Israel, Zionism and the Media

Tag: Gaza (Page 5 of 13)

Eye-witness in Gaza

I’m not a great fan of Peter Hitchens but he has provided what is probably the most balanced view of the realities of life in Gaza.

He actually went there and reported his findings in a MailOnline article a few days ago.

It is lunchtime in the world’s biggest prison camp, and I am enjoying a rather good caffe latte in an elegant beachfront cafe.

And so it begins with a statement we don’t quite know how to take. Is he being ironic about the ‘prison camp’ thing? Is this a reference to David Cameron’s infamous statement in Turkey a few weeks ago? or does he really mean it? And if he does mean it, how come he is enjoying coffee in style on the beach. Is it a ‘prison camp’ or a holiday camp?

Later I will visit the sparkling new Gaza Mall, and then eat an excellent beef stroganoff in an elegant restaurant.

What’s he saying? Can Gaza have this sort of normality? Didn’t the Israelis raze it all to the ground? Are the people not all living in rubble? Hold on, that comes later.

I would be having a stiff drink instead, if only the ultra-Islamic regime hadn’t banned alcohol with a harsh and heavy hand.

That’s a bit strong, isn’t it. After all, Gaza is part of the Muslim world and alcohol is against their religion. Oh, I see the point now, it’s not the banning, it’s the way they have banned it. ‘Harsh and heavy’. Who? Hamas? That same Hamas so beloved by George Galloway and Lauren Booth and those nice flotilla chaps? Steady on Peter. Are you are Zionist stooge? Aren’t you Jewish? I seem to recall… Well, never mind, we’ll move on from such thoughts as Lauren Booth is actually more Jewish than you are.

Now we hear about how the intrepid Peter found a 90ft deep ‘smuggling tunnel’ (There he goes again – it’s a vital humanitarian lifeline, you Zionist fraud)

This tunnel was dug near the Egyptian border without a problem, apparently.

unbelievably – officially licensed by the local authority as a ‘trading project’ (registration fee £1,600).

It was until recently used for the import of cattle, chocolate and motorcycles (though not, its owner insists, for munitions or people) and at its peak earned more than £30,000 a day in fees.

£30,000 a day! That’s more than the Iranians pay La Booth in a month! To what noble causes is all this wealth put, I wonder.

But business has collapsed because the Israelis have relaxed many of their restrictions on imports, and most such tunnels are going out of business.

Oy! Those terrible Israelis again ruining the Gazan economy.

While I was there I heard the whine of Israeli drones and the thunder of jet bombers far overhead.

Then, worryingly soon after I left, the area was pulverised with high explosive. I don’t know if the Israeli air force waited for me to leave, or just walloped the tunnels anyway.

The Israelis wouldn’t attack a Zionist stooge like you, Peter. They knew exactly where you were.

But the Israeli authorities certainly know I am here. I am one of only four people who crossed into the world’s most misrepresented location this morning.

Told you!

At least we now see some of the reality of daily life for Gazans. The Israelis just will not allow them to smuggle arms and explosives in peace so they can fire them at Israeli schoolchildren. How inhumane can you get!

Don’t, please, accuse of me of complacency or denying the truth. I do not pretend to know everything about Gaza. I don’t think it is a paradise, or remotely normal. But I do know for certain what I saw and heard.

Wouldn’t dream of it, old chap (Stooge!!)

There are dispiriting slums that should have been cleared decades ago, people living on the edge of subsistence.

Sounds par for the course for much of the Middle East apart from the Zionist entity. I think you are referring to the UNWRA refugee camps for the great great great grandchildren of people who say they used to live in the Zionist entity. Can’t get rid of them, old thing, John Ging would be out of a job and many photo opportunities would be lost.

There is danger. And most of the people cannot get out.

Danger from whom? Israelis? Certainly. Hamas? Definitely. People can’t get out? Now you are stretching the imagination too far, stooge. Don’t the evil Zionists take thousands of people a year to be treated in Israeli hospitals at Israeli tax-payer expense? Can’t anyone get out of the tunnels? Isn’t there a border with Egypt? Why don’t they let the Gazans out and sod the Zionists?

What? They don’t like Hamas? Fear of Islamists? Where’s their compassion! They are behaving like.. like Zionists!

… politicians and public alike have been herded down a dead end that serves only propagandists and cynics, and leaves the people of this beautiful, important part of the world suffering needlessly.

Cynics? Is he talking about me? Yes, there is suffering. Caused by all sides, and a lot of this suffering in Gaza and the West Bank is not needless, because it serves a purpose: to vilify Israelis by preserving obscene conditions, by not settling refugees and their distant descendants and keeping them in camps . So it is not needless at all. It is rather a good trick and one which is actually believed by many people.

… our Prime Minister, David Cameron, recently fawned on his Islamist hosts in Turkey by stating Gaza was a ‘prison camp’. This phrase is the official line of the well-funded Arab and Muslim lobby, who want to make sure Israel is seen by the world as a villainous oppressor.

Ah, so Peter has not fallen for it after all. I’m warming to Hitch junior.

Well, Israeli soldiers can and do act with crude brutality. Israeli settlers can and do steal Arab water and drive Arabs off their land. Israeli politicians are often coarse and insensitive.

But the Israelis have all to be perfect. We cannot have a Jewish state where every citizen behaves impeccably.  Israeli politicians ‘coarse and insensitive’? Now where did he get that idea from? After all, when the entire world appears to be against you, when your neighbours have wanted to annihilate you for a hundred years, when other nations want to see you erased from the map of history, when rockets rain down on your country daily, how dare you be coarse and insensitive. I don’t know. These Jews have a massive chip on their shoulder. Persecution complex I think. As if they have any reason for it.

The treatment of Israel’s Arab citizens is one of the great missed opportunities of history, needlessly mean and short-sighted. The seizure of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967 were blunders, made worse by later folly.

Did I say I was warming to you, Peter? I take it back. ‘Mean and short-sighted’ and that word, ‘needlessly’ again. Perhaps they have been a bit mean to provide their Arab citizens with full voting rights, health care, a greater life-expectancy than their neighbours, a lower infant mortality rate than their Arab brethren in other Middle Eastern countries, access to a university education, freedom of worship,  free speech, a free press. How mean can you get!

And Israel, having been attacked by Jordan and Egypt from the West Bank and Gaza which both countries illegally occupied, and having defeated said countries, they should have handed it back and let bygones be bygones. And when Jordan and Egypt withdrew any claim to the West Bank and Gaza which they held for 19 years without creating a Palestinian state, Israel should have just allowed these areas to come under PLO control so they could murder more Israelis. Sounds sensible to me. If you are a complete suicidal imbecile.

‘Later folly’. Now there he may have a point.

Now back to the Hitch I like, you know, the Zionist stooge version, not the journalist with opinions, some of which I disagree with.

But if you think Israel is the only problem, or that Israelis are the only oppressors hereabouts, think again. Realise, for a start, that Israel no longer rules Gaza. Its settlements are ruins.

Good point, Pete.

No Israelis can be found inside its borders. And, before you say ‘but Israel controls the Gaza border’, look at a map. The strip’s southern frontier – almost as hard to cross as the Israeli boundary – is with Egypt. And Cairo is as anxious as Israel to seal in the Muslim militants of Hamas.

That’s exactly what I said. Good on you, mate. (Why have I gone all Australian. Must be that Daphne dame I keep reading)

Hitchens tells us how Gaza was bombed by Israel the same day he arrived in retaliation to a rocket strike by ‘Arab militants’. Wha!? Unguided rockets aimed at civilian targets is militancy, is it. Get a grip Hitcho. That’s terrorism in anyone’s book.

He tells us that many Gazans hate these ‘militants’ because they know Israel will retaliate. Is he saying Israel targets civilians? They target the tunnels and this is why Hamas is not liked. Not because they are murderous bastards, but because it hurts them and their nice little earners.

We segue back to Operation Cast Lead two years ago and Hitch tells us of an interview with ‘Ibrahim’ (good choice, ‘Mohammed’ would have been a bit too obvious.) This  ‘Ibrahim’ (why does Peter think that he has to use a different name for the storyteller to his actual name; does the guy have such an unusual first name that Hamas will immediately seek him out and do something nasty?)

Anyway. This ‘Ibrahim’ begged Hamas to sod off out of his house during Cast Lead and not launch rockets from his roof. Did they comply? Did they ‘eck as like. (Now I have gone all Corrie)

… you can begin to understand how complex it is living here, where those who claim to defend you bring death to your door.

Is he saying Hamas broke the Geneva Convention and common humanity by using human shields? He clearly has not read the Goldstone report. Hamas were largely innocent, don’t you know.

Hitch draws some pictures for us of Gazans behaving quite ‘normally’, some with ostentatious wealth.

the ‘prison camp’ designation is a brain-dead over-simplification. If it is wrong for the rich to live next door to the desperate – and we often assume this when we criticise Israel – then what about Gaza’s wealthy, and its Hamas rulers?

I think he means the desperate of the West Bank where squillions of dollars, euros and pounds have been poured for decades only to be filtered off by Arafat and his cronies and successors and put into Swiss bank accounts whilst they maintain many of their people in 3rd world conditions.

Thankfully, some of that is now changing in the West Bank,  but a refugee camp is not for life, it’s for eternity in the Palestinian and Arab world.

Hitch does not mention the persecution of Palestinians by Jordanians or the Lebanese or the Syrians. Palestinians with all their problems, are still better off than their counterparts in Arab countries.

Now we are back to the Hitch beloved of Zion:

Then there is the use of the word ‘siege’.

Can anyone think of a siege in human history, from Syracuse to Leningrad, where the shops of the besieged city have been full of Snickers bars and Chinese motorbikes, and where European Union and other foreign aid projects pour streams of cash (often yours) into the pockets of thousands?

Err… let me think (Jeremy Paxman: ‘Come on, come on’)

(Stentorian voice off camera): Liverpool, Cook!!

(Cook)  ‘No’

(Paxo) ‘Correct. Now three more questions on the history of sieges…’

(Hitchens Pythonesque, as Alan Whicker):

In Gaza’s trapped, unequal society, a wealthy and influential few live in magnificent villas with sea views and their own generators to escape the endless power cuts.

Gaza also possesses a reasonably well-off middle class, who spend their cash in a shopping mall – sited in Treasure Street in Gaza City, round the corner from another street that is almost entirely given over to shops displaying washing machines and refrigerators.

At last, Hitchens is catching up with me:

What about Gaza’s ‘refugee camps’. The expression is misleading. Most of those who live in them are not refugees, but the children and grandchildren of those who fled Israel in the war of 1948.

All the other refugees from that era – in India and Pakistan, the Germans driven from Poland and the Czech lands, not to mention the Jews expelled from the Arab world – were long ago resettled.

Unbelievably, these people are still stuck in insanitary townships, hostages in a vast struggle kept going by politicians who claim to care about them. These places are not much different from the poorer urban districts of Cairo, about which nobody, in the Arab world or the West, has much to say.

It is not idle to say that these ‘camps’ should have been pulled down years ago, and their inhabitants rehoused. It can be done. The United Arab Emirates, to their lasting credit, have paid for a smart new housing estate with a view of the Mediterranean.

It shows what could happen if the Arab world cared as much as it says it does about Gaza. Everyone in Gaza could live in such places, at a cost that would be no more than small change in the oil-rich Arab world’s pocket.

But the propagandists, who insist that one day the refugees will return to their lost homes, regard such improvements as acceptance that Israel is permanent – and so they prefer the squalor, for other people.
Those who rightly condemn the misery of the camps should ask themselves whose fault it really is. As so often in the Arab world, the rubbish-infested squalor of the streets conceals clean, private quarters, not luxurious and sometimes basic, but out of these places emerge each day huge numbers of scrubbed, neatly-uniformed children, on their way to schools so crammed that they have two shifts.

I wish I was sure these young people were being taught the principles of human brotherhood and co-existence. But I doubt it. On a wall in a street in central Gaza, a mural – clearly displayed with official approval – shows an obscene caricature of an Israeli soldier with a dead child slung from his bayonet.

Didn’t I just say all that? Ok, maybe not as well.

I’ll continue with the rest of Peter Hitchens’ informative article in my next blog where he discovers that Christians in the West Bank are not being persecuted by Israelis, as the boycotting Methodists believe, but by Muslims.

Whatever next.

William Hague, Andrew Marr, again, and ‘these people’

Last week Andrew Marr interviewed Miriam Margolyes on his Sunday morning BBC One (HD) news program. If you recall he allowed her to go almost unchallenged when she gave a completely misleading and context-less impression of life on the West Bank for Palestinians. I wrote about it here.

Marr was at it again this morning when he interviewed British Foreign Secretary, William Hague who has just returned from an awkward visit to Israel and the West Bank, or, as Marr calls it, ‘the Middle East’.

Hague has form when it comes to Israel. During Operation Cast Lead, when Israel invaded Gaza in 2008-2009, he called their actions ‘disproportionate’. He also attacked Israel over the Mavi Marmara incident earlier this year when Israeli commandos intercepted a flotilla which was trying to run the maritime blockade of Gaza. He called for an international enquiry into the resultant deaths of 9 members of the flotilla with a strong implication that he blamed Israel for these deaths.

His attitude to Gaza is that Israel’s policy is ‘unwise’ but at least he claims to have faith in Israeli democracy (http://conservativehome.blogs.com/parliament/2010/06/hague-attacks-israels-unwise-blockade-of-gaza.html)

The main thrust, therefore, of his ‘Middle East’ policy appears to be that Israel is the problem, and especially the current government; Israel has to change; Israel has to relent; Israel must make concessions. The Palestinians need do nothing, it appears.

I don’t believe Hague is ‘anti-Israel’, but he has adopted a familiar stance, along with the other main party leaders in the UK,  which he believes, I’m sure, represents ‘evenhandedness’, and allows the UK to be an ‘honest broker’. This approach is simple: the Israelis must make all the concessions whilst the Palestinians sit on their hands and accuse the Israelis of not being serious about peace.

In today’s interview it was clear that his grasp of the facts in the ‘Middle East’ are either ill-informed or actually prejudiced. And his prejudice is against the Palestinians.

He does not seem to want to give the Palestinians any responsibility for the conflict. I don’t think I have ever heard him criticise the Palestinian Authority. It’s only Israel that can get the process moving forward and avoid missing this great opportunity for peace.

In other words, his one-sidedness could be seen as a his having a low opinion of the Palestinians and only Israel can solve the impasse. So Israel is made to take the blame for his lack of faith in the Palestinians ability to make concessions or compromises. This is my generous interpretation of his approach. I would hate to think that he really does believe it’s all Israel’s fault.

This is what he had to say this morning:

“..direct talks began this September between the Israelis and the Palestinians and then they stopped on this issue over settlements on the West Bank”

He then states that the US, the EU and the UK are all asking the Israelis nicely to resume the freeze on settlements so that the Palestinians can come back into the talks.

He is not challenged with the question why the Palestinians waited until the 9th month of a 10 month freeze and had to be dragged screaming into the process announcing in advance that it would fail. And now they want another freeze on the off chance that this will bring them back to the table. The Palestinians desire for peace is never questioned.

Again, Israel has to make another concession to extend the ‘freeze’ which has never once in all the history of negotiations ever before been an impediment to talks. It was only when President Obama presented the Palestinians with the gift of an excuse by forcing Israel into this latest concession that suddenly ‘it’ became the great stumbling-block.  No-one berates the Palestinians for making excuses to avoid talks.

No-one wonders why the Palestinians will do anything to avoid a peace settlement and no-one asks them why they are afraid of peace. Certainly Hague doesn’t appear  to have asked them and Marr didn’t raise the question either.

“The window is closing on a two-state solution in the Middle East”, Hague says. There he goes with “Middle East” again.  Never mind. The implication is that it is Israel alone that will be responsible.

Marr asks Hague whether he got any hint of movement when talking to Prime Minister Netanyahu or the other ministers.

The answer is, I hope accidentally, crass:

“Well, these people are tough negotiators..” “These people”! Does he mean Jews? Maybe he experienced this tough negotiating last time he bought a suit from some Jewish tailor in the West End. Am I being too sensitive? Probably.

The Palestinians are not tough negotiators, of course. It’s very simple for them. Just say ‘no’ to everything, then wait for the world to pressure Israel into another concession and carry on this way until Israel agrees to its own demise.

Would you not be a ‘tough negotiator’, Mr Hague, if the future of your country were at stake? What does he expect?

“It’s only the United States that can deliver Israel to a negotiated agreement”. So there you have it. Only Israel is responsible. No-one needs to deliver the Palestinians. They are just waiting for those terrible Israelis to come to the table. No pressure on them, only on Israel.

The conversation drifts towards Tony Blair’s current role and his great negotiating skills. Yet again, Hague states that Blair is trying hard to get the Israelis to ‘move’ on certain issues. He cites the easing of the Gaza embargo and Tony’s magic touch in making the Israelis do a bit earlier what they had already intended. No mention of how Tony is doing with the Palestinians. I wonder why. No mention of Hamas.

We end on a positive note, I think, with Hague promising to change the legislation on Universal Jurisdiction which has been used to threaten arrest for war crimes against Israeli politicians and military visiting the UK.

Hague stresses that it doesn’t just apply to Israelis of course and recalls how someone once tried to get Henry Kissinger arrested. Oh dear. Perish the thought that only Israelis were being threatened with arrest on spurious charges. Look, even dear old Henry risks incarceration at HM’s pleasure. Isn’t he Jewish? Am I being paranoid, but isn’t there a thread here somewhere?

Mr Hague doesn’t want to appear to be pushed around by these arrogant, pushy Israelis. He confirms that the law will be changed in the British government’s own good time and those clever Israeli’s won’t be able to negotiate their way into dictating to the Brits. So there!

This is the second week that Israel has not been given a right of reply by Marr. Isn’t it about time that he actually asked an Israeli onto the program? Of course, they’d have to appear via satellite as none of them can venture into Britain without the fear of spending a few months in the Scrubs.

(Viewers in the UK can see the interview here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00w0yxx/The_Andrew_Marr_Show_07_11_2010/)

US troops kill 680 civilians – UN Human Rights Council not interested

The Sunday Times this week had a front page report about civilians killed at checkpoints in Iraq by Us soldiers. The statistics come from files published by the Wikileaks website.

Here are some highlights:

American troops shot  dead 681 innocent civilians at security checkpoints including 30 children.

This was the direct result of an order to shoot at any vehicle that failed to stop. This resulted in six times as many civilian casualties as ‘insurgents’ being killed. Often the Americans opened fire without warning.

June 14 2005 US troops raked a car containing 11 civilians with gunfire Seven passengers including two children were killed because, despite attempting to flag the car down, it did not stop.

Between 2004 and 2009 832 people were killed at or approaching checkpoints or convoys and 2,200 wounded.

The Sunday Times also reports on a level of torture by the current Iraqi regime, under the noses of the Coalition, which is reminiscent of the Saddam years. Many of the victims were handed over to the Iraqis by Coalition forces. For ‘Coalition’  read American.

The leaked documents describe more than 300 cases of detainees being abused by ‘coalition’ forces. The Sunday Times tells us that one detainee was forced to dig up a roadside bomb.

Two men attempting to surrender to an Apache helicopter crew were, nevertheless, shot dead.

Does the US government hold its head in shame? No! Secretary of State Hillary Clinton condemns the leaks for endangering lives without, apparently, caring too much about the death of innocents or the cavalier disregard for international law including the Geneva Convention demonstrated by these documents.

The Sunday Times report continues:

In Salahuddin province in 2008 children collecting firewood were attacked by an Apache helicopter crew. They though they were planting roadside bombs. One of the children died.

I ask you, dear reader, to replace ‘coalition’ and ‘US/American’ with ‘Israeli’ and ‘Iraqi’ with Palestinian. Replace ‘Iraq’ with ‘Gaza’ or ‘the West Bank’.

Now tell me that if it were a matter of Israel and the Palestinians the world would not be in uproar, that the UN Human Rights Council would not at this very moment be putting together an Israel-bashing committee of investigation and already call these incidents ‘war crimes’, ‘crimes against humanity’. And tell me that the Islamic world and the Hamas apologists in Europe would not be comparing Israel to the Nazis.

None of the incidents involving coalition troops has had proper public investigation, so I do not judge in advance. What I say is that in a war, and especially in asymmetric wars, where the enemy can be dressed like a civilian, be a woman in a hijab or a 14 year old boy with a suicide belt, mistakes are made.

But if it were Israel making the mistakes, the result would be very different.

Where is the Islamic world’s fury about Iraqi civilians? Why do they not ask for UN enquiries? Where are the resolutions in the Security Council?  Why is the reaction to 680 innocent deaths in Iraq different to a reported similar number in Gaza?

On the israelagainstterror.blogspot website (Hat Tip Matt Pryor) their article refers to a NY Times piece which highlights a statistic about the ratio of civilian to combatant deaths in conflicts of the 20th Century.

Apparently the figure is 10 civilians to every soldier/combatant.

In Gaza 2009/9 :

If one accepts the Israel Defense Forces’ statistics, then noncombatants accounted for only 39 percent of Palestinian fatalities — less than half the standard 90 percent rate noted by the ICRC. Nongovernmental organizations obviously cite a much higher civilian casualty rate. But even they put it below 90 percent.

According to B’Tselem, the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, Israeli forces killed 1,390 Palestinians in the war, including 759 noncombatants, 349 combatants, 248 Palestinian policemen, two in targeted assassinations (bizarrely, these aren’t classified as either combatants or noncombatants), and 32 whose status it couldn’t determine. The policemen are listed separately because their status is disputed: Israel says the Hamas-run police force served as an auxiliary army unit; Palestinians say the policemen were noncombatants.

Omitting the 34 whom B’Tselem didn’t classify, these figures show civilians comprising 74 percent of total fatalities if the policemen are considered noncombatants, and 56 percent if they’re considered combatants. Either way, the ratio is well below the 90 percent norm.

The most anti-Israel accounting, from the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, lists 1,417 Palestinian fatalities, including 236 combatants, 926 civilians, and 255 policemen. But even these figures, if we assume the policemen were noncombatants, put civilians at only 83 percent of total deaths — less than the proportion the Red Cross deemed the norm back in 2001. Treating the policemen as combatants lowers the rate to 65 percent.

The article concludes that although the civilian casualty rate was high, and this can be partially accounted for by the very point I was making above, namely, the combatants fighting the Israelis did not wear uniform and hid amongst civilians and used the civilian infrastructure for weapons stores, shelter, firing positions and, cynically, as part of a human shield strategy, nevertheless the ratio of civilian to combatant deaths, by whoever’s statistics you choose to agree, was lower than the average in other conflicts.

In other words, the statistics give a lie to the claim of the Goldstone Report that Israel deliberately targeted civilians.

Now tell me the Israelis were more guilty than the Americans.

I suspect that the Americans and Israelis had a few bad soldiers whose actions were illegal, or even plain stupid. But I am also damn sure that both armies were fighting in the most difficult of all scenarios where telling civilian from combatant does not conform to the simplistic norms that observers sitting comfortably at home and in judgement in front of their TV or reading their newspaper would like to assume.

Mike Leigh, Israel and the boycott

LONDON, ENGLAND - OCTOBER 18: Director Mike Leigh attends the 'Another Year' press conference during the 54th BFI London Film Festival at the Vue West End on October 18, 2010 in London, England. (Photo by Samir Hussein/Getty Images)

I returned from Berlin this week to be confronted by the Jewish Chronicle’s front page about the Salford-born, eminent film director, Mike Leigh and his decision not to go to Israel to teach a masterclass in Jerusalem and Jenin.

I was somewhat disappointed that Leigh felt he had to make this decision. I don’t see Leigh as one of the self-haters or ‘as-a-Jews’ as they are sometimes termed. Here is a man who grew up in a very Jewish part of Manchester, was a member of Habonim and a Zionist. His mother spent her final days at the same Jewish care home as my own mother. He has always been regarded with pride by the Jewish community in Manchester and Salford.

So it is instructive to see how yet another prominent Jew has fallen out of love with Israel and has decided to publicly make a series of remarks which are gratuitous, hurtful and which completely misrepresent Israel, and characterise it in what is now a fashionable way for many in the media and arts who see the Middle East conflict, not for what it is, an existential struggle, but through the prism of their own political dogma.

I’ll take a while to dissect Leigh’s thought processes so we can better understand his decision.

The full article by Stephen Applebaum and Simon Rocker can be seen here.

Leigh calls Israel’s policies suicidal. In other words, he believes that the current government is taking Israel down a path towards some sort of disaster, even annihilation, perhaps. The recent loyalty oath law was, for him, ‘the last straw’.

So, it is the right-wing nature of the Netanyahu coalition and its policies which have led him to decide to become part of the boycott. He was already ‘uncomfortable’ about going, but this oath law really swayed it for him. Really? Not exactly the Nuremburg Laws is it.

We can see he was wrestling with his one-time Zionist credentials and his conscience about appearing to condone policies of a government at the opposite end of the political spectrum to his own views.

Now, I’m a bit of an old lefty myself, believe it or not, and during the 1980’s I decided I would not go to Israel because I disagreed with the settlement policy on the ‘West Bank’. I, of course, was, and remain a nonentity. My ‘boycott’ was personal. So I sort of understand where he is coming from as a public figure and a man of conscience.  If it is ‘your people’ that you violently disagree with, then you feel a moral obligation to make a stand which you wouldn’t make for a country that you don’t identify with.

My ‘boycott’, however, showed that at some level I did still identify with Israel, and that I cared enough to make my little stand.

Things changed for me when I studied the history of the conflict and the Jewish people. I was finally radicalised by the discovery that, Israel, an imperfect country, was not in a struggle for land and borders, but was being demonised and delegitimised in an attempt to utterly destroy it. I also saw that this was part of a globalised and sanctioned neo-anti-Semitism disguised as anti-Zionism. I saw that, as a Jew (yes, that phrase again) I was a target and a proposed victim of this insanity.

I saw that little or no space had been left for measured criticism of Israel. I saw that Israel had become the Jew amongst world states. And I saw that the cheer-leaders for this demonisation were mainly Islamic states with appalling human rights records, no democracy, no press freedom or free speech, religious intolerance, misogyny, often barbaric laws, homophobia and anti-Semitism.

At the same time I saw an imperfect Israel where there is democracy, a free press, freedom of religion, a robust and independent judiciary and free speech. I saw a country which despite its history and its imperfections has some of the finest universities in the world, is a leader in technology, medicine, environmentalism.

There are many things to dislike about some aspects of Israeli society, there are many societal problems, there is discrimination, poverty, crime, zealotry. In other words, Israel is like many other western democracies.

I saw an Israel prepared to make concessions and sacrifices for peace.

My personal boycott of Israel ended. Mike Leigh’s is just beginning, but is he motivated as I was 30 years ago?

Let’s continue with Leigh’s interview and statements he made.

As a member of the Jewish youth movement, Habonim, he believes he was ‘duped by Israeli propaganda’. Strange this. He was in Habo’ more than 50 years ago when there was no ‘occupation’ and no Palestinian cause. So what was he being duped about?

It appears that these feelings are related to ‘religion’. He calls organised religion ‘bull****’

So now we have a self-confessed liberal left atheist. Fine. Nothing wrong with that, although he needn’t be quite so disrespectful of 2000 years of Jewish scholarship, learning and community, let alone his own ancestors. After all, were it not for this ‘bull****’ he would not be here at all enjoying his nice life as a successful film director.

Presumably it’s not just Judaism he would describe in these terms.

Then we cut to the chase in this interview:

While cultural talks went on “in the nice cinematheques of Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Haifa, it is hell on earth in Gaza and I wouldn’t want to be there basically”.

Ah! Now we really see where he is coming from. He has bought into the ‘liberal left’ Gaza myth. The myth that Gaza is hell, and it’s hell because of the Israelis.

Mr Leigh, who insisted that all his work was “unquestionably Jewish”, was dismissive about rocket attacks on Israel. “I don’t want to know about rockets,” he said. “What I am concerned with is humanity, is life being lived properly. And you cannot deal with this issue from an Israeli perspective and not from a Palestinian or a Gaza perspective. You simply can’t. And if you do it’s totally unacceptable. And that’s the bottom line.”

Agreed! And what is that Gaza perspective? Gaza which Israel evacuated completely several years ago and which was then used as a base to attack Israel. He doesn’t want to know about rockets. What the hell does he think caused the Gaza ‘misery’ in the first place. Does he want to put his fingers in his ears and jump up and down whilst Israelis have to run to bunkers like his parents in the blitz, and for much longer?

Does Leigh not realise that what is motivating Hamas and Hizbollah, even Fatah and certainly Ahmadinejad is religion, which he sees as ‘bull****’? Is there no contradiction there? Or is only Judaism faecal?

It’s not as if the eminent film director has put together a cogent argument to boycott Israel.

Like so many well-meaning people of conscience with left-wing political views, Mike Leigh remains ignorant of facts and perhaps a tad intimidated by his fellow luvvies on the Left.

Along with Cameron and Miliband and Clegg and so many others, he sees the Palestinians as victims and the Israelis as aggressors when the truth is, and always has been, largely the opposite.

Leigh has been in a struggle all his life, it seems, a struggle between his Jewish identity and his liberal left political views. Over time, as he has become more and more detached from his roots, he has increasingly moved towards the camp of those other Jews who even more stridently confess their hatred of Israel and their compassion for its enemies.

When it comes to ‘bull****’ Mike Leigh should take a long hard look at the propaganda, not of Israel, but of those who are determined to destroy Israel and the Jewish people.

Maybe when Gaza really is a prison camp, but one for the remnant of Israeli Jews, he will realise that the ‘bull***’ was actually on the other side and he is buried in it.

Aiding or abetting?

Fascinating little piece recently from the Elder of Ziyon revealing where, allegedly, much of the aid destined for the people of Gaza ends up in the hands of Hamas.

The article refers to Viva Palestina and George Galloway:

In June, a Gazan reporter noted that the only new cars in Gaza at the time – those brought by the Viva Palestina convoy – were being driven by Hamas members only, as a perk. Yet Viva Palestina claimed they were going to be used for critical infrastructure and medical needs.

And in July, there were Arabic language reports that the Al Qassam Brigades went into Ismail Haniyeh’s office and took all the cash aid that Viva Palestina brought into Gaza!
(Elder’s emphasis)

Every day dozens of trucks filled with humanitarian aid enter Gaza from Israel. Do we know if this aid actually reaches its intended recipients? Or does it fall into the hands of the rulers of Gaza in the same way that it appears some or, much or even all the aid brought by so-called humanitarian aid groups does?

As the Elder says, where are the protests from the ‘aid’ organisations about the fate of their humanitarian supplies? Or does this just expose the truth about such convoys and flotillas that they care more for the propaganda of ‘breaking the blockade’ and ingratiating themselves with terrorists than they do about Gazans.

To be honest, Ed Miliband hates Israel as much as every other UK party leader

MANCHESTER, ENGLAND - SEPTEMBER 28: Leader of the labour party Ed Miliband delivers his keynote speech to party members on September 28, 2010 in Manchester, England. On the fourth day of his leadership Ed Miliband called on members to move forward into a new era and that he is part of a new generation and is set to move away from Brown and Blair era. (Photo by Christopher Furlong/Getty Images)

How many times did Ed Miliband declare something like: ‘I have to be honest’ or ‘I’ll be honest with you’?

Was he trying to impress us with his new whiter than white political culture?

Not one word a politician says, especially in a keynote speech as newly-elected Labour Party leader, is not carefully prepared and coded.

He is honest Ed, Britain’s new John Kennedy.

I remember Jack Kennedy; Ed Miliband is no Jack Kennedy.

Did you hear the Kennedy-like:

‘Let the message go out, a new generation has taken charge of Labour’

Compare to the infinitely more elgant and eloquent:

‘Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation’

Having told us about his Jewish refugee parents and his first generation immigrant credentials, he then went on to slag off Israel, as they say in these parts.

A passing reference to the fight against terrorism, and then the gratuitous and left-pleasing attack on Israel’s maritime blockade and its ‘attack’ on the Mavi Marmara.

No mention of Hamas.

No mention of Israel’s security.

No mention of the orchestrated international delegitimisation and demonisation of Israel.

No mention of the Palestinians refusal to recognise Israel as the state of the Jewish people.

No mention of Iran.

Indeed, no mention of any other conflict in the world where thousands, if not millions have died. Only Israel get’s the Miliband as-a-Jew treatment.

‘Look’, he says, ‘I’ve told you my family fled persecution in Nazi Europe to find a haven in Britain. I told you that I am grateful to Britain for accepting Jews’.

Now that gives him the right to tell you that Israel, the country abandoned by the very Britain he is lauding, the country that tried to prevent Jews from entering Palestine as they fled from the same Nazis that his parents fled from, must abandon its own defence to satisfy his and his party’s and, it appears, the other main parties’ distorted vision of the Middle East and, no doubt, keep a few Arab states ‘onside’.

Like Cameron and Clegg he just wants, or feels it is politically advisable to say he wants Israel to end the blockade and allow Hamas, et alia, to rain their missiles and send in their suicide bombers.

Britain’s political class has abandoned all reason and logic when it comes to Israel. In that, they are like much of the rest of the world. They can’t force the Palestinians to make peace so they have to pressurise and demonise the Israelis to make suicidal concessions in return for what? Sweet FA.

And to really underline Ed’s shift to the Left, he endorsed none other than Ken Livingstone as the next Mayor of London. I don’t think I have to spell out Ken Livingstone’s anti-Israel credentials or his love of sheikhs who endorse suicide bombings.

So if Israel is looking for true friends in the UK political classes, Ed has declared himself yet another of the self-righteous who, when it comes to Israel, abandon truth for politicking.  Another of the purblind who will spout ad nauseam how they support Israel’s right to exist and then demonstrate that they have no idea what that means or entails.

Oh, for a real Jack Kennedy.

It’s at times like this that you realise that Tony Blair, warts and all, was head and shoulders above the lot we have now.

As the next Gaza convoy sets out…

If those who organise humanitarian aid to Gaza via flotillas and other blockade-breaking adventures really are about the plight of the Palestinians, I have some news for them about Arabs and even other Palestinians persecuting their own.

True humanitarians would not ignore the behaviour of Lebanon, Jordan and Libya whilst highlighting the actions of Israel.

(H/T to Elder of Ziyon for all these stories)

The first story is about Libya.

Libya has implemented a program of taxing all of its Palestinian Arab residents.
According to Al Jazeera (Arabic), Palestinian Arabs in Libya are now forced to pay an annual fee of up to $1550, and they have to endure a host of new humiliations as well.

PalArabs have been banned from working in various jobs, including education. Relatives cannot visit them. Those who own cars are being taxed for more money than their monthly salaries. Travel documents are expiring and not being renewed, yet the Arab League does not allow Palestinian Arabs from obtaining passports from the countries they have lived in all their lives.

Residents note bitterly that all this is happening while Libya made a big show of sending a ship of aid to Gaza.
All of this is in contradiction with Libyan Law #10 of 1998 which was supposed to grant somewhat equal rights to Palestinian Arabs in that country.

This is from a country which egregiously sits on the UN Human Rights Council.

Next in the hall of infamy is Lebanon:

According to the Elder there are “well over 100,000 Gazans in Jordan with limited rights –  and no easy way to get out”.

Yes, Gazans. Gazans in a Jordanian open-air prison, Mr Cameron.

The Elder then quotes an Arab researcher called Oroub El Abed who has been documenting the plight of Palestinians:

Gazans in Jordan are doubly displaced refugees. Forced to move to Gaza as a result of the 1948 war, they fled once more when Israel occupied the Gaza Strip in 1967. Guesstimates of the number of Gazans in Jordan range between 118,000 and 150,000. A small number have entered the Jordanian citizenship scheme via naturalisation or have had the financial resources to acquire citizenship.

On arrival in Jordan, the ex-residents of Gaza were granted temporary Jordanian passports valid for two years but were not granted citizenship rights. The so-called ‘passport’ serves two purposes: it indicates to the Jordanian authorities that the Gazans and their dependents are temporary residents in Jordan and provides them with an international travel document (‘laissez-passer’) potentially enabling access to countries other than Jordan.

The ‘passport’ – which is expensive – has value as an international travel document only if receiving states permit the entry of temporary passport holdersFew countries admit them, because they have no official proof of citizenship. Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and some Gulf States are among those who refuse to honour the document. Any delay in renewing the temporary passport or in applying for one puts an individual at risk of becoming undocumented.

Since 1986 it has been harder for Gazans to compete for places in Jordanian universities as they must secure places within the 5% quota reserved for Arab foreignersEntry to professions is blocked as Gazans are not allowed to register with professional societies/unions or to establish their own offices, firms or clinics. Only those with security clearance can gain private sector employment. Those who work in the informal sector are vulnerable to being exploited. Many Gazans are keen to leave Jordan to seek employment elsewhere but are constrained from doing so. Some have attempted to leave clandestinely.

Rami was brought up in Jordan, studied law and worked for over two years for a law firm in the West Bank city of Hebron. Lacking a West Bank Israeli-issued ID, he was forced to return to Jordan every three months to renew his visitor’s visa. Due to the high cost of living he returned to Jordan in 1999 only to find himself stripped of his Jordanian temporary passport. Now without any form of identity, he notes that “being Gazan in Jordan is like being guilty.”

In Jordan, as in most other Middle-Eastern countries, women cannot pass on their citizenship to their children. Neither is citizenship granted to a child born on the territory of a state from a foreign father. Married women are forced to depend on their fathers or husbands to process documents related to their children. Because of this patriarchal conception of citizenship, children of Jordanian women married to Gazans are at risk of being left without a legal existence.

Heba, a Jordanian national, married Ahmad, a Gazan with an Egyptian travel document. A year after their marriage, Ahmad was arrested for being in Jordan without a residence permit. Deported from Jordan, he was refused re-entry to Egypt and ended up in Sudan. Heba had a child but has been unable to register the birth due to the absence of her husband. She cannot afford to go to Sudan to be with him.

(emphasis by the Elder)

But there is more on Lebanon:

Hot on the heels of the slight easing of restrictions on professions that Arabs of Palestinian descent in Lebanon can practice, the Lebanese Forces (which are mostly Christian) are trying to ensure that PalArabs cannot live in Lebanese-owned homes:

The Lebanese Forces urged the government on Saturday to find a solution to Palestinian occupants of homes owned by Lebanese in villages east of the southern port city of Sidon.

While hailing parliament’s decision to grant Palestinians working rights, an LF statement said “the Lebanese government is urged to find a quick solution to the issue which has become an unacceptable burden.”

It said homes in Miyeh Miyeh, Darb al-Sim and other areas are occupied by Palestinians.

The government should adopt an effective solution to find alternative housing to them, the LF said.

The bigotry in Lebanon against Palestinian Arabs is so entrenched that it is not newsworthy. This isn’t about the PalArabs owning land – this is saying that they cannot even live outside camps, even if they are (apparently) paying for it!

The Elder also directs us to an article in PajamasMedia which he calls Palestinian Arab “apartheid” against – Palestinian Arabs.

Depending upon whose estimate you read, there are some twenty or thirty thousand “refugees” in the Balata refugee camp outside of Nablus. Balata is simultaneously the most populous and smallest of the Palestinian refugee camps — its growing population is confined to one square kilometer, making it one of the most densely populated and miserable places on the planet.

Any regime with an ounce of compassion would have shut Balata down and integrated its people into the surrounding community. Balata is a place without hope, a quagmire of despair, where the day-to-day misery of its inhabitants is partially ameliorated by Western charities and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNWRA), while inadvertently building a culture of dependence.

Balata’s creation could ostensibly be laid at Israel’s doorstep, but its perpetuation cannot. The current residents of Balata are only refugees by a crude reworking of the meaning of the term. They themselves have fled from nothing, and sought refuge from nothing. They are the children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren of the people who fled or were expelled during the 1948 war.

If you want to use the term “apartheid” to characterize some aspect of Middle East politics, then Balata is a good place to apply it. It is the Palestinian Authority’s answer to Soweto.

The PA does not permit the children of Balata to go to local schools. It does not permit the people of Balata to build outside the one square kilometer. The people of Balata are prevented from voting in local elections, and the PA provides none of the funds for the necessary infrastructure of the camp — including sewers and roads.

Balata and the other refugee camps are showcases of contrived misery. They are Potemkin villages in reverse. Naïve peace activists and unsophisticated Western clergy are led through such camps to witness the refugee drama, with Israel conveniently and prominently cast in the role of villain.

(Elder’s emphasis)

Yet we always hear the media and Palestinian huggers everywhere banging on about Israeli apartheid.

 

And let’s not forget the Egyptians who, of course, are the forgotten jailers of the Gazans, after all, if you are complaining about freedom of movement of Gazans, then why don’t the Egyptians open the Rafah crossing for them?

Oroub El Abed writes that ‘Some 50,000 Palestinian refugees live in Egypt without UN assistance or protection and burdened by many restrictive laws and regulations. Little is known about their plight and their unique status’.

El Abed believes in the mythical Right of Return but she pulls no punches about how Palestinians are treated by fellow Arabs.

The continuing plight of the Palestinians is not all down to history or the Israelis; the Arabs and the Palestinians themselves bear huge responsibility for perpetuating refugee-hood as a weapon against Israeli in total disregard of the lives and livelihood of millions of Palestinians.

And when the UN agency set up specifically and uniquely to deal with Palestinian ‘refugees’ tries to improve their lives in Gaza, they have to face Hamas’ interpretation of Islam which condemns the very people that are there to help them. The Elder lists complaints in the Palestine Times, a Hamas-run newspaper:

– The creation of a UNRWA Women’s Committee meant to foster equal rights between men and women is really meant to end chastity and purity.

– UNRWA sometimes sponsors trips for students where they are in danger of meeting Jews and Zionists.

– UNRWA schools were rumored to have taught about the Holocaust which teaches students to sympathize with Jews

– Some schools have more females than males, causing them to have more female teachers than male teachers

– UNRWA salaries are too high

– UNRWA’s services have decreased as their budget gets stretched.

And it is into the arms of these people that the flotillas and convoys are running. They don’t even seem to have their story right. Are they going to bring humanitarian aid (which they can take to an Israeli port without confrontation) or are they just intent on confrontation and provocation?

Their real motivation is to destroy Israel first, help Gazans a poor second. Indeed, each flotilla and convoy is an exercise in hypocrisy and exploitation of the very people they claim to want to help.

Panorama – Death in the Med – credit where credit is due

When I saw that Panorama, one of the BBC’s longest running investigative programmes, was being fronted by Jane Corbin, I was not sure that Israel would get a fair hearing. The last time I saw Ms Corbin in action on this programme was to report on evictions and demolitions in Jerusalem which ultimately failed to deliver a lot of context.

This time Corbin managed to tell the Israeli side for a change and also interviewed key players on the IHH side. The IHH being a Turkish humanitarian organisation that behaved in anything but a humanitarian way and has links to Islamist groups, including Al Qaeda. There are calls for its being proscribed in the USA and Europe.

The programme did an excellent job of piecing together video into a timeline. This was interspersed with interviews of IDF soldiers who actually took part, received injuries and fired on their attackers.

Interviews with the IHH were predictably disingenuous, representing their actions as defensive and claiming the IDF fired first.

The accusation of firing first was, perhaps, the only disappointing feature in this documentary. Jane Corbin said there were conflicting accounts. In other words, she sat journalistically on the fence. She did say, however, the the IDF could not have fired a weapon and rappelled on to the deck at the same time. The IHH claimed that the IDF shot first so their attack with knives, iron bars, captured pistols and, according the the Israelis, another firearm not used in the IDF, was purely defensive.

This claim is demonstrably nonsense. Firstly, if you are standing on a deck waiting for soldiers to come down a rope and they are somehow managing to fire at you, and you are so defenceless, wouldn’t you get the hell out of the way? If you do not have firearms and someone is shooting at you, would you just wait to attack with iron bars and knives? It’s ludicrous.

The IDF admitted that once they had seen there was strong resistance they should have regrouped and considered more carefully their next move. Instead, they decided to land on the deck even though they had already seen that this would meet with violence. This was a blunder and the current enquiry in Israel will surely further reinforce that fact, already admitted by the military. Israeli intelligence as to the nature of the threat failed miserably. The Mavi Marmara was hijacked by about 40 IHH activists and their plans to attack the IDF, clearly shown from their own videos, were unknown to the majority of activists on the ship who were completely innocent of any intentions other than, perhaps, passive resistance; and this was what happened on all the other boats.

The conclusions any sensible person would draw are these: you may not agree with the boarding of the Mavi Marmara, but it was clearly demonstrated that the Israelis were using paintball guns before they landed on deck and that this was their ‘weapon’ of choice as a non-lethal crowd controller. Handguns were only used when the attack on them became lethal.

It is also clear there was considerable confusion and fear amongst the soldiers, some of whom were taken below and one reported that he believed he would be killed. One of the Turkish activists protected him and probably saved his life. In this respect, his actions are praiseworthy. Other activists seem to have tried to treat the injured Israelis.

There was still no explanation of how and when and where the 9 activists were killed. The fact that 50 were also injured demonstrated, to me, that the soldiers, in fear of their lives, with good reason (some had already been bludgeoned, thrown off deck rails, stabbed and even shot) did what any soldier would do, namely use enough force to stop the immediate threat and discourage further attack. One IDF soldier, when asked if he killed anyone, said he shot at his assailants’ legs and this was then reinforced with video of an injured activist with leg wounds.

I believe that the soldiers went for non-lethal shots, but as they feared being overwhelmed and being killed they used lethal force. Maj Gen (Ret) Giora Eiland, who carried out the IDF investigation, made the remark that, under the circumstances, casualties were low. He didn’t elaborate why, and such remarks don’t play well with international audiences. This was not a well-judged remark, but at least it was honest.

Jane Corbin herself concluded, having seen the remnants of the aid, that the whole flotilla was a political provocation, not a humanitarian one. The Mavi Marmara carried no aid whatsoever (a point not made in the film) and other items were of such little importance to Hamas that they either did not let them through as a form of protest, or they were out-of-date medicines. You can see details of the aid carried by the other boats and what the Israelis did with it on a previous post of mine here.

No doubt apologists from the Free Gaza Movement will simply say that the whole incident would not have happened had it not been for the blockade, the Israelis are liars etc. But I ask you, if the Beeb can’t find anything with which to beat Israel up then maybe the IDF did indeed enter a trap and protected itself from lethal force with lethal force.

Israel will co-operate with UN Flotilla Enquiry

At last!! The Israeli government has seen sense and decided to show that it has nothing to fear from a UN enquiry which appears to be unbiased – for a change.

Israel Prime Minister, Benyamin Netanyahu, released the following today:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu today (Monday), 2.8.10, informed UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon that Israel would participate in the panel that he is establishing in the wake of the 31.5.10 events regarding the flotilla.

The announcement to the UN Secy.-Gen. was delivered following consultations with the seven-member ministerial forum earlier this morning and in the wake of diplomatic contacts that have been held in recent weeks in order to ensure that this was indeed a panel with a balanced and fair written mandate.

The panel will receive reports on the Israeli investigation by the Independent Public Commission to Examine the Maritime Incident of 31.5.10 chaired by retired Supreme Court Justice Jacob Turkel.

Prime Minister Netanyahu said today, after speaking with the UN Secy.-Gen., that, “Israel has nothing to hide. The opposite is true. It is in the national interest of the State of Israel to ensure that the factual truth of the overall flotilla events comes to light throughout the world and this is exactly the principle that we are advancing.”

Having initially refused to co-operate, Israel set up its own internal enquiry which concentrated on exposing a group of Turkish activists with links to the IHH who led a flotilla intent on breaking the Israeli maritime blockade of Gaza.

This ‘humanitarian’ organisation has been shown to have links with terrorist groups, even Al Qaeda. 8 of 9 activists killed had links with dubious IHH activities and most had left evidence that they were determined to reach Gaza or become martyrs. Such an attitude itself reveals a hatred for Israel that is so great that they were prepared to die, and kill, for it.

Despite much documentary evidence taken by the Israelis and by many people on board the Mavi Marmara, the lead ship of the flotilla, there has not yet been a clear and detailed account of how and under what circumstances the 9 men were killed. All we know from the Israeli account and video evidence is that the commandos who landed on the Mavi Marmara were met with lethal force and a mob of about 50 men attacked a much smaller number of commandos whose main ‘weapon’ was a paint gun.

The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs has a web page dedicated to the events of 21 May 2010 here.

The terms of the Israeli commission are detailed here.

The main objectives were as follows:

1) Consideration of the security circumstances for imposing a naval blockade on the Gaza Strip and the conformity of the naval blockade with the rules of international law;
2) Conformity of the actions taken by Israel to enforce the naval blockade on 31 May 2010 to the principles of international law;
3) Consideration of the actions taken by those who organized – and participated in – the flotilla, and their identities.
The Commission will also consider the question of whether the inquiry and investigation mechanisms vis-à-vis complaints and claims regarding violations of the laws of armed conflict, as followed by Israel in general and as implemented with regard to the event in question, conform with the State of Israel’s obligations under the rules of international law.
Following the international outcry against Israel and its virtual pariah status, it’s about time Israel engaged at an international level to show that, indeed, it has nothing to hide.
Whether the UN panel will give Israel its first fair hearing at the UN for some considerable time remains to be seen.
Perhaps the UN might also want to consider Turkey’s role in aiding and abetting an organisation, the IHH, which may well be proscribed in the United States and which members of the Italian parliament are seeking to have proscribed in Europe.

Yes, it’s about time that Israel fought more pugnaciously to restore its reputation in the UN and find a platform to expose the hypocrisy of its enemies and critics.

Israel has already admitted operational errors. That doesn’t excuse those who would commit murder because they oppose an ideology. The would-be murderers were those killed who were intent on killing Jews/Zionists/Israelis – it was all the same to them.

Let’s see what the UN comes up with this time.

Update: Anne Bayevsky clearly does not agree with me and her opinion is too valuable to be ignored, so, for balance, here is a link. http://opinion.foxnews.mobi/quickPage.html?page=23976&external=394248.proteus.fma&pageNum=-1

Cameron: A turkey on Turkey, ga-ga on Gaza

British Prime Minister, David Cameron, has completely lost it. He is campaigning for Turkey’s entry into the European Union and thus for placing a growing Islamist country, that has strong ties with the enemies of the West, at the heart of Europe.

All this might have been acceptable in the past when Turkey was recognised as a secular Muslim country sitting between the West and the Islamic world, a democracy with a mixed Western and Eastern culture and an honest broker between the West and Islam.

But Cameron seems to have overlooked completely Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his Islamist program.

At the same time that he shows little understanding of the threat posed to Europe by the regime of Erdogan, he attacks in an unwarranted, ill-informed and just plain ignorant way the EU’s only real friend in the Middle East, and its only democracy, Israel, by declaring Gaza to be a ‘Prison Camp’.

His speech in Turkey mirrored President Obama’s in Cairo with its cringing agenda of appeasement instead of confronting Turkey with the manifold reasons as to not only why it should currently be shunned by the EU but also suspended from NATO, as I wrote earlier this year after the Turkish flotilla incident.

As the BBC reports:

Mr Cameron said he wanted to “pave the road” for Turkey to join the EU.

Maybe this road should be called the Islamic fundamentalist highway.

“When I think about what Turkey has done to defend Europe as a Nato ally, and what Turkey is doing today in Afghanistan, alongside our European allies, it makes me angry that your progress towards EU membership can be frustrated in the way it has been.

Yes, the old Turkey, the secular Muslim state with democratic values, not THIS Turkey.

“So we need Turkey’s help now in making it clear to Iran just how serious we are about engaging fully with the international community,”

Cameron recognises that Erdogan has the ear of Iran’s president Ahmadinejad, but for what purpose?

What has happened to the secular, democratic, Muslim state created by Kemal Attaturk and so lauded for decades as a blueprint of what a modern Islamic nation should look like, (despite many issues of human rights)?

A telling analysis by Andre Mozes reveals:

Before entering Turkish national politics, Erdogan served as Istanbul’s mayor. In this colorful city… one learns to speak the languages of all; of moderate Muslims, of cosmopolitan and of Islamist Turks alike.  Erdogan learned them well, but in his deeds he always belonged to the third group.  In earlier Turkish elections fundamentalist Islamic parties were banned, according to the secular laws and tradition of Turkey, preserved successfully since Ataturk turned Turkey from a backward Muslim monarchy, into a progressive secular modern nation.

In the elections of 2002, however, Erdogan’s Islamic party succeeded in changing its appearance – including by its beautiful name: Justice and Development Party (AKP) –  sufficiently to circumvent the ban. They won a convincing election victory, primarily in the less developed rural regions, where most votes were controlled by the local imams.  The army – the traditional watchdog of Ataturk’s legacy – decided, after difficult arguments only, not to veto the election results, and so Recep Erdogan came to power.

Mr Cameron appears blissfully unaware of this history; the erosion of Attaturk’s values by craft and deceit.

While praising Turkey’s secular and democratic traditions, Mr Cameron stressed that Turkey must continue to push forward “aggressively” with economic and political reform to maintain momentum towards EU membership.

The only thing that Erdogan is aggressively pursuing is an alliance with radical left-wing regimes (Chavez in Venezuela), Islamists (Ahmadinejad in Iran) and dictators (Assad in Syria).

As the Guardian* reported in October last year with the headline “‘Iran is our friend’, says Turkish PM Recep Tayyip Erdogan”:

Erdogan’s partiality towards Ahmadinejad may surprise some in the west who see Turkey as a western-oriented democracy firmly grounded inside Nato. It has been a member of the alliance since 1952. It will be less surprising to Erdogan’s secular domestic critics, who believe the prime minister’s heart lies in the east and have long suspected his Islamist-rooted Justice and Development party (AKP) government of plotting to transform Turkey into a religious state resembling Iran.

Erdogan vigorously denies the latter charge, but to his critics he and Ahmadinejad are birds of a feather: devout religious conservatives from humble backgrounds who court popular support by talking the language of the street.

But all this came to a head in May with the infamous Freedom Flotilla incident in which the Israeli navy intercepted a flotilla attempting to break the blockade of the Gaza Strip, and, when boarding the lead ship, ‘Mavi Marmara’, were attacked. In the ensuing melee 9 ‘activists’ were killed. An outraged Erdogan condemned Israel, demanded an apology, threatened to break relations, demanded a UN enquiry and made huge political capital of the incident.

This led to Erdogan’s being lionised across the Islamic world; Israel’ s best friend in the Near East, and the only Muslim country which had good relations with Israel, was distancing itself from the Zionists. The dictators and the terror groups were jubilant. Erdogan’s star was in the ascendant in the Muslim world. He appeared to be bidding for leadership of that same world. But some believed he was over-reaching. Had he revealed his Islamist hand too soon?

It was only a little later that the facts came to light about the nature of the IHH, which organised the Freedom Flotilla, a humanitarian organisation with links to terror, including Al Qaeda.

A decidedly anti-Western and virulently anti-Israeli group took over the Mavi Marmara and announced that their aim was to reach Gaza or to die as martyrs. They then meticulously prepared a  reception for the Israeli commandos who rappelled on to the ship’s decks to be met by lethal force. Subsequent Israeli investigations have revealed that all but one of the fatalities had ‘form’ which linked them to Hamas and Islamic terror groups. The IHH is an organisation formerly recognised and supported by the Turkish government. This links Erdogan’s regime indirectly to anti-Western, and that includes anti-European groups. But nice Mr Cameron doesn’t see that. All he can muster is, and I repeat:

Turkey must continue to push forward “aggressively” with economic and political reform

Mr Cameron has thus joined the legions of the politically blind. Blind to the fundamentalist threat which he responds to with:

“Those who wilfully misunderstand Islam, they see no difference between real Islam and the distorted version of the extremists. They think the problem is Islam itself. And they think the values of Islam can just never be compatible with the values of other religions, societies or cultures.”

But it is Erdogan who is cavorting with these extremists and who is leading his country down the same path.

The Italians certainly know what the IHH is all about as MP Fiamma Nirenstein is seeking to outlaw the group in the very EU that Mr Cameron wants Turkey to join:

Dear friends,

I just presented a parliamentary question to the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs requiring to evaluate the possibility to insert the Turkish organization IHH (“Insani Yardim Vafki”), one of the main promoters of the Mavi Marmara and responsible for its violent implications, in the list of terrorist organizations of the European Union.

Several investigations and reports testify the involvement of IHH in global terrorism and many videos and documents attest its jihadist attitude finalized at “martyrdom in the name of Allah”. Because of its connection to Hamas and the “Union of Good” (an Islamic umbrella organization affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood that was put in the US’ terror list in 2008), Germany has recently banned IHH and in the USA, a bipartisan group of Senators appealed to President Obama with a request to enter the IHH in the US’ list of terrorist organizations.

You can read below the entire interrogation.

And here’s the link http://fiammanirenstein.com/articoli.asp?Categoria=5&Id=2412

Is this the group we want a member country of the EU to be supporting, Mr Cameron?

But it is on the situation in Gaza that Cameron was at his egregious worst.

“Humanitarian goods and people must flow in both directions. Gaza can not and must not be allowed to remain a prison camp,” he said.

As Stephen Pollard of the Jewish Chronicle amusingly points out:

What exactly are the humanitarian goods that will flow from Gaza to Israel and Egypt?

Will Cameron lobby President Mubarak of Egypt to open the Rafah crossing?

What humanitarian aid is NOT getting into Gaza?

All humanitarian aid has always been allowed through into Gaza; only the Egyptians have actually blocked aid both from Viva Palestina and, more recently, Jordan.

And Gaza doesn’t need humanitarian aid any more. The shops are full. What it needs is rebuilding and jobs. But what is holding it back is the Islamist, anti-Semitic, Hamas regime which Erdogan actually supports. On the 6th April this year Mr Erdogan declared that Hamas is not a terrorist group. Mr Cameron should remember that the EU has designated Hamas a terrorist organisation. So why does Mr Cameron want to support a country which condones terror?

The Jerusalem Post reported Erdogan as saying:

“I do not think that Hamas is a terrorist organization. … They are Palestinians in resistance, fighting for their own land.”

And that ‘land’ is, of course Israel which Hamas wants to call Palestine, from the river to the sea.

Is this Mr Cameron’s idea of the type of leader Europe, and particularly Mr Cameron, should be embracing?

In his address Friday, he said the Ten Commandments should have deterred the soldiers from killing the nine passengers who died on board the ship. “If you do not understand it in Turkish I will say it in English: You shall not kill,” he reportedly said – repeating the phrase in Hebrew.

But Mr Erdogan’s forces kill Kurds almost daily in their fight for their own independent state. On June 20th 2010 the BBC reported :

Turkey has vowed to fight Kurdish rebels until they are “annihilated”, after attacks killed 11 soldiers.

PM Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Saturday’s “cowardly” assaults would not end Turkey’s determination to fight the Kurdish Workers’ Party (PKK) “to the end”.

Is this the sort of hypocrite that Mr Cameron wants to fast-track into Europe? Imagine if Israel said this about Hamas.

Cameron seems to be stuck with the idea that Erdogan is an important link between Europe and the Islamic world, so he conveniently glosses over the Kurds, Northern Cyprus – which Turkey has occupied and populated with its nationals against International Law since 1974; he conveniently glides effortlessly over Erdogan’s support for Hamas and, therefore, implicitly, the destruction of Israel.

Is this the Turkey which, as Mr Cameron says, is “vital for our economy, vital for our security and vital for our diplomacy”?

Mr Cameron’s characterisation of Gaza as a prison-camp uses the overblown rhetoric of Israel’s enemies not because Cameron believes it, but because it is politic and ‘even-handed’ just to throw it in there as a sop to his audience. He also forgets that the only real prisoner in Gaza is kidnapped soldier, Gilad Shalit, who has been in captivity, without access to the Red Cross, for four years, contrary to the Geneva Convention and the laws of conflict.

He is therefore willing to lie and twist the truth for diplomatic reasons. He really believes that risking an Islamist state in Europe, as well as NATO, is good for the UK’s, the EU’s and the West’s security. He really believes that giving Israel a good kicking will, Obama-like, make the Islamic countries see him as fair and rush towards his outstretched hand?

They must be be rolling about in uncontrollable glee and laughter.

How is it that Conservative Cameron has caught the Obama appeasement bug without realising it. Too much kissy-kissy in the White House, perhaps.

Like the previous government, Cameron is strong on diplomacy and weak on statesmanship; like those who have gone before him he is prepared to be Abraham to Israel’s Isaac and hope that someone shows up with a ram before he has to do the dirty deed.

And what of the euro-sceptics in the Conservative Party? Indeed, what of Cameron’s own scepticism on Europe? The same David Cameron who wants a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Why should his party europhobes agree to an expansion of the EU they wish to dismantle?

Or is this Con-Dem Frankenstein’s monster of a government just lurching about calling out “Friend, friend” in the desperate hope it can find one, even if he’s an Islamist in a sharp suit with an even sharper knife tucked behind his back?

*http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/26/turkey-iran1

« Older posts Newer posts »