An Irish blog defending and affirming the merit of Western values (of various persuasions) with an emphasis on defending the right to legitimately criticise faiths on ideological grounds as a right of free speech, and to defend Israel against the intensive campaign to demonise and destroy the State. No religion or nation should be above criticism but neither should any state or people be subjected to sustained abusive condemnation with a destructive intent that clearly exceeds what is evidential
Controversy erupted when firebrand left-wing Irish broadcaster Vincent Browne referred to Israel as a “cancer” on the 23rd October, during his popular TV programme Tonight with Vincent Browne (TV3).
When discussing the final US presidential debate between Obama and Romney, Browne was critical of what he saw as a failure to discuss American support for Israel. In an outspoken fashion, he stated:
Israel is the cancer in foreign affairs. It polarises the Islamic community of the world against the rest of the world…. It’s a massive injustice. They [the Jews] stole the land from the Arabs.
Browne later defended his remarks which he justified by using an extremely dubious historical argument:
The reality is the Israeli State was founded by confiscation of land previously occupied by Arabs. That injustice is at the centre of the conflict.
Actually the conflict is founded on the fact that Israel is located in what Muslims refer to as “Dar al-Islam” — hence its very existence (pre or post 1967 borders) is an offence. Furthermore, his assertion is a gross oversimplification as most Jewish habitation was placed on Miri or public land and waste land as defined in Article Six of the British Mandate, and legally purchased land. Brown went on to state that the word “cancer” was ill chosen:
I didn’t mean it [Israel] should be eliminated. It was an infelicitous use of the word.
Browne’s insistence that he does not wish to see Israel “eliminated” can be doubted with good reason. The problem with his explanation is that he appeals to the historic founding of Israel in his subsequent explanation, and seemingly in his initial criticism as well. Thus, his stance stands in stark contrast to common criticism of Israel for it being located on its June 1967 borders, a consequence of the Six-Day War, in which they took possession, during a defensive conflict, of the Sinai, West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. Therefore, it would seem Browne takes issue with Israel’s presence even in its pre-1967 form.
Notwithstanding the point above, was use of the word “cancer” ill-chosen or in keeping with Browne’s previously expressed views? Arguably it is the latter for his prejudice against Israel is very well known.
For example, Browne can quite often be heard on his show expressing the belief that Israel is simply filled with European Jews colonising the land. That point is illustrative of Browne’s ignorance of Israel’s history because much of the Jewish populace within Israel today is descended from Jews that were persecuted and expelled from Arab lands. Moreover, the principles upon which the Jewish State was founded, the need for a haven for the Jewish People, is both a moral right in itself and a necessity following persecution for in excess of a millennia in both the Islamic and Christian worlds. The Jewish People qualify as a displaced indigenous group but Browne’s casual and contemptuous assertions also by inference amount to a denial of their historic roots, and their moral right to return to their homeland.
Browne’s issue with Israel and the West, and a corresponding support for Islamism, is a long standing one. In the aftermath of the 2010 Gaza Flotilla he described the terrorism emanating from Gaza as little more than stone throwing. To quote an article by David Quinn some years ago:
In The Irish Times the other day we had Vincent Browne calling for the West to give into virtually all of the demands of al-Qa’ida, Hamas, Hizbollah, the Iranians, and I suppose the Taliban as well. He imagines that if America pulled the plug on the Saudi royal family… and if the West generally stops interfering in the affairs of Muslims countries, then all will be well… If all these things happen, Muslim rage would continue to burn because Browne, like the left in general, misdiagnoses the real cause of that rage.
Thus, it would seem Browne’s use of the word “cancer” conforms closely with his views on the Middle East. His views are extreme to say the least, and the fact that he is happy to express them in a show that ought to be impartial on complex issues suggests he is ill suited for a popular slot on the Irish airwaves.
Little wonder Enda Kenny, the highest ranking Irish politician at present, has consistently refused to accept Browne’s invitations for interview. Sadly however, his firebrand style of leftist posturing has become popular in a nation struggling at an individual and collective level with severe banking debt.
Many did not view his reply to the criticism favourably. Regarding the fashion in which he addressed the comments in a subsequent show:
He didn’t apologise… He also behaved like a typical bully and said he was being blackmailed.
So to sum up, horrid pro-Israeli’s and Israeli-Jews (presumably) have blackmailed poor Mr. Browne by criticising him for word use that is more appropriately found in the vocabulary of a hate-filled Iranian ayatollah than an experienced political journalist with decades of experience in the industry.
Postscript (3rd March 2013)
It was announced this week that the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland(BAI) upheld some complaints by viewers concerning Vincent Browne’s anti-Israeli comments. The BAI said that the item in the show carrying Browne’s remarks "failed to meet the requirement for fair, objective and impartial treatment of news and current affairs". They disagreed that the remarks constituted anti-Semitism but added that the comments about Israel were made without apparent relevance to the discussion at hand.
TV3 will be forced to issue an apology on Television for Browne’s remarks, leading Brendan O'Connor to quip during his monologue on the popular Saturday Night Live (RTE) TV show: "TV3 is to apologise to Israel for Vincent Browne. That’s all very well but when are they going to apologise to the rest of us?"
Carlos Latuff is known for displaying an overt hatred of Jews but it would seem he also deals in risible stereotyping when it comes to his ideological friends too!
On the 19th of September an Irish parliamentary committee recommended a complete ban on imports from supposedly “illegal” West Bank Jewish settlements.
The committee will make the proposal to Eamon Gilmore, Tánaiste (second to the Prime Minister) and Foreign Affairs Minister. It would seem this process is merely a formality because Eamon Gilmore is very much behind the idea of boycotting Jewish settlements, even to the point of banning the entry of settlers into Europe!
All members of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade were supportive of a submission today from the Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel(EAPPI), a human rights observer organisation, calling for such a ban.
In reality this “human rights observer organisation” is in fact an extreme anti-Israeli group that has the singular propagandistic purpose of bringing Christians to the West Bank, to turn them into agents with the intent of demonising the Jewish State back home.
Both houses of the Irish parliament have been strongly pro-Palestinian for several decades. However, that bias should not have precluded professional politicians from at least providing a modest semblance of balance by engaging a group to represent Israel’s interests before recommending such drastic action.
Tell a fib often enough…
During the committee meeting EAPPI asserted the pro-Palestinian claim that Jewish settlements are the chief issue preventing peace:
Joe O’Brien, advocacy co-ordinator with EAPPI said the illegal Israeli settlements in the Palestinian West Bank had “long been recognised by the UN, the US and the EU as the biggest barrier to peace” in the region.
The idea Jewish settlements somehow impede peace does not stand up to scrutiny either. Arafat walked out of the Camp David peace talks, chiefly over the proposal of shared sovereignty of the Temple Mount (Haram), Abbas dropped peace talks with Olmert in 2008 despite being offered almost 100% of territorial claims. Since then, Abbas has been running scared by putting the cart (settlements) before the horse (peace talks). He refused to meet Netanyahu until the very end of an ten month settlement freeze only to demand another before continuing.
Earlier this year, a senior representative of Netanyahu’s was regularly talking with PA representatives in Jordan in an attempt to restart talks. Unsurprisingly the talks-about-talks approach failed. As Ron Prosor, Israel’s Representative to the United Nations, said:
Direct negotiations are the only tool, the only way and the only path to create two-states for two peoples. Last January, Israel offered a clear proposal in Amman for restarting direct negotiations. We presented the Palestinian delegation with negotiating positions on every major issue separating the parties.
That proposal – filled with Israel’s vision for peace – continues to gather dust, as Palestinian leaders continue to pile up new pre-conditions for sitting with Israel. They are everywhere except the negotiating table.
In the summer Abbas indefinitely postponed a most unpopular meeting with a senior Israeli politician, the first such meeting in two years that had intended to be a starting point for resuming talks.
Why is Abbas unwilling to even meet? It could be said that the obsessive condemnation of Israel by the international community discourages the Palestinians from making the slightest compromise for peace. Settlements take up just 2% of the West Bank. Are certain committees and their ilk as blameworthy?
Broader motives behind the committee meeting
Whilst an Irish boycott of Jewish settlements is serious, the implications of the committee meeting can also be understood at a broader level since Ireland will be taking the rotating EU presidency in January.
Eric Byrne, TD, (Labour), said the Government should take a lead in Europe by instituting such a ban and should champion an EU-wide ban during Ireland’s presidency next year.
This perspective is in line with policy in the European Union, which has long adopted an antagonistic political stance on Israel.
The EU has trade agreements with Israel but refuses to offer the same benefit to goods from settlement areas. Yet the status quo may be tenuous. For example, the first step of a prospective pharmacological trade agreement, which would benefit EU citizens significantly, only scraped through due to two abstentions.
The prospect of an EU wide boycott may have motivated the EAPPI submission. Joe O’Brien asserted:
Ireland could take a powerfully symbolic and moral stance by banning produce from illegal Israeli settlements from the Irish market. […]
Though the value of products from the illegal settlements is small here - about €7 to €8 million a year, he said the move would be internationally very important.
Indeed, Omar Barghouti, a likely racist who is a founding member of the pro-boycott organisation PACBI, and the face of the BDS Movement today, stated:
This new Irish parliamentary move should become a model to be emulated by all European lawmakers who claim to care about human rights and international law
A deck stacked toward extremism and hypocrisy?
As has been stated by commentators previously, such a boycott is not so much an attack on settlements as an attack on Israel itself, and indeed committee member Senator Jim Walsh (Fianna Fáil party) suggested:
In the background we shouldn’t rule out banning all Israeli products.
Walsh is one of the numerous politicians (mainly IRA linked Sein Fein party members) that signed a statement demanding an end to the blockade of Gaza. He also put his name to a petition demanding the immediate release of Palestinian prisoners on hunger-strike, despite a number of them being associated with terrorism.
However, many of those reasonably familiar with the broad attitude of the Irish Parliament toward Israel would consider Walsh’s views to be relatively normal for that venue, and his anti-Israel actions to be unremarkable. This is perhaps the most worrying aspect of the issue, the fact that hardly anyone batted an eyelid. It was merely a foreseeable conclusion to decades of demonising anti-Israeli rhetoric.
It seems the committee was little more than a charade to lend their recommendations some credibility. Pat Breen was the Committee Chairman, an MP who held the honour of being Chairman of the Oireachtas Friends of Palestine group. Also present was Gerald Nash, present chairman of the same group, who has promoted the EAPPI. Other members, such as David Norris were also present. Norris is known for coming remarkably close to defending Hamas:
My colleague, Deputy Eric Byrne, raised the question of the murder of Hamas officials. I do not have much time for Hamas but it was democratically elected. We cannot subvert democracy by murdering them.
Thus, it would be undemocratic to kill Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, a senior Hamas military commander assassinated in Dubai, even while in an effective state of war with the group now ruling a defacto state!
Non-members of Oireachtas Friends of Palestine also present have similarly extreme opinions, e.g. MP Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Sein Fein), who sounds more like a representative of the Iranian Embassy:
In 2005 Iran brought forward a proposition to allow co-operation with external public or private interests, moving beyond a responsibility to allow monitoring. This issue can be resolved, as neither Iran nor any neighbouring state wants to imagine a conflict based on the use of nuclear weapons. However, Iran has its back against the wall in defending itself. The international community must engage with in on the proposition made in 2005.
Mac Lochlainn frequently calls for sanctions against Israel to force it to give up its nuclear arsenal. Thus, he wants to punish a State that has never threatened another with annihilation, whilst defending a major terrorist sponsor! Little wonder he also whitewashes and supports Palestinian violence:
Does the Tánaiste understand why young people on the West Bank consider it necessary to lift stones, their only weapon of resistance…
Ironically, at a time when representatives of Irish State have been increasingly speaking of boycotting Israel, they have been making strenuous efforts to improve business ties with China, including lucrative tax arrangements and investment schemes. Could it be that the Irish State thinks economic superpowers are not subject to any moral imperative, while a small state struggling for survival ought to be isolated and delegitimised whenever possible? Probably, for as the Mayor of Athlone stated in February:
Ireland has not been preaching to the Chinese about human rights.
The Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel recently submitted material to an Irish parliamentary committee leading to a recommendation that imports from Jewish West Bank settlements be boycotted. This is a damaging development that may eventually lead to the banning of settlement imports within the European Union.
The EAPPI was founded and continues to be funded by the World Council of Churches (WCC), a large organisation which is a major supporter of demonising boycott campaigns against Israel. The one-sided nature of the WCC’s forceful attacks on Israel, whilst simultaneously ignoring or obfuscating on major issues relating to Israel’s foes, is stark.
The WCC treated Yassir “father of terrorism” Arafat as a true hero of the Palestinian people who apparently even had the interests of Israel at heart! They also support the Palestinian ‘right-of-return’, which would of course destroy Israel itself.
Many commentators have come to the conclusion that the WCC is an anti-Semitic institution such is its obsession with Jewish wrongdoing, whilst being too afraid to even say “boo” to Muslim extremists, many of whom oppress Christians. The WCC could not even muster a vague criticism of the intensive violence in Syria.
The EAPPI is very much a member of the WCC family. It is a highly active pro-Palestinian organisation that brings ‘internationals to the West Bank to experience life under occupation’ for three or four months, and ‘accompany Palestinians and Israelis in their non-violent actions and to carry out concerted advocacy efforts to end the occupation’. Heady firebrand stuff designed to spread prejudicial views on Israel to Christians the world over!
The WCC doesn’t have any equivalent “accompaniment” program to make a “concerted advocacy” for much oppressed Christians in any part of the Islamic world! Natan Sharansky’s 3D test - demonization, double-standards, and delegitimization - comes to mind.
The extent to which the EAPPI twist the truth of the conflict was revealed when a group of its members toured Sderot. They were unimpressed with the consequences of near-daily Gazan rocket fire. "It’s not Hamas’s fault," the tour guide was advised!
As we passed by Sderot homes with newly built bomb-shelters outside, and stood in Sderot’s ‘rocket-proof’ playground complete with concrete caterpillars that children run into when the siren blares, the aggressive questioning continued. […]
I understood that I was speaking to average everyday people who have been presented with a very one-sided view of the Arab-Israeli conflict-so one-sided that it was difficult for most of them to recognize Israel’s right to exist and defend, even when standing right in the heart of a city targeted by unrelenting rocket terror.
Like many pro-Palestinian Christian groups, EAPPI shrouds itself in dovish words of peace. However, the group promotes an extremist stance. It strongly supports BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) campaigning against Israel, which many see as code for destroying the State via advocacy for a one-state (AKA Rwandan) solution. An EAPPI publication called ‘Chain Reaction’ has endorsed illegal acts against Israel, such as destroying Israeli websites, and sit-ins to disrupt Israeli embassies.
Have the EAPPI’s activities made them unpopular with the Christian mainstream? Seemingly not! The group was endorsed by the Church of England’s General Synod this year, prompting a strong response from the president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, which made reference to intimidation and expressions of anti-Semitism at the General Synod:
Unsurprisingly its [EAPPI’s] graduates return with simplistic and radical perspectives, giving talks against Israel which do nothing to promote an understanding of the situation in the Middle East, much less promote a peaceful and viable solution to its problems. Members of Jewish communities across the country have suffered harassment and abuse at EAPPI meetings and yet Synod has completely dismissed their experiences.
The Jewish community does not need lessons from the Anglican Church in justice and peace, themes which originated in our tradition. Moreover, to hear the debate at Synod littered with references to ‘powerful lobbies’, the money expended by the Jewish community, ‘Jewish sounding names’ and the actions of the community ‘bringing shame on the memory of victims of the Holocaust’, is deeply offensive and raises serious questions about the motivation of those behind this motion.
Kairos Palestine, and the revisiting of Christian anti-Semitism
It can be argued that the increasing hostility of some Christian organisations toward Israel, and Jewish people more broadly, is an attempt to drive a wedge into a traditional and relatively vocal area of support for the Jewish State. The Kairos Palestine document, a text issued by a group of Palestinian Christians in December 2009, is an exemplar of this phenomenon, and some insight into EAPPI’s motivations can be found in their advocacy of this text.
The Kairos Palestine Document was developed and widely promoted by the WCC through another sister organisation called the Palestine Israel Ecumenical Forum (PIEF), and the text follows similarly problematic documents, namely Bern Perspectives (2008) and the Amman Call (2007).
In essence the Kairos Palestine document reworks long standing anti-Semitic themes that have been used by Christian Arabs to defame Israel. The text doesn’t mention the historic ties between the Jewish people and Israel, and it denies their biblical links as well. It asserts that Israel was created in sin due to post-Holocaust colonial guilt.
Kairos Palestine rationalizes, justifies and trivializes terrorism, calling it “legal resistance” stating (in section 1.4) “Some (Palestinian) political parties followed the way of armed resistance. Israel used this as a pretext to accuse the Palestinians of being terrorists and was able to distort the real nature of the conflict, presenting it as an Israeli war against terror, rather than an Israeli occupation faced by Palestinian legal resistance aiming at ending it.”
The Kairos Palestine text has also been strongly criticised because it resurrects replacement theology, which was a cornerstone of anti-Semitism within the Christian faith for a very long time. This theology is responsible for much of the persecution visited on Jews for over a millennia. Replacement theology or supersessionism replaces mention of the Jews in the Bible, and the promises made to them by God, with that of Christians. Jews (as an analogue of the Israeli nation) become pariahs, rejects of history as having rejected the Son of God. The theology also objects to Israel’s recreation since the divine biblical promise has been transferred to the Christian Church itself, thereby becoming the new Nation of God.
The common refrain that anti-Zionism does not equate with anti-Semitism is nominally true. However, it is used by Palestinian apologists to exonerate all criticism of Israel, no matter how indicative of hate those expressions are. The anti-Semitism of today merely adds an element of refutability, a fashionable highly selective left-wing humanitarianism, to side-step the charge. However, intensely demonising zealotry and supersessionism, which define groups like EAPPI, betrays the malign intent to the sceptic.
Media bias was much in evidence recently with prejudicial coverage of the judgement on the Rachel Corrie case being beamed around the world. Judge Oded Gershon, of the District Court in Haifa, rejected the lawsuit brought by Corrie’s parents. He ruled that her death was an accident, which was caused by highly dangerous acts leading to her demise, after having intentionally entered a conflict zone during the height of the Second Intifada.
Rachel Corrie burning an Israeli flag
The case lasted two and a half years, yielding fifteen court hearings which producing several thousand pages of court transcripts. Apparently the ruling came after an extensive study into the events causing her death:
The verdict was based on three investigations that made clear that the driver could not see Corrie and could not have avoided the "tragic accident," the State Prosecutor’s Office said in an e-mailed statement. It said an expert who testified on behalf of the Corrie family agreed with the finding.
There has been a great deal of debate online, with pro-Palestinians rather absurdly insisting that Rachel's megaphone, located a significant number of metres away, could somehow be heard by a driver in an enclosed space that was heavily shielded, above the roar of an immense engine contained within a very large 50 ton Caterpillar D-9 series bulldozer. The IDF heavily reinforce these vehicles against attack to such an extent that they can withstand the results of heavy explosive devices, rocket propelled grenades, and heavy machine gun fire. They are commonly used to clear dangerous areas, which has minimised IDF casualties.
An armoured Caterpillar D-9 Series
Notably, photographs making Corrie seem in sight of the bulldozer that killed her have been spread around on the Internet by pro-Palestinian websites but these images actually show Corrie in front of a smaller bulldozer some hours earlier that day.
Similar obfuscations have arisen regarding to the driver’s ability to see Corrie. The field of vision on the D-9 bulldozer is of course limited, leading Corrie’s colleagues to state that she was standing in front of the bulldozer. However, reports and statementsat the time assert that Corrie actually "dropped to her knees" before later behaving in a bizarre nigh on suicidal fashion by climbingthe dirt mound gathered by the approaching bulldozer.
One notable point is that the judge firmly stated the IDF were not demolishing houses that day. It has been a constant pro-Corrie line that she was defending a Palestinian family, and her father Craig has been displaying a picture of the six year old girlwho is a member of the family that Corrie was supposedly shielding. However, it seems increasingly apparent that Corrie and the ISM (International Solidarity Movement) were actually harassing the IDF when they were trying to clear land to improve visibility in a location that posed a great deal of risk to soldiers, which commentators, such as Lee Kaplan, have pointed out. This point was apparently echoed in an old unreleased IDF report on Corrie's death. It casts her actions in a very different light - a hardly defensible one. Such an action would be aiding terrorist activity, totally devoid of any humanitarian context. This is a plausible point because the ISM, of which Corrie was a member acting upon their instruction, have quite a reputation for aiding terrorists.
Unfortunately very little space was devotedto the judicial finding, an oddity considering it precipitated the story. With so much preferential coverage, it is of little wonder that Corrie’s parents are seeking an appeal.
Indeed some commentators suspect the case was more an effort to delegitimise Israel than an attempt to right some supposed injustice, since the Corrie family wholeheartedly support extreme pro-Palestinianstances. With a dedicated play having been shown prolifically in numerous countries, books, documentaries, and over thirty songs written about her, it should be clear by now that Corrie's death has become a kind of fetish, essentially a pro-Palestinian cult - her death cynically used as a useful propagandistic tool due to her youth, gender and American nationality.
We are upset and saddened by the verdict. This is a sad day not only for our family, but also for human rights, for the legal system and for the State of Israel.
So says Rachel's mother Cindy. Corrie's death was of course a great tragedy for her family. However, there is reason to think Rachel's mother was being less than sincere. Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the Corrie case is the wilful use of her death by the pro-Palestinian movement to promote the demonisation of the Israeli State. This came after the ISM, which is a leading group within that movement, placed her (and many others like her) in extreme danger, which is a central element of their strategy. To quote ISM's co-founders, Adam Shapiro and Huwaida Arraf, one year before Corrie's death:
The Palestinian resistance must take on a variety of characteristics, both non-violent and violent... In actuality, nonviolence is not enough... Yes, people will get killed and injured... no less noble than carrying out a suicide operation. And we are certain that if these men were killed during such an action, they would be considered shaheed Allah.
Therefore, it is a terrible irony that this very demonisation is something which the Corrie's themselves not only indulge but actually promote to a very substantive extent, such as by targeting Caterpillar with repeated lawfare efforts. The Rachel Corrie Foundation has even been linked with possible intimidation so it is little wonder that the Corrie's chose an extremist like Hussein Abu Hussein to lead their case.
Highlights of the Judge's concluding remarks concerning the Rachel Corrie lawsuit
Quoted highlights of Judge Oded Gershon's detailed conclusionson the case, with some further remarks.
5. After hearing many witnesses from both sides, including expert witnesses, and studying the extensive summations from representatives of both sides, I hereby determine as follows:
a. During the relevant period of time, the "Philadelphi Corridor" was the site of daily warfare, i.e. daily gunfire by snipers, missile fire and IED explosions directed at the IDF forces. During this period, unceasing efforts were made to kidnap IDF soldiers. Only soldiers who were in combat units fought in the region.
According to the notes made in the IDF records, from September 2000 to the date of the incident that is the focus of this lawsuit (March 16, 2003), nearly 6,000 grenades had been thrown at IDF forces in the Corridor; there had been approximately 1,400 incidents of gunfire; and there were more than 40 occurrences of mortar fire. These aforementioned events led to the injury and death of many Israelis. [...]
b. During the period pertinent to this case, there was a military directive in force declaring the "Philadelphi Corridor" a "closed military area" and forbidding the entry of civilians.
The actions of the ISM (International Solidarity Movement), a notorious pro-Palestinian group, were also scrutinised since Rachel Corrie was a high profile member partaking in ISM activities that day:
c. The ISM assigned itself the task of working alongside the Palestinians against the "Israeli occupation" by using what it called "non-violent protest activities". However, the evidence presented to me shows a significant gap between the Organization's statements and the true character of its activities and actions. The actions taken by the members of the organization, in practice, do not match its statements. In fact, the Organization exploits the dialogue regarding human rights and morality to blur the severity of its actions, which are, in fact, expressed through violence.
Inter alia, ISM activities included "defending" Palestinian families, even ones that were engaged in terror activities. The Organization's activists "specialized" in sabotaging the IDF's operational actions. ISM activities included, inter alia: stationing activists to serve as "human shields" for terrorists wanted by Israeli security forces; financial, logistical and moral assistance to Palestinians, including terrorists and their families; interrupting demolition activities or the sealing off of houses belonging to terrorists who conducted suicide attacks with multiple casualties.
The judge provided some context surrounding the incident, and addressed the objectives of the IDF that day. He asserts that the aim was to level the ground and clear undergrowth rather than demolish homes:
d. The mission of the IDF force on the day of the incident was solely to clear the ground. This clearing and leveling included leveling the ground and clearing it of brush in order to expose hiding places used by terrorists, who would sneak out from these areas and place explosive devices with the intent of harming IDF soldiers. There was an urgency to carrying out this mission so that IDF look-outs could observe the area and locate terrorists thereby preventing explosive devices from being buried. The mission did not include, in any way, the demolition of homes. The action conducted by the IDF forces was done at real risk to the lives of the soldiers. Less than one hour before the incident that is the focus of this lawsuit, a live hand-grenade was thrown at the IDF forces.
e. I hereby determine that, on the day of the incident, the two bulldozers and the armored personnel carrier were occupied with the clear military operational task of clearing the land in a dangerous area which posed a significant risk. The force's action was designed to prevent acts of terror and hostility, i.e. to eliminate the danger of terrorists hiding between the creases of land and in the brush, and to expose explosive devices hidden therein, both of which were intended to kill IDF soldiers. During each act of exposure, the lives of the IDF fighters were at risk from Palestinians terrorists. […]
For this reason, I hereby determine that the act of clearing the land with which the IDF force was occupied during the event was "a war-related action" as defined in The Civil Wrongs Ordinance.
Thus, the judge believes Corrie was interfering with an IDF operation to make an area safe, rather than preventing a house demolition. The intent and actions of Corrie leading to her unfortunate death were addressed in detail:
f. On March 16, 2003, the decedent and her fellow ISM activists arrived at the location where the IDF force was working to clear the land. They did so, they claim, in order to prevent the IDF force from demolishing Palestinian houses. They did so illegally and in contradiction of the military directive declaring the area a "closed military area". They held signs, stood in front of the bulldozers and did not allow them to carry out their mission. The IDF soldiers informed the activists that they had to distance themselves from the area, threw stun grenades towards them, fired warning shots towards them and used methods to disperse demonstrations. All without avail.
The IDF force was very careful not to harm the Organization's activists. Because of the activists' interference, the force repeatedly relocated to continue carrying out their mission.
g. Based on the evidence presented to me, including the testimony of the expert for the prosecution, Mr. Osben, I hereby determine that at approximately 17:00, the decedent stood roughly 15 to 20 meters from the relevant bulldozer and knelt down. The bulldozer to which I refer was a large, clumsy and shielded vehicle of the DR9 model. The field of view the bulldozer's operator had inside the bulldozer was limited. At a certain point, the bulldozer turned and moved toward the decedent. The bulldozer pushed a tall pile of dirt. With regard to the field of view that the bulldozer's operator had, the decedent was in the "blind spot". The decedent was behind the bulldozer's blade and behind a pile of dirt and therefore the bulldozer's operator could not have seen her.
The bulldozer moved very slowly, at a speed of one kilometer per hour.
When the decedent saw the pile of dirt moving towards her, she did not move, as any reasonable person would have. She began to climb the pile of dirt. Therefore, both because the pile of dirt continued to move as a result of the pushing of the bulldozer, and because the dirt was loose, the decedent was trapped in the pile of dirt and fell.
At this stage, the decedent's legs were buried in the pile of dirt, and when her colleagues saw from where they stood that the decedent was trapped in the pile of dirt, they ran towards the bulldozer and gestured towards its operator and yelled at him to stop. By the time the bulldozer's operator and his commander noticed the decedent's colleagues and stopped the bulldozer, a significant portion of the decedent's body was already covered in dirt.
The decedent's entire body was not covered in dirt. In fact, when the bulldozer backed up, the decedent's body was seen to free itself from the pile of dirt and the decedent was still alive.
The decedent was evacuated to the hospital and after 20 minutes, her death was declared.
It is notable that Corrie’s team claim she had died before reaching hospital.
I hereby determine unequivocally that there is no foundation to the plaintiffs' claim that the bulldozer struck the decedent intentionally. This was a very unfortunate accident and was not intentional. No one wished to harm the decedent. I was convinced that the bulldozer's operator would not have continued to work if he had seen the decedent standing in front of the bulldozer, as he and his colleagues acted in similar circumstances earlier that day, when they moved from location to location because of the disturbances caused by the members of the Organization. […]
Other claims by the Corrie legal team of an unprofessional investigation and loss of evidentiary material, appear to have been perceived by the judge as muckraking:
i. The plaintiffs claimed that evidentiary damage was done in two areas: first, they claim that the Criminal Investigations Division (CID) investigation carried out after the event was sloppy and unprofessional and led to evidentiary damage for the plaintiffs; the second area, which refers to the responsibility of the Institute for Forensic Medicine for evidentiary damage caused to the plaintiffs as a result of the violation of the judicial order and the destruction of the recording documenting the decedent's autopsy.
Bizarrely the Corrie legal team objected to a crucial investigative file being submitted to the court:
It could be expected that, in light of the claim made above, the plaintiffs' representative would submit to the court the file of the investigation conducted by the CID so that I could form my own opinion regarding the investigatory actions carried out and the manner in which the investigation was carried out, and to learn if the actions taken by the CID were sufficient or not. However, it was the plaintiffs that objected to submitting the full file of the investigation as evidence, even though the defendant agreed to do so. Thus did the plaintiffs, by their own actions, introduce circumstances in which an extremely important tool to examine their claims was denied to the court. […]
Investigators from the CID concluded that in order to advance the investigation, an autopsy would have to be performed on the decedent. As a result, they approached the District Court in Rishon LeZion and asked for a court order that would allow for such an autopsy. The court order "…that the body be autopsied at the Abu Kabir Institute for Forensic Medicine by a doctor who is not in the military and in the presence of a representative of the American State Department" (Exhibit 6/T).
Professor Hiss testified that since the American Consulate saw no need to send a representative to be present at the autopsy, the autopsy was conducted, with the family's agreement, without a consular representative. He also testified that the Consulate sent a fax confirming that the autopsy could be conducted without a representative from the family (Exhibit 11/T). […]
The family's desire was to receive the decedent's body as soon as possible. Indeed, the family did not conduct any additional examinations after receiving the decedent's body and it was cremated: see Mr. Craig Corrie's testimony.
The judge concluded by dismissing the case, although the Jewish State was ordered to cover its own legal costs due to the unfortunate "circumstance surrounding the decedent's death".
l. With regard to grounds for negligence: I am convinced that, given the circumstances created at the location of the incident, the actions taken by the force were without fault. Indeed, the field of vision of the bulldozer's operator was limited. However, the decedent's field of vision while she stood in front of the bulldozer and knelt down was open and without any limitation. The decedent could have distanced herself from any danger without any difficulty. However, she chose to take the risk described above, and that eventually led to her death.
Three men associated with the Jordanian Paralympic squad were arrested in Northern Ireland on Monday the 20th of August 2012, following allegations of sexual assault on several women and children. The team is staying in County Antrim, leading up to the Paralympics in London next week.
The story of the arrest seems to have first appeared rather late the following day. Initially the reports only stated that it involved three women.
However, reports the day after (Wednesday the 22nd) now state that two of the three men have been charged with sexual offences involving children, one man exclusively so:
A 23-year-old-man was charged with two counts of sexual activity with a child, one count of sexual assault against a woman and voyeurism.
A 35-year-old man was charged with two counts of causing sexual activity with a child.
The third man charged, a 36-year-old, faces one count of sexual assault against a woman.
A Google search reveals that the story hasn’t made it around the world, with the exception of a few US reports, and a short report in Ynet.
Considering the serious nature of the story, as well as its international dimension, it is odd how muted the reporting has been, especially in the UK and Ireland. For example, the initial report on Tuesday evening disappeared from the state broadcaster RTE’s teletext service after a relatively short period of time, and after having been given a very low news ranking (number 14 or 15 out of 16 listed stories). It has been given a similarly low ranking today (a drop from number 13 to 16 before again disappearing from the listings in the early afternoon), which is odd considering the revelation that the story involves children.
Could it be another example of the media’s reticence toward anything very controversial that could be linked with Muslims, as illustrated by the obfuscatory British media reports that continually substituted the word “Muslim” with “Asian”? It is difficult to say with any certainty but the muted media reaction is odd to say the least.
Update
Additional information has since emerged after a court hearing in Londonderry earlier today. The three accused have been granted bail. They are: Powerlifter Omar Sami Qaradhi, 31, has been charged with three counts of sexual assault, two of them against children, and one count of voyeurism.
His fellow powerlifter Motaz Al-Junaidi, 45, faces one charge of sexual assault against a woman.
Trainer Faisal Hammash, 35, has been charged with two counts of inciting a child to engage in sexual activity.
The story seems to have gained greater attention from the mainstream media (including RTE), perhaps after the court heard that King Abdullah II had taken an interest in the case, perhaps due to its potential for embarrassment: The king of Jordan is taking a personal interest in the case of three members of his country's Paralympic team accused of sex offences during pre-Games training in Northern Ireland, a court has heard.
The Arab administration promised to bring the men back before the court in Coleraine, Co Londonderry, if bail was granted, district judge Richard Wilson was told. […]
A representative of the Jordanian government, counsellor Rulan Samara from the London embassy, told the court: "His majesty the King of Jordan (King Abdullah the Second) was inquiring about the matter and was asking about all the details."
The Israeli Embassy, situated in Dublin, was hit by a hoaxed bomb alert yesterday, which led to the Irish Army’s bomb disposal squad attending the scene. It may have links with three additional bomb alerts during the same day, in residential areas of the country. One of these alerts was also a hoax, and the other two featured viable devices or bomb components.
There have been very frequent reports in the Irish media concerning the appearance of (presumably primitive) explosive devices in recent years. The source(s) of these devices remains unclear as the media reports are notably vague. It may be non-political criminal gangs and/or Irish republican groups, which in Ireland are typically of a hard-leftist political persuasion.
Until now the Israeli Embassy appears not to have been a target of these incidents, although it has been the target of bomb/chemical hoaxes in the past.
The Israeli Embassy is subject to weekly pro-Palestinian demonstrations, and continuous demands to have the Ambassador expelled. Attempts in recent years to control or take the Embassy over have also been made by left-wing politicians and activists, such as Richard Boyd-Barrett.
Eamon Gilmore speaking with a pro-Palestinian demonstrator.
Eamon Gilmore, Ireland’s foreign minister, said recently he shall seek a boycott of Jewish West Bank settlements throughout the European Union:
Tánaiste Eamon Gilmore has said Ireland may push for the EU to ban goods from Israeli settlements if Israel does not quickly change its settlements policy in Palestinian territories.
Furthermore, Gilmore also seeks the banning of some Jewish settlers from entering the EU due to “violence”:
Mr Gilmore has also said the Government may seek to have certain extremist settlers banned from the EU if they do not stop their violence in settlement areas. […]
“I think at that stage if there isn’t a change in Israeli policy in relation to settlements in particular, I think we may have to look at some additional measures,” the Tánaiste said.
These “additional measures” are largely left unsaid but if he wishes to censure settler communities then it is possible they will be treated in a similar fashion to terrorist organisations. He may suggest proscribing settler advocacy groups, individuals convicted of violence against Palestinians, and even those associated with activism. Somewhat similar ideas were proposed by EU diplomats in an official report last year, concerning “settlers” in East Jerusalem.
The statement is of note as Gilmore said he spoke for the Government, and their policy will be pursued further when Ireland gets the rotating EU presidency next January. Additionally, Gilmore holds more than the foreign ministry. By possessing the role of Tánaiste (deputy prime minister) in the current government, he stands as the second most senior politician in Ireland. He is also the leader of the Labour Party, partners in the two-party coalition government.
The EU’s frequent criticism of the Jewish State attempts to appease the Arab-Islamic world. It is also an opportunity to appear holier than thou, and to date Europe’s hostility toward Israel has resulted in a substantive amount of prejudicial hot air over human rights, which has contributed in a gradual albeit very significant way to Israel’s delegitimisation.
However, the present boycott proposal should be deemed a more intensive immediate threat, judging by overall trends in EU policy toward Israel, and European trends at a more national level, such as with the UK and Denmark, to isolate produce associated with Jewish settlements. Goods produced in the settlements have no entitlement to any EU import exemptions, unlike the rest of Israel.
The timing of Gilmore’s proposal
Gilmore announced his boycott proposal on May 14th, immediately after a meeting with his European ministerial counterparts, where he may have discussed the idea. The meeting led to the issuing of a particularly antagonistic statement on Jewish settlements in the West Bank, where the EU effectively accused Israel of ethnic cleansing, especially in relation to the small Palestinian minority in Area C, which represents a few percent of its West Bank populace.
The EU threatened Israel’s authority by refusing to accept Israeli planning law in relation to Area C of the contested West Bank, asserting the legitimacy of illegal Palestinian development. Area C is under Israel’s control via the Oslo treaty, until a peace deal is signed. This was done whilst reiterating the common EU claim that all Jewish settlement is illegal in Area C. The EU also substantially increased Palestinian developmental funding in the latter part of 2011.
Coinciding with Gilmore’s proposal, the ministers issued their communiqué on the eve of Naqba Day, a day commonly seen as a protest against Israel’s very creation in 1948. The date seems unduly coincidential, especially when considering it was the eve of the first anniversary of Naqba Day 2011, notable for causing the worst violence of the conflict the year previously. Thus, its issuing was in part likely to be a detrimental gesture of appeasement.
Context surrounding the proposal
Gilmore’s proposal appears to be an expansion of a prior report issued in 2011. Consular officials heading the EU diplomatic missions in Jerusalem and Ramallah issued a report calling for East Jerusalem to be treated as the capital of a Palestinian state. They made a significant number of unprecedented proposals, such as boycotting Israeli produce originating in East Jerusalem, and discussed EU nations banning “violent settlers in East Jerusalem.”
The report recommends that EU officials and politicians refuse to visit government offices located beyond the 1949 Armistice Lines, and decline any Israeli security in East Jerusalem. The document proposes that visiting EU officials should not avail of any Israeli businesses that operate in East Jerusalem, nor archaeological sites operated by “pro-settler organizations.” The diplomats suggest raising public awareness about settlement products, and for citizens to be informed “of the financial risks involved in purchasing property in occupied East Jerusalem.” It advocates an EU presence at house evacuations and demolitions, court hearings, and to “ensure EU intervention when Palestinians are arrested or intimidated by Israeli authorities for peaceful cultural, social or political activities in East Jerusalem.”
Some commentators felt the severity of the report, including its focus on practical overtly intrusive actions harmful to the State, represented the first concrete steps toward the EU instituting sanctions against Israel in its entirety.
During a recent session in the Irish parliament Gilmore stated:
We all want to see meaningful talks resuming between Israel and Palestine, with a view to putting in place the two-state solution. It is not realistic to have that, however, in circumstances where settlement activity is taking place. As President Abbas said, one cannot talk about a state for Palestine if one continues to build on it.
It would seem that Gilmore has accepted Abbas’ excuses for not coming to the peace table, by exaggerating rather absurdly the scale of the settlements, which merely represent around 2% of the West Bank. The EU criticised Israel for not extending Netanyahu’s settlement freeze even though the Palestinians refused to talk til the very end of the freeze! Northern-Ireland peacemaker George Mitchell said of that very process:
…the Israeli leaders agreed to halt new housing in the West Bank for 10 months. It was much less than what we asked for but more than anyone else had done. The Palestinians rejected it as worse than useless. They were strongly opposed to it. Then nine months on, there were negotiations for a couple of weeks that were discontinued by the Palestinians on the grounds that Israel wouldn’t continue the settlement freeze. What had been less than worthless a few months earlier became indispensable to continue negotiations.
Thus, the Palestinians are simply play-acting, using the settlement issue as little more than a ruse to avoid talking peace. Gilmore, and his ilk in Europe, should be reminded of the fact that Israel continued the Oslo talks during the mid-1990’s, when some of the most debased terrorist attacks, with co-operation from the PLO, took place on its soil.
Are Jewish settlements illegal?
Ronald S. Lauder, the head of the World Jewish Congress, reacted strongly to Gilmore’s proposal stating “the West Bank territories are legally disputed and not illegally occupied.”
The words “contested” or “disputed” are more appropriate than “occupied” because there was no prior legitimate sovereignty that the occupier ousted, and indeed Jordan gave up its claim over the West Bank in 1988. Additionally, the 1949 Armistice lines were explicitly designated as being temporary boundaries.
The legal status of the settlements is actually far more complex than Gilmore et al allow. Article Six of the British Mandate established the legal precedent for permitting close Jewish settlement Eastward to the Jordan River but the mandated administration never properly discharged its mission. Moreover, the UN is not entitled to declare settlements illegal. Article 80 of the Charter prevents prior international bodies being overruled.
Furthermore, Israel and the PLO both signed binding agreements. With Oslo II the settlement and border issues were to be decided in a final status agreement. Thus, the continued presence of settlements in Area C is not illegitimate.
Moreover, land swaps between Israel and the Palestinians have repeatedly been accepted by the PA. It is understood that some settlements near the Green line will be incorporated into Israel, in return for largely Arab areas in Israel.
Eamon Gilmore’s hypocrisy
For a time it seemed that Ireland might have been willing to foster a closer relationship with Israel. Eamon Gilmore visited Israel and the Palestinian territories in January. This came after Reuven Rivlin, the parliamentary speaker of Israel’s Knesset, visited Ireland in an official capacity, the first such visit by invite from the Irish State in almost thirty years.
However, cordial relations would only go so far. It was a portent of things to come when Gilmore met Netanyahu. While in front of news cameras, Netanyahu asked Gilmore at considerable length to criticise Palestinian incitement. Gilmore, who has been intensely vocal about Jewish settlements for a long time, pointedly failed to even briefly mention the issue of incitement, nor the then recent glorification of the killers of the Fogel family on PA television.
Gilmore often asserts that he is not anti-Israeli, that he merely speaks up for Palestinian rights. However, he cannot have it both ways. Anyone who advocates a boycott against Israeli settlers is anti-Israeli, even if they draw a sharp distinction with an overall boycott and seek a two-state solution, if they do not seek censure of the Palestinian side as well. Their stance places absolute blame on Israel for not seeking or obtaining peace, with seemingly no censure for continual Palestinian intransigence. The view is in stark contrast to the facts. Israel has repeatedly offered the PA the vast majority of the territory featuring settlements, virtually 100% of Palestinian territorial demands during the 2007/8 Olmert-Abbas talks, in exchange for peace.
And what of settler violence? Actually, when considering the scale of such an ugly conflict, a surprisingly modest number of Palestinians have been killed by settlers since 2000, numbering seventeen, according to anti-Israeli NGO B’Tselem, an organisation prone to exaggeration, and indeed a number of those Palestinians killed were actually engaged in violent acts against settlers.
Gilmore asserted that his stance represents that of the broader Irish government. For Irish politicians to try to isolate settlers over notions of humanitarianism, when the Irish State is bending over backwards to facilitate stronger bi-lateral ties with the Chinese in an effort to gain better access to its markets, when there are graver human rights concerns over the most basic freedoms in China, as well as the ongoing suppression of protest in occupied Tibet, surely represent a real contender in the moral hypocrisy stakes!
It should be said that Gilmore hasn’t expressed views that could be considered anti-Semitic, and he spoke against the bullying of a band intending to visit Israel, albeit after others in the government and opposition took a lead.
The EU’s manifest hatred of the Jewish State
A boycott would obviously cause a dramatic escalation in tensions between the EU and Israel but sanity may not necessarily prevail. Such a move would be popular in Europe, during the present climate where anti-Semitism has repeatedly been shown to be on the rise, even in the more sensitised German populace, and is strongly associated with populist intensely negative anti-Israeli sentiment.
The EU/EEC has been hostile to Israel for decades. Their stance has been defined by self-interest, rather than any concerns over humanitarianism. Initially, fears over oil security, particularly after the OPEC crisis, were intensified by a keener hostility from the French and Irish, both of which desired to court the Arab world economically. Since 9/11, oil security melded with a great concern over Islamism, due to an ever-increasing Muslim presence in Europe.
The EU issue frequent reports, which are derived from sources known to be highly prejudicial, that perpetuate many untruths about the conflict. It displays a shockingly lax attitude toward terrorism and the incitement of violence.
It has often been stated that ceaselessly condemning one side will not achieve peace when both need to compromise meaningfully. This is an obvious point that experienced politicians would understand, and while not all within the EU adopt such a hostile position, the most Israel can ever hope for in terms of balance is vague and infrequent words about terrorism.
In 2010 twenty six European leaders, including high-level former EU leaders, such as Javier Solana, issued a letter calling for boycotts and sanctions targeting Israel over settlement construction. They called for the EU to stop the importation of settlement products, and demanded that Israel fund the bulk of aid to Palestinians. They demanded that the EU reiterate its position that it will not recognise any changes to the June 1967 Israeli boundaries, that a Palestinian state must be “territory equivalent to 100% of the territory occupied in 1967”, its capital East Jerusalem. They wanted the EU to give Israel an ultimatum that if their demands were not met in six months, the EU would seek an end to the US peace process in favour of a UN solution!
This oddly pugnacious attitude toward Israel stands in stark contrast to its soft approach to that of other conflicts, the only exception being the present civil war in Syria, albeit a conflict on a very different scale, where at least 10,000 civilians have been killed, 65,000+ are missing, and 200,000+ imprisoned, a toll caused by civilian protest against the Assad regime, rather than defensive necessity! Not surprisingly, the EU speaks in harmony with the UN and the Arab League on this issue, as they do regarding Israel.
Is the EU’s stance merely a result of ignorance about the malignancy of the intent of the Arab-Islamic world toward Israel? Well perhaps not! The EU’s High Representative, Catherine Ashton, effectively compared the murder of Jewish children by an Islamic terrorist in Toulouse, with the death of children due to a defensive conflict against Hamas in Gaza, thus echoing the views of the terrorist himself, and of similar killers in the past. Thus, there seems to be a tacit understanding of terrorism against Israel.
Indeed, the EU has for a long time displayed a bizarrely disinterested attitude with regard to its funding. Of the enormous sums it sends to the PA, it has been noted for some time that a very substantial portion goes to terrorists and the families of "martyrs".
Neither is it unprecedented to express sympathy over the death of Hamas operatives. One EU member threatened to prosecute a number of political and military leaders over the killing of leading terrorist Salah Shehadeh, suggesting some see Hamas as a legitimate organisation.
At a political level, the EU’s shift to an ever-hardening stance was illustrated when they expressed the intent to fund Hamas in a unity government, and the terrorist group is also reputed to be holding talks with five EU countries at present. Thus, it can be said that the very last of the EU’s scruples are being eroded away, and sooner or later the political entity shall act on in a far more concrete fashion against Israel.
Although Hamas is an EU proscribed organisation, it is notable that many individuals closely associated with the group freely advocate for Hamas in Europe, a situation contrasting with the US. Interestingly, the EU was reluctant to proscribe Hamas, and seemingly little has been done to stop the extensive funding network that exists in Europe.
Potential consequences, and a petition for change
A developing boycott would be extremely dangerous to Israel not only because it would substantially worsen the perception of its already compromised legitimacy. It would cross a psychological barrier in the West if such a major entity as the EU was to boycott settlements, and single out settlers for legal censure. It can easily be envisaged that individual states would go further in this boycott since the mechanism would have been legitimised by the EU itself.
Reputedly, concerns have been expressed in Israel that the debate over exports from settlements will in turn have a bearing on all their exports to Europe. Indeed there is likely to be some rippling effect after the first stone is cast.
With Israel unable to even talk peace with an intransigent Palestinian Authority, which is well aware that Israel’s demonisation is sapping its maneuverability, the door will then open for a boycott of settlers and non-settlers alike.
A boycott may in time spread to Western nations outside the EU, becoming a normative feature of foreign policy.
One of the few active pro-Israel campaigners in Ireland started a petition, hosted by Avaaz. It proved popular but Avaaz deleted it without warning. They claimed it broke their “community standards” without citing any specific rules. Avaaz has intensively supported the Palestinian cause since its founding.
The organiser of the deleted petition has started up another. Although starting at a disadvantage, support by pro-Israel advocates, through social media etc., will greatly aid the regaining momentum.
Conclusion
The EU’s extraordinary behaviour toward Israel could be characterised as if they see the Jewish State as a wayward colony, over which they have some sort of entitlement, It manifests as an arrogance that often crosses into bullying.
What does it say about self-appointed peace-makers, when they are unwilling to even briefly speak in public about Palestinian incitement, an immense problem that has pervaded Palestinian culture for decades? The answer has to be none too flattering, and the irony is increased a notch with Gilmore proposing legal censure against Jewish settlers.
Eamon Gilmore is right to be concerned about the continued viability of a two-state solution over the conflict but it needs to be pointed out that the grievance felt by many Palestinian Arabs is not driven by the settlement issue. It has been shown repeatedly, such as in polls, that a majority do not seek a long-term peaceful co-existence with Israeli’s.
This conflict is not about the settlements. It is about Israel’s existence in Dar al-Islam. The flat denial that Islamism is the true force behind the violence against Israel, when we see the effects of it blighting Africa and Asia on a daily basis in the news, is an affront to the truth. Why is the West willing to hand it over, akin to Czechoslovakia in 1938?
It is an effort to isolate Israel from the Greater Western sphere, an effort by Europeans to shield themselves from the Islamism that threatens them due to an ever-growing Muslim populace. The only peace that could ever be achieved by their approach is a Carthaginian peace, where Israel is forced into the role of sacrificial lamb but one that will not satisfy since it has little to do with the recent Middle-East upheavals, nor the conflict between Sunni and Shi’ite.
The popular Israeli blog Anne's Opinions features a synopsis of the above article, and offers further analysis, such as the way in which the EU’s funding is used.
