Ray Cook - As I See It

Israel, Zionism and the Media

Month: December 2010

Why the Arab-Israeli conflict cannot be resolved by the current Palestinian leadership

I previously wrote about Palestinian rejectionism and how it would mean that no peace is possible with Israel because the Palestinian Authority has never had any other goal than the destruction of the State of Israel and this has not changed since the formation of the PLO in 1964 and it was also the goal of the Arab League before it.

Hamas, the Islamist organisation that runs the Gaza Strip is also dedicated to Israel’s destruction.

Tawfik Hamid is an Egyptian academic who has surprising views on Israel and the Middle East.

Dr Hamid is a true moderate who rejects fundamentalist interpretation of the Qur’an and advocates peace with other religions and especially Israel. Dr Hamid is not unique but he is certainly a rarity. If only his views were spread at the same rate as Islamism, peace and security for the region and the world would be greatly enhanced.

In an article I read at newsmax.com Dr Hamid describes what he calls ‘The Real Reasons Behind the Arab-Israeli conflict’.

He soon rejects the current accepted views of the Arab and Muslim world:

The view that solutions for the Arab-Israeli conflict have failed because of what some in the Muslim world call the “expanding and colonizing ideology of Zionism” is unfair and devoid of truth. Israel proved its dedication to peace when it withdrew from Sinai, Lebanon, and Gaza in hope of peace with its neighbors.

He then moves to the territory I covered in my aforementioned article as his first reason:

Until Palestinian leaders, in both Arabic and English speeches, declare that Israel is their legitimate neighbor whom they no longer will strive to overrun, their participation in negotiations is fake, hypocritical, and doomed to fail. It is impossible to negotiate with a partner about borders if this partner does not accept your existence to begin with.

The second reason is what he calls the ‘selfish mentality’ of the Palestinian leadership. Again, this is similar to my view that the PA paints itself into a corner because it is more interested in self-preservation and populism than making peace. For Hamid:

Palestinian leaders seem to be interested in proving their “merit” by destroying Israel than in gaining a better life for their people. True leaders must be ready to make concessions to ensure a better life for their people.

Until Palestinian leaders are ready to make such concessions to the Israelis, the problem will not be solved.

Reason number three is that the international community (and this is broadly the Western democracies) are naive in their belief that the PA is ‘moderate’ when it is no different to Hamas in its desire to eradicate Israel which leads to a refusal to recognise Israel’s right to exist and this is buttressed by extreme anti-Semitic propaganda in the media.

For his fourth reason Dr Hamid makes the astute point that:

… the Palestinian leadership prefers to live — and to make their population live — in delusions rather than in reality.

Just recently, an official Palestinian report claimed that a key Jewish holy site — Jerusalem’s Western Wall — has no religious significance to Jews. It is impossible to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict if the Palestinian leaders insist on living in such delusions instead of admitting the archeological reality that Jerusalem’s Western Wall is Jewish. Problems are not solved by living in fabrications and lies but rather by facing and admitting realities.

One might add that for decades the Waqf, the Islamic authority that oversees the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif have been busy destroying the most important archaeological site in the world by digging and burrowing into the layers of Jewish temple history that lie beneath the Dome of the Rock and the al-Aqsa mosque.

What is effectively a propping up of the Hamas government in Gaza is reason number five.  Dr Hamid believes that Palestinians in Gaza have not had to pay the price for their choice. This is a rather eccentric view when you take into account what happened during Operation cast Lead.

What Hamid is referring to is that Hamas were supposed to provide an Islamic solution to the problem. Not allowing them to fail means that they are not weakened. Radical Islam still has its heroes. The economic support from the US and the EU means that the full force of Islamist failure to deliver is ‘masked’.

This is an interesting argument. Israel’s blockade and its embargo have partly been designed to weaken Hamas. Yet this strategy is failing because of the politically correct humanitarian criticisms coming from EU governments which deplore Hamas but also deplore the embargo and blockade. The proscribe Hamas as a terrorist organisation but prop it up with aid which means that Hamas’ policies are sweetened.

Dr Hamid is saying that the West is acting against it own interests because it is helpless in face of international human rights activism.

Dr Hamid then goes into a little fantasy excursion proposing an extremely aggressive Israeli political response to non-cooperation from the PA/Fatah in the peace process:

Israel, for instance, could announce that it will build a certain number of new West Bank towns every year, or will annex land in the West Bank each year, unless and until Fatah and Hamas accept the minimal principles necessary for Israel to participate in any further negotiations.

These principles would include:

  1. Declaration of the right of the Jewish state of Israel to exist;
  2. Cessation of both verbal incitement and physical violence against Israeli civilians and;
  3. Implementation of all previous agreements between Palestinians and Israelis.

But even Hamid admits that the US and the EU would ‘balk’ at these tactics. That is to put it mildly. It would also alienate a lot of Israelis! In the immortal words of John McEnroe: he cannot be serious and perhaps this rather spoils a good article.

Dr Hamid ends by castigating President Obama for pressurising Israel whilst the Palestinians smile with glee from the sidelines. Dr Hamid believes that the only strategy the PA would respond to is to show the PA that their recalcitrance has negative consequences. In this I believe Hamid is very wrong. Such a strategy would provoke violence and strengthen Hamas, Hizbollah and Iran.

Despite Dr Hamid’s naivety when it comes to tactics, his general analysis is correct, and how pleasant it is to hear an Arab saying these things, albeit from the safety of an American university.

Live Aid, Gaza and humanitarian disasters

A few days ago I happened to be watching, once again, the documentary about Live Aid first shown 5 years ago on the 20th anniversary of the event.

Like millions of people on the actual day, I was enjoying the performances until we got to the part where they showed the film of the starving Ethiopian children and experienced again the horror of millions of people dying from famine, whilst we in the first world get increasingly obese.

And then it struck me; here was a genuine disaster where the whole world was mobilised by the efforts of one inspired man. So if Gaza is such a humanitarian disaster, and if people are really starving as so many in the anti-Israel organisations and commentators and journalists would have us believe, where are the images? Why are there no Live Aid type concerts? Where is the international outrage? Not the outrage of those with a political agenda, but the outrage which comes of genuine humanitarian concern?

As ever, I do not deny that many in Gaza do not have the greatest standard of living or quality of life, but is it not telling that the world actually understands real disasters, such as Haiti and the Pakistan floods. The world realises that the difficulties in Gaza, though real, are not in the same league as Haiti or Pakistan, let alone Ethiopia.

The only people fixated on trying to tell us that there is a humanitarian issue worthy of international attention are the flotillaniks and aid organisations whose agenda is to break the blockade, embarrass Israel and keep Gaza on the UN agenda. They are doing a fine job, often aided by UNWRA, but it does seem to me that the message that there is a humanitarian disaster worthy of the name is growing a little weak. And the idea that it is only Israel that is responsible for the conditions in Gaza is also beginning to pale.

Let’s not forget that Egypt also has a land embargo and one third of Gaza’s border is with Egypt.

Israel delivers thousands of tonnes of food and other aid and equipment every week through crossing points. Israel delivers electricity through its grid. Israel provides medical aid to thousands of Gazans a year. Shops in Gaza are well-stocked with food and white goods.

Yet Hamas, the rulers of Gaza, declare that their goal is to destroy Israel but complain that Israel is a little wary of the free passage of marine traffic into the Gaza strip. What nation in history whose enemy declared that its goal was to destroy it has provided the means for that enemy’s people to survive, although not thrive? And these are the same people who voted Hamas into power in the first place.

We hear how Gaza is a prison camp, that there is a humanitarian disaster, that Israel must end the ‘siege’. Bear in mind, also, that Hamas holds Gilad Shalit captive without access to the Red Cross. Bear in mind that rockets are fired daily into Southern Israel. Still Israel sends in the trucks.

How many countries have organised food aid for Gaza? How many worldwide broadcast concerts have the pro-Palestinian groups in Europe arranged to raise money?

So, as I said, I was thinking, maybe the world is not fooled. Maybe they actually understand it’s more about politics and less about suffering. Aid convoys and flotillas may have a small effect on the conditions in Gaza but their real purpose is political, not humanitarian.

No, the Gazan people are pretty well provided for by UNWRA, the EU, the United States and Israel. If they could get rid of Hamas, they might actually begin to thrive.

The simple truth about Palestinian rejectionism

Barry Rubin of the Gloria Center can be disarmingly direct when it comes to stating obvious truths.

A recent blogpost of his was entitled The Israel-Palestinian Conflict: Everything You Need to Understand Why It Continues

Rubin’s simple analysis shows us why peace talks are ultimately pointless, why Palestinians can afford to make demands and no concessions, why the Palestinians have all the time in the world: the time it takes to destroy Israel.

This simple point, that the Palestinian leadership has never accepted Israel, has always believed that the land from the river to the sea will be the Palestinian state, and still spouts these beliefs backed by a virulently anti-Semitic media which demonises Jews and teaches that Jews have no historic connection to the land, is at the root of the conflict and why it can never be resolved by the current Palestinian leadership.

Any Palestinian state with recognised borders would effectively end the legitimacy of their claim to the rest of mandate Palestine. They cannot have a state on the West Bank and Gaza because that would be an acceptance of Israel’s legitimacy.

As Rubin says:

… the Palestinian leadership is not, and has never been, eager for any compromise resolution. Instead, its top priority has been total victory, possession of the entire land, with Israel’s disappearing from the map. If this seems to be an overstatement, it is because Palestinian politics and society are quite different from, say, that of the United States.

Rubin tells us that whereas in English the Palestinian leadership tells us it wants peace, in Arabic it propagates a never-ending stream of anti-Israeli invective which demonstrates its irredentism.

The PA leadership is a victim of its own rhetoric and narrative:

For the Palestinian Authority and its governing party, Fatah, the goal is the transformation of all of the land into a Palestinian, Arab and Muslim state. For Hamas, it is the transformation of all of the land into an Islamist Palestinian state that is also Arab.

Does every Palestinian believe this? Not at all. But to function and succeed in politics, it is almost impossible to reject such a goal. When individuals do come out with moderate statements—as happened when on October 13, Yasser Abed Rabbo’s stated that the Palestinian Authority might accept Israel as a Jewish state—they are quickly shouted down, threatened. and they back down.

Any hint at compromise is political suicide and could lead to mortal consequences. How can such a leadership make peace or even begin to discuss peace. The whole process is a charade to screw more concessions from Israel, apply political pressure via the United States and isolate Israel internationally.

Rubin enumerates factors which prevent compromise and moderation. These include political and religious ideology, a culture of intimidation of dissident voices, and an ingrained belief that no Palestinian leader has the right to relinquish sacred cows such as the so-called Right of Return and East Jerusalem.

Put in these terms it appears that there is no point in peace talks as one side is only interested in the eventual annihilation of the other.

This is why I have a profound belief that only a grass roots Palestinian peace movement built on mutual benefits with Israelis can change the Palestinian culture to a point where peace is possible. This can only come about with increased co-operation between the two sides in education and culture, joint economic and environmental projects.

Israel and China co-operating with technology to change the world

A Stumbleupon entry linking to the English Language version of the Chinese People’s Daily Online was brought to my attention.

The headline was “Israel, China discuss cooperation in search for renewable energy”.

Note that this is Israel (size of New Jersey, population about 7 million) and China (which is the size of a planet).

Why would China be interested in Israel?

Israeli and Chinese experts on Thursday wrapped up a three-day conference at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (HU) that focused on the prospects of joining forces in the search for affordable, efficient renewable energy.

Well, that seems important in a world of decreasing energy stocks and a huge increase in consumption from China and India. If China is serious about reducing its emissions and not having to destroy the environment with vast coal-mining projects, it needs to find an alternative. You would think that, maybe, the super-power America would be a more natural partner or even India.

But it’s little beleaguered Israel that is making the running.

The meeting, the first of its kind, brought together technical experts from the engineering sciences and industry, as well as from economics and policy-making fields, to consider energy planning and policy over the next decades.

“Basically, you’ve got two aspects here,” organizer Richard Hardiman, HU professor, told Xinhua. He said the conference was an attempt to build a bridge between Israel’s technology and China’s market.

So China has enough confidence in Israel’s technological know-how to want to buy in the expertise. This would be of immense benefit to Israel’s economy.

It’s Israel’s leading role in PV (photovoltaic) cell technology which is exciting the Chinese.  China is the world’s leading manufacturer and is already predicting a huge growth in PV energy 20 20 gigawatts by 2020. So there is a definite natural alliance here between Israeli research and development and Chinese manufacturing skills.

There is a possible added bonus. Jordan is interested. Clearly, countries with vast amounts of solar energy potential in the region would be stupid to ignore it.

Jordan also sent three representatives to learn how the country and neighbors in the region can model such efforts.

One of them was Malik AboRashid, president and CEO of Opus Resources Limited, a San Francisco-based management company active in the Middle East.

“Should this be successful, how do we model it, and solicit assistance to do something very similar in other parts of the world?” AboRashid said.

“China and Israel are powerhouses of technology and centers of excellence, so how do we learn from that, to use their technology and what they’ve learned to implement that in other countries,” he said.

Would it be too fanciful to ponder that Israel’s technological skills can be a force to bring peace via scientific co-operation and interdependence?

China is no model of democracy and human rights but it is a profound truth in Realpolitik that when a country becomes so important to the world economy, becomes the USA’s banker and the world’s leading energy and resources consumer, all such niceties become the stuff of polite political enquiry.

If the Europeans are so eager to trade with China despite its appalling human rights record  and its destruction of Tibetan culture, then it is certainly hypocritical of them to try to bully Israel when it comes to the ongoing conflict because that country has only a tiny global footprint.

Whilst Israeli and Palestinian leaders fold their arms….

… and cannot even manage to get round a table to talk peace, their people are getting on with the business of life.

Elder of Ziyon has reported that Israel is outsourcing computer software development to Palestinians.

The cultural gap is much smaller than we would think,” said Gai Anbar, chief executive of Comply, an Israeli start-up in this central Israeli town that develops software for global pharmaceutical companies like Merck and Teva.


Palestinian engineers have also warmed up to the idea. “I doubt you would find a company who says, ‘I am closed for business'” to Israelis, said Ala Alaeddin, chairman of the Palestinian Information Technology Association.

An interesting comment. As the Elder points out, the BDS movement (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) is keen to make Israel uniquely evil among the nations of the world in order to further the delegitimisation project. But, if Palestinians don’t support BDS, what right do they have to push their agenda?

The Palestinian leadership is still stuck in its rejectionist rut, dreaming of the day Israel will disappear.

Surely the future is in the hands of ordinary people who can live together, work together, assist and educate each other and defeat the sterile politics of hate that the Palestinian leadership is so bent upon.

A Palestinian state which has made real peace with Israel would quickly prosper and benefit the entire region. Israel is a world leader in IT and there is huge potential.

Small initiatives such as this can grow and bring increased prosperity to the Palestinians and prosperity may bring a new reality where violence and hate is replaced by dialogue and compromise, on both sides.

Bearded in the Lion’s den – how one man made anti-Zionists think

I have to share with you an inspiring story (How to win over a hijab-wearing student)

from The Point of No Return blog which is dedicated to information about Jewish refugees from Arab lands.

Michelle Huberman screened ‘Forgotten Refugees, a film about the plight of mizrachi Jews and Arab anti-Semitism.

During he course of the screening of the film to a hostile audience at the SOAS (School of Oriental and African Studies) in London, and after a question and answer session with  Matti Haroun, the audience clearly understood that there was an issue here that they hadn’t previously confronted.

A Pakistani girl in full hijab was the one most interested in the film. In the end she and a few of the students asked for more information and a copy. Michelle gave away half-a-dozen copies, plus some fact sheets.

Well done Michelle and Matti – brave and inspiring. Please read it all.

Fins ain’t what they used to be – Mossad and its global reach

The guy on the left is the head of Mossad, Meir Dagan. Regard him well, he is responsible for the death of an unfortunate German tourist because he enduced a White Tip reef shark to attack her.

Now, I do not want to trivialise the death of this tourist; it was truly horrendous. However, according to sources inside Egypt, it was all part of a Mossad plot to ruin the Egyptian tourist industry.

Honest Reporting set the scene:

Conspiracy theories about Israel and the Jews are common fare in the Middle East and disseminated widely in the Arab media. From accusations that the Jews were responsible for the 9/11 terror attacks to classic anti-Semitic blood libels, the Western mainstream media have failed to report on this as an issue of Arab incitement.

Yes indeed, and it is Mossad with its global reach that is determined to undermine the Egyptian tourist industry with its usual clever tricks. It does not have any other fish to fry, it decided that to put an agent in a fish suit just would not cut it; it trained an ocean-going shark to operate in shallow water with the express purpose of causing a ‘Jaws’ effect and clearing the beaches of Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt’s premier Red Sea resort.

Honest Reporting cites The Scotsman’s apparent gullibility in going along with the story with its headline: ‘Egypt Refuses to Rule Out Mossad Plot Link to Deadly  Shark Attack’ implying that the ludicrous story might be true.

The BBC is not much better: ‘Shark attacks not linked to Mossad says Israel’. Well that’s a relief.

So what’s behind it? Again the BBC:

The reports – apparently quoting the South Sinai governor – have been picked up by the Israeli media…

Rumours had circulated in Egypt that there could be an Israeli connection to this unusual spate of Red Sea shark attacks.

However, it was comments attributed to the South Sinai governor, Mohamed Abdul Fadil Shousha, carried on an official Egyptian news site that drew attention.

“What is being said about the Mossad throwing the deadly shark [in the sea] to hit tourism in Egypt is not out of the question, but it needs time to confirm,” he is reported to have said.

I am sure the governor is at this very moment seeking confirmation, but from whom about what remains a mystery.

Ami Isseroff in Zionism-Israel.com has his own take on the story:

In the context of historical anti-Semitism, the view that Jews are at fault for everything is hardly new. In the Middle East, the conflict with tiny Israel (population less than 8 million)   is routinely blamed for Arab underdevelopment and the misery of hundreds of millions of people. This view is not confined to kooks and krazies only. It is touted by respected analysts in the west and enshrined in U.N.reports.

But there is at least one sensible voice coming out of Egypt as reported in Israel: Daily Alert

Mahmoud Hanafy, a professor of marine biology at the Suez Canal University, said it is “sad” that Egyptian national TV helped perpetuate the theory that last week’s shark attacks at Sharm el-Sheikh were part of an Israeli conspiracy. On Sunday, Gen. Abdel-Fadeel Shosha, the governor of South Sinai, phoned a TV program to say that it is possible that Israeli intelligence was behind the incidents.

Hanafy said the Oceanic White Tip shark, blamed for the attacks, does indeed exist in Egypt’s waters. He added, “It is sad that they made a person whose only knowledge of sharks comes from the movie “Jaws” go on national TV to propagate this mumbo-jumbo.” ((Yasmine Fathi – Al-Ahram-Egypt))

‘Sad’ indeed that such ridiculous stories can still gain purchase in some circles where Jews/Israel are to blame for anything negative.

Barry Shaw has privately requested me to remind the Egyptians that if Israel cannot control a forest fire they are more likely to have dropped goldfish in the Red Sea. Of course, Barry, they would have to train them not to swim into Israeli waters to attack Israelis or tourists in just the same way that they trained the Sharm sharks to remain in Egyptian waters.

BBC: Sharm – offensive

Fire rages in Northern Israel for 3 days with more than 40 people killed and involving a massive international effort and the BBC reported about 10 seconds of it over the weekend, and nothing this morning. Nothing to tell us the fire was more or less out.

Instead, it was Egypt and the resort of Sharm-el-Sheikh that was given 5 minutes of air time with British divers telling us very uneventful stories about how they weren’t attacked by the shark that killed a German tourist.

So, no Palestinians killed in Israel, only 38 prison service staff going to rescue Palestinian terrorists held in an Israeli prison and dying as a result. BBC not interested in that.

Nor were they concerned about the ironies of the Turks flying with the Greeks or the mixed reactions of the Islamic world.

There may have been more on BBC’s News 24 channel, I don’t know, but on the BBC website, a brief mention and then the story became unimportant and the home page link disappeared.

It seems the story was beyond boring as there was nothing in it that could be used to show Israel in any negative light. Giving too much attention would surely risk some actual sympathy. Whoa!! None of that, please.

No conflict, no news. The significance of the international assistance given to Israel soon disappears from the radar like the Turkish fire-fighters returning to base.

Carmel Fire

I have just received a couple of important links from CiFWatch



There is also a great thread on OvVaGoy:


Chas, on OyVaGoy makes a point that I had thought of myself; namely that it’s so often Israel that is first to help others, it’s now very inspiring to see how so many countries, some of them quite unlikely, sending help to Israel.

These are the countries I know about:














PM Netanyahu has sent a message of thanks to Turkish PM Erdogan in a telephone call as follows:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke a short while ago today (Friday), 3.12.10, with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and thanked him for the assistance in the efforts to control the Carmel brushfire: “We very much appreciate this mobilization and I am certain that it will be an opening toward improving relations between our two countries, Turkey and Israel.”  Prime Minister Netanyahu noted that his Turkish counterpart had expressed his willingness to help and Turkey’s condolences, as well as his personal condolences, to the families of the casualties.

Let’s hope some good can come of this tragedy.

Mick Davis, Israel, ‘apartheid’ and the right of the Diaspora to criticise

Where to begin. I have about a dozen blog articles and some newspaper articles about the fallout resulting from Mick Davis’s statements almost a fortnight ago now.

I have kept my powder dry because the questions raised are complex and lead off into many different avenues.

So first, for the uninitiated, who is Mick Davis and what did he say that has so divided the Jewish community in Britain?

[And even that statement is problematical; to say he has divided the Jewish community, maybe the affair has simply brought out into the open an existing schism. And when I say ‘Jewish community’ that is shorthand for the majority Jewish establishment, mainly conservative and mainly supportive of Israel. It does not include those Jews who have already picked up their camp standard and moved it over to the left and the pro-Palestinian side, yet still consider themselves to be the true representatives of British Jewry.]

Mick Davis is a South African-born businessman who heads up the UJIA (United Jewish Israel Appeal), the leading fundraising organisation in Britain for Israel (although it also supports domestic Jewish charitable ventures). I worked briefly for its predecessor, the JIA in what is now called a gap year, back in the seventies, but that’s another, albeit interesting, story.

Mick is also a luminary of the JLC, the Jewish Leadership Council. This is, apparently, a self-appointed group of, mainly wealthy and influential community leaders of all affiliations and has the following Mission:


1. Enhance the effectiveness of communal political representation, advocacy and relations with Government.

2. To influence communal strategic priorities.

3. To demonstrate the community’s desire for greater strategic coordination and cooperation.

Just who gives them the right for such a mission is uncertain. Let’s just say they abrogated that right for themselves as a group of well-meaning oligarchs, a sort of secular sanhedrin. But more on this later.

Mick Davis is, therefore, a wealthy man who wants to help Israel and the Jewish community in Britain. The UJIA is a charity and, I presume, its trustees appoint its leader rather like the BBC appoints its Director General. Remember that Davis is also one of the aforementioned ‘oligarchs’.

At the now infamous meeting Davis is reported to have said the following:

1. If you try to characterise the leadership of the Jewish community…you would probably find most of them are left of centre in thinking about Israel, that they strongly support a two-state solution, they are worried about the rights of minorities.

Not too controversial, except it is an opinion not backed up by any direct evidence that I am aware of. He is probably right as he knows many of the leaders of the community but he is already overreaching here in claiming opinion as fact.

2. I think you have a left of centre leadership with a genuine concern about minority issues, concerned about the moral dilemmas that we face, concerned about where Israel goes, but it’s a leadership which has never, ever spoken up publicly about that.

Not to mince words, he is saying that the leadership, which he again claims to know, are troubled by many of Israel’s actions and ‘minority issues’, which presumably refers to Israeli Arabs and, perhaps, Palestinians. He says the ‘we’ face moral dilemmas. By ‘we’ I assume he means British Jewry and I assume the moral dilemmas are, as he appears to imply, the occasions when Israel acts in a way that he/the leadership do not agree with but feel constrained not to speak up against.

Of course, this implies that he and the Jewish leadership, nay, the Jewish community has the right to speak up; and if it has that right, it has a moral duty to express disagreement.

This is one of the points which has caused most controversy and debate. I shall return to this later, too.

3. Additional building on settlements, or the bulldozing of houses of people in circumstances which just doesn’t seem to be morally conscionable… forcing non-Jews to take an oath about the nature of the Jewish state…the fact that many Arab Israelis live in circumstances of extreme poverty – that is not to say some Jewish Israelis don’t either – and have a second class service delivery from the state.

Well now the genii is truly out of the bottle. Davis has here done the unthinkable and directly criticised a number of policies both of the present Israeli government and previous governments. House demolitions and so-called settlements are not just the province of this current government, but are on-going policies stretching back decades. The oath of allegiance issue is definitely a policy of the present government whilst Arab poverty and second-class citizenship accusations are a statement of concern about the nature of Israeli society.

Davis’s line here, having established the left-leaning credentials of the leadership, is now aligning worryingly with the rhetoric of the far Left. Although none of the issues he names can or should be denied, they are all mentioned without context.

To berate Israel for the ‘additional building on settlements’ is the Obama line. It fails to spot the fact that before Obama made settlements a grand excuse for the Palestinians to avoid talks, they had never in any previous negotiations, even with Arafat, been seen as an impediment to peace.

I have never liked bulldozing homes because they were once or are the family home of a terrorist. I have no choice but to agree with Davis on this one.

The oath of allegiance also troubled me. That is, until new Jewish citizens were included in the bill. The oath is one of those Israeli specialities, creating problems where there is no need. The Israeli constitution is clear on the nature of the state. I see no reason for anyone to do any other than swear allegiance to the State of Israel and its constitution. Expressing the Jewish nature of the state in such an oath is redundant and just gives food for enemies to chew on. Yet, it is a minor issue.

Why does Davis say that Israel is ‘forcing’ non-Jews to take the oath which is a further misrepresentation of the facts. The oath is intended for all NEW citizens and no-one is forcing them to become Israelis. In the US new citizens give their allegiance to the flag, the constitution and American values. Where’s the difference?

The issue of Arab ‘extreme’ poverty whilst acknowledging there is Jewish poverty, is a strange one for me. I agree there are inequities and many of these are cultural and historical but there are many wonderful examples of Arab integration and success.

What is most egregious about this is that it ignores the fact that Israeli Arabs are, in general, better off than their counterparts in the surrounding countries. I see no issue with the UJIA joining in efforts to raise the status, education and medical well-being of Israel’s Arab population but Davis makes it sound as if the situation is deliberate and one of neglect. It’s a context-free zone, the sort of easy point-scoring that Israel’s enemies are only too happy to use against it. And how does he measure ‘extreme’ poverty?

4. Those are issues that ideally we would like to talk about…but you are fearful of doing that, because you then suddenly say: ‘Well, is it possible that those things will get picked up and woven into the debate of the delegitimisers and present a platform from which they then grow in strength?’

Well, not quite. It depends how you address the issues or perhaps, whether they are actually any of your business. Which is also a question arising from this whole debate. The question is: is it possible to have a free and frank discussion on Israel’s shortcomings in a climate of delegitimisation and demonization? Here’s the moral dilemma: if you believe you are morally obliged as a member of the British Jewish community to speak out against perceived injustices, how to you square that with the fact that, (and especially if you are a communal leader, self-appointed or otherwise), your words can be used as ammunition to denigrate Israel?

Some have questioned that anyone in the Diaspora has any right at all to criticise Israel.

5. In Europe, and this country in particular, there is a strong sense amongst the leadership, and I guess most of the community, that there is a concerted effort to delegitimise the state. Not to attack Israel’s policies, but actually question whether the state as a Jewish state should exist.

Precisely. And that’s why, maybe, as a community leader, you should be a bit more circumspect when it comes to contextualising perceived inequities in Israeli society or government policies. Or maybe not?

Where Davis drew most flak was a direct criticism of Israeli Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu.

6. I object to the fact that Netanyahu hasn’t got the courage to take the steps that he would like to take. I think he would like to be seen as the person who makes the great advance…He is a prisoner of the past and a prisoner of the circumstances that he finds himself in. I don’t understand the lack of strategy in Israel.

Some commentators have leapt to Bibi’s defence citing his army service in response to accusations of physical courage. This is a ludicrous response. Davis was talking about moral courage, not physical courage. But this doesn’t make Davis right. What steps does he think Bibi wants to make? What is the great advance? Why does Davis imply here that lack of progress in peace negotiations is due to Netanyahu’s lack of courage? Is he suggesting that he is in thrall to the religious right over settlements? What lack of strategy? The strategy to defeat its enemies and not give in to pressure from the United States to commit suicide, perhaps.

It is at this point that any sympathy for Davis’s position begins to erode, if you have any, that is. What does a philanthropist know about what it is like to make day to day decisions as the Israeli Prime Minister? I think he is wrong about Bibi. I’m not a fan of this current Israeli government but it seems to me Netanyahu has walked a difficult line between appeasing an aggressive and frankly stupid US administration and holding together his coalition.

Davis, in apparently holding Bibi to account for failure to move the peace process forward, completely ignores the real culprits: the Palestinian Authority lead by Mahmoud Abbas which has been greatly assisted by Obama’s naivety in maintaining the long tradition of Palestinian rejectionism.

And now we come to the really bad bit.

7. If… the world community no longer believes that a two-state solution is possible, we de facto become an apartheid state because we then have the majority who are going to be governed by the minority.

Israel is not today an apartheid state… Even though we have things that are entirely offensive to us passed in the Knesset, those things come from tactical issues rather than from anything else and do not represent the mainstream of Israeli society. We still have wonderfully fertile ground to build the moral nation that we want to have.

First, what’s with the ‘we’? Davis is not an Israeli.

Second, to use the apartheid analogy, even for a putative future situation, and even immediately correcting this by saying Israel is not ‘currently’ an apartheid state, is to use the language of every Israel-hater, every Hamas apologist and every Guardianista left-wing anti-Zionist. No Jewish leader should place the words ‘apartheid’ and ‘Israel’’ in the same sentence let alone a South African of an age to know better.

There are so many things wrong with this whole statement. What Davis is saying is that if there is to be no two-state solution, then Israeli Jews will inevitably become a minority west of the Jordan. However, this ignores the fact that Israel has not annexed the West Bank and is increasingly handing over responsibility for its administration to the PA.

Furthermore, why does minority rule have to equate to apartheid? Apartheid is surely something quite different from simply a minority group ruling a larger one. And in any case, how would this come about? I don’t recall a single Israeli administration ever arguing for an annexation of the West bank.

Apparently Davis is using the royal ‘we’ when he says “we have things that are entirely offensive to us passed in the Knesset”. So what? Why does the Knesset have to avoid offence to Davis?

Then another truly unforgiveable utterance:

8. We still have wonderfully fertile ground to build the moral nation that we want to have.

So Israel is not a moral nation and he and the JLC will put Israel on the path of righteousness. The chutzpah of the man. Considering its history and its genocidal neighbours, Israel is more moral than it has any right to be.

We now come to another statement that really put the backs  up of many in the community and outside:

9: I think the government of Israel …have to recognise that their actions directly impact on me as a Jew living in London. When they do good things it is good for me, when they do bad things, it’s bad for me. And the impact on me is as significant as it is on Jews living in Israel… I want them to recognise that.

What! Ok, it is true that Israel’s actions can directly impact me as a Jew living in the UK. During Cast Lead and after the Mavi Marmara incident, as I walked to the synagogue on Saturday morning, I felt a little more vulnerable than at other times. But why? Simply because I am aware that anti-Semites will find little excuse to attack Jews. Did I blame Israel? Not in the slightest. Why should I blame Israel for the anti-Semitism of others?

So why should Davis outrageously state that Israel has to worry about his levels of comfort? Davis’s attitude is somewhat patronising toward Israel. He appears to be over-identifying. Again, more commentary from others later.

10: I think there is not only amongst young people but quite a few Jews in this country a desire to see a discussion take place which echoes views about Israel which address the current dilemmas, without wanting to at the same time be attacked and labelled as a self-hating Jew.

Well, here at  least, I can see that Davis is well aware of the controversial nature of what he just said and pre-empts the unthinking chorus of those that would label anyone who doesn’t agree with their particular viewpoint on Israel as a self-hating Jew. I would not accuse him of that; far from it. I would accuse him of being somewhat arrogant and tactless.

So there we have it. The ten utterances, the Davis version of aseret hadibrot.

The fallout from these ten utterances is instructive. It asks of us the following questions – in no particular order as they say on all the best TV talent shows.

1. Is it ever permissible for an Israel supporter in the Diaspora to criticise Israel, and if so, when? If Israelis can criticise, why not Diaspora Jews?

2. If it is permitted to criticise under certain circumstances, where is the lines to be drawn? I think this leads to a reductive argument which I’ll discuss later.

3. Is there a real schism in the Diaspora now, not only between left wing Jews such as those who join Jews for Justice for Palestinians or join flotillas to break the blockade of Gaza or who attack Israel in the columns and commentaries of the Guardian, but also in mainstream, conservative Jewry?

4. Are we splitting up along the fault line of the New Israel Fund and Jewish Voice for Peace and their ilk on one side who represent a left of center view and the right wing on the other who view the NIF with suspicion and accuse it of colluding with the enemy.

5. Why do we need, in the UK, the Board of Deputies, the United Synagogue, the Office of the Chief Rabbi, the Zionist Federation, the Jewish National Fund, the UJIA, regional Rep Councils, Habonim, Bnei Akiva, the Federation of Zionist Youth and the JLC and many other charities and community organisations, when there are in ganzen only 300,000 identifying Jews in the UK? Why are we led by rich oligarchs who are not elected, not accountable and seem to come from another era? Why do we have so many machers?

6. Why do those professing Zionism and great love of Israel and dedicate their lives to Israel not go and live there?

Isn’t it wonderful how one person and his remarks can cause such repercussions? Only in the Jewish community perhaps.

Let’s now look at the fallout and how it addresses some of these questions.

One of the first into the fray was Samuel Hayek, a fellow JLC member and chairman of the JNF. He was reported in the Jewish Chronicle as saying categorically that “diaspora Jews should never criticise Israel”

Jonathan Hoffman, vice-chair of the Zionist Federation and a fearless activist for Israel gathered a petition which criticised Mick Davis in the following terms:

Most of Mick Davis’ reported comments were either incoherent or indicative of a breathtaking lack of knowledge and understanding. To imply as he did that only the Left is concerned about minority issues is ludicrous, as is suggesting there is no strategy in Israel (is he even aware of Bibi’s speech at Bar Ilan in June 2009?) and suggesting that anything short of a Palestinian state amounts to “apartheid”.

But the crassest comment was to suggest that Netanyahu’s policies have as much impact on Davis – sitting in London – as on Jews in Israel . We were not aware that Hampstead is within target of Iranian or Hamas missiles, nor that its residents have to send their children to defend the Jewish State for three years. However much philanthropists give to Israel , it is a thriving democracy and they cannot buy political control, just as donors to Universities cannot buy academic control. We are not shareholders in Xstrata (the mining company which Davis heads). Are we entitled to a say in its policies? Of course not. If Davis wants to become an Israeli politician, he should start by making Aliya and voting.

And if Israel ’s policies make Davis uncomfortable at the golf club, let him acquire the knowledge and pride to defend a democracy under fire. If he is unwilling, he is not fit to be a communal leader and should resign (unfortunately he cannot be voted out as he was never elected in the first place).

Which in typical combative Hoffman mode is very much as I see it. But it also adds the accusation that those with money, or who raise a lot of it, are under an illusion that that gives them the right, sitting comfortably or uncomfortably, as they do in Blighty, to attempt to dictate policy to Israel.

Hoffman’s views were not, however, mirrored by his leader Harvey Rose who said he agreed with much of what Davis had said and added:

“How Israel is perceived in the UK has a direct bearing on our comfort levels in Britain. It troubles me that so many people place the blame entirely on Israel.”

Which I am still trying to decipher. But Rose, too it seems, believes that his comfort levels are as important as Israel’s survival. I would have expected a more forthright defence of Israel from the leader of the ZF. It appears that Mr Rose is on the left of the fault line that I and others see opening in the UK Jewish community.

Even Rose’s stalwart Manchester ZF leader, Joy Wolfe said:

I am reluctant to criticise a fellow Zionist leader. But I strongly disagree with his concern that what Israel does should take into account its impact on Jews outside of Israel. Israel has to do what is right for Israel

So not reluctant at all, Joy. Clearly, veterans in the community are used to having to take sides. Times are a-changing, it appears.

A more traditional view came from Brian Kerner, who used to have Davis’s job as reported by Simon Rocker in the JC:

although “broadly supportive” of Mr Davis’s views, he was against voicing them in public because “it’s only picked up by our enemies, distorted and used against us”.

This is, perhaps, the most hypocritical standpoint possible: ‘I agree with you but I admit it can hurt Israel, so keep shtum.’

It’s impossible to keep shtum in the 21st century as Wikileaks testifies. As I have already said that Davis’s words can be used by Israel’s enemies you would think I would agree with Kerner. My point is slightly different in that all of us who profess to support Israel, if we are to criticise at all, must contextualise that criticism in light of history and the ongoing existential struggle which is taking place right now.

I am somewhat attracted by the view that criticism can be left for later; now is the time to stand behind Israel, but there must be some point at which anyone would criticise, even Israel’s ‘best friends’.

This is the reductive argument I mentioned earlier. Let’s say someone says it is never permissible to criticise Israel, as Samuel Hayek has said. Let’s take an extreme case: a right-wing religious party takes control of Israel and begins to drive out Arabs from Israel and the West Bank. Now, before you start shouting at me, I don’t believe this would ever happen. I am just making a philosophical point. Surely, any real supporter of Israel and any Jew worth his moral salt would protest vigorously to change the policy of the Israeli government.

So by this reductive argument, we then imagine a slightly less worse case scenario. Would you criticise then? It reminds me of the so-called Ground Zero mosque argument which says that two blocks is too close. So what about two and half? Three? At what point would a mosque be permissible? And at what point would criticism be permissible? The answer is that if you allow for the extreme case, then surely, it is always permissible to criticise because it is impossible to draw any precise line beyond which it becomes wrong to do so.

Samuel Hayek again:

If diaspora Jews want to criticise Israel legitimately, there is one simple solution: make aliyah and express your views at the ballot box.

Yet Lord Janner says:

Sadly, in recent years, much has changed about Israeli society. Fundamental red lines are being crossed that threaten to undermine what many of us have worked so hard for. As a Jew and as a proud Zionist, this deeply troubles me.

I accept, of course, that all Jews should robustly and proudly defend the rights of Israel as a Jewish State, and that all Jews should celebrate Israel’s great achievements since 1948. I have always proudly spoken out for Israel over the many years of my communal …

service – and publicly defended her, when she has been under attack, whether in the House of Commons, the House of Lords, and in the media, or even in the United Nations. And I shall continue to do so.

Sadly, I have recently seen actions by this Israeli Government which have departed from the high moral purpose enshrined in Israel’s Declaration of Independence, which I proudly remember my hero and friend David Ben-Gurion signing. I cannot be silent when I know of unequal treatment afforded to some of Israel’s minorities and when the pursuit of peace is being compromised by inaction.

Mick Davis has reminded us that our obligation is to speak out against injustice, even when it is extremely awkward and fraught to do so.

Of course, we have an equivalent obligation to defend Israel from its enemies.

If Israel loses the support of the West and becomes a besieged State, that will not only be serious and damaging for Israelis, but for all Jews. Our destinies are linked.

I would ask Israeli ministers to listen to the convictions of those Diaspora Jews who love Israel, such as myself and Mick Davis.

By expressing our heartfelt convictions, we put before the public the views of many fellow Jews and Zionists, whether they are in Israel or in the Diaspora.

So Lord Janner agrees with Mick. And his is a powerful argument, no?

So we have had petition and counter-petition. Some want Davis to go, others support him and it doesn’t just divide down domestic political lines because Eric Moonman a Labour man like Lord Janner and also a co-President of the ZF, disagrees with Davis and says he should step down.

Melanie Phillips writing in the JC this week says that Davis has the right to free speech but believes he is ‘tragically’ wrong.:

Because, instead of truthfully identifying the cause of the conflict as Arab intransigence and genocidal hatred, they parrot the Israel-bashers’ false claim that the impasse is really Israel’s fault.

Bamboozled by the bullying, they cannot see that the received wisdom is actually a certain route to injustice, genocide and war.

Yet this only covers part of what Davis was saying. His main point, surely, is that there are injustices in Israeli society and he feels morally bound to speak against them.

Lord Kalms does not believe that Jews do not speak out against Israel:

It is simply not the case that British Jews do not speak out about their concerns relating to Israel. Every week across the national and Jewish press, in synagogues and community meetings, the widest imaginable (and often unimaginable) range of views are expressed. They run the gamut of opinions, from the most security-focused Likud sympathiser to those Jews who devote every waking hour to ending the existence of the Jewish state.

If his general points are off the mark, then Mr Davis’s specifics are no nearer to it. It is nonsense to claim that leaders did not speak out against the ‘loyalty-oath’. The UK media, like the Israeli media, was replete with people speaking out against such a ludicrous and repugnant idea….

There are many criticisms that can be made of the Israeli Prime Minister, as of any politician, but the claim that he lacks ‘courage’ is preposterous. His political and military career suggest otherwise.

What he lacks, like his predecessors, is a sincere and capable negotiating partner. The facts of this situation may have been lost on Mr Davis, but the significance of his comments will certainly not be lost on our mutual antagonists.

If someone is going to declare themselves a leader, then they have to take on the responsibilities which such a role brings. First among them is the responsibility to speak the truth. Mr Davis has not done that. He has entrenched lies. No more obvious example could exist than the fact that he has taken up the obscene language of ‘apartheid’.

To even start to talk in this language, as Mr Davis has done, dignifies a lie and eventually turns a lie into a possibility. This will give incalculable support to the most fevered haters of Israel.

Israel is no more going in the direction of apartheid than is Great Britain. But such terms have been created and chosen for a reason: to make Israel a state apart. Only Israel gets spoken about in this way. To join this, particularly as a ‘leader’, is to give an incalculable boon to those who wish to destroy Israel. It is to suggest that if they keep going long enough, continually raising the pitch of vilification, delegitimisation and exceptionalism, then eventually everybody will agree with them. At which point the debate can turn to the one they really want to have – how Israel can be ended.

Wow! I didn’t realise Lord Kalms was such a powerful writer.

So what is the view from Israel?

Quite interesting in fact.

Here’s none other than Tzipi Livni, a possible future Prime Minister, talking about the Diaspora as reported by the Jerusalem Post

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s government has taken steps that have expedited the reportedly growing rift between Israel and liberal Diaspora Jews

She was about to set out on a tour of the US:

“The main idea of the trip is to open a dialogue with the Jewish Diaspora,” Livni said. “It’s been important to me for a long time, but it intensified over the past few months with the conversion controversy. It reinforced my belief that we cannot continue to deal only with ourselves when our efforts to define what it means for Israel to be the Jewish homeland and a democracy affect Jews all around the world.”

Livni said the conversion issue was not the only way the current government was alienating Diaspora Jewry. She also cited the lack of civil marriage, the lagging peace process and the deterioration of Israel’s image internationally.

“The Likud is supposed to be a liberal party, but it has sold out to the haredim on key issues,” she said. “Advancing the peace process is an Israeli interest and a Jewish one. It could help young people connect more at a time when Israel’s problematic image hurts their identity.”

“We need to get into dialogue that isn’t just telling Diaspora Jews to make aliya and support whatever the Israeli government does,” she said. “It has to be much deeper. We have to work on our common bond.”…

“The contribution of Diaspora Jews is not just money,” she said. “We must take their views into account on key issues when we make key decisions about Israel’s future.”

So here is a senior Israeli who think that the views of the Diaspora must be taken into account and that, surely, means taking on board criticism.

And finally weighing in against Davis is none other than the inestimable Isi Leibler in his blog piece “The de-Zionisation of Anglo Jewry”

First he has a go at the oligarchic aspects of Davis’s utterances:

[Davis] also heads a body known as the Jewish Leadership Council (JLC) – essentially comprised of a group of wealthy British Jews and their acolytes who, by virtue of their financial largesse, assume a dominant influence on many levels of communal life. The power represented by their collective wealth enables them not to be accountable to anyone and few would dare question their policies.

I’m not sure they are that dominant actually. They just like to think they are.

Needless to say, Davis is fully entitled to say whatever comes to his mind. Nobody seeks to deprive him of freedom of expression.

Many Jews are critical of Israeli governments.

But for a person holding senior public office in a major Diaspora community to indulge in crude public attacks on Israeli leaders and relate to Israel’s security requirements in relation to their impact on his image in non-Jewish circles is surely bizarre and utterly unconscionable.

While occupying the role of chairman of the UIJA in a country in which hatred of Israel and anti-Semitism have reached record levels, Davis brazenly incites his fellow Jews to criticize Israel.

Incites? A bit strong. Leibler is saying community leaders have a duty of care because defence of Israel is far more important than petty criticisms.

And then back to the fact he is wealthy which seems to disqualify him from having an opinion:

Aside from implying that Israel is responsible for the anti-Semitism he is encountering, Davis is effectively warning that when considering defense issues which may have life-or-death implications for Israelis, the government must be sure not to create problems for him in his non- Jewish social circles. From his London mansion, he blithely brushes aside suicide bombers, rockets launched against our children and the threat of nuclear annihilation because his gentile friends might complain about the behavior of his Israeli friends.

On Jewish leadership in Britain today:

One of their leaders actually wrote in The Jerusalem Post, proudly boasting how their pro-Israel advocacy approach was based on “whispering” rather than “shouting.”

We’ve covered this ground already:

Today, by lacking the courage to challenge the propriety of one of its most senior “leaders” indulging in coarse public condemnations of Israel, the trembling Israelite establishment has further undermined the standing of the UK Jewish community.

But it has challenged him, as we have seen above.

One might ask what right Isi Leibler has to comment on the statements of Jews in the Diaspora if the opposite is disallowed.

As you can probably tell, I am mightily confused by all this. But one thing I’m sure of is that internecine arguments must quickly be scotched so we can get on with the more important work of doing our utmost to fight in Israel’s corner.

Should we criticise? We are accused as a community by many of ‘whispering’ and not ‘shouting’ but it appears we can only shout positive things, according to some.

In the end, it comes down to your world view and to a large extent that world view is coloured by your politics; left, right, center. And that is true in Israel as it is in the Diaspora.

I have often felt as Leibler and others that if you are so passionate about Israel you should make aliya and move there. So many community leaders strutting their Zionist credentials like peacocks, yet never having the guts to go and be a Zionist in Israel. And that includes me (not that I am a community leader), of course. I have my excuses and they have theirs.

If all Jews are exiles waiting to return and part of the Jewish people, does that not give them, as Tzipi Livni believes, the right to speak up, to debate and discuss, the right to let their views and criticism be known?

If the Diaspora is silenced because we don’t have the fervour to become Israelis, if we are silenced because we are made to feel like traitors, will that not lead to a further deepening of the schism that is appearing in all countries of the West that have a substantial Jewish population? Israel stands for democracy and freedom of speech. Why should it deny it to me because I live in the UK?

No-one is denying the right to speak, but there is a strong argument to temper criticism because Israel’s enemies leave us with little or no room for it. There is a bigger picture and a more pressing cause.

I don’t really have any answers. I can see both points of view on many of the issues.

Davis’s error was to make these remarks in the way he did and to abrogate to himself an importance he does not have.

Nevertheless, he does represent, or at least voice, a growing trend in British Jewish circles and this may well lead, as Isi Leibler says, to the de-Zionisation of Britain.

And, if it does become too uncomfortable in the UK, not because of Israel, but because of Jew-hatred, then maybe Mick and I will find ourselves on the same plane to Tel Aviv.

[Photo of Mick Davis – Jewish Chronicle]