fall over themselves to blast Israel for authorising plans to build houses in land that is rightfully theirs under Oslo.
I live in a world where the murder of anywhere between 60,000 and 120,000 (your guess is as good as mine) Syrians is completely acceptable provided they are murdered by conventional means and not through the use of chemical weapons but where Israel's fundamental right to self-defence against terrorists committed to her destruction is called into question.
I live in a world where Hamas and Fatah fire rockets indiscriminately at Israeli civilians but it is only Israel's retaliation aimed at killing terrorists and only terrorists that is deemed worthy of media attention.
I live in a world where Syrian babies are dying daily but this brought to the world's attention only through Hamas' use of pictures of the Syrian war dead as pictures from Gaza.
I live in a world where the UN debates 21 resolutions on Israel and only one on Syria, setting a on hour time limit for this resolution leaving the rest of the day to debate an Israeli one, but it is Israel's reaction to constant rocket fire that is deemed disproportionate.
I live in a world where there is an Arab state in Egypt, Algeria, Sudan, Iraq, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, Tunisia, Somalia, UAE, Libya, Jordan, Lebanon, Mauritania, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, Djibouti and Comoros but it is the existence of the one Jewish State which prevents peace.
I live in a world where the Arab World refuse to recognise a (Jewish) State of Israel; sponsor, partake and glorify terror; refuse every peace deal that has ever been offered; have declared wars of destruction against Israel on more than one occasion and a Palestinian Authority that rejects negotiations in favour of unilateral moves; has no authority in half the state set aside for a future Palestinian one yet it is Israeli actions which are deemed counter productive to peace.
I live in a world where the Palestinian Leadership and Arab world harbour no desire for peace, seek the ultimate destruction of Israel and are willing to go to any lengths to achieve this goal, but the world presses Israel to do more to achieve peace.
Finally, I live in a world where all of the above is true for the simple fact that Israel is a Jewish state.
I live in a world where it is debated by Human Rights Watch whether Iran's repeated calls for the destruction of Israel are illegal with the ultimate conclusion, so far, that this is just fine but the worlds' leaders and media fall over themselves to blast Israel for authorising plans to build houses in land that is rightfully theirs under Oslo.
I live in a world where the murder of anywhere between 60,000 and 120,000 (your guess is as good as mine) Syrians is completely acceptable provided they are murdered by conventional means and not through the use of chemical weapons but where Israel's fundamental right to self-defence against terrorists committed to her destruction is called into question.
I live in a world where Hamas and Fatah fire rockets indiscriminately at Israeli civilians but it is only Israel's retaliation aimed at killing terrorists and only terrorists that is deemed worthy of media attention.
I live in a world where Syrian babies are dying daily but this brought to the world's attention only through Hamas' use of pictures of the Syrian war dead as pictures from Gaza.
I live in a world where the UN debates 21 resolutions on Israel and only one on Syria, setting a on hour time limit for this resolution leaving the rest of the day to debate an Israeli one, but it is Israel's reaction to constant rocket fire that is deemed disproportionate.
I live in a world where there is an Arab state in Egypt, Algeria, Sudan, Iraq, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, Tunisia, Somalia, UAE, Libya, Jordan, Lebanon, Mauritania, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, Djibouti and Comoros but it is the existence of the one Jewish State which prevents peace.
I live in a world where the Arab World refuse to recognise a (Jewish) State of Israel; sponsor, partake and glorify terror; refuse every peace deal that has ever been offered; have declared wars of destruction against Israel on more than one occasion and a Palestinian Authority that rejects negotiations in favour of unilateral moves; has no authority in half the state set aside for a future Palestinian one yet it is Israeli actions which are deemed counter productive to peace.
I live in a world where the Palestinian Leadership and Arab world harbour no desire for peace, seek the ultimate destruction of Israel and are willing to go to any lengths to achieve this goal, but the world presses Israel to do more to achieve peace.
Finally, I live in a world where all of the above is true for the simple fact that Israel is a Jewish state.
Posted with BlogsyTuesday, 27 November 2012
A Few Questions for Palestinian Statehood
On Thursday, the United Nations will vote (almost certainly) to recognise a Palestinian State based on Pre-1967 borders. They will do so primarily through a hatred of Israel (Abba Eban once remarked, "If Algeria introduced a resolution that stated the Earth was flat and Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions) but also through a sheer ignorance of the situation and the recent history of the Israel/Palestine conflict (no Biblical history needed). Perhaps it is worth clarifying that when I refer to Palestinians, I do mean the Palestinian leaders (the same goes for Arabs). Whilst I would argue that if there was a strong desire for peace at the level of the average Palestinian, there would be more efforts to force their leaders' hands into pursuing a peace agenda, I feel it is unfair to label all Palestinians as anti-peace simply for the lack of these moves. They live under regimes that dictate what they should believe, restricting their rights and blaming the resulting suffering on Israel and therefore if peace is to come in this situation, it must come from the Palestinian leaders. However, they simply do not want peace. The problem is not the general population but the leaders themselves. You can argue for days about barriers to peace on both sides - settlements, the Israeli position on Jerusalem, rocket fire, terrorist attacks etc etc etc, but none of these get to the heart of the matter: The Arabs do not want peace or care about a Palestinian state but genocide of the Jews and the destruction of the (Jewish) state of Israel.
For all of you who find my previous comment offensive, wrong, ignorant, any of the above or anything similar I politely request you answer the following questions:
For all of you who find my previous comment offensive, wrong, ignorant, any of the above or anything similar I politely request you answer the following questions:
- If the Palestinians had a true desire for peace, why did they reject the 1947 UN partition plan which (having already designated 4/5 of the Palestine Mandate to Arabs in the form of Jordan) established a Jewish state and an Arab state in the remaining 1/5, with about 50% of the land each?
- If the Arab World truly desired peace, why did they react to the establishment of a Jewish State by launching a war filled with hatred to destroy this Jewish state resulting only hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees?
- If the Arab World was so genuinely concerned with the establishment of a Palestinian State (ignoring the existence of a Palestinian state in Jordan), why did Jordan and Egypt not establish a one in the West Bank and Gaza which they respectively occupied between 1949 and 1967?
- If the Arab World so desired peace why did they decide the best way to achieve this would be by launching yet another war of hatred against Israel in 1967?
- What happened the last time an Arab nation was occupying the West Bank and what does this tell you about the current desire to reestablish Arab occupation of the West Bank?
- If the Palestinians genuinely only wanted a Palestinian State with eastern Jerusalem as its capital why have the rejected every single offer of a state which includes this?
- If the Palestinians want peace, why did the withdrawal from the Gaza strip in 2005 lead to the election of Hamas and constant rocket fire against Israeli civilians?
- If the Palestinians genuinely want peace with Israel and a two state solution, why do they continue to insist on the right of return of Palestinian refugees (made so by the 1947 war of hatred against Israel) to flood Israel with Palestinian Arabs so rendering it a defacto Palestinian state?
- If the Palestinians believe in a two state solution, why do Arab states continue to not recognise the existence of Israel but rather call for the destruction of the Zionist entity?
- If Palestinians genuinely desired peace, why do they insist on preconditions before even entering peace negotiations?
- How do you explain the continued use of violence and terrorism against the Jewish population of Israel (and indeed the world)?
- If the Arab world cared so much about the Palestinians why:
- Did Jordan's Regime murder thousands of Palestinians in 1970?
- Do they not have the right to own property or land, access the health system and require special permits to leave their refugee camps in Lebanon?
- Do Palestinians in Egypt have restrictions on the most basic of human rights?
- Does Hamas store and fire its rockets from within the civilian population in Gaza, using them as human shields against Israel, actively putting them in harms way?
- Is it in Israel that Palestinians enjoy the greatest level of human and civil rights, religious freedom, political representation etc?
Perhaps I can help you out:
- Because they do not want peace with Israel, they want the destruction of Israel.
- Because they do not want peace with Israel, they want the destruction of Israel.
- Because they do not care about the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, but a Palestinian state to replace Israel. In short, because they do not want peace with Israel, they want the destruction of Israel.
- Because they do not want peace with Israel, they want the destruction of Israel.
- A war was launched against Israel to cause its destruction. They continue to not want peace with Israel but a platform from which to launch the destruction of Israel.
- Because they do not want peace with Israel, they want the destruction of Israel.
- Because they do not want peace with Israel, they want the destruction of Israel.
- Because they reject the existence of Israel.
- Because they do not want peace with Israel, they want the destruction of Israel.
- Because they do not want peace with Israel.
- They do not want peace with Israel, they want the destruction of Israel.
- Because they do not care about the Palestinians but realise they are a useful tool in their desire to destroy Israel.
So please forgive Israel for being wary at this latest publicity stunt from Abbas at the United Nations. Time and again Palestinians have been offered peace and time and again it has been rejected and is usually followed by a war against Israel. The last time there was an Arab power occupying the West Bank, Israel had to defend itself from yet another war of hatred aimed at destroying the state of Israel and the Jewish people. How many times must Israel defend herself from Arab powers who's aim is the destruction of the Jewish State? Any Palestinian state established on Pre-1967 borders leaves open the very possibility of yet another war against Israel launched in very much the same way as the 1967 war - the Arab commitment to 'Pre-1967' borders is nothing to do with a state of Palestine (if they wanted a Palestinian state, they were offered a much larger one which they rejected in 1947) but is a calculated move to threaten Israel. Unilateral moves at the United Nations do not established secure borders for Israel, something history shows us is necessary.
There is no denying the simple fact that there are barriers to peace on both sides that could be removed (and shouldn't be added to). This, however, makes the naive assumption that the Arab side desire peace. If the Arabs wanted peace, they could have had it years ago. Instead, from the very beginning, they chose the path of war and destruction against the Jewish people, a nation whose destruction has been sought by: Ancient Egypt, the Philistines, the Assyrian Empire, the Babylonian Empire, the Persian Empire, the Greek Empire, the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, the Crusaders, the Spanish Empire, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.
There is no denying the simple fact that there are barriers to peace on both sides that could be removed (and shouldn't be added to). This, however, makes the naive assumption that the Arab side desire peace. If the Arabs wanted peace, they could have had it years ago. Instead, from the very beginning, they chose the path of war and destruction against the Jewish people, a nation whose destruction has been sought by: Ancient Egypt, the Philistines, the Assyrian Empire, the Babylonian Empire, the Persian Empire, the Greek Empire, the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, the Crusaders, the Spanish Empire, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.
Not one of these civilisations, nations or empires still exist. The Jewish People remain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)