Israel, Zionism and the Media

Month: March 2009 (Page 2 of 3)

The Good, and possibly the Bad and the Ugly

With a number of reports coming out of Israel of possible abuses and violations by Israeli soldiers it is interesting to read a couple of reactions from inside Israel.

Firstly Herb Keinon in the Jerusalem post with an excellent article here where he he reports that Alan Baker, former Foreign Ministry legal adviser has said:

it is incumbent on

Israel to investigate the allegations to show the world it is taking the matter seriously 

As I have also stated, it is very important that Israel investigates ALL allegations in an open and thorough way.

“There is no doubt that Israel did not systematically go in and commit war crimes,” Baker said.

He said that in isolated incidents, things may have happened that caused innocent people to be killed, and that it was in Israel’s interest to investigate itself, and prosecute where necessary. 

Exactly right. This is the key issue that makes Israel different from its enemeies and many of the countries who so gloatingly read about Israel’s internal breast-beating over these allegations. Israel is seen as part of the western democracies and is held to account to uphold international law. No other country in the region would be remotely interested in investigating potential crimes in their military. Only truly democratic open societies can do this. Israel has to do it, not to placate foreign media or governments, it must do it to retain its self-respect as a nation, whatever the findings reveal.

The ‘good’ bit in the title comes from yNetnews.com where soldiers who took part in the Gaza conflict rebut claims of immoral conduct.

I don’t believe there were soldiers who were looking to kill (Palestinians) for no reason,” said 21-year-old Givati Brigade soldier Assaf Danziger, who was lightly injured three days before the conclusion of Operation Cast Lead.

 “What happened there was not enjoyable to anyone; we wanted it to end as soon as possible and tried to avoid contact with innocent civilians,” he said.

 According to Danziger, soldiers were given specific orders to open fire only at armed terrorists or people who posed a threat. “There were no incidents of vandalism at any of the buildings we occupied. We did only what was justified and acted out of necessity. No one shot at civilians. People walked by us freely,” he recounted. 

Other stories of  soldiers being berated by colleagues for stealing even a can of drink and being made to put it back, of soldiers who cleaned apartments where they had been billeted and folded sheets and blankets go unreported. *

But please read this article in the JP which offers a firm and fair answer to the concerted attack and demonization of Israel being waged by the Guardian newspaper and also this article referenced in it: a leading article in the Independent which is well balanced apart from the headline – here’s a quote:

It is true that all armies suffer occasional breakdowns in discipline. And we should not make the mistake of holding Israeli soldiers to a higher standard of conduct than we expect from our own. We in Britain should remember that Baha Mousa, an Iraqi hotel receptionist, was beaten to death in the custody of British troops in Basra in 2003 and none of our soldiers was convicted of this killing. American military personnel were guilty of appalling abuses of prisoners in Baghdad’s Abu Ghraib prison.

We should bear in mind too that this testimony was made public by a concerned Israeli academic. Whatever crimes might be laid at the door of the IDF, it should not be Israeli society on trial here. Indeed, it is a tribute to the openness of Israel’s democracy, that we have learned of these allegations. Nor does the conduct of Israeli troops invalidate the overall objective of Operation Cast Lead, namely to stop Hamas firing rockets into towns in southern Israel.

This is the point. Unless Israel is perfect it is the most appaling state in the world. Ever since its formation Israel has faced an existential threat from its neighbours. It’s hardly surprising that Israel is drifting to the right and its people increasingly brutalised by continuous attacks and fear of attacks. Even so, abuses and crimes cannot be dismissed. They must be investigated and, if proved true, action must be taken against perpetrators. If proved true, Israel must do some serious soul searching about the future conduct of its military.

* 26/03/2009 This was my poorly remembered reading of a YnetNews article which I can now quote:

 

A Paratroopers Brigade soldier who also participated in the war called the claims “nonsense”. Speaking on condition of anonymity, he said, “It is true that in war morality can be interpreted in many different ways, and there are always a few idiots who act inappropriately, but most of the soldiers represented Israel honorably and with a high degree of morality.

“For instance, on three separate occasions my company commander checked soldiers’ bags for stolen goods. Those who stole the smallest things, like candy, were severely punished,” he said.

“We were forbidden from sleeping in Palestinians’ beds even when we had no alternate accommodations, and we didn’t touch any of their food even after we hadn’t had enough to eat for two days.”


 

HonestReporting analyses BBC’s ‘biased’ coverage of the Gaza conflict

HonestReporting.com has released its analysis of what it claims to be the BBC’s biased coverage during the Gaza conflict. Biased against Israel, off course.

The report which can be seen here begins with a telling comparison to the conflict in Sri Lanka between government forces and the Tamil Tiger separatists.

During the conflict, the BBC published, on average, 4.5 articles every day dealing with the fighting. In contrast, BBC coverage of the Sri Lankan government’s campaign against the Tamil Tigers group — a conflict that resulted in an estimated 2,000 civilian deaths in January of 2009 — produced barely one article a day.

According to human rights organizations, the conflict in Sri Lanka includes intentional attacks by both sides on civilians, attacks on hospitals (twenty attacks from December through February alone), and the use of human shields. Yet the BBC gives this conflict, estimated to have resulted in hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths, less than one quarter the average daily coverage of the Gaza conflict. If the BBC is going to focus this much on  Gaza, it must expect scrutiny of that coverage.

This discrepancy is something that I and many others have pointed out previously and will be the subject of a post I intend to write shortly.

One of the main thrusts of the HonestReporting analysis is the discrepancy between accounts coming from Gaza and those emanating from the Israeli side. The report points out how unsubstantiated claims went either unquestioned or received a token warning of the BBC’s inability to authenticate claims.

Emotive images often accompanied the reports even though these images were often unrelated to the actual events being reported. Unverifiable atrocities were reported unquestioned. 

The reports concluded:

 

The BBC’s coverage of the Gaza conflict painted a picture of an Israeli attack that intentionally targeted civilians and may have included war crimes. Specifically: 

  • The BBC relied upon Palestinians who were given the opportunity to make dubious accusations without any supporting evidence.
  • The BBC published image after image of Palestinians suffering under Israeli attacks while giving readers few views of the impact that the conflict was having on Israeli civilians living under a constant and daily rocket barrage.
  • The most damning Palestinian statements about the Israeli operations were highlighted on the side of the articles, while Israeli statements were almost never treated in the same way.

 

The analysis looked at every report on the BBC and the BBC website during the conflict and various diagrams are produced to back up claims of an extremely skewed coverage which showed Israel in a negative light with little attention given to the hundreds of thousands of Israelis condemned to years of rocket and mortar attacks. Many sources used by the BBC were dubious, to say the least, in that they came directly from or were almost certainly channelled through Hamas or its supporters or those it had most likely intimidated or threatened (although this, too, of course is difficult to prove or assess).

The most egregious ‘lie’ was that of the ‘bombing; of an UNRWA school which made such headlines at the time, especially as John Ging, UNRWA’s head of staff in Gaza first claimed more than 40 civilians had been killed INSIDE the school and later had to recant and admit that the shells fell outside the school. But the damage was done and the BBC continued reporting 40 deaths only for it to be revealed there were ‘only’ 12, of which 9 were Hamas operatives who had used the vicinity of the school to fire at IDF troops. The truth was not reported with the same sensationalism as the initial lie and thus the the smear sticks.

Although the report is an excellent analysis, I must take issue with part of its interpretation of the statistics. Here is a table of the findings I have made:

  Palestinian Israeli    
Eyewitness Accounts 40 18    
  Palestinian Casualties/Destruction Israeli Soldiers Israeli casualties/destruction Hamas Terrorists
Images 215 53 34 11
  Palestinian Position Israeli Position    
Highlighted Quotations 33 3    

Now, I do not want to be an apologist for the BBC but most of the action was taking place in Gaza. And even though rockets were falling on Israel throughout the conflict it is undeniable that it was Gaza where there was a huge battle raging and hundreds of people (almost all Palestinians) dying, not Israel. 

For me the statistics are not the key element of the bias; what is key is the quality of the reporting and the lack of concern, especially by Jeremy Bowen, for proper journalistic norms. Hearsay and dubious sourcing, gullibility and a predisposition against the Israeli position, assumptions of guilt without proof, hectoring of Israeli spokespersons; all these were what characterised the BBC’s coverage.

Even now as terrible stories come out of Israel the BBC and others are still making assumptions about the veracity of the reports simply because they are from Israelis without waiting for the full investigations to be carried out. At least Israel takes the accusations seriously; when Hamas is challenged to respond to accusations of abuses it basically sticks two fingers up – hardly surprising; since when did terrorists ever abide by any international laws or conventions? That’s why they are designated terrorists in the first place.

UN: Israel may not be allowed to defend itself

It’s official: long-time Israel basher, academic and UN  “special rapporteur” on Human Rights in Palestine Richard Falk is not just accusing Israel of war crimes in Gaza but, according to the BBC website, questioning “whether Israel acted lawfully in entering Gaza at all”.

So according to Falk, Israel is unique among the countries of the world in possibly not being allowed to defend itself against a barrage of rocket attacks from a neighbouring territory over a period of many years.

Just to balance things up, “He is calling for an independent inquiry to examine possible war crimes committed by both Israel and Hamas.” With one sentence he equates the actions of a terrorist organisation, whose charter reveals that it is dedicated to the physical destruction of Israel, with the country it is trying to destroy and which, perhaps, may not be allowed to defend itself against that terrorist organisation.

There is no question of “possible war crimes” when it comes to Hamas. Falk only needs to stand on the streets of Sderot for a day (but he can’t as Israel won’t give him a visa) and see what are considered harmless rockets raining down indiscriminately on a civilian population. He only needs to ask Hamas when last Gilad Shalit had a visit from the Red cross.

Here are some of Falk’s bons mots from the past:

it is not an irresponsible overstatement to associate the treatment of Palestinians with the criminalized Nazi record of collective atrocity

After writing an article in June 2007 called “Slouching toward a Palestinian Holocaust” he defended his use of the word “Holocaust” by comparing Israel’s policies to the collective punishments used by the Nazi regime in Germany.

He has also accused Israel of “genocidal tendencies”.

In 2006, Yitchal Levanon, the Israeli ambassador to the UN in Geneva said:

He has taken part in a UN fact-finding mission which determined that suicide bombings were a valid method of ‘struggle’

The BBC alludes to Falk’s previous record as a critic of Israel, who is considered biased by the Israelis, without giving the substance of that criticism.

For Falk, Israel, the arch-criminal, should sit on its hands and allow itself to be destroyed. Then, perhaps, he would be wringing his hands and describing a second Holocaust of the Jewish people and investigating Palestinian war crimes in the ruins of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.

We must not fear the truth

Yesterday Ha’aretz published a story about testimony of IDF soldiers on the Yitzhak Rabin pre-military preparatory course at the Oranim Academic College in Kiryat Tivon.

The course head, Dani Zamir, published conversations in a course newsletter. The testimony purports to be that of a group therapy session where three IDF soldiers related incidents in which civilians were killed by snipers and of wanton destruction of property.

In fact, the actual stories are extremely disturbing. An old woman killed, apparently because she strayed into a fire zone; others killed because they took a wrong turn after being evacuated by the IDF and snipers had been instructed to kill anything  that moved. 

The world’s press has obviously homed in on these stories and the BBC was not slow to comment. However, it must be said, the story was not headlined by the BBC and their reaction was somewhat muted. They did manage to try to suggest that this was a religious war by quoting some rabbis who were involved. Somewhat ironic when it is the other side who are actually conducting a religious war when it’s supposed to be a territorial one.

The anti-Zionists and the Jew-haters will of course say ‘I told you so’ about these reports, and this will confirm them in their beliefs and be used to justify their hatred.

There have, however, been doubts cast on the stories because Zamir has a long history of left-wing agitation and views. Furthermore, those giving testimony may not have witnessed these events but were only reporting heresay. One of the soldiers wasn’t even in Gaza, apparently.

We await the IDF internal investigations. Ha’aretz says it has more to expose.

But let me be quite clear on this: we who support Israel must not try to find excuses or escape into denial. If crimes have been committed the perpetrators must be punished. Any nation claiming to be civilised, especially one that claims to have the most moral army in the world, must investigate, publish and take any necessary action, however painful. It was interesting to read some of the comments posted on the yNet website. So many said that Israel should not was its dirty linen in public and give succour to the enemy.  There is an understandable view in some sections of the Israeli public, and certainly in the Diaspora, that Jews should never criticise Israel because it has plenty of detractors. As Herb Keinon wryly writes in the Jerusalem Post  “The whole world is against us, goes an old Jewish joke, and now we’ve joined in.” It’s this ability for Jews to search their conscience that separates then from many of their enemies.

There have been various stories and reports about abuses, atrocities and petty vandalism since the IDF operation began. The Jewish Chronicle on the 6th March had a piece headlined ‘I don’t feel bad about what we did’. It interviewed six soldiers. The last two soldiers, Arik Dubonov and Amir Marmor expressed reservations:

From the first briefings before going in, it was clear that the army had changed its entire mindset. Instead of getting the usual precautions on not harming civilians, we were told about the need to make a very aggressive entry. We were told ‘any sign of danger, open up with massive fire.’…

Some of us were very uncomfortable with these orders… (Dubonov)

… to me it was like a punishment exercise.. from the enormous extent of the destruction. We were there for a week and despite the fact that no-one fired on us, the firing and the demolitions continued incessantly. (Marmor)

The other soldiers interviewed had a different story but still did not make comfortable reading. Different experiences at different stages and areas of the conflict.

I have never fought as a soldier. I doubt many soldiers have fought under the conditions the IDF fought under. Clearly, the tactic was to go in hard in order to save Israeli soldiers lives against an enemy that had promised much but delivered little. The IDF could not allow Hamas any scope to operate. To achieve this aim against an enemy that hid in hospitals, mosques and schools, that popped out of tunnels in houses and booby-trapped residential buildings, was not going to be anything but a dirty war with civilians in the middle. Despite this, the IDF policy was to do as much as it could to avoid civilian casualties. That may seem ironic in light of the allegations, but it is, nonetheless, the truth. If their was a failure or the rules of engagement were too loose, as some have suggested, that does not mean that every action was reckless or worse.

Israel should carefully examine its tactics: did its forces need to destroy houses just to create sight lines? Is the policy of disproportionate response (Olmert’s words, not mine) justified?  Are all its forces and their commanders properly trained to respect civilian property, let alone their lives? 

So far nothing is proved; no investigations completed, no recommendations made, no prosecutions begun. I can wait. But I also want to see Israel facing up to its responsibilities: no cover-ups, no automatic denials.

I believe Israel is a highly moral country. The debate raging in Israel over these latest reports, the debate which has always raged about its treatment of the Palestinians, its war ethics, its defence policies and tactics, all these are signs of a healthy democracy. No such debate, no such self-examination, no such remorse or self-doubt would enter the minds of Israel’s enemies. 

The anti-Semites and Jew-haters may have their chance to gloat, but that should not weaken the resolve of those who know that Israel faces an increasing existential threat and needs our support more than ever. But that support will be weakened if Israel is not seen by those very supporters to do the right thing: thoroughly investigate ALL allegations from whatever quarter and take any necessary action.

The Palestinian Authority’s Crimes against (its own) humanity

Following my previous post here Arutz Sheva today reported the results of the P.A’s decision not to fund hospital treatment in Israel for its citizens.

This decision by P.A. health minister Fathi Abu Moughli was as a result of Operation Cast Lead and is testimony to the perverted mindset which believes that such an action would harm Israel and remove a propaganda opportunity. Anything which reveals Israel to be in any way humanitarian is to be deplored, according to the P.A’s warped logic.

The Arutz Sheva report is very disturbing:

A decision by the Palestinian Authority Health Minister to cut off medical benefits at Israeli hospitals has cost the life of at least one little girl…

Six-year-old Asil Manasra died. The Palestinian Authority child had for eight months been receiving intensive treatment at an Israeli hospital for complications arising from tuberculosis. One week after the PA Health Ministry forced her family to stop the visits, the little girl struggled for breath no more..

It continues:

“I blame everyone. Should children die because of political decisions?” Asil’s father asked the AP reporter in anguish. “How can you stop treatment? When a child is so sick that she is going to die, is there something more important than that?”

Apparently, for the Palestinian Authority, propaganda is more important than life.  This is a sad fact of Palestinian life – it, life itself,  is only valued if taken by Israelis. Otherwise, Palestinian lives are pawns in a political and ideological game.

Read the whole sad story here


Ken Loach says Israel is responsible for rise in anti-Semitism

Ken Loach, the British film director, has claimed that it is “‘understandable” that there should be a rise in anti-Semitism since the Gaza conflict, the Jerusalem posts reports.

 If there has been a rise I am not surprised. In fact, it is perfectly understandable because Israel feeds feelings of anti-Semitism.

He goes on:

When history comes to be written, I think this will be seen as one of the great crimes of the past decades because of the cold blooded massacre that we witnessed. Unless we take a stand against it, we are complicit.

And all this at the Russell Tribunal on Palestine – a “a symbolic citizens’ initiative that claims to reaffirm the importance of international law in conflict resolution”.

What Loach and other are “complicit” in is the usual one-sided demonisation and singling out of one state whilst ignoring the crimes of those seeking to annihilate it. By ‘understanding’ that Israel’s perceived crimes are responsible for anti-Semitism he is saying that it is “understandable” that all Jews are responsible for Israel’s actions. He makes no condemnation of this linkage.  By expressing this belief he himself is complicit in the rise of anti-Semitism because he makes no stand against such a belief. Even Muslim leaders in the UK told their co-religionists NOT to blame Jews for the actions of Israel. 

Did Mr Loach “understand” the huge rise in attacks on Muslims as a result of 9/11 or 7/7? No. Because  there were very few attacks on Muslims in the UK whose citizens did not perpetrate a blood-libel against them. But in the wake of Operation Cast Lead anti-Semitic incidents in the UK and Europe went through the roof.  Only Jews are responsible for the actions of other Jews in Mr Loach’s perverted logic.

I would also ask Mr Loach if he has taken a stand against President Bashir of Sudan, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, the Taleban, the Russians for Chechnya (seeing as he is a supporter of Chechen independence) and South Ossetia.

But most importantly I would ask him if his kangaroo court of concerned citizens (which not only makes the accusation but then becomes judge and jury in a mockery of justice)  is even going to look at Hamas’s actions and condemn them or does he “understand” Hamas’s motives as well.

And I would ask him why the Russell Tribunal does not even follow – vis-a-vis Hamas – some of its own aims as expressed when “trying” the United States for war crimes in Vietnam:

1. Has the United States Government (and the Governments of Australia, New Zealand and South Korea) committed acts of aggression according to international law?

3. Has there been bombardment of targets of a purely civilian character, for example hospitals, schools, sanatoria, dams, etc., and on what scale has this occurred?

4. Have Vietnamese prisoners been subjected to inhuman treatment forbidden by the laws of war and, in particular, to torture or mutilation? Have there been unjustified reprisals against the civilian population, in particular, execution of hostages?

Replace “United States” with “Hamas”.

On item 1:  Hamas were and still carry out daily rocket attacks aimed specifically at the civilian population of Israel which is an “aggression according to international law”.

On item 3: as per item 1 the targets are “purely civilian (in) character” and are indiscriminate. As for scale: over 6000 such attacks since 2001.

On item 4: Gilad Shalit has been held since 2006 without access to the Red Cross contrary to international law. We do not know if he has been tortured. After Operation Cast Lead Hamas was widely reported as taking reprisals against anyone it deemed as being complicit of collaboration especially its political enemy Fatah. It carried out summary executions and woundings against civilians.

This is not Loach’s first attack on Israel. In 2007 at the San Francisco International LGBT Film Festival he called for “international boycott of Israeli political and cultural institutions”. In 2008 he condemned the celebrating of Israel’s 69th anniversary as “tantamount to dancing on Palestinian graves to the haunting tune of lingering dispossession and multi-faceted injustice”.

I believe even in the world of the self-appointed, self-righteous and self-lefteous Ken Loach and the Russell Tribunal there are clear grounds for an “indictment” and “prosecution” of Hamas. 

I am sure the entire world is watching with baited breath.

The Final Solution to The Israel Problem

On January 20th 1942 senior Nazis met at a villa on the Wannsee near Berlin to finalise the details of how to murder and dispose of every last European Jew.

In Geneva, Switzerland on April 20th the follow-up to the UN conference on racism held in Durban in 2001, and usually referred to as Durban II, will take place.

The first conference has become infamous for its singling out of Israel in its resolution and the walking out of the Israeli and American delegations after abuse and accusations were hurled at Israel. Zionism was equated with racism and Israel was deemed an Apartheid state.

This time Islamic countries have attempting to focus on the issue of religious defamation in an attempt to protect Islam from any criticism and thus legitimise attempts at free speech in order to uniquely protect Islam and enshrine intolerance as part of the UN charter. At the same time the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) which has a majority at the conference has focused once again on Israel and attempting to denounce it as racist and confirm the anti-Israel declaration of Durban I.

Several countries have already said they will not take part if the declaration against Israel proceeds.
Today it was announced that several of the draft terms have now been dropped after pre-conference negotiations. It remains to be seen whether the US, Canada and the EU will be mollified by the modified draft. It should be noted that the original Durban I declaration is still on the table to be ratified by in Geneva.

The details are tiresome and disturbing. A caucus of Arab and Muslim states dominate the conference. Libya is to chair the conference. Iran is a vice-chair.

For a conference which is designed to fight intolerance and racism many of the representatives and committee members seem to epitomise religious, sexual and gender intolerance. They are countries without free speech, a free press or free and fair elections. These countries have the temerity to accuse, vilify, demonise and deligitimise Israel where there is universal franchise, freedom of religion, freedom of sexual orientation, a free press and free speech, the latter of which enables Arab Israeli citizens to criticise the state and call for its destruction without fear of prosecution or persecution. Many of these countries, including Egypt and Iran, publish literature, broadcast TV programmes and make political speeches of the vilest anti-Semitic nature, yet it is these countries which accuse Israel of the racist crimes of which they are so blatantly guilty.

So why did I mention the Wannsee conference? It seems to me that under the increasingly irrelevant auspices of the UN, an association of African and Islamic states are attempting to formalise the grounds for the destruction of Israel: a necessary first step towards the elimination of the Jews and the perpetration of a second Holocaust. This is to be achieved by demonisation, deligitimisation, media propaganda, boycotts and, if ever they have the power to do so, military threat. 

The world is splitting and polarising, if it hasn’t already done so, into two camps: the liberal democracies of the West with its supporters and the Islamic states and its supporters. In the middle is Israel, and for a football they use the Palestinian people.

And the politicians in the EU and the US still believe it is all about territory: give the Palestinians a state and all will be well with the world. The politicians believe negotiation, carrots and sticks and self-interest will prevail. They are wrong. The lessons of history, that we were told we have learned, were not learned. We may be moving inexorably toward something terrible.

See Jerusalem Post article by Isi Leibler. This follows up the controversy of the American Jewish Committee’s involvement.

Lieberman – is Israel moving too far to the right?

Much column space has been given to the spectre of Avigdor Lieberman, leader of Yisrael Beitenu, obtaining an important government post and pushing the Israeli government to the far right. 

The issue with a such a government is its perceived negative effect on any future peace negotiations with the Palestinian Authority and the ultimate goal of a negotiated peace settlement leading to a viable Palestinian state.

Some of Lieberman’s utterances have been pretty chilling. His call for all Israeli citizens to sign loyalty oaths or lose their right to vote has a certain whiff of bigotry. Can you imagine how something similar would go down in the UK. It would be the Tebbitt test taken to the extreme.

Lieberman has also had some ‘interesting’ views on transferring the sovereignity of willing Israeli Arabs and villages to the Palestinian Authority in return for the redrawing of Israel’s borders to contain most, if not all, of its West Bank settlements.

But Lieberman appears to have undergone somewhat of a Damascene conversion of late, He now says that he would agree to a two-sate solution and wold even be willing to see the settlement where he lives, Nokdim, evacuated if it were part of a viable peace settlement.

His most famous slogan, much seen during the recent Gaza offensive, is ‘no loyalty – no citiizenship’. The clear discriminatory threat that the slogan embraces is deplored within and without Israel. But maybe Lieerman’s sloganising also carries the bravado of demagoguery and the need to make an impact, rather than a substantive threat. He explained that this slogan was in response to the calls of Israeli Arab leaders, citizens all, who, during Operation Cast Lead, used their democratic right to free speech in order to call on their fellow Israeli Arabs to support Hamas and suicide bombings and hasten the destruction of  the State of Israel.

You can begin to see where he is coming from but there is always a worrying underlying doubt with Lieberman that he uses the tactics of a politician to gain power which he can then use to push the country into a political and moral morass which would delight Israel’s enemies who would then see their own attempts at deligitimisation as vindicated;  those who are so quick to call Israel racist and an Apartheid state would have an absolute field-day. This is the danger of an extreme right-wing Israel: whatever its political and polemical logic it would completely undermine all attempts to show Israel as a democratic, enlightened, free and legitimate country.  

It is a sad indictment of world opinion that the EU in the form of Xavier Solana feels it has a right to ‘warn’ Israel about the dangers to the Middle East of a right wing government whilst it keeps ‘shtum’ abount the numerous right wing governments that surround Israel.

Lieberman’s views, however, can also be insightful: 

The peace process is based on three false basic assumptions; that Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the main cause of instability in the Middle East, that the conflict is territorial and not ideological, and that the establishment of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders will end the conflict.

This is what he said to YnetNews in 2006. No-one who really understand the forces within Palestine and the wider Muslim world could disagree with any of that statement. In fact, it reveals the basic error on which the current Obama administration, the EU and Tony Blair have all based their peace initiatives.  Israel has somehow to pretend that these three false assumptions and their resolution will bring about the desired solution. Lieberman is bold enough to state that this is a lie at worst and misguided at best.

However, any Israeli politician whose supporters call out ‘Death to the Arabs’  is surely representing an unwelcome change in the nature of Israeli politics and the psyche of a large section of its citizens, many of whom are from the former Soviet Union. 

In answer to the question ‘is Israel moving too far to the right?’ there is a clear and present danger that this is he case. Lieberman is the second only to Netanyahu in popularity. The longer the conflict with Hamas and Hizbullah lasts, the greater the threat from Iran grows, the more likely it is that Israeli politics will become polarised between an aggressively nationalist right and an increasingly marginalised left. 

This is not the face of Israel I want to see. It is dangerous and divisive. It is Putin politics in the Knesset and it could fatally weaken Israel.

Israel’s International Rescue

ZAKA is not a name that is well-know outside Jewish circles. That’s because it is a UN-recognised Israeli humanitarian organisation. Not many people are interested in anything to do with Israel’s humanitarian activities – it doesn’t quite fit with their preconceptions, prejudices or bias.

So for the uninformed here goes: ZAKA is a volunteer rescue and recovery service.  The organisation’s job is often a harrowing one, literally picking up the pieces after terrorist attacks, originally just in Israel.

It’s role expanded over time because it widened its remit to include disasters abroad to recover the bodies of Jews to ensure burial according to Jewish law and practice.

Now Zaka is using its experience to train voluntary groups around the world to help them cope with disasters (natural and man-made) and the aftermath of terrorist atacks.

Volunteers will be act as a first response unit assisting other professional on the scene of the incident.

ZAKA has already assisted after the Tsunami in Thailand, the bombing at Taba in Egypt, in Mumbai and in Namibia, a country with whom Israel does not even have diplomatic relations.

As UN NGO it can go anywhere in the world without invitation.

ZAKA assists with the living and dead of all nations regardless of race or religion. And although it specialises in Jewish victims it makes no distinctions.

Such is its work that it has even been put forward for a Nobel Peace Prize by a member of the UK parliament.

Clerical error

images73The Arab and Muslim world is awash with anti-Semitism. Some times it is blatant, sometimes it is in the guise of anti-Zionism. Sometimes it’s just plain ludicrous.

A video on the MEMRI website has been posted which shows an Egyptian cleric railing against Starbucks. This time the canard that Starbucks gave money to Israel and/or the Israeli Army is avoided. Instead Safwat Higazi concentrates on the Jewish symbolism of the Starbucks logo. Yes, you read correctly. Now read on.

Apparently the logo depicts Queen Esther.

This queen is the queen of the Jews. She is mentioned in the Torah, in the Book of Esther. The girl you see is Esther, the queen of the Jews in Persia.

the MEMRI video translates. He goes on to urge good Muslims to boycott the Starbucks stores in the Middle-East.  After a complete misrepresentation of the Purim story, which he has clearly never read, thence to the peroration:

We Want Starbucks To Be Shut Down Throughout The Arab And Islamic World… Can you believe that in Mecca, Al-Madina, Cairo, Damascus, Kuwait, and all over the Islamic world there hangs the picture of beautiful Queen Esther, with a crown on her head, and we buy her products?

What do you notice about this story? Israel is not mentioned at all. It’s a rant against Jews. Why should this man be stirring up trouble without grounds (all puns intended, by the way)?

For some time rumours have been spread that Starbucks gave money to Israel and the IDF.  This is denied on the Starbucks website:

Is it true that Starbucks provides financial support to Israel?

No. This is absolutely untrue. Rumors that Starbucks Coffee Company provides financial support to the Israeli government and/or the Israeli Army are unequivocally false. Starbucks is a publicly held company and as such, is required to disclose any corporate giving each year through a proxy statement. In addition, articles in the London Telegraph (U.K.), New Straits Times (Malaysia), and Spiked (online) provide an outside perspective on these false rumors.

 Has Starbucks ever sent any of its profits to the Israeli government and/or Israeli army?

No. This is absolutely untrue.

 Is it true that Starbucks is teaming with other American corporations to send their last several weeks of profits to the Israeli government and/or the Israeli Army?

No. This is absolutely untrue.

Clearly Mr Higazi has heard these rumours and presumably he has also heard the ones about the Jews being responsible for 9/11, World Wars I and II, global warming and the tooth fairy.

Anti-Semites will find whatever fuel they can to stoke their own prejudices. Please observe that this is a rant against Jews, so any pretence of anti-Zionism can go straight out of the window.

Anti-Semitism is rife in Egypt. Almost a national obsession. On the streets of Cairo you can easily find a copy of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion which is a best seller. Blood libels against the Jews abound. And all this is a nation that is Israel’s ‘peace partner’. Who knows to what extent this trash is believed in Egypt where there is a current battle between Islamists and the existing regime and political status quo. Mubarak’s government isn’t exactly a Western democracy but at least it provides some sort of stability and resistance to Jihadis.

But what about poor Queen Esther?  Well, the current logo has moved on since the early days when the nature of the Queen Esther figure was a little more obvious. Wikipedia tells us:

Valerie O’Neil, a Starbucks spokeswoman, said that the logo is an image of a “twin-tailed siren” (the siren of Greek mythology).[25] The logo has been significantly streamlined over the years. In the first version, which gave the impression of an authentic 15th century European woodcut, the Starbucks siren was topless and had a fully visible double fish tail. The image also had a rough visual texture. In the second version, which was used from 1987-92, her breasts were covered by her flowing hair, but her navel was still visible, and the fish tail was cropped slightly. In the current version, used since 1992, her navel and breasts are not visible at all, and only vestiges remain of the fish tails.

Higazi is representative of a large group of Muslim clerics for whom the Jews are simply evil. Just consider: so what even if the logo DID represent Queen Esther, is that such a crime? No, the true crime is that because some of the founders and management of Starbucks are Jews that makes the company persona non grata in the Muslim world. But here’s the killer punch: the Starbucks website also tells us:

Do you work with a Middle East partner to operate Starbucks stores?

Through a licensing agreement with trading partner and licensee MH Alshaya WLL, a private Kuwait family business, Starbucks has operated in the Middle East since 1999. Today Alshaya Group, recognized as one of the leading and most influential retailing franchisees in the region, operates more than 274 Starbucks stores in the Middle East and Levant region. ….

We partner with Alshaya Group to operate Starbucks stores in Egypt, Kuwait, KSA, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, UAE, Jordan and Lebanon in the Middle East region….

We are also committed to hiring locally, providing jobs to thousands of local citizens in the countries where we operate.

In other words, the operation in the Middle East is merely a franchise operated by a Kuwaiti company and provides employment for thousands of people. But Mr Higazi isn’t interested in that, he is only interested in his narrow-minded Jew-hatred.

[On 23rd April 2018 I received an email linking to a thorough explanation of the logo on the www.dailycupo.com website https://www.dailycupo.com/starbucks-logo-meaning]

« Older posts Newer posts »