Cloudy with a Chance of Missiles

John Kerry, who literally lives in cloud cuckoo land, has urged a "reality check" from Israelis and Palestinians.  This come from the person who has been obsessed with the only sliver of land in the Middle East that is not currently on fire as the rest of the region burns.  I am sure he does not even realize that now, like every time there has been a so-called "peace process," we will have to deal with the fallout and frustration of failed expectations.

Personally, I am really looking forward to the day when John Kerry is just a historical footnote.

Judenrein Palestine Colony Hotel

On Wednesday I spent most of the day in East Jerusalem checking out hotels and restaurants in and around Salah e-din (Saladin) street and searching for a shop that sells Al-Wazah (Swan Brand), my favorite tea.  It has been over 20 years since I was last there and it was nice to see all the changes and to remember the places that I visited so long ago.

For the most part, the area has not really changed or developed a great deal.  Sure, the shops have received a facelift, the restaurants offered pizza and hamburgers as much as they did shawarma and falafel, and there was even a hip-looking youth center just off the main drag.  Though I visited at least ten shops and found some people who favorably remembered drinking Al Wazah, unfortunately I had no luck finding anyone who stocked the tea.  In the end I had to settle on A Rabea, a bland but inoffensive Saudi blend that goes well with nana (spearmint).  Considering that Al Wazah was originally marketed primarily in the West Bank, it was a bit of a disappointment to end up empty handed.

Most of the day I walked around and checked out the hotels in the area to see if any of them might be worth a stay.  I saw every type of accommodation from the Metropole, a hotel that would not feel out of place in India, to the swank St. George Hotel with its beautiful rooftop view of the Old City. Each hotel had something distinctive about it, but I admit that what stuck in my mind was the complete lack of security at the entrance to these hotels.  Whereas Israeli hotels are always high security zones with guards and metal detectors, all of the hotels I visited were freely accessible to anyone off the street. Clear proof, I would say, that only one side in this conflict lives in perpetual fear of losing life and limb.

The last hotel I visited was the American Colony Hotel, of the exclusive "Landmark Hotels of the World" chain.  A remnant of the 19th century evangelical American mission to the Holy Land, the hotel exuded old-world comfort and oriental charm.  Long the leading destination for diplomats, journalists, and UN officials arriving because of the perennial Arab-Israeli conflict, it is strategically located in posh part of Wadi Joz.  Until 2001, it was situated just around the corner from Orient House, which served as the de facto Palestinian seat of government in the 1980s and 1990s.

Perhaps precisely because Orient House was shuttered in 2001 (at the height of the Second Intifada), the American Colony Hotel today serves as an unofficial meeting place to court members of the Palestinian National Authority. Considered one of, if not the most beautiful hotel in Israel, it is beautifully apportioned, with nods to local artisanship.  The lobby is comfortable with inlaid coffee tables decorated with seashells and olive wood over worn marble and limestone tiled floors covered with large Persian carpets in the locally popular hues of red and black. The inner courtyard is lush and contains a diverse collection of succulents that keep the place green all year round. Indeed, everything from the exterior to the deluxe "Pasha" rooms exudes a tasteful, yet faux Orientalism that transports you to the halcyon age of benevolent Empire.

Yet, a closer inspection quickly reveals that the hotel is squarely situated in the present day and age and even doubles as the unofficial Palestinian Propaganda Center for the jet-set and well connected on Facebook crowd.  Already in the lobby, one is greeted with free maps of "Palestine" that focus on Jerusalem and just happen to cover what would otherwise be known as Israel (including the slightly nefarious sounding "Israeli built-up areas").  Next to these maps is a glossy weekly called, "This Week in Palestine" that includes articles such as, "Jerusalem 1948-1967: La Dolce Vita" (i.e. before the Jews ruined the neighborhood and the "fall of Palestine") and "Omar: An Authentic Palestinian Movie" (funded by Europeans and filmed entirely in the Israeli "built-up area" of Nazareth").  Of all the articles, perhaps my favorite were, "Palestinian Hip-Hop" and, "This is Palestine: Building a Positive National Brand through Art and Design."

Unfortunately, a quick visit to the hotel's bookstore reveals that a positive approach does not always characterize the branding efforts of Palestine's supporters.  Displayed prominently on the shelves are the pseudo-histories and diatribes of anti-Zionists such as Shlomo Sand (The Invention of the Jewish People) and Ilan Pappe (The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine) and Ari Shavit's recent first-person, best-selling critique of Israeli statehood (My Promised Land).  Next to these lies Bradt's Guidebook to Palestine, the only existing guidebook to a non-existent place, which (not surprisingly) smudges the margins and extends Palestinian sovereignty to the, "culturally Palestinian (Israeli Arab) enclaves found within Israel."

So, what's the big deal?  Well, I think that, by wholeheartedly embracing the Palestinian perspective and publicly identifying itself as representative of "Palestine," the American Colony Hotel is presenting its guests with a false image of what Palestinian independence might look like "if only given a chance." However, at the end of the day, there is a reason that the hotel runs with such Swiss efficiency and that is because it is actually owned a run by a Swiss company.  While guests of the hotel are presented glossy and photoshopped images of Palestine, back in the real world, there is no doubt that hip hop, "positive" art, and the "Dolce Vita" will all go the way of Syria, Libya, Egypt, and Bahrain as the radicals groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad usher in Taliban rule and destroy their domestic opponents with their well-honed terror tactics.

In fact, the only thing about the American Colony Hotel that is true to what a future independent Palestine might look like is that it is functionally Judenrein, with almost no Jewish guests and only one Jewish staff member.

Canary in the Coal Mine

Israel has often been called the canary in the coal mine - what happens in Israel tends to repeat itself elsewhere, usually sooner rather than later. Ironically, this is no where more true than in the Muslim world. The terrorism that was first tested out on Israeli children is now de rigeur in Baghdad. Suicide bombings - which were unheard of twenty years ago, are now common from Mauritania to Pakistan. The fighting skills that Hamas perfected against Israel was used to throw their brothers off of rooftops and to undemocratically maintain power in Gaza.

Moreover, while countless articles have been written about how the conflict has been bad for Israel, it seems to me the Arabs have fared much worse. Israel remains a vibrant democracy with an enviable economy and a strong legal system. Palestinian society is in shambles. When they remember the Nakba, they do not have to hearken back 60 years, but rather can just look around them. Sure, they blame Israel, but it is they - and not Israel - that has to endure daily suffering at the hands of their own brothers.

The Palestinians - who were once led by the secular PLO and famously included many Christians, has now been replaced by Hamas - which is rapidly weeding out Fatah along with the minuscule Christian community in Gaza. While Israel is roundly attacked for "human rights abuses" Hamas in Gaza has perfected its societal oppression and waiting for the chance to spread it to the West Bank and all of Israel. If it works in Israel, you can be sure this will impact Jordan Egypt and Lebanon.

Though I am opposed to the way Kossovars declared independence, I commend them for instinctively realizing this. Michael Totten, who usually reports from Lebanon is presently doing a series on the Balkans. Recently (April 30), he wrote:

Kosovo is the world’s newest country, and its unilateral declaration of independence is more controversial than the existence of Israel. It should be only slightly surprising, then, that many Kosovars, though most are Muslims, identify to an large extent with the Israelis. “Kosovars used to identify with the Palestinians because we Albanians are Muslims and Christians and we saw Serbia and Israel both as usurpers of land,” a prominent Kosovar recent told journalist Stephen Schwartz. “Then we looked at a map and woke up. Israelis have a population of six million, their backs to the sea, and 300 million Arab enemies. Albanians have a total population of eight million, our backs to the sea, and 200 million Slav enemies. So why should we identify with the Arabs?”

So, while columnists the world over are busy eulogizing Israel on the 60th anniversary of its founding, they may want to consider also asking about the odds of the Palestinians surviving as one people for another 60 years. Or will the fault lines of Fatah and Hamas, Christian and Muslim, Secular and Religious, and Refugee and those living in the territories, West Bank and Gaza, and Israeli Arab and non-citizen Arabs prove too much? The same could be said for most of the repressive Middle East states, where tribe, religion, ethnicity and politics are all regularly suppressed by the totalitarian regimes that rule the region.

Sure, Israel has its societal divides as well, but they are out in the open and are regularly discussed. As New York Times columnist Freedman noted in his book The World is Flat, the difference between India and Pakistan is that in India, when a poor boy looks up the hill and sees a mansion, he says "One day I will grow up and be that man." When a Pakistani boy looks up, he says, "One day I am going to kill that man." The only discussions that occur at present in Palestinian society and Muslim society as a whole, occur at the end of a rifle.

I doubt I will be around in 60 years and don't really know if Israel will be around in 60 years, but am pretty sure that Muslim dictators and the Palestinians should be the most worried right about now.

Being Conned

Barry Rubin offers some important insights on how things look and how they play out in reality. He interestingly suggests that the lens through which much of Middle East posturing can be understood is that of the con man. Compare this to what I wrote about Roger Cohen below:

In a con-game, a malefactor gains the mark's confidence in order to rob him. Classic examples include selling swampland as vacation homes or the internet scam of posing as a distressed African official who promises rich rewards in return for a loan.

The victim is fooled by the promise of big gains if he only trusts his partner and gives up his own assets. Contrary to folklore, the best way to cheat someone is not to offer them something for nothing - that's too obvious - but to pledge something dreamy tomorrow in exchange for getting something very real right now.

THE PATTERN goes like this:

Step One. They say: We have been your victims so you must make up for it. Our violence has been due to our grievances. You must deal with the root causes of problems. In short, you owe us big time. Pay up to show you have changed your ways.

A common Western response: Following our usual style of self-criticism and trying to do better, we acknowledge fault and do nice things to build credibility with you. Then you will like us better, trust us more, and make a deal.

Proper analysis: Such behavior not only convinces the Middle East side that the West is weak, scared, and surrendering but it is also taken as an acknowledgment of guilt. Grievance and outrage, in this context, are bottomless pits. Playing this game establishes a terrible relationship along the lines of˜probably the worst thing Shimon Peres ever said - our task is to give, their job is to take. This pattern never gets broken.

Correct response: If you have grievances, have suffered, and root causes must be resolved then it is in your interest to make and implement an equitable, workable deal. You are not doing us a favor by making peace, stopping terrorism, or being moderate. It is in your interest and you must show credibility, too. If it is true that you are so terribly suffering, then you are the ones with an incentive to compromise.
Things are the exact opposite of what you say.

Step Two. The con-game's siren call goes this way: If you only take risks and build confidence through concessions you will gain great rewards.

A common Western response: What do we have to lose? Since we don't remember what happened last time this will probably work. We can alleviate suffering, prove we want peace, there's no harm in talking. We can be the great heroes who brings peace, and so on.

Proper analysis: I do remember what happened the last half-dozen times I fell for this trick. In addition, a careful examination of your ideology, regime interests,
statements to your own people, media incitement, and power structure show me
what to expect: little or nothing.

Correct response: If you won't acknowledge all the times I took risks before and they came back to bite me (Oslo agreement, withdrawal from south Lebanon, withdrawal from the Gaza Strip) and you didn't keep your commitments (or act the way I expected) why should things be any different now? I've proven good faith now it is your turn.

Bad News

I wanted to bring everyone's attention to a new blog in the hopes that they will pass on this information to their friends. The blog is called "Bad News from the Netherlands" and is part of a campaign to present only bad news from different places in the world.

This blog and nascent movement is the brainchild of Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Dr. Gerstenfeld, who is himself originally from Holland, created this site to highlight how the media can negatively brand a country with selective reporting.

"This blog states up front that it provides only negative facts. It shows that by using real news stories without context, one can make any country look bad."

To check out the site: http://badnewsfromthenetherlands.blogspot.com/

The Pravda Moment - Lifting the Veil of Objectivity

For several days now I have been meaning to blog about the recent decision by the British National Union of Broadcast Journalists that voted 66 to 54 to boycott Israeli products. Since this makes Israel the only country in the world that is being boycotted, it has been getting a lot of press, almost all of it bad.

While some prominent British journalists have publicly renounced their membership in the union, the Foreign Press Association in Israel has officially slammed the decision as, "counter to core journalistic values." Some have angrily called on Israel to respect the boycott by imposing one of their own on British journalists who want access to the story.

Most of those commenting on this episode have marvelled that the motion condemns Israel for the "savage, pre-planned attack on Lebanon" and calls for the end of Israeli "aggression in Gaza and other occupied territories". Aside from clearly being tendentious, it seems to willfully overlook the fact that Israel is was provoked by the kidnapping of its soldiers in the case of Lebanon and has been out of Gaza since 2005.

Others have questioned the timing of this decision, especially considering the fact that BBC reporter Alan Johnston has been held captive in Gaza for over 40 days and the motion does not even refer to his abduction. And this only days after the unsubstantiated report that he was beheaded by his captors!

In fact, the motion not only fails to mention Johnston's ordeal but refrains from censuring the Palestinians in any way. Perhaps this is for the best since it was the Palestinian government of Haniyeh and Abbas that were quick to announce that Johnston was safe and sound, quelling the rumors of his death.

For now, no one seems to want to ask the difficult question of how or why the government knows anything about Johnston's status and why they do not put an end to his captivity if they have access to his captors. Perhaps it is in bad taste to bring up such details when the Palestinians have undertaken such "concerted efforts" to have him released.

In any case, and in what must certainly constitute a first, even the hardly fair and mostly imbalanced Guardian felt obliged this week to publish a critical op-ed leader opposing the NUBJ decision. The author of the piece was perspicacious enough to note that the problem with the motion was that it oozes exceptionalism and has, "troubling editorial aspects" since it strays, "beyond the reasonable and traditional concerns of a journalists' union."

Yet a closer read of this article reveals that the Guardian's sudden change of heart has much more to do with the understanding that such a provocative act is counterproductive because it removes what may be termed the "veil of objectivity". Referring to journalists who cover the Arab-Israeli conflict, the article notes:

"It is doubtful that many of them will have welcomed a motion which will inevitably be seen by some as casting doubts on whether they can truly approach their work in a spirit of fairness and disinterested inquiry."

In other words, if it becomes clear that those who are reporting the news are really members of a bigoted, callous and editorializing organization that passes one-sided anti-Israel motions on the eve of Holocaust Remembrance Day, then they will lose their ability to influence public opinion with the air of authority and pretense of neutrality.

This reminds me of a conversation I once had with an Armenian Jew who had recently arrived in Tel Aviv from Baku. After our conversation began touching on world politics, I teased him by saying that it would be difficult to have an intelligent conversation with someone who grew up brainwashed by the Communist propaganda of Pravda and Izvestiya.

Unfazed by my harsh words, he proceeded to tell me that the difference he noticed between former Soviet citizens and all the Westerners he had met since emigrating was that, growing up in Azerbaijan, everyone knew without a doubt that the media was lying. This forced them to seek out other sources of information and led them to develop their own critical judgment on world affairs. Westerners, on the other hand, had an abiding belief in a "free press" and uncritically swallowed pretty much everything that they were told.

"In Beeb we Trust"

The BBC is apparently so worried that a report on it's coverage of the Middle East conflict will be made public, that it has reportedly spent between ₤200,000 and ₤300,000 on legal fees to prevent it's release! The Balen Report, which was commissioned by the BBC in 2004 and written by a senior BBC editorial advisor (!) allegedly demonstrates that the BBC's coverage in recent years has been anti-Israeli.

BBC bosses have faced repeated claims that is coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict has been skewed by a pro-Palestinian bias.

The corporation famously came under fire after middle-east correspondent Barbara Plett revealed that she had cried at the death of Yasser Arafat in 2004.

If the BBC were not publicly funded and did not claim to be unbiased and independent, then it would not matter, but the fact remains that the BBC claims that it is impartial and therefore it's impact is greater than it would be otherwise. As the Beeb's own website states: "Trust is the foundation of the BBC: we are independent, impartial and honest".

While I find it interesting (and slightly Orwellian) that a news agency would value "trust" above "truth", this is consistent with Gramsci's brilliant analysis of how groups dominate in society without the need to resort to the threat of force. He called this "hegemony" and argued that it, "describes the process whereby ideas, structures, and actions come to be seen by the majority of people as wholly natural, preordained, and working for their own good, when in fact they are constructed and transmitted by powerful minority interests to protect the status quo that serves those interests." Basically, it "controls the way new ideas are rejected or become naturalized in a process that subtly alters notions of common sense in a given society." [My Italics]

A prerequisite for hegemony to have an impact on society is trust. Without trust, people reject what they are being told, seek other sources of information and threaten the status quo. While Gramsci's critique was directed against the Italian Fascists that had imprisoned him, he would have had a field day with the BBC, a "quasi-autonomous public corporation" owned by the British government, run by a board appointed by the Queen (on the advice of the government) and paid for by taxes (license fees) collected from the public.

To understand how hegemony works in practice, one need only compare the BBC to such documentary films as Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine or Fahrenheit 9/11. Most people are media savvy enough to realise that even though they are watching a documentary, it is being edited to present a particular viewpoint. This does not mean to suggest that Moore fabricated any of the footage in these films, rather that both the juxtaposition of images and what he chose NOT to present is as important as what he does present to the viewer. Most people realize this because they know they are watching a "movie" and not witnessing real life.

In the case of the BBC, people are much more likely to suspend their disbelief, because news footage is often so raw. If you add in the element of trust, then people begin to confuse what they are seeing on their TVs as "reality". If the only footage of Africa that people see is one of famine, poverty and war and the only Middle East coverage always centers on Israel and never about the serious social problems of the other states of the region, then it is not surprising if one's attitude towards Africa is one of pity and dismay while Israel is perceived as the biggest threat to peace in the world. That the media could have such a profound effect was succinctly explained by Marshall McLuhan as the phenomenon commonly known as "The medium is the message." As McLuhan pointed out, crime reporting does not necessarily change the amount of crime, but it does change our attitude toward crime and even contribute to a culture of fear (a point well made in Bowling for Columbine.)

I think that there is another reason why the BBC pundits chose "trust" over "truth". It reflects a post-modern sensibility that eschews "simplistic" notions such as "truth" for the supposed "nuance" of relativism. The problem with this is that it is really a disarming technique that causes the reader to "trust" the reportage. What this supposedly nuanced approach accomplished is the illusion of balance. After all, how can the BBC be accused of "taking sides" if it does not believe that there really are "sides"?

Interestingly, in all my years of writing complaints to the BBC about their skewed and partial coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict, I have only received one e-mail in response. When I complained that an IRA "militant" was termed a "terrorist" and a PLO "terrorist" a "militant", I was told that this was not accidental. In fact, I was informed that the official BBC policy was that only members of the IRA were considered terrorists while everyone else were "just" militants! While this exchange pre-dated September 11, it certainly does not appear that the events of that tragic day have changed much at the Beeb. It also shows that there are more sides to the BBC than appear at first glance.

The Basis for Hope

In his most recent dispatch, "A Country Called Hope", Daniel Gordis reflects on Last Summer's war with Hizballah, the sense in Israel that the country is rudderless at present while another war is brewing for the not too distant future. Gordis correctly recognizes the malaise as greater than a simple reaction to Israel's poor performance in the war or the loss of faith in the country's leaders and public institutions. I think he is correct in saying that the root of this unease stems from a loss of faith in Zionism - the country's stated raison d'etre. As he notes:

I was speaking with an Israeli Army general the other day and our conversation turned to the recent government scandals.

“How do you explain this country?” the general asked me. “In any normal country, people would be in the streets, burning tires, protesting by the thousands. But here, nothing happens. People are going on as if there’s nothing to get worked up about.”

Maybe, I said, but I look at it differently. Burning tires would suggest that a change in the government would be enough. But that would be delusional. The reason Israelis aren’t protesting, I think, is that they understand this problem is much deeper than the government or the corruption. It’s Zionism. No one frames it that way, but that’s the real issue. One hundred and ten years after the First Zionist Congress, people are beginning to wonder if Zionism hasn’t begun to fail.

As he rightly points out, this is not meant to imply that Israel as a State has been a failure. If anything, the State has prospered and has proven itself viable in more ways than one. To take only the Israeli economy as an example, Israel's GDP is greater than that of it's neighbors combined and the standard of living that it's citizens enjoy is unmatched by its neighbors. In fact, the economic opportunities are such that over 100,000 Palestinians have made their way into Israel since 1994 either through marriage or illegal immigration (If you don't believe me, check it out). Rather:

But Israel is not doing for the Jews what the original Zionists had hoped for. And that’s what accounts for the national funk.

A century ago, the early Zionist ideologues promised that if a Jewish state were created, there would finally be one place on earth where Jews would be safe. It might not be big, it might not be beautiful, but it would be safe. In Israel, it was said, Jews would be able to defend themselves. In Israel, it was said, they would be spared the capriciousness of the world.

While I do not disagree with Gordis that this was the goal of early Zionists and of Herzl in particular, I think it is long past due for Israelis and Jews to question the assumptions under which these hopes were formulated. Zionism developed as a political philosophy in Europe during the rise of the European nation states and is a product of that historical cauldron. The majority of Europe's Jews were living in close proximity with neighbors who strived for their own imagined states. In Europe of the 1880s there was no Poland or Hungary, no Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania nor Serbia, Slovakia or many other of the nations we presently take for granted.

To be fair, the modern world has not been terribly kind to tribal peoples - whether Gypsies in Europe or Native Americans in the New World. The Jewish people have long seen themselves as a "Tribe" and combined with a sense of chosenness, there is perhaps nothing that has infuriated our detractors more than this fact. The creation of a modern nation-state, was supposed to resolve this "problem" by leading the Jews into modernity and acceptance. Once the Jews had their own country, the Jews living in the diaspora would finally have a country of their own that would be responsible for them. Zionist Jews believed that if they could get the world community to agree to let the Jews have a state of their own, the Jews could finally be masters of their own fate and become "normal" in the eyes of their neighbors. As Herzl stated, "The resolution of the Jewish difficulty is the recognition of Jews as a people and the finding by them of a legally recognized home to which Jews in those parts of the world in which they are oppressed would naturally migrate". Zionism was conceived as the antidote to European Anti-Semitism.

With the birth of the State of Israel, Jews did finally have a say in the making of laws and governance that affected them and others. Yet the notion that this would spare the Jews from, "the capriciousness of the world" was unrealistic and I suspect that stems from a millenial mindset that confused the beginning with the end. I am not suggesting, as some have, that Zionism was a messianic movement - rather that the founding of the State of Israel following the horrors of the Holocaust, Israel's unexpected military victory in the '48 War after 2000 years of exile and oppresion seemed so unexpected and unreal - that the Jewish people can be excused for confusing this with the "birth pangs" of the Messianic age.

Actually, I think that the early Zionists knew that to truly be a master of your own destiny, you had to be able to grapple with capriciousness. Unfortunately, they failed to pass this knowledge onto their children. Instead they sold them false hopes of an imagined time when there would be no more need to struggle and suffer or of a time in the future when the Jewish "problem" would be resolved. It is hardly a wonder that so many Israelis have sought out normalcy elsewhere - moving to the United States, Australia and Europe when the capriciousness proved to be too much for them.

Unfortunately, the "capriciousness of the world" does not spare anyone and normalcy has always been an ephemera. The root of the problem actually lies in an approach that treats the Jewish people as a "problem" that needs to be resolved. The founding of the State of Israel should not be in order to solve some "problem", but rather because of Jewish self-determination and a historic right to a homeland - to their own homeland. If you make the raison d'etre of the Jewish state contingent on the resolution of a problem, then you get what we have today - either despair that the problem has not been "solved" or emigration to countries where Anti-Semitism is not tolerated and Jewish safety is no longer seen as a problem.

At a time when the State of Israel has been singled out among the nations and publicly villified to the point that the right of the State to exist is constantly being called into question, it is time that we reject the Zionist approach that seeks to solve the "Jewish Question". We should stop worrying about what our patrons might think and we should definitely not expect guarantees, approval or legitimacy from the international community. As long as we think of this as a "problem", we delude ourselves into thinking that if only we did this differently or conceded that point we would finally have the "solution". Let us publicly reject an approach that makes Jews a problem that needs to be "solved" and instead demand what are our natural rights as human beings.

To insist on Jewish rights implies that we are clear-headed and have the knowledge and conviction to demand sovereignty in our historic homeland with neither guilt nor hand-wringing. This is precisely what most of the world's nation states have done and no one questions their right to exist. Our enemies do not doubt that they have rights and are willing to unapologetically fight for these rights. It is time we abandoned the naive dreams of a bygone era, truly accept that we also have inherent rights while demonstrating our willingness to vigorously claim those rights. Frankly, this is the only basis for hope.

The Holocaust-Israel Non-Link

The recent "Review of the Holocaust" conference held in Iran (12/11/06) was a shameful attempt at holocaust denial that is symbolic of the growing union of Islam and fascism. To their credit, even the Iranian leadership realized that this conference and the loonies that it attracted hurt their cause and made them look like unreasonable and unlettered fools. It was at this point that they adopted the insidious "fallback" position that they were not actually questioning the existence of the Holocaust, but rather pointing out the use of the Holocaust to justify the establishment of the State of Israel. Perhaps because this was the position presented by the anti-Israel and ultra-Orthodox Jews who shamefully attended the conference, the Iranian hosts hoped that this would provide them with a stamp of authenticity.

The reality is that the establishment of a Jewish homeland in the area of the British Mandate was agreed upon in 1922 by the international community through the League of Nations. That this was 17 years before World War II started and was 23 years before the full extent of the Holocaust was known, demonstrates how chronologically challenged this contention is. Yet this does not address the underlying implication that in 1947, when the United Nations voted on Resolution 181 and the partition of Israel into a Jewish and Arab state, that the Jews were "given" a state because of European guilt regarding the Holocaust.

A recent translation by David Aisner of, “Hama’avak al Eretz-Yisrael” (“Struggle for Palestine”), by Shmuel Dotan (Published by Israel’s Ministry of Defense, 1973. 7th Edition 1988) uses primary source material to definitively prove that this linkage did not exist at the time that the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) made the recommendations that led to UN Resolution 181. Here is an excerpt from pp 370-1:

The UN decision [of November 29th 1947] provided international sanction to the idea of a Jewish state and aided in the complete victory of the Jewish people in that endeavor. The decision encouraged the Yishuv (Jewish settlement) to remain strong in the face of an impending war, and spared her from having to wage a long struggle with Britain. It was a victory of at least one, perhaps two elements of the Zionist information campaign to influence the UN – “need” and “ability”.

Proponents of partition generally believed that it was within their power to prevent a bloodbath in Palestine and save the small developed Jewish Yishuv from the hands of an underdeveloped and hostile Arab majority. They were convinced that the small Jewish state would provide a haven for a few hundred thousand displaced Jews, thereby solving the “Jewish problem”. The Jewish demand for recognition of Jewish historical rights to Palestine was not authorized in the decision; the results of this refusal on the part of the UN will surface in future UN-Israel relations, especially after 1967. The UN also refused to adopt the Zionist claim that there is a permanent link between the “Jewish problem” around the world and the Palestine question. To the contrary, it turns out that the Holocaust of European Jews had very little influence on the members of the UN, and was almost never mentioned during deliberations on the Palestine question, save for the representatives of the Soviet Union and Poland, whose primary motivation was their desire to distance Britain from Palestine.

Of course, the Holocaust provided an easier “climate” for the Zionist information campaign to try to influence the UN, but it did not succeed in influencing the considerations taken into account by UN statesmen. In the end, it was the Latin American block of the UN that was the overriding factor in securing the results of the UN vote of 1947. This UN block did not view itself responsible in anyway for the tragedy of Europe’s Jews. It seems then, that the extra emphasis found in literature regarding the supposed link between the Holocaust and the renewal of Jewish sovereignty in Palestine, is an attempt to create a myth and the results of that myth.

This attempt flows from the difficulties endured by the generation that witnessed the Holocaust, and that generation’s inability to examine this traumatic event in its entirety. This is especially the case when considering how that generation bore witness to the very weak condition of the Jewish people before and during the Holocaust and how difficult it was for that generation to then recognize that they now posses some measure of strength to be considered or reckoned with by other nations. Support for Zionist interests by the “world’s nations” after WWII has been naturally described, and with great exaggeration, as a type “compensation”. In truth, the Holocaust did not advance the Zionist cause, but rather it undermined one of its core philosophical arguments – its right to speak on behalf of Jewish millions who either wanted to or were being forced to leave their countries of origin due to anti-Semitism.

The Holocaust weakened the Jewish state which arose after termination of the British mandate and reinforced the Zionist decision to relinquish claims to a larger territory in order to save the Jewish people, since the vast majority of potential Jewish immigrants were murdered. The Jewish refugee question did not play a major role in the decision making process at the UN as thought by some researchers. The countries in which Jewish refugees were located and which sought to have them removed, were not members of the UN. The role of the United States in the UN vote has always been greatly exaggerated.

In 1947, the US had already been “entangled” in what was transpiring in Palestine and was subjected to internal political pressure from American Jewish groups influenced by the Yishuv’s struggle against the British. At the same time, a political vacuum formed in the international community due to a feeling of doubt as to whether or not the UN can actually resolve international issues of the day. Under these circumstances, UNSCOP took upon itself a far more decisive historic role than was intended with its inception. Among the considerations of whether or not to support UNSCOP’s recommendation, was the desire to stand behind a successful
international resolution that would strengthen the UN’s integrity.

UNSCOP recommended partition, which under the circumstances of 1947 was a pro-Zionist solution, because it evaluated that Britain was failing in its ability to govern the region and also because it considered the Yishuv ripe for independence and that it would be wrong to place it under the rule of a hostile and underdeveloped Arab majority. The collaboration between the Arab leadership and Nazi Germany during WWII was also considered in the decision and proved to impact the Arab interest negatively. But this consideration was related specifically to WWII, not the Holocaust. The fact that Yugoslavia did not support the pro-Zionist plan, even though Haj-Amin Al-Husseini tried to enlist the Muslim minority there at the time to assist the Nazis, shed light on how difficult it was to try and link WWII to the Palestine question after the war.

The Jewish refugee issue did influence the United States, but primarily between 1945-1946 during the first winter after the war. It also influenced the Anglo-American committee after its visit to the displaced persons camps. Even so, the refugee situation was prevented from being used as a reason to adopt a clear pro-Zionist position to the point of recommending the rise of a Jewish state. UNSCOP was influenced very little by the Jewish refugee situation.

In the mean time, the refugee situation underwent significant changes. Many of the refugees scattered or left the displace persons camps to illegally immigrate to Palestine. In 1947, generally speaking, the camps were populated with new displaced persons, most of which were “escapees” from Eastern Europe. These refugees were in better physical condition and more resilient than their predecessors. UNSCOP was influenced by the illegal immigration phenomenon. But it was justly viewed by the committee (UNSCOP) first and foremost as a revelation of the Jewish struggle for independence, not as a derivative of the Holocaust. A number of witnesses claimed to UNSCOP, and very convincingly so, that illegal immigration to Palestine would have been even stronger if not for WWII or the Holocaust, because in their opinion there was no doubt that the distressful condition of Europe’s Jews in the 1930s would have only worsened in the 1940s even had the attempt to genocide or WWII not occurred.

Under these circumstances, it would seem that the reservoir of candidates to attempt illegal immigration to Palestine would have been far greater in number and in strength than what it was after the war. More than that, in 1947 the Holocaust was far less needed by the Zionist information campaign to make its case to the UN, than just one or two years prior. Conciseness of the Holocaust among the Jewish people and worry expressed by the “nations of the world” over the fate of the Jewish state will only arise in the 1960s. Even the Zionist push for statehood did not “need” the Holocaust. In fact, the push for statehood was sufficiently strong in 1937 and even more solidified in 1941, in essence before the Holocaust even began.

Peace at all Costs?

So it took a little while for the actual outlines of this deceit to come through, but here is how the Palestinian spinmeisters have decided to try to get around thew incontrovertible fact that the Hamas government has not met the minimum requirements of the international community or the Quartet.

Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat noted that Abbas, not the Palestinian government, would lead negotiations with Israel. In asking Haniyeh to form a new government earlier this week, Abbas reiterated his commitment to all agreements signed with Israel, including the pact of mutual recognition, Erekat said.

"Since the negotiations ... are under the jurisdiction of the president and the PLO, it should be noted that the president reiterated the commitment to these principles," he said. (See here)

So, as I predicted here, Abbas would, "run cover for Hamas". Is there anyone who is fooled by this in any way. Hamas has reiterated that it will never recognize Israel's right to exist or cease from the murderous activities they call "resistance". And, just in case anyone doubted that Hamas was going soft, the recent homicide bombing in Eilat showed their commitment to this type of dialogue. Sure, the act was carried out by Islamic Jihad and the Fatah spin-off Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, yet it was denounced by Abbas and lauded by the Hamas government.

"So long as there is occupation, resistance is legitimate," said Fawzi Barhoum, a Hamas spokesman in Gaza.

In case you have not been following closely, the Eilat bombing happened in a local bakery during regular work hours - hardly a military target. Eilat has never been "occupied territory" and to be frank, it can hardly have ever been considered "Palestinian". Yet this is what falls under the category of "legitimate resistance" the kind which Hamas is loathe to abandon for the sake of peace.

The conventional wisdom was that if only Israel left the territories, then it would be possible to sit down with the Palestinians and reach an agreement. Finally, Israel said let's test this premise and leave part of the territories - the Gaza strip. The Palestinian response to this overture has been the election of Hamas, rocket attacks, weapons tunnels and incitement to violence. Worse, they have made it clear that they would not be satisfied with anything less than ALL of the territory that presently comprises Israel. If the Eilat attacks are not a definitive proof of this mindset, then I don't know what is.

If the world community accepts the new Palestinian coalition government without agreement to "honor" (and not just "respect") former agreements, without recognition of the right of the State of Israel to Exist and without any renunciation of terrorist violence, then those Israelis who have all along said that it was foolish to trust the International community were right. Though I personally hope these naysayers will be proven wrong, yet for some reason I am beginning to suspect that they won't.

Hug a Paestinian Today

In the Jerusalem Post article "Not With my Money", Lori Lowenthal Marcus points out the shocking fact that some of the money that American Jews contribute to the Jewish Agency for Israel actually ends up funding anti-Israel organizations.

The New Israel Fund is a non-profit organization which focuses on eliminating any special role for religion in either Israeli society or government. NIF grants reflect that orientation. One of the largest grants the NIF gave in the latest year for which information is available was to an organization it co-founded: the Mossawa Center.

An NIF document states that organization's belief that efforts should be expended to prevent efforts to "judaize the Galilee and Negev." In other words, there is no part of Israel the NIF thinks should be, or remain, officially "judaized." More than 33 percent of NIF grants go to programs that exclusively serve Arab Israelis, and fully 40 percent of Shatil, NIF's "empowerment center" money is used for assistance to Israel's Arab minority. Those programs actively promote the erasure of any special status for Jews in Israel.

I have absolutely no problem with the ideas of "empowering" Israeli Arabs or funding programs that focus on addressing the needs of Palestinians living in Israel or even needy Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza strip. As a Jew with American sensibilities, I don't even feel particularly comfortable with the notion of a "special status" for Jews in Israel. Perhaps I am hopelessly naive, but I believe that if you that if you treat people as second-class citizens they will resent you.

Admittedly, Kahane had a point when he said that you should not expect the Palestinians to hug you because they now have flush toilets. After all, even the jihadis desire all the comforts and accouterments of American life, only without the Americans and their iconoclastic social ideas. What scares them about Americans is not that they have neat gadgets and creature comforts, but that, unlike a revolving door that just spins in one direction, America's strength actually lies in pull and not push.

In any case, the fact that money sent by Jews to Israel is being shunted to anti-Israeli groups seems counterproductive to say the least. Yet, apparently even in the community where I live, the Union for Progressive Zionists is collecting money and medicine for Mustafa Barghouti - former candidate for President and running mate of Edward Said. The self-same Edward Said who invented his own Palestinian past and then amassed a personal fortune on the lecture circuit decrying Israel and the Oslo Accords.

OK, so this is guilt by assocation, and does not mean that Mr. Barghouti's organization should be boycotted. However, even a cursory reading of the Wikipedia reveals that Dr. Barghouti calls the separation fence - the one which has effectively prevented untold numbers of suicide bombers from entering Israel and blowing themselves up - the "Apartheid fence". During the last election cycle, Dr. Barghouti even campaigned in Jerusalem, even though by doing so, he courted arrest and implied that he does not recognize Israel's claim to the city. Believe me, I am not trying to gang up on Mr. Barghouti, but unfortunately, it just turns out that, try as you might, it is really not so easy to find a Palestinian to hug.

Occupation and Control in the Jewish Quarter

Here is a classic example of what happens when you send someone to report on a part of the world they know little or nothing about. Perhaps not surprisingly it comes from the BBC -Deep Tension Over Jerusalem Holy Site by Matthew Price.

The report is a first person account of the recently inaugurated excavations near the Dung Gate in Jerusalem. After describing the exasperation of an Israeli colleague who declares that, "Its just a ramp", Price proceeds to disagree and writes an article to explain to the obviously dimwitted Israeli that it's really, "all about control."

That control lies at the root of the problem is glaringly self-evident because, as Price is quick to note, the whole of East Jerusalem (and hence the Old City) is territory (illegally?) occupied by Israel.

As far as Palestinians are concerned, and to be fair most of the world, the Old City - which lies in East Jerusalem - is occupied territory.

While the inherent irony of a Brit explaining the "real" intricacies of the Arab-Israeli conflict to an Israeli is totally lost on Price, he would do well to read some history or even just a map of the Old City. The Dung Gate is not only the way leading to the Wailing Wall, it happens to be the only gate leading directly into the Jewish Quarter - a part of the city "with a nearly continual Jewish presence since Roman times".

Why "nearly continual"? Because during the 1948 War, when Jordan illegally occupied the Old City, it proceeded to expel all the Jews. Perhaps this was because throughout the past 2,000 years the Jewish community was the largest community in Jerusalem. Perhaps it was simply ethnic cleansing to ensure that the city be judenrein. In any case, for 19 years, Jews were not allowed to pray at the religious sites and could do nothing as those sites were systematically desecrated. For 19 years there was no Jewish "control" of the Jewish Quarter. For Mr. Price to hearken back to those days demonstrates once again that there is nothing more dangerous than a little knowledge.

Finally, as the article approaches its denouement, Price waxes poetically:

The church bells began to ring out. Then the muezzins started up, calling Muslims to prayer. When I first came here I heard these sounds and felt hopeful.

Surely these were the sounds of co-existence? Now I just hear the sound of centuries of competing claims to this city.

Notice that the sound of church bells does not initially bring forth any negative associations in the writer's mind. Of course the Jewish component of this imagined Nirvana of coexistence is left up to the reader's imagination.

The AJC and "Progressive" Jews

Here is another article concerning Jewish criticism of Israel by Stanley Kutler.

The American Jewish Committee has endorsed an article by professor Alvin Rosenfeld of Indiana University linking "progressive" Jewish thought to a rise in anti-Semitism. The article pointedly castigates Jewish critics of Israel's policies, and argues that such criticism questions the very right of Israel statehood. All this, Rosenfeld — and the AJC — insist, fuels anti-Semitism. It is a false proposition.

Not surprisingly, Kutler presents a "straw man" argument that makes one wonder if he bothered to read Rosenfeld's article or whether he is hoping that no one else will so that he can get away with this canard. Rosenfeld does not implicate ALL "progressive" Jews or even ALL criticisms of Israel.

In some quarters, the challenge is not to Israel’s policies, but to its legitimacy and right to an ongoing future. Thus, the argument leveled by Israel’s fiercest critics is often no longer about 1967 and the country’s territorial expansion following its military victory during the Six-Day War, but about 1948 and the alleged "crime," or "original sin," of its very establishment. The debate, in other words, is less about the country’s borders and more about its origins and essence. One of the things that is new and deeply disturbing about the new anti-Semitism, therefore, is precisely this: the singling out of the Jewish state, and the Jewish state alone, as a political entity unworthy of a secure and sovereign existence. (Bold Added)

Clearly, Rosenfeld, is not referring to ALL the critics of Israel (e.g. "In some quarters...") or ALL criticisms of Israel, but rather to criticism that the, "challenge is not to Israel's policies, but to its legitimacy and right to an ongoing future." Or critiques that, "single out" the, "Jewish state, and the Jewish state alone". I fail to see what is false about these propositions.

Critiques of the type that hold Israel by a different standard (whether a bad or a good standard) are racist. Racism against Jews is known by the term Anti-Semitism. As such, people (whether Jewish or otherwise) who promote the ideas mentioned above - i.e. advocating the destruction of Israel, or those who hold Israel solely accountable for all the problems in the Arab-Israeli conflict are without a doubt Anti-Semites. Being Jewish does not mean that they have been magically innoculated at birth.

Even stranger than Kutler's assertions above (yes, I know it is hard to believe possible) is the following paragraph:

The committee's real targets are "progressives" — which is their shorthand for Democrats and opponents of George W. Bush's dubious adventure into Iraq. Along with its favorite stable of commentary writers, the committee has been an ardent advocate for the Iraq war, fixed with a vision that it would bring forth a new Middle Eastern order. But the war and the vision have failed, and, ironically, at some cost to Israel's interests.

Aside from the fact that this comes off as what psychologists call "projection" , it has little to do with this paper and is verifiably false. In fact, Bush is never mentioned in Rosenfeld's paper and the only reference to Iraq is about a Turkish movie portraying Jewish doctors harvesting Iraqis for organs. This is a crass attempt to undermine Rosenfeld's argument by making the majority of American Jews feel that he is referring to them. After all, Kutler certainly knows that 86% of Jews voted Democratic and against Bush in the last election. (To read Rosenfeld's paper, click here.)

Finally, Kutler digs up "dirt" on the AJC from over 60 years ago and uses this to both psychoanalyze and tar the organization.

The American Jewish Committee's history reveals a convert to Zionism, one filled with the worst of proselytizing zeal. Before 1947, the committee was a powerful divisive force precisely because it so adamantly opposed the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. Its founders would marvel at the committee's evolution. ... Finally, the committee changed course in 1946, as its membership expanded with a substantial number of East European Jews and their descendants.

He has the chutzpah to say this as if nothing happened circa 1946 to forever silence the pre-war debates between Bundists and Zionists. For someone so obviously smart as the professor, it is kind of suprising that he has obviously never heard about the Holocaust. Perhaps that explains his "enlightened" perspective.

There is much more that is fundamentally wrong with this opinion piece, but I don't have all day to right these wrongs. Wait, was that last sentence meant as a swipe at Eastern European Jews?

Who's Orientalizing Now - "Soft Racism" in the Media

Today the Palestinian arch-terrorist Khaled Meshaal and his henchman Prime Minister Haniya are meeting in Mecca under Saudi auspices with Palestinian President Abbas to discuss a unity government and an end to the spiraling violence in the Gaza Strip and West Bank. While I am not much of a betting man, I can say with certainty that a failure to reach some sort of compromise or accord will go down in Palestinian history as the second Nakba (Catastrophe). No doubt the Saudis are twisting arms and the Europeans are holding out an end to their economic embargo if a unity government is formed and Abbas agrees to run cover for Hamas.

Since the Hamas victory at the polls and Fatahs fall from grace last year, there has been increasing tension between the opposing factions which has developed into open warfare following Abbas’ threat to dissolve the government and call for new elections. The recent fighting has included mortar attacks on Abbas’ Presidential Palace, shots on Prime Minister Haniyah’s motor cavalcade (injuring one of his sons), attacks on rival institutions of higher learning, rival mosques and the turning of residential areas into battle zones as snipers and gunmen commandeer rooftops and apartments. Even ambulances have not been off-limits to the carnage and some of those injured in the fighting have even been kidnapped from their hospital beds. Both sides, it seems, have once again proven themselves as masters at brinksmanship - employing violence to achieve their political goals.

Of course, all of this begs the question of what the international reaction would be were Israel to have carried out any of the above actions. Undoubtedly the media would sanctimoniously editorialize about Israel’s “torpedoing” of peace efforts, “flagrant violations” of international law and “extra-judicial” kidnappings or killings. UN resolutions would be passed and EU fact-finding missions would be organized to “investigate” the matter at carefully pre-selected photo-ops. Perhaps even members of the International Solidarity Movement would volunteer to place themselves as “human shields” between the warring sides to prevent further bloodshed.

That none of this has occurred should really come as no surprise. After all, it is precisely when things take a turn for the worse that the reporters run for cover and start filing their reports from hotel rooms and the wire services provide stories by local stringers whose dedication to the truth is suspect at best. Even worse, when things become complicated and a clear good guy and bad guy are no longer easily discernible, world public opinion not surprisingly loses interest.

It is precisely for this reason that I have been following the ongoing media coverage of the Palestinian in-fighting and the language employed by the various news outlets. It is interesting that through the many “rounds of fighting” over the past two months no “cycle of violence” has yet reared its head. It appears that this merry-go-round theory of conflict which subtly posits the irrationality of “an eye for an eye” while broadly hinting at the futility of the ongoing conflict only has analytical value with respect to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

In fact, one might be excused for thinking that this implies that if the Palestinians are killing each other in reprisal shootings, they no doubt have a good reason to be doing so. At the same time, it implies that there is no sense in trying to comprehend this behavior since it is clearly irrational and should not be judged by the laws of reason. Indeed, there is no need to even posit an ultimate “root” cause or theory to explain this fratricide – rather it is widely understood and accepted that resorting to violence and bloodshed is just the local way of dealing with problems.

Unfortunately, I find this approach typical of a specific type of racism representative of an unquestioned worldview that underlies this reportage. Sure, this is not the kind of racism that leaves you lying beaten and bloody in an alley by a bunch of guys in white sheets, but it is racism no less. It posits that that, as rational-minded Westerners, we can never appreciate the irrational passions and emotions that have been unleashed and thus we also have no right to judge its morality.

This perhaps explains why there has been no mention in any of the reportage about the “innocent” civilians who have been wounded or killed while caught in the crossfire between the two factions. This absence is quite striking since errant Israeli bullets usually solicit banner sized headlines such as: “Innocent child killed by Israeli bullets!” When somewhere between 14 and 22 Palestinians civilians died in a battle that killed 23 Israeli soldiers in Nablus in 2002, the world press was quick to dub it the “Massacre of Jenin”.

Yet, as hundreds of innocent Palestinians have been killed or wounded over the past few weeks, the absence of similar headlines ascribing responsibility to either Hamas or Fatah becomes even more pronounced. This seems to imply that when Palestinians kill other Palestinians, it is too complicated to figure out who is innocent. Could it be that no one wants to ascribe “guilt” by proclaiming someone innocent? Once again, the logical conclusion is that this fighting is simply one of those irrational, Oriental things that defy simple Western notions of rationality and “right action”.

This may also explain why there is also a general avoidance of legalese and no attempt to judge the sides by the principles of international law. When Israel overturns a rock in Jerusalem or send its soldiers across the Green Line, the papers are almost unanimous in their contention that this violates long-held (yet undisclosed) principles of international law. While Palestinians have violated almost every single article of the 4th Geneva Convention over the past two months, not once has anyone questioned the legality of these actions.

Salman Rushdie has termed this attitude “soft racism”, since it essentially paints a smiley face where a Swastika really belongs. This is the kind of racism that does not believe that all those Ayatollahs and mullahs could “really” mean what they say. It is a vestigial colonial attitude that patronizes the “natives” and infantilizes them by treating them with kid gloves. It says, in effect, “We know you don’t really mean any harm by your actions, you are simply not mature enough to control your emotions or act rationally.” In essence, “You know not what you are doing and can not be held accountable for your actions.”

It is clear that the recent coverage of the Middle East and the Arab-Israeli conflict not only suffers of the Orientalism that Edward Said identified, but also from an essentializing and infantilizing of Arabs/Muslims that is clearly racist. It is time we recognized the long-standing and elaborate traditions and values that underpin Middle Eastern societies and start holding them accountable for their actions. At least no more or no less than Israel is held to account.