Claiming credit for Goldstone
Al Jazeera is currently marking the 40 year anniversary of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) with a special program and reports. One of the featured articles in this series is entitled "OIC initiated Goldstone inquiry." The article consists of an interview with the secretary-general of the OIC, who right at the outset emphasizes in response to a question about the Goldstone report:
That is surely a worthy achievement for an organization that owes its establishment to an incident that, for the past 40 years, has served for baseless anti-Israel incitement: According to its own website, the OIC "was established upon a decision of the historical summit which took place in Rabat, Kingdom of Morocco on 12th Rajab 1389 Hijra (25 September 1969) as a result of criminal arson of Al-Aqsa Mosque in occupied Jerusalem." Of course, then as now, the mosque and indeed the whole Temple Mount platform were under the authority of the Waqf, i.e. under Muslim authority; moreover, the fire was started by a mentally-ill Australian Christian tourist inside the mosque, where it was obviously the responsibility of Muslim guards to watch visitors. However, the arsonist not only managed to set a major fire, but was also allowed to escape from the mosque and it was only the efficient and professional conduct of the Israeli authorities that led to his quick arrest and prompt trial. But of course, then as now, such facts were irrelevant. 'The Arabs will change'
President Shimon Peres hosted his second "Facing Tomorrow" conference in Jerusalem last week. In an interview with Newsweek shortly after the conclusion of the conference, Peres acknowledged the many problems and challenges Israel was facing, but also re-iterated his oft-stated conviction that peace in the Middle East is possible. At one point, he noted: "Some people ask, 'What will happen to Israel in the coming 100 years vis-à-vis the Arab world?' And my answer is, the Arabs will change. Not us. They have to join in a new age." There are of course many Israelis who don't quite share their president's optimism, but some recently published books make the case that the kind of change Peres is expecting is already taking place in the Arab world. One of these is Robin Wright's Dreams and Shadows. However, as a sympathetic yet critical review in The New York Times has pointed out, Wright's own research actually gives little reason to think she is right to believe that "a budding culture of change" at the grassroots level is about to bring meaningful and constructive reform to the Middle East. When it comes to the attitudes toward Israel prevalent in the Arab world, it is certainly difficult to detect any positive change. Particularly dismal to contemplate is the fact that even the two Arab states to have signed peace agreements with Israel have shown little interest in any normalization of ties. If we just look at the news from Egypt and Jordan over the past few weeks, the evidence seems clear: instead of any sign of change, it's the same old story of deep-seated hatred toward Israel and Jews. 'Psychoactive' against Israel
What a bizarre title, you may be thinking - and you're right. But it only reflects how bizarre things can get when you venture out to the fringes where it's fashionable to demonize Israel as a uniquely evil force in today's world. It wouldn't be worth writing about it were it not for the fact that when it comes to demonizing Israel, nothing is too absurd to get aired in respectable media outlets or at academic conferences; indeed, there are even prestigious awards to be won. A good example is former Israeli lawyer and political activist Felicia Langer, who was recently awarded Germany's "Federal Merit Cross, First Class." Langer, who has lived in Germany for some 20 years, has made a name for herself as a fierce critic of Israel who wouldn't even shy away from language that suggests comparisons between the Jewish state and Nazi Germany. Reportedly, she left Israel out of protest and has explained that she made "a politically conscious choice for Germany ... because I understood with what brutality and sophistication Israel was exploiting the Germans' guilt." Obviously, the kind of positive reinforcement bestowed on Langer is by and large reserved for Jewish "critics" of Israel, because if a non-Jew suggests that Israel should be suspected of genocidal intentions or be compared to Nazi Germany, most people realize that this kind of "criticism" of Israel is tainted by anti-Semitic attitudes. The phenomenon of Jews eager to level those preposterous charges against Israel has led to a debate about the question if this is a manifestation of "Jewish anti-Semitism." Recently I came across an article that railed against the "tropes of 'Jewish antisemitism'" and dismissed the "concept of the 'self-hating Jew,'" which was described as having been "dignified with a pseudo-psychopathology by those keen to suppress dissent." The writer, Antony Lerman, is a regular contributor to the Guardian's "Comment is Free" blog, and this was not the first time that he expressed his passionate rejection of the concept of Jewish "self-hatred." One of the previous occasions was in Lerman's recent review of a book by Chief Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks, whom Lerman criticized sharply:
Since a note at the end of the review announces that Antony Lerman "is writing a book reflecting on his personal experience of Zionism and Israel," we can expect to hear more from him in defense of even the most outlandish accusations against Israel. While I myself have reservations about the concept of Jewish "self-hatred" - though for very different reasons than Lerman - it seems to me that his thinking on the matter is rather confused. To give just one example, consider his assertion: "Far from being the antithesis of Jewish self-hatred, it is arguable that Zionism was actually a display of it." Really? 80 years of Al-Aqsa incitement
In Israel, the news that President Obama was awarded this year's Nobel Peace Prize came together with news of renewed violence in Jerusalem. It's unlikely the Nobel laureate will be briefed about the recent riots in Jerusalem - after all, among the world's many violent conflicts that require the president's attention, the incidents in Jerusalem are hardly more than minor disturbances. But it's a great pity, because these events tell the story of the Middle East conflict in a nutshell and illustrate why peace has proven so elusive. Some of the crucial points have been highlighted in an excellent commentary by Marvin Hier and Abraham Cooper that was published last week in The Jerusalem Post. Hier and Cooper rightly contrast the easy accessibility of the Western Wall - which can be visited by anyone - with the restrictions imposed on visits to the Temple Mount, where non-Muslims have access only at strictly limited hours and are prohibited from praying or performing any religious rituals. However, not for the first time, recent events have shown that observing all these restrictions still doesn't guarantee that visitors will not be pelted with stones by Palestinian Muslims who see themselves as heroic "defenders" of the Al-Aqsa mosque - which is threatened only in their fevered imagination. It's safe to assume that those stone-throwing youngsters have never asked themselves how it is that the "occupied" Temple Mount is under the authority of the Muslim Waqf authorities. If they had ever asked this question, they would find out that in 1967, when Israel gained control of the area, Israel acknowledged the authority of the Waqf over the Temple Mount as an immediate gesture of goodwill - which came after almost 20 years of Jordanian control of the area, when Jews had been prevented from coming to the Western Wall in breach of the armistice agreement, and when Jewish property, places of worship and cemeteries had been systematically destroyed and desecrated. The idea that the Al-Aqsa mosque is threatened by Jews is an invention that goes back to the days of Haj Amin al Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, who later gained notoriety as a Nazi collaborator. In the 1920s, al Husseini renovated the "Haram al-Sharif" - as the Temple Mount is known in Arabic - and he began to accuse "the Zionists" of plotting to rebuild the Jewish Temple. His incitement contributed to repeated outbreaks of violence against Jews that culminated in the Hebron massacre of 1929. Some 80 years later, al Husseini's legacy is echoed in the incitement spread by the likes of Sheikh Raed Salah, the head of the Islamic Movement's northern branch, and Sheikh Kamal Khatib, another leading figure of this group. The 'lawfare' pioneer
Reports last week that described efforts to obtain an arrest warrant against Defense Minister Ehud Barak during his visit in London named the British barrister who filed the application as Michel Massih QC. Chances are that, just like me, you have never heard of Mr. Massih, but it turns out he is actually Britain's foremost expert when it comes to trying to get Israeli officials arrested during their visits to Britain - indeed, Mr. Massih can rightly claim that he is a pioneer in this field. I came to appreciate Mr. Massih's role when I read about him on the blog "Harry's Place", where a post explained some of the relevant intricacies of the British legal system and provided some choice quotes from a very interesting profile of Massih that was published in Abu Dhabi's The National last March. Entitled "The best defence", the rather long article opens with an intriguing summary:
Obviously there is nothing wrong with a lawyer who defends clients accused of serious crimes; moreover, without lawyers prepared to defend even those cases where the evidence seems overwhelming, the legal system wouldn't work. However, the fact that Mr. Massih is widely regarded as an expert in the defense of terrorists (his truly astonishing CV can be accessed here http://www.tooks.co.uk/people/michel_massih/ ) suggests that there is arguably a political dimension to his choice to specialize in this field. And when it comes to his other field of specialization, namely his efforts to get Israeli officials arrested and prosecuted in Britain, the possible political dimension is clearer. The Gaza occupation
Almost exactly four years ago, the Israeli and international media were dominated by reports and commentaries about Israel's disengagement from Gaza. A CNN report described the events, stating: "On Monday [September 12, 2005], Israel withdrew its final troops from Gaza, ending 38 years of occupation." The same report noted that "Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas toured the evacuated Jewish settlement Eli Sinai Monday, calling Israel's withdrawal a 'great moment,'"; Abbas was also quoted as saying that the Palestinians "need to look at the West Bank and end the occupation there." That sounds very much as if Abbas shared the common-sense view that the occupation of Gaza had indeed ended when the last Israeli left Gaza in the early morning hours of September 12, 2005. Almost exactly three years after Abbas declared his desire to "end the occupation" in the West Bank, he had the chance to do so: On September 13, 2008, Ehud Olmert hosted Abbas in his home in Jerusalem "and presented him with a detailed proposal for a peace agreement." A map that Olmert had prepared for this meeting outlined a Palestinian state covering an area equal to the pre-1967 territories controlled by Egypt and Jordan. Olmert's proposals included 93.5 percent of the West Bank, with another 5.8 percent added through land swaps that would allow Israel to keep the main settlement blocs - Ma'aleh Adumim, Ariel and Gush Etzion - in exchange for lands in the southern Hebron Hills, the Judean Hills and the Beit She'an Valley. In addition, Olmert offered a "safe passage" corridor from the West Bank to the Gaza Strip. The question of Jerusalem and the refugee issue were also addressed; reportedly, "Olmert proposed dividing sovereignty between the Jewish and Arab neighborhoods, and leaving the Old City's 'holy basin' and its surroundings without sovereignty, under the management of an international committee with the participation of Israel, Palestine, the United States, Jordan and Saudi Arabia." With regard to the Palestinian refugees, Olmert reportedly "did not recognize the Palestinians' demand for a right of return," but nevertheless offered to allow a small number of refugees - about 3,000 people over a period of five years - to settle in Israel. Mahmoud Abbas never bothered to let Olmert know what he thought of these proposals; eventually, he got around to rejecting them in media interviews in spring 2009. The anti-Israel professionals at HRW
In recent weeks, there have been a number of disturbing revelations about Human Rights Watch (HRW) and about individual staff members involved in the organization's work on Israel. Predictably, HRW and the group's many supporters have brushed off all concerns and criticism as politically motivated. And they didn't change their tactics when it turned out that one senior staff member, HRW "senior military analyst" Marc Garlasco - who has issued quite a few damning statements about Israel - is consumed by fascination with military Nazi memorabilia. Indeed, it seems we are even supposed to think Garlasco's obsession with Nazi military memorabilia somehow enhances his professional expertise. One thing is for sure: Being an avid collector of Nazi medals doesn't make anyone a military analyst - so what exactly are Garlasco's professional qualifications? Unbiased about the Holocaust?
It sure was formulated rather delicately on the BBC website:
The BBC also reported that the UN, which runs most schools in Gaza and teaches some 200,000 children there, relies primarily on Egyptian textbooks but "has added its own coursework about human rights." According to the BBC, the UN has now consulted with local groups regarding "whether the Holocaust should be taught." Well, one might wonder whether the head of the education committee, who describes the Holocaust as a "big lie," is a graduate of Gaza's UN-run schools. One might also wonder how many UN-employed educators in Gaza share his views, and how many of these educators - and how many of their UN employers - realize the irony in the fact that adding "coursework about human rights" was apparently uncontroversial, while "suggestions" that lessons about the Holocaust be added elicited indignant protests. The blood libel 'Kultur'
Few readers of the Israeli or Jewish media will have missed the reports about a recent article in a Swedish tabloid that accused Israel of abducting and killing Palestinian civilians to harvest their organs. Since the story broke last week, a number of interesting commentaries have been written; among the most worthwhile to check out is Barry Rubin's post, which includes several updates on additional developments and information. I must confess that I was struck by a perhaps rather marginal aspect of the story: the fact that the article was published in the "Kultur" section of the paper. There may be some entirely mundane reasons for this arguably odd placement, but I felt that by publishing the article in the "Kultur" section, the paper's editors had - probably unwittingly - made a very fitting choice. Israel, war crimes and the media
When it comes to accusing Israel of war crimes, you don't have to go looking for the international headlines. It's a very different matter when Israel defends itself against such accusations, or when Israel's enemies are accused of war crimes. What do you know - it only took a few years and some ten thousand rocket and mortar attacks on Israel for Human Rights Watch (HRW) to come out with the statement:
Indeed, HRW even got around to devoting a slim report to the "Rockets from Gaza", and this report acknowledges:
Of course, since the media aren't all that interested in Palestinian war crimes, this report wasn't really global front page news. |
 |
 
Combined feed for all JPost.com blogs
Top Rated Posts
Tags:Blogroll |
Comments (10)
