The United Arab Emirates and Israel

With much fanfare, the Netanyahu and Trump PR machines announced that Israel and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have agreed to establish diplomatic relations. According to the UAE Israel has agreed to give up the West Bank annexation plans, which Netanyahu has been talking about. According to Trump, Israel would forgo for now “declaring sovereignty” over occupied West Bank territory. And... according to Netanyahu his plan to annex part of the West Bank “remains on the table.” 

 

The Israeli move seems brilliant: they first announce that they would take over (others call it steal) Palestinian land and then in return for agreeing to cool their landgrab plan for a while, get something tangible. It is, of course, far from brilliant: without reaching an agreement with the Palestinians, their frustration will continue to fester. Israel might get richer and militarily stronger, but it will not live in peace. Rich and strong and screw the rest.

 

It has been reported that settlers are livid. They had believed Netanyahu and were hoping for the formalisation of the de-facto annexation, that Israel has been carrying out salami-fashion for years. To be told that you have to put off stealing for a while must be difficult for them. Judging by the past, they need not worry. Operation Landgrab will be allowed to continue.  

 

Palestinians too are disappointed – by their “brethren”. I don’t know why. They should have gotten used to it. They have been mistreated by the Arab world throughout their history. Yet, neither pointing to that fact, nor to the Palestinians' own mismanagement of their interests, will solve the problem. And, as already said, unless it is solved, there will regularly be trouble.

Zeev Sternhell

Professor Zeev Sternhell, who died last week at the age of 85, one of the world’s foremost authorities on fascism, was an Israeli historian and political scientist. Zeev Sternhell was also a vociferous opponent of Israeli right-wing politics and of the settlement and annexation policies of Israeli governments.

Sternhell did not mince his words and spoke of “growing Israeli fascism and racism akin to Nazism in its early stages.” 

Sternhell warned: “Like every ideology, the Nazi race theory developed over the years. At first it only deprived Jews of their civil and human rights. It’s possible that without World War II the ‘Jewish problem’ would have ended only with the ‘voluntary’ expulsion of Jews from Reich lands. After all, most of Austria and Germany’s Jews made it out in time. It’s possible that this is the future facing Palestinians.”

   

Sternhell’s voice will be sorely missed.  

Heiko Maas – Incompetence

A few days ago, Heiko Maas, Germany’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, travelled to meet his Israeli counterpart Major General Ashkenazi, to inform him of Europe’s discomfort with Israeli plans to annex even more Palestinian land. 

Such words are like water off a duck’s back. Unless, important countries such as Germany read the riot act to Israel, and show willingness to follow their words with action, Israel will totally disregard them.

And it gets worse: Israel wanted Maas’ visit to produce even more mileage and concocted a ploy to humiliate both the Palestinians and Germany. This was achieved by preventing Maas from visiting Ramallah. Maas had planned a trip to meet the Palestinian leadership, before travelling on to Amman to see King Abdullah of Jordan. To prevent this meeting, Israel – which controls the Palestinian territories – informed Maas, that were he take the 20km. trip to Ramallah, and then back to the Tel-Aviv airport he would be quarantined for 14 days on his way back, before being allowed to leave. Shamefully, Maas gave in.  

Israel’s quarantine enforcement seems flexible: it conveniently forgot that according to its own quarantine regulations, Maas should have been quarantined upon arrival in Israel, before meeting with Israeli ministers. Moreover, thousands of Palestinians travel back and forth every day to work in Israel, without needing to quarantine. Quarantine was just a ploy.   

 

Two years ago, in his inaugural speech, Maas explained «I entered politics because of Auschwitz«. Does Auschwitz incapacitate him and renders him incapable of handling Israel/Palestine issues?    

Our Boys vs. Stray Weeds

If you have the opportunity to watch the Israeli 10-part-series Our Boys, do so. Netflix(?) HBO(?) It is worth watching.

It is a docu-drama that revisits the revenge killing of a 16-year-old Palestinian by three orthodox Jews. A real story that happened in Jerusalem in July 2014. The series gives insight into remote – perhaps even alien – societal groups, unknown to most of us: Palestinians, Ultra-orthodox Jews, and... Israeli secret service. You get to understand them all better. Even the warped world and world-view that produced the killers.

I recently asked one of the writers and directors of the series, to what extent, they may have been instrumentalised by the shabaq, Israel’s internal security service. After all, the film’s portrayal of the shabaq is sympathetic and it was a fact, that the film’s directors had been granted access to the interrogation files – surely an unusual occurrence. The only explanation, that I can think of for shabaq’s decision to cooperate with the makers of this series, is the hope that it would benefit their PR.

My interlocutor believed that not to be the case. Indeed, those who are willing to think beyond the excitement of the show, may be asking themselves, why the Israeli secret service treats Jewish suspects of hate crimes with kid gloves, whereas it shows no such reservations when it comes to its dealing with Arabs.

Interestingly, the original name for the series was to be “Stray Weeds”. At some point, they must have concluded that Our Boys better portrays the state of affairs in Israel.  

Here’s an official HBO trailer.

Israel Criticism – The trap of anti-Semitism allegations

A paper of mine “Israel criticism – The trap of anti-Semitism allegations” appeared in the autumn edition of conflict & communication online.  

Discussions about Israel, and Israeli politics, pertaining to the Israel-Palestine question, often lead to the critic – especially if the language used is harsh – being accused of Antisemitism. The purpose of introducing accusations of antisemitism is the derailment of the argument. Such discussions frequently follow a regular pattern, in which critics find themselves on the defensive and the debate turns from one about Israel to one about the critic’s alleged Antisemitism. In the interest of honesty and to facilitate factuality and sobriety in debates about Israel, the paper suggests that any personal prejudice or motivation, which a critic may or may not harbour for their arguments, be disregarded.

The paper, albeit in German, can be read HERE.

Mounting the Temple

In 1947, the United Nations voted for the partition of British Mandate Palestine into three separate entities: a Jewish state, an Arab state and Jerusalem as a separate legal entity, a corpus separatum. That was the plan.

Tish’a Beav, is a day of mourning, on which religious Jews fast and remember the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. Eid El-Ad’ha is the Feast of Sacrifice, the Muslim feast ending the annual pilgrimage to Mecca.  Such days are always an opportunity for extremists on both sides to stir trouble. This year is no exception. Moreover, this year, both holidays fall during the same period. And so the Muslim religious authority has closed all other mosques in Jerusalem to force those Muslims who wish to pray to come in droves to the El-Aksah mosque, and right-wing Israeli politicians and activists are pushing and cajoling the government and the police to open the area for Jews to celebrate. The Chief Rabbi meanwhile opined that according to Jewish law it is forbidden for Jews to enter the area.

What a miserable lot they are – whatever god they maintain they believe in. And all those that follow, hollow and shallow, “believers” that care more for real estate than for human values of peace, love and mercy. Worst of all, are those cold-blooded politicians, secular and religious, who manipulate those primitive feelings of “their people”.

And how right the UN was in 1947, to suggest a corpus separatum. Instead – borrowing from Shakespeare – we have

Mind your language

A friend posted the following on his Facebook wall:

Four years ago today, two Palestinian Arab murderers entered a synagogue during morning prayers in Har Nof, and brutally slaughtered the praying congregants with axes, knives, and a gun.
They killed praying Jews and one heroic police officer, a Druze, who died taking down the terrorists.

Some tend to describe nationalistic killings of Israelis that are carried out by Palestinians as anti-Jewish acts. This serves to instil the feeling that we have a phenomenon akin to Antisemitic pogroms of the Christian kind. This is both wrong and misleading.

Murder is terrible, whether brutal or not. It is even terrible when those who have drones at their disposal carry it out from the luxury of their comfortable faraway operation centres.

There are Palestinians who use murder in their fight against Israel and against the occupation their land. This is unpardonable, but we should not confuse the issues: This is not about killing Jews in their Synagogues but about fighting occupation.  Deplorable but not Antisemitic.  

Say YES to UN observers in Jerusalem

The 1947 UN Partition Plan for Palestine foresaw a special status for the greater Jerusalem area, as a corpus separatum, under a special international regime and administered by the United Nations. Unfortunately, this resolution was never implemented.

Now, because of the current tension in Jerusalem, France is promoting a plan to deploy international observers at Jerusalem’s Temple Mount.

Sounds like a good idea to me. But, Israel objects.

Having one-sidedly annexed East Jerusalem, Israel wants to avoid any act that might question its self-declared sovereignty over the city that contains sites holy to all three monotheistic religions. Sadly, the US will side with Israel on this matter and thereby prevent the necessary Security Council resolution.  

Don’t be Chickenshits

As part of its continuous, concerted and successful action-plan to hold onto the Occupied Territories, Israel is cold bloodedly taking advantage of today’s murderous attack by two Arabs from East Jerusalem, to slander the Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas. 

Netanyahu: “the terrorists’ act was a direct result of incitement led by Hamas, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and irresponsibly ignored by the international community…”

Economy Minister Bennet: "Abbas, one of the biggest terrorists to have arisen from the Palestinian people, bears direct responsibility for the Jewish blood spilt … while we were busy with delusions about the [peace] process."

Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz "The hands that held the axes were those of the terrorists, but the voice is that of Abbas." And Foreign Minister Lieberman called on the international community to condemn Abbas' "anti-Semitic statements, which lead to terrible acts of slaughter like the one at the synagogue this morning."

Netanyahu and his senior ministers are lying. More than that, with their inciting defamatory statements, Netanyahu and his cabinet are igniting the fire or at least adding fuel to it. Here is what the head of  the shin bet, Israel’s internal security service, Yoram Cohen, said today: "Abbas is not interested in terror and is not inciting to terror. He's not even doing so behind closed doors." Moreover, Cohen laid the blame for the rising tensions in Jerusalem on visits by right-wing Israeli members of parliament to the Temple Mount and their attempts to introduce legislation, which would change the status quo on the holy site.

A few weeks ago The US secretary of state, John Kerry, has condemned as “disgraceful” a description of Netanyahu, as “chickenshit”, attributed to an unnamed US official. Netanyahu may now be a certified “non- chickenshit” but he should probably not risk asking for a similar certificate to prove that he is not a defaming, inciting liar. It is up to the US and the EU not to be chickenshits and to finally read Israel the riot act.  

British Parliament recognises Palestine

1. Congratulations to the British parliament for voting (274 against 12) in favour of a motion recognising a Palestinian State. The debate – as parliamentary debates often go – was not very impressive, the outcome, however, is positive.

The motion is not binding on the British government and may therefore just be symbolic  - but symbolic acts, with the right luck, can be powerful too.

2. Shame on the Israeli Labour Party that tried to use its – evidently non-existent – influence over members of the British Labour party in a last minute hysterical attempt to block the vote. Leading the opposition means not acting like a government poodle. Try to remember that Mr. Herzog!

British Intelligence Pushing Arabs to War

Five months ago, the British National Archives released newly declassified documents, according to which, British Intelligence “predicted war – and Arab defeat – in Palestine in 1948.” According to today’s Israeli media, Syrian files that reached French Intelligence prove that British Intelligence agents actively encouraged the Arab countries to invade the “to be established” new Jewish State, Israel.

So much for the impressive “forecasting” of British Intelligence.

What must now be asked is whether the almost frenzied attempts of the SIS -  or was it Military Intelligence – took place by instruction of the British government or behind its back?  If the British agents acted because they did not agree with their own government’s policy in the region and worked to counteract it – they are in fact traitors. 

This question ought to be answered.

Dear R

When we last met, about a month ago, you were very angry, very very angry with me for having asked in my blog  whether Israel had the moral right to wage its [November] war in Gaza. Whatever we think, you said, we should not criticise Israel abroad.

You have now sent me an email, in which you agree with many of my arguments adding that Israel’s internal as well as foreign policy puts a fright on every thinking person. You also write that the general mood in Israel is seriously depressed. Not only Netanyahu/Liberman policies but also the fact that we are stuck like a bone in the Arab throat make you doubt that there is a future for your children’s generation in Israel.

And yet, you ask me to stop spreading my criticism – which you refer to as hatred - in the world. External pressure and isolating Israel will not change Israel’s way, you say. On the other hand, spreading such criticism, leading to external pressure will, according to you, bring about even more of the already rising anti-Semitism.

I agree, we should change from within. We would all be happier and prouder if we would become better people without external pressure. But, Israel’s demographic makeup is such that this is unlikely to happen. Israel’s population permits the current leadership not only to cause terrible injustice to others but also to kill what the founders of the state have established. This must be stopped. 

Israel is in a terrible downward spiral and it may be that only trauma will bring about the necessary change. In this case, I prefer the trauma of serious external pressure - which to be effective would have to hurt politically and economically - to the trauma of war with many casualties. Without the one, we may get the other.

As to the harmful impact of my writing, I do not think you need to worry. I wrote this about two years ago. As you can see, dear R, the world did not listen to me then and I am unlikely to have too much of an impact now.

Best etc…

PS: How do you propose to prevent the Israeli press, such as Haaretz, from publishing its often very sharp criticism in their English editions? 

A Palestinian State?

Why not?

Israel has been acting energetically to persuade members of the United Nations to vote against the recognition of a Palestinian State. However, I have yet to hear a sensible explanation why the Palestinian Authority should not be granted its wish.

Israel is apparently worried that as a full member, Palestine would be able to take Israeli officials to the International Court in The Hague. Should that disqualify Palestinians from statehood? Incidentally, quite a few countries, including China, Russia, India as well as the USA and Israel who have withdrawn their signature, have either not signed or not ratified their membership of the Court.

Curiously, Israel is complaining about the unilateral aspect of such recognition. Are not Israel’s occupation and settlement of the West Bank somewhat unilateral too?

Anyone who can offer good reasons for a no vote is urged to comment.

The David Ranan Peace Plan

A Facebook friend of mine put the following question to his friends:

What is the craziest, non-political, non-violent idea you can think of to get Israelis and Palestinians to come together and make peace?

My response was:

Put the leadership of both sides under curfew: Lock them up in their own countries. Close the rest of the world to the top 5000 on each side. Prevent them from travelling, shopping, investing and accumulating money overseas. They are all so corrupt that they will not hold out: Soon enough, the Israeli as well as the Palestinian leadership will agree a deal.

One will, of course, need international cooperation for such a boycott to work and that is unlikely to be agreed. It is a shame really, because such a travel boycott would most probably deliver peace.

Shipwrecked

More about Israel, the Turkish boat and Gaza:

The whole world has turned against Israel following its seizing of a Turkish boat heading for Gaza. Israel itself is divided between those who are angry with the government for the failed operation and those who think a biased world should not be permitted to dictate to Israel in matters of national security.

1. My heart does not bleed for the death of knife wielding men on a Turkish boat who attacked Israeli soldiers. They were nasty men who knew what they were getting themselves into.

2. The international media that describes a Turkish boat with men armed with knives and whips, as a “peace convoy” either does not know what it is saying or is just plain biased.

3. The Western world has a growing problem with an ever more fundamentalist Turkey. Fortunately, Europe did not succumb to the pressure and grant them EU membership.

HOWEVER, Israeli public opinion that cries out against a hostile world believing that the problem lies only in Israel’s poor public relations suggests pure blindness.

Contributing to this blindness is the fact that for 43 years, ever since the 1967 War, the international community let Israel get away with its land-grabbing policies. Most Israelis were either born or immigrated to the country after 1967. They take the Occupied Territories for granted. They even take occupation for granted. Changing their states of mind will be hard.

More on boycott

I received quite a few emails commenting on my last blog, (Why do some Israelis call the world to boycott Israel?) Some of them questioned the efficacy of a boycott. The point I tried to raise was not the effectiveness and efficiency of boycotts. What I am interested in is:

1. Does Israel’s occupation of the West Bank justify a boycott and if so what kind of boycott.

2. Is it legitimate to do as Dr. Neve Gordon has done and “attack” one’s own country abroad?

Uri Avnery, the seasoned and well-respected Israeli left-wing politician and publicist, advocates not a general boycott on the State of Israel but rather a specific boycott on the product of Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories.

He writes: “Some 11 years ago, the Gush Shalom movement, in which I am active, called for a boycott of the product of the settlements. Its intention was to separate the settlers from the Israeli public, and to show that there are two kinds of Israelis. The boycott was designed to strengthen those Israelis who oppose the occupation, without becoming anti-Israeli or anti-Semitic.” See LINK

This is also the thinking behind last week's decision by the Norwegian government to divest from an Israeli company (Elbit) because of their involvement with the “Separation Fence” that is being built on Palestinian land.

The Pope between Israel and the Arabs

The Pope, Israel, the Palestinians and the Holy Land

The Vatican has announced a papal visit to the Holy Land: neither a country, nor a group of countries but a loose definition of an area, which includes sites that are holy to Christians, Jews and Muslims. The decision to include Amman, a city that surely is not part of the Holy Land, is somewhat curious and suggests politics. But politically and, above all, morally, this papal trip is likely to be a missed opportunity.

Why is he going? What does he want? What do they expect? Israel, currently rather unloved, craves the world’s love. To that end, a good visit by the Pope can be useful. Whereas Jewish holy sites are instrumental in establishing Israel’s right to a Jewish state in that part of the world, Israel accepts that its land is holy to Christianity and Islam as well. Any visit by a foreign dignitary, let alone the Pope, to a Christian holy site within Israel serves to validate Israel as the legitimate and responsible keeper of the Holy Land. Israel also hopes to profit economically from increased pilgrimage and a boost to the country’s tourism income as a result of the visit. The Palestinians, even more than the Israelis, crave recognition. A visit of a head of state or dignitary of any other sort serves the purpose of raising international awareness of the Palestinian problem as well as legitimising Palestinian leadership and institutions.

During his visit, Pope Benedict will meet the King of Jordan, the President as well as the Prime Minister of Israel and the President of the Palestinian Authority. Yet, the Apostolic Nuncio tells us that “The Holy Father’s journey to the Holy Land is not in any way political.” Why, in God’s name, is the Pope visiting Jordan, Israel and the Occupied Territories? Unlike most papal visits, this is not a pastoral affair. There are not many Christians living in the territories that the Pope will visit; many have left in the last forty years. This emptying of the Holy Land of Christians is a worry to all Christian denominations and one of the Pope’s aims is to support the continued existence of a Christian presence in the Holy Land. But Israeli rule is hard on the Palestinians and the Muslim-led Palestinian administration has made it hard on Christians. The Vatican’s website defines the trip as a pilgrimage. A pilgrimage, even a pope’s, is a personal affair. The Apostolic Nuncio clarified that “this will be a pilgrimage of prayer for peace and unity in the Middle East and the rest of the world.” Is this enough? Should not the head of Christianity’s largest Church be more forward than just praying for peace, apropos his visit to Christianity’s holy sites? Should the Pope not be on record demanding with all his moral authority an end to the continued war and atrocities carried out in the “Holy Land”? An end to a war that is often nourished by religious, albeit non-Christian, fanatics.

The trouble is that the Pope will not be considered an undisputed and unbiased referee; at least not by Israel. The Church’s history with Judaism and Jews is tarnished. Although, she denies culpability, some consider the holocaust to be the result of almost two thousand years of anti-Judaic teaching and preaching by the Church. The latest incident, in January of this year, the Pope’s reinstating of Bishop Williamson, a holocaust denier, caused a furore and much bad blood. The problematic stance of the Catholic Church vis-à-vis the Jews has been much written about. Less well known is the Church’s antagonistic approach to the Jewish State. At their meeting in 1904, Pope Pius X, who was approached for support by Theodore Herzl, the father of Zionism, made it abundantly clear that the Church did not want Jerusalem, at the time under Turkish rule, to be placed in Jewish hands. On the question of Jews settling in Palestine, the Church and the Arabs shared the same objective: neither wanted Jews to settle in the land that Jews, Christians and Muslims consider holy. Later, in the post-holocaust period, the Vatican actively tried to prevent the founding of a homeland for Jews. Only in 1993, forty-five years after the establishment of Israel, and only after the PLO itself had recognised Israel, did the Vatican conclude an agreement with the Jewish State. The relationship between Israel and the Vatican continues to be difficult and concentrates on issues connected to Church properties and taxation. If Christian guilt feelings about the holocaust did indeed play a role in the world’s consent to the establishment of a Jewish State in Palestine, Arabs would be right in begrudging their having to pay the price for what was perpetrated by Christians in Europe. Thus, whatever the Pope will say about the Israeli-Arab conflict is likely to be attacked by at least one of the parties.

And yet, for a person of the Pope’s stature, to visit Israel and the Palestinian Territories without employing all the weight of his office for change is morally unacceptable. Instead of a silent prayer for peace, the Pope could borrow Isaiah’s words “they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.” In a theatrical and, for this Pope, untypical act the Pope could loudly cry out to God and appeal to men to put an end to the dispute, which has caused so much bloodshed. He must call for compromise and insist that this is the only moral solution, whatever is claimed by religious fanatics on either side. This Pope, who is more theologian than charismatic, should put some charisma into this effort.

Simply to satisfy his personal need for a pilgrimage cannot be enough.