No prospect for peace: Two-thirds of Arab-Palestinians support “armed struggle”

[Updated article].

The latest Middle Eastern PEW study focuses to a large extent on the perception of Barak Obama and his prospective role in the Israeli-Arab conflict. 

The PEW study also revealed some notable findings about the opposing sides involved in the conflict. One of the more expected but still sobering findings was the confirmation that, unlike Israeli’s, a large majority of Arab-Palestinians do not favour peaceful methods to achieve independent statehood. From the report:

Israelis, on balance, believe a way can be found for an independent Palestinian state to coexist peacefully with their country. Palestinians, on the other hand, overwhelmingly do not think this is possible, and a plurality believes armed struggle rather than negotiations or nonviolent resistance is the best way to achieve statehood.

A question of “armed struggle” or terrorism

Armed struggle” in this instance can be understood as a politically inoffensive terminology that in effect translates as terrorism, when confronted with the reality of the conflict to-date.

Arab-Palestinian violence, particularly the actions of disciplined paramilitary groups, traditionally assault the Jewish civilian populace rather than the Israeli military. Aiming at easy “soft targets”, particularly those that are civilian (in an effort to intimidate) is the principle defining characteristic of terrorism. Thus terrorism contrasts starkly with other forms of paramilitary activity and resistance.

For example, during the Second Intifada, which constitutes the last great united Palestinian “armed struggle”, 80% of those killed on the Israeli side by Arab-Palestinians were in fact civilian. Afghanistani/Iraqi insurgents killed civilians in similar proportions.

Palestinians are more likely to say armed struggle is the best way for their people to achieve statehood (45%) than they are to say negotiations or nonviolent resistance offer the best prospect for the creation of a Palestinian state (15% each). Another 22% volunteer that a combination of these three approaches would be most effective.

Source: Pew Research

In effect 67% of all Palestinians support armed struggle because 45% support it completely, whilst another 22% support it combined with political actions.

Indeed PEW received similar percentage results in 2011 concerning supportive views of suicide attacks in defence of Islam:

Palestinian Muslims, however, remain an outlier on this question: 68% say suicide attacks in defense of Islam can often or sometimes be justified, a level of support essentially unchanged from 2007.

Earlier in May, poll results indicated that 40% of Arab-Palestinians believe suicidal attacks in defence of Islam are justified. In this instance the question of justification explicitly referred to the assault of civilian targets.

Whilst those of a pro-Palestinian persuasion may take the opinion that the survey indicates a lack of faith in the present Palestinian leaders, the survey results of the same PEW poll makes it clear that this is not the case (see section entitled “The popularity of Palestinian factions amongst the populace”).

The reality is that there is strong sentiment against even a resumption of peace talks, as indicated by the widespread riots in June-July 2012. It does not bode well for Palestinian Street giving any sort of peace process a chance.

Seeking pan-Arab military assistance?

The PEW study also found that a broadly similar percentage (three quarters) of Arab-Palestinians believe that the Arab world is not doing enough to assist them in achieving independent statehood:

When asked whether Arab countries are doing too much, too little or enough to help the Palestinian people achieve statehood, three-quarters in the Palestinian territories say they are doing too little; 16% say other Arab nations are doing enough and 5% believe they are doing too much to help Palestinians achieve statehood.

Assistance to achieve statehood can of course be given in various non-violent ways. However, when viewed with regard to a sizeable majority of Arab-Palestinians supporting violence to achieve the same goal of nationhood, it can clearly be inferred that that a majority of Arab-Palestinians likely support some form of pan-Arab military aid. Iran and Syria’s assistance to Hizbullah and Hamas, which are both combative belligerents against Israel, has a principally military dimension.

The finding has a degree of ambiguity but it may even reflect some desire for outright pan-Arab inter-state war with Israel. This was a common populist expectation in the Middle East some decades ago. For example, Israel’s response to Fatah’s attacks, prior to the Six Day War, triggered violent mass protests throughout the Arab world.

Indeed Abbas advised Arab leaders that the PLO is ready to make war on Israel if the rest of the Arab world does the same:

If you want war, and if all of you will fight Israel, we are in favor. But the Palestinians will not fight alone because they don't have the ability to do it.

The popularity of Palestinian factions amongst the populace

Perhaps surprisingly, Arab-Palestinians, both in the West Bank and Gaza, have a largely positive view of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. This popularity may have been bolstered by his successful move for “Palestine” to controversially gain observer status at the United Nations General Assembly last year, a unilateral move which breached the spirit of the Oslo Accords/Resolution 242.

Palestinians express mostly positive opinions of Abbas; 61% have a favorable view and 34% have an unfavorable view of the Palestinian president. Abbas is viewed favorably by majorities in both the West Bank (57%) and Gaza (68%). His party also receives positive ratings among Palestinians; 69% have a favorable view of Fatah, while 27% express unfavorable opinions.

PEW also found that leading terrorist groups Islamic Jihad and Hamas are less popular than Abbas’ Fatah/PLO faction. However, this finding may not be seen as a positive. 11% fewer Arab-Palestinians now hold negative opinions of Hamas since the last poll was taken by PEW. It is a sizeable change:

…a majority of Palestinians (56%) holds favorable opinions of Islamic Jihad, while about a third (35%) gives the militant organization negative ratings.

Opinions of Hamas are more mixed, with 48% of Palestinians viewing the extremist group favorably and 45% saying they have an unfavorable view of Hamas. In 2011, when Pew Research last asked Palestinians about Hamas, more held negative views (56%) than expressed positive opinions (42%)…

Despite changing views, such a show of support for Fatah may nonetheless encourage Abbas to hold long-delayed elections later this year.

Perceptions of Israeli’s and Arab-Palestinians in the West

The PEW survey also focused on the contrasting international support for Arab-Palestinians and Israel.

As has long been the case, the vast majority of Arab nations are extremely hostile to Israel, whilst the United States of America still holds a firm support for the State, despite the intensive efforts of Arab-Palestinian supporters to chip away at what is an essential block of support for Israel’s existence.

Elsewhere in the Western World, opinion of the two sides of the conflict varies quite considerably:

Views are more mixed in France, Germany and Russia. For example, 40% of French respondents sympathize more with Israel, while 44% say their sympathies lie with the Palestinians. Similarly, in Germany and Russia, about as many side with Israel as side with the Palestinians, but substantial numbers in these countries do not sympathize with either side in this conflict (31% and 42%, respectively).

The image PEW presents is one that may give a small ray of hope to those that support Israel because broad public stances on the conflict have not dramatically changed since 2007, despite the high-intensity campaigning by Western pro-Palestinian supporters:

For the most part, there has been little change in perceptions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in recent years.

In mainland Europe, the image is varied. Germany has seen a notable increase in support for the Palestinian cause, whilst in France support for Israel has surprisingly increased in recent years. Russia has a sizeable pro-Israel support base despite decades of hostility from officialdom within the USSR.

The report finds that almost twice as many British people support the Palestinians over that of Israel. The finding reinforces the view that the British stand out as perhaps the most anti-Israel collective in the Western world, where many British academics, journalists and politicians have taken a leading and longstanding role in Israel’s delegitimisation.




This article was also published at Crethi Plethi.

The EU at war with Israel: The prospect of an Irish-led EU-wide boycott

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 14^th, 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.

The Palestinian Authority also campaigns forcefully for the boycott of the settlements even though a boycott runs counter to the Oslo Accords where trade barriers are to be avoided.

Are settlements really preventing peace?

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.




This article was also published at Crethi Plethi.

The Irish on Israel: Why Foreign Minister Eamon Gilmore Lambasted the Jewish State

For a long time Ireland has had a relatively antagonistic relationship with Israel, which can at times be more keenly felt than diplomatic tensions with many other Western nations. It is not unusual to see articles and letters by Israelis expressing bafflement at this hostility. Most visibly perhaps, the Irish element in the international pro-Palestinian movement, for example in the flotillas to Gaza, is surprisingly large for a nation with a small populace. Last year an Israeli ambassador expressed the view that officials in Israel’s Foreign Ministry thought of Ireland as a "lost cause". 

It is thought the strength of pro-Palestinian sentiment developed from a perceived affinity between the Irish republican movement and the Palestinians. Certainly the links between the IRA and Arafat’s PLO have been well documented. This connection is due to historic circumstance, where the British were wrongly perceived as pro-Jewish. Yet this affinity goes beyond disaffected socialists and republicans. It has infused the culture itself and can be seen at the heart of government, whether on the left or right.

There are incidents of outright antisemitism in Ireland but such events appear to be very rare in comparison with countries like Sweden and France where there has been something of a Jewish exodus. However, a study published in May of this year found that of those Irish citizens questioned, over 1/5^th would deny citizenship to Israelis. More worrying are the anti-Semitic views of some, with 11.5% stating they would deny Irish citizenship to all Jews, and less than 60% saying they would accept a Jewish person into their family. When placed in context, it is clear this is a broad trend affecting the more anti-Israeli nations across Europe, which undermines the old cliché that pro-Palestinianism is anti-Zionism disassociated from antisemitic elements.

This all-pervasive pro-Palestinianism manifests in an interesting way. The focus on this issue is intense if not obsessive, considering its distance from Irish politics, where there is no serious threat of Islamist reprisals as a result of military activity. There is a culture of blame focused exclusively on Israel, a tacit apologism for Palestinian wrongdoing when not completely ignored, whilst at the same time loudly proclaiming the need for peace. Israel’s worries are rarely regarded with anything other than contempt.

One such example is the new socialist president, Michael D. Higgins, who is Ireland’s answer to Carter without the complication of being American. His constant anti-US posturing led to a stance of instant 9/11 moral relativism, and the courting of nasty individuals like Nicaraguan dictator Daniel Ortega. He is virulently anti-Israeli, having repeatedly advocated boycott and sanctions, called for the removal of Hamas from the EU proscription list, and sought communication between Hamas and the Irish State. In 2007 he was st anding on the same platform as Ibrahim Mousawi, then head of Hizbullah’s Al Manar TV, which numerous countries have banned due to its intensive anti-Semitic content. Mousawi has referred to Jews as "a lesion on the forehead of history" etc.

Depressingly, this is the pose many Irish politicians strike, regardless of their creed and merit in other respects. The conduct of Ireland’s last foreign minister, Michael Martin, over the 2010 Gaza Flotilla issue left an awful lot to be desired - he rushed to conclusions damning Israel as the details of the story were only emerging. Culturally speaking, it is telling when an adept mainstream politician starts acting in such a fashion.

Recently this bias was illustrated when Eamon Gilmore, Tánaiste (deputy prime minister) and current Minister for Foreign Affairs, spoke about the bid for Palestinian statehood at the United Nations in New York. He is leader of the Labour Party, which is in a coalition government. Until the early 90’s he was a member of the Workers Party which was affiliated to a relatively moderate branch of the IRA.


Gilmore’s stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Other than glowing comments about the UN, Gilmore’s speech mainly dealt with the Mid-East conflict

In the Middle East Peace Process, the search for freedom and equality has yet to bear fruit. The Arab-Israeli conflict remains depressingly deadlocked. Unless this deadlock is broken, the opportunities for yet another generation of children will be destroyed.
The situation in the Middle East is urgent. After twenty years of failed initiatives, disillusionment about the capacity of the political process to deliver a settlement is deepening. Young Palestinians, in particular, are frustrated and despairing. The position of the moderate Palestinian leadership is under threat…

Indeed the peace process is deadlocked. Gilmore doesn’t ask why directly but goes along with the common assumption that the impasse is Israel’s fault judging by what he states elsewhere in the speech about Jewish settlements. However, just a cursory look at the record of negotiations suggests the problems do not lie with Israel. Didn’t Arafat and Abbas walk out of said processes? Arafat was offered about 91% of his territorial demands at Camp David but walked about over the shared sovereignty of the Temple Mount/Haram whilst Abbas was offered almost 100% of all territorial demands (with some land swaps) by Olmert. Gilmore sides with those unwilling to compromise by strengthening their hand with his support, whilst giving the more amenable party a good talking to. Surely this is a bizarrely counter-productive approach?

It is posited that one side is especially frustrated and despairing. Gilmore believes it is the Palestinians. Then it needs to be asked why their leaders are so unwilling to enter peace talks without preconditions from either side. Polls through the years have repeatedly attested that far from wanting peaceful co-existence, the majority of Palestinians support the opposite. Most recently, a poll from July illustrated this point starkly. By contrast, a recent poll of Israelis indicates that 66% do not ever see peace as being possible with the Palestinians. Perhaps both sides are “frustrated” etc. but for very different reasons.

Ireland has long been an advocate for the establishment of a sovereign, independent Palestinian state within borders based on those of 1967…

In 1980 Ireland became the first European country to associate a Palestinian state with the rights of the Palestinian people. This was the result of the “Bahrain Declaration”, which was the work of another minister for foreign affairs, Brian Lenihan (Senior). This was done at a time when the PLO was repeatedly questioning Israel’s right to exist. Israel’s anger over the move was intense, and it was seen by the Irish opposition as an effort to curry political and economic favour with the Arab Middle-East.

It is also of note that relations were frosty since Israel’s inception. Ireland was the last member of the EEC to recognise Israel, and the sole country in the EU bloc without an Israeli embassy until 1996, almost 48 years after Israel’s creation. It was grudgingly allowed with the advent of the Oslo peace process but only after it was matched by a strong Palestinian delegation to Ireland.

The decision of President Abbas to seek Palestine’s membership of the United Nations is entirely legitimate and understandable. Palestine has the same right to membership of the United Nations as Ireland or any other Member of this Organisation.

Gilmore conflates countries in existence with a notional one. He also appears to assert there is some sort of implicit or automatic right to UN membership. Surely no region has such an automatic right to full membership as a state unless they constitute an actual state? Indeed Paragraph One of Article Two of the UN Charter says: “The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.” Whilst the intent of that paragraph is arguably to reinforce the equality of all members, it still makes some level of sovereignty a condition of membership. Similarly Article Four makes it clear statehood is effectively a requirement for membership: “Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states…” Thus, if a notional state has any right to membership at all, it does not remotely have the same right to membership as an established state like Ireland.

Such a claim to this right of full UN membership is especially dubious if the actors that seek to constitute a given state are in conflict with an established state which is a full member of the UN. In the initial part of Gilmore’s speech he praises the Charter but the text is an inconvenience to his viewpoint. Article Two, Paragraph Four states: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” The Palestinian Authority (PLO) continues to incite against Israel and repeatedly fudged the removal of the call to annihilate Israel in the PLO charter, a vital requirement of the Oslo peace process. Hamas repeatedly denies Israel’s right to exist and has called for a mass genocide against the Jews. The PA and Hamas formed a mock government for the UN bid. If their past conduct is anything to go by, a state they constitute would surely make a mockery of Article Four.

The nature of a Palestinian state is again conflated with existent states in an assertion about borders:

Some would seek to argue that Palestine cannot be recognised as a State because its borders remain to be agreed. But if the borders of Palestine are still a matter for negotiation, then so, by definition, are those of Israel which is rightly a full member of the UN.

On the face of it, his point sounds reasonable. Yet when analysed the point represents a non-sequitur that misleads as it strips each case of their differing contexts. Distilled down, he essentially argues that recognition and/or membership of a Palestinian state equates with the same status afforded to Israel: A is justified as B has already been so. He appears to argue that both are conditional on each other being valid, regardless of the matter of disputed boundaries. Since he parallels the two, we can infer that both must have some form of similarity in terms of the conditions of their recognition/membership. This could be a distant similarity where equivalencies are artfully drawn out or a closer similarity in terms of circumstance. Does this bear out? Not really. The UN afforded an extant Israel full membership in May 1949, around the time the Armistice Lines were being finalised with the other nations involved in the 1948-49 war,which the International community now seek to re-use to carve up the State permanently.

Clearly the notion there is any meaningful equivalence comes across as an absurdity simply because Israel existed as a state. It was this fact which that principally led to its UN membership. A doesn’t follow B because it remains that Israel was a fully functioning state when it was given membership, while a Palestinian state is the exact opposite: a notional abstracted idea. The status of Israel’s borders was clearly a secondary concern, if one at all, while any borders are an impossibility for a notional one.

The reality is that Gilmore’s argument strawmans the stance of those disagreeing with the UN move. A prospective Palestinian state doesn’t have any borders, temporary or otherwise, in the first instance because it is not a functioning state, just a purely notional one. It becoming a functioning state depends on negotiations, not merely for borders. Such negotiations are the key to its creation. Pre-empting them with membership just makes said negotiations on a whole gamut of issues harder to compromise over.

Membership of the UN of itself… does not remove the compelling need for negotiations. Nor will it offer a legitimate excuse to avoid negotiations…

Well the need for negotiations depends on Palestinian intent. If the Palestinian leaders seek to continue conflict and eventually destroy Israel then surely it merely strengthens their hand to avoid negotiations by placing greater demands on Israel before negotiations have a chance to take place. The incitement in the Palestinian media, even under the supposedly moderate Abbas, continues to radicalise the populace.

What recognition of Palestinian statehood would do, however, would be to give dignity and support to the Palestinian people who have suffered for too long. It would also be a tangible demonstration of the commitment of the international community and the UN to an agreed settlement between two sovereign states…

The international community has already demonstrated its commitment to the Palestinian people time and time again. The Palestinians receive the highest priority, and the most substantial aid from the international community. They get the most attention, and not to a marginal extent either but to a vast degree, often at the expense of considerably worse conflict zones due to the continual attention given by the UN to the Palestinian cause. One wonders how much more “support” they need bar something along the lines of UN mandated military action against Israel to help them in their cause. It is open to question whether Gilmore believes the contention himself because he contradicts himself shortly after:

The international community has invested far too much effort and resources over the past decades not to do all it can now to assist a return to direct talks by the two sides. In the words of Martin Luther King, we cannot ignore “the fierce urgency of now”.

Whilst Gilmore waxes lyrical about the hardship and the apparent lack of “dignity” afforded to the Palestinian people, he never explicitly mentions of the hardship Israeli’s have faced, which is telling.

Provided that the resolution is drafted in terms that are reasonable and balanced, I expect Ireland to give its full support.

Balanced in Gilmore’s terms is decidedly pro-Palestinian. In reality of course Ireland wouldn’t vote against any UN resolution favouring the Palestinians unless it explicitly called for Israel’s destruction.

There can be no doubting the hugely transformative power for the Middle East region of a final end to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

In reality a solution is unlikely to change the status quo. Whether or not the presence of Israel initially inflamed the region, coming to a solution with the Palestinians will clearly not result in peace, merely another chapter in this sorry conflict. The international community is anxious to push this panacea, whilst often taking liberties with Israel’s security, since the aftermath of the 1973 oil crisis. In reality conflict between Sunni and Shiite, Muslim and Christian, is on a far greater scale in the region.

Although Gilmore briefly mentions “violent attacks” that are probably intended to apply to both sides of the conflict, his principle concern is with Jewish settlements:

I again urge the Government of Israel to halt all settlement expansion. And I also call on them to end the unjust blockade of Gaza by opening up land crossings to normal commercial, human and humanitarian traffic.

It is telling that Gilmore ends the part of the speech about the conflict on a note of sharp criticism of Israel, while never once mentioning the pain Israeli’s have endured in the conflict. His failure to present a case with any balance at all is illustrated with the further demand that Israel halt the blockade of Gaza (albeit by land rather than sea), which even the UN Palmer Report asserted was legitimate. Gaza isn’t run by the “moderate” leaders that he claimed are “under threat”. Rather the blockade exists since Gaza is possessed by Hamas, which took it by force from said moderates, and initiated conflict.


Broader contextual issues

Gilmore’s speech repeatedly praised the United Nations in gushing terms, without mention of its faults:

We are living in times of breathtaking change… To respond to these multiple and interrelated challenges, we have one constant anchor: the United Nations… No other organization has the same global impact and legitimacy.

The UN repeatedly failed to face the challenges of the past satisfactorily. It became a political tool for the Communist/Middle East bloc long ago. Its future does not look rosy either. It remains driven by sectional interests, e.g. the Islamic OIC bloc typically gets the support of the anti-Western Non-Aligned Movement representing a majority of UN members.

Gilmore goes on to extol the virtues of the Charter, seemingly as the basis of all that is good in the UN:

The Charter tells us that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”. The UN is the embodiment of freedom and equality. It is a bulwark defending these core human values in a changing and uncertain world…

For decades many members that should have abided by the principles of the Charter, such as universal values, freedom, equality etc., failed to do so. It is absurd to suggest the UN is the repository of human ideals. The Charter is a reminder of the monumental failure of the UN rather than a cause for any hope.

Whilst explicit criticism of the UN might be expecting too much, it is unfortunate that Gilmore didn’t allude to the manifest problems at the UN or even temper his praise somewhat:

Ireland is deeply committed to the United Nations. We look to it to uphold and defend the universal values of peace, security, human rights and development which are set out in the UN Charter. […]
A deep attachment to the values of freedom and equality and other core human rights principles underpins our candidature for election to the Human Rights Council at the elections to be held in 2012. […]

Now more than ever, the UN is demonstrating that it is the home for these fundamental values and goals and the arena in which we can best pursue collective solutions.

Sadly, the truth is that the United Nations is far from being the institution it purports to be. It is a body shielding many brutal regimes by giving them legitimacy. One blackly comic example is the UN-HRC containing some of the very worst human rights abusers in the world. The incongruity is so overt, e.g. the spectacle of Saudi Arabia on the Commission on the Status of Women, and the the antisemitic Durban anti-racism conferences, that it is really a wonder anyone can still think it a legitimate agent for good in the world. Yet many people continue to see the UN as a deeply virtuous, if at times ineffectual, institution.

A recent example is UN inaction over Syria, which appears to be as serious as conditions were in Libya. To Gilmore’s credit he mentioned Syria but all too briefly in a single sentence. The main issue of the speech dealt with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and as such represents another example of the UN’s appalling obsession with Israel at the expense of other conflicts, even when one of the latter is in full swing whilst the former is quiet.

Gilmore described the Arab Spring glowing heroic terms, as a move toward freedom when in fact it is a deeply worrying source of instability and extremism in a region already blighted by such problems:

We have watched the people of the Arab Spring who have asserted their rights and stood up to oppression and corruption. Tahrir (freedom) has now passed into all our vocabularies as a byword for all those no longer prepared to see their basic human rights suppressed… The people of the Arab Spring have stood up, and stood together, to assert their basic rights and freedoms. The right to choose their own leaders. The right not to live in fear of the knock on the door. The right to live freely and openly…

While the loss of the dictatorships are not something to bewail, the Arab Spring uses motifs of Islamic supremacy, and an undercurrent of Arab racism particularly in Libya. Hostility toward Israel, and Judaism in general, is a sizeable element in the movement.

A similar aggression toward Christians has been especially damaging because they lack the protection of a state like Israel. The destruction of Mid Eastern Christians has increased in recent months. Isolated events have reached the news occasionally but the phenomenon has otherwise been completely ignored at the UN, by Western leaders and also by many branches of the faith. In Egypt it is estimated that 100,000 Christians have left since the fall of Mubarak and worse is to come.


Aftermath of the speech

Gilmore’s speech attracted quite a lot of interest before and after its delivery. During a motion in the Senate calling on the government to recognise a Palestinian state at the UN meeting, Senator Terry Leyden, of the Friends of Palestine parliamentary group, said that Alan Shatter, the sole Jewish minister in Government, had an undue influence over foreign policy on Palestine. He also accused American Jews as having an undue influence over Obama. His assertions raised the sceptre of antisemitism, which he furiously denied.

Similarly, Éamon Ó Cuív, the deputy head of an opposition party was haranguing the government with accusations of following Obama’s stance at the UN, even though they had already said they would vote in favour of a Palestinian state.

After the speech Gilmore elaborated on his criticism of Israel during one parliamentry session. It was a more frank account of his views. In reply to questions by Mick Wallace, an MP who was involved with the Gaza Flotilla campaign, Gilmore stated:

The illegal Israeli settlements are a key driver of the unresolved Arab-Israeli conflict. The expansion of settlements inherently involves the seizure of Palestinian lands, destruction of homes and eviction of families, and the exclusion of farmers from their fields.

Gilmore forwards the standard rather absurd contention that the settlement issue is the prime reason for the failure of the peace process. Did Arafat walk out of Camp David over the settlements? No. During the Oslo Process, settlements were designated as a final status issue, and in fact Israel hasn’t recognised new Jewish settlements for quite a number of years.

The settlements also constitute, and are intended to constitute, an obstacle to the achievement of a comprehensive peace. If the settlements had not been put in place, the way to a comprehensive peace agreement between Israel, the Palestinians and the Arab world would now be clear and that such an agreement would be readily achievable.

Gilmore makes unjustifiable myopic assumptions about the intent of Israeli policy toward settlements. For a time they were encouraged with tax breaks to provide a security buffer between Israel and the Palestinian territories. However, Israel has repeatedly shown a willingness to dismantle settlements in the West Bank in exchange for a peace agreement, and have already done so in the Sinai and Gaza. It is then nothing less than an absurdity for Gilmore to claim this is the principle issue preventing peace.

Gilmore claimed settler violence is increasing, perhaps as a result of a recent arson attack on a mosque:

Violence by settlers against Palestinians is increasing and is largely ignored by the military authorities. The whole settlement enterprise sends a clear message that there is one law for Israelis and another for Palestinians.

In fact the attack was an unusual incident that drew wide condemnation from the Israeli establishment and Jewish leaders while Hamas used the event to incite violence.

The recent permission for the construction of more homes in Gilo was also a source of consternation:

… we strongly condemn the decision to go ahead with the 1,000 household settlement plan in Gilo in East Jerusalem…. the quartet statement… also sets down very clearly that provocative and pre-emptive actions should not be engaged in, and I agree with that.

It would seem Gilmore thinks “provocative and pre-emptive actions” only appertain to one side of the conflict given his strong support for the UN Palestinian statehood bid loosely based on the 1949 borders!

Perhaps one of the more galling features of international criticism of Israel is their attitude towards Jerusalem. The remarkable thing is that Eastern parts of Jerusalem had a large Jewish majority before Jordan took the territory in 1949. Much of that land, which was in the ownership of Jews, was handed to Palestinians. Now even moderate levels of construction in “Arab East Jerusalem”, which only came to have such an ethnic exclusivity due to Jordanian ethnic cleansing, is regarded as a provocation!

Internationally, Jewish neighbourhoods in East Jerusalem are classed as settlements to the same extent as sites like Hebron, which are embedded in the West Bank quite deeply. It is bizarre to be so opposed to all Jewish construction beyond the Armistice Lines, without any distinction, even though sites like Gilo were intended to remain part of Israel according to the peace plans put forward for the last two decades. Meanwhile Israel also faces a well-publicised housing crisis due to shortages.

Israel must be encouraged to see that its own best interests are not served by the occupation.

Gilmore’s sentiment is a commonly held view that fails to acknowledge very basic facts about the conflict. What of the deep religious/cultural and racial hostility toward Israel and Jews in general? What of the incitement and naked antisemitism that the Third Reich would have preferably concealed? Such consistent myopia allows Gilmore et al to portray the conflict as a simple fracas over territory, if only those naughty Israelis were to come to their senses by disposing of settlements. Palestinian wrongdoing is blithely ignored, and self-defence delegitimised.


Why the Irish authorities should know better

Ireland is a nation where a strong pro-Palestinian paradigm is predominant culturally. In this context it should be noted that focusing on Gilmore can give an impression that he has a deep hatred of Israel but in other respects he appears to be a proficient sensible politician, and is by no means one of the more anti-Israeli politicians in Ireland. Others like Richard Boyd-Barrett and members of Sein Fein/IRA, such as Aengus O’Snodaigh display such extreme hostility toward Israel that it is likely their views are merely a façade disguising a rank antisemitism.

Indeed it would be an oddity to see a senior Irish politician defending Israel but at least Irish society doesn’t sink to the lows found in Norway. Yet like Norway Ireland has a pugnacious desire to make its presence known on the world stage. Altruism is usually on display but doesn’t necessarily follow. Gilmore stated in New York,

Ireland will play its full part in the search for these solutions [security, human rights, etc.]… we will make our contribution. And we will stand up, in this Assembly and elsewhere, for fairness, for justice, for freedom and for equality, in the conduct of international relations.

Such ambitions can lead to a sad outcome. Mary Robinson, perhaps Ireland’s best known ex-president, became UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in 1997. Her manifest bias against Israel and tacit acceptance of extremism, led to a remarkable tolerance being shown for the extraordinary scenes of antisemitic activity at the 2001 Durban racism conference! It is not a coincidence that many NGOs at the Durban hate-fest further established the methods that greatly advanced Israel’s demonisation in the following years of the decade, e.g. re-introducing the apartheid slur to achieve Israel’s isolation akin to South Africa. Durban should have been a cautionary tale about the dark side of pro-Palestinianism but she expressed pride of the event rather than remorse, continues to bash Israel, and is regarded as something of a paradigmatic example of secular sainthood!

It is common to hear comparisons between the Northern Irish conflict and that found in the Israeli-Palestinian territories. This comparison is alluded to by Gilmore:

In Ireland, we know from our own experience that peace does not come easily. It requires political will and difficult compromises. But we also know the benefits of peace. There can be no doubting the hugely transformative power for the Middle East region of a final end to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

There is a tendency to parallel the catholic Irish with the Palestinians, and the Britain with Israel. Yet in reality these comparisons have only a very limited validity. The Irish have a great deal in common with the Jews historically, having been persecuted and pushed out into a diaspora by occupying empires, and Ireland is as much the homeland of the Irish as Israel is a homeland to the Jews. Indeed some Irish revolutionaries are known to have expressed sympathy for Zionism in the early 20^th Century.

There are numerous divergences between these two conflicts as well so lessons from one are not easily transposed to the other. However, some understanding can legitimately be taken from the resolution of conflict in Ireland. The first is genuine compromise. The Irish have accepted that the unification of Ireland is not a precondition for ending conflict. As part of the Good Friday Agreement, a referendum removing the claim to Northern Ireland in Articles 2 and 3 of the Republic of Ireland Constitution was overwhelmingly accepted by voters. There was a mutual acceptance of the fears of the opposing sides, which were then addressed in a meaningful fashion. Within a short time a remarkable transformation took place in Northern Ireland. Even seasoned political commentators were astonished at the results.

The most depressing element of this story is perhaps that Ireland, which is largely trusted in the Arab world, was in a largely unique position to bring these lessons to a proposal for conflict solution. The Palestinians know that the International Community will offer more if they say “no”. In fact it benefits their stance since the more they reject the process, the more Israel is blamed for doing too little. With the exception of the US, the International Community does nothing to pressure the PA to make genuine gestures toward peace, even though they support the PA with a considerable amount of aid. Worse still, the Palestinian populace has been radicalised by decades of incitement towards the Jewish State, where polls indicate they do not favour peaceful co-existence. These issues need to be confronted squarely.

One Jewish resident of Jerusalem stated when faced with the likely division of his city:

I'm ready to compromise my dreams and share Jerusalem with all who love her, to defer my claim to the Temple Mount until the coming of the messiah. But only for peace. Not for a one-way process of Israeli withdrawals while the Palestinian Authority's media and schools preach holy war and deny Israel's right to exist.

Peace will only come when the pro-Palestinian orthodoxy is challenged at the UN and elsewhere. Only an even-handed approach that deals with both sides in genuine fairness can possibly work. Such a fresh approach, other than the bash-Israel method, probably wouldn’t make a dramatic difference in the short term, as the religious element to the conflict is arguably more intractable, and the incitement from Palestinian quarters considerably greater, than in Ireland. Yet pushing a message of a sincere mutual recognition as a method of building confidence and trust over time would surely make a real difference.

If anyone really thinks UN membership or recognition for a conceptual Palestinian state will advance peace rather than be an impediment, they need to revisit the facts of the conflict. The Palestinians have actually shown signs of demanding more before entering talks since the meeting in New York, making a solution even harder. Truly the only “recognition” needed is the recognition between peoples. Genuine peace will come from that juncture.





This article was published at the New English Review.

Survey: Palestinian Extremism Alive and Well in 2011

With The Palestinian Authority seeking UN recognition of a Palestinian state this month in New York, it is worth reflecting upon whether acceptance will be a move toward peace or would intensify conflict.

One critical factor, too often overlooked in the conflict, is the opinion of Arab-Palestinian people themselves. Two months ago high profile polster and leading US Democratic Party strategist, Stanley Greenberg, conducted a survey in conjunction with the Israel Project and the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion. The poll involved over 1,000 Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza.

Despite spin to the contrary, the Poll actually demonstrates that Palestinian extremism is as intensive as ever. It starkly illustrated that majority opinion amongst ordinary Palestinians on the extermination of the Jews is problematic. 73% of the Palestinians polled agree with Article Seven of Hamas’ Charter calling for the mass genocide of Jews.

… the Hamas has been looking forward to implement Allah’s promise whatever time it might take. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree.

The survey found that 61% of Palestinians reject the firmly established approach of a two-state solution to peace. Remarkably 92% said Jerusalem should solely be the capital of Palestine, with a mere 3% stating that the city should be the capital shared by both states. There were some positives with 83% saying that job creation should be a high priority of the Palestinian Authority. However, extremism was clearly the order of the day with no less than 62% asserting it was morally right to kidnap IDF soldiers.

Such sentiments will come as no surprise to many that appreciate the complexity of the Middle East, beyond the largely pro-Palestinian line taken by the mainstream international media, and the intensive campaigning which portrays Israel as the aggressor. Polls through the years have demonstrated that the great majority of Palestinians wouldn’t welcome peace. Similarly Hamas was elected in Gaza in 2006 on an explicit mandate of continuing conflict with Israel.

This extremism is linked with the common religious fervour displayed through much of the Islamic world, especially in the Middle East. For example, a Pew poll some months ago showed that 84% of Egyptians advocated death for leaving the Islamic faith, a remarkable view in what is supposedly one of the more moderate Islamic nations. There were similar results in Jordan (Palestine). To many Muslims Israel’s very existence is objectionable partly due to Dar al-Islam (House of Islam), a notion central to the faith.

This unique trait of Palestinian/Arabic culture is displayed all too clearly in disturbing material taken from Palestinian sources. Below are examples that demonstrate the religious dimension of the conflict.

A clip taken from The Palestinian Authority TV channel featuring Palestinians advocating the murder of Jews, very much redolent of the Hamas Charter.

A Friday Sermon at Gaza Mosque — “They are all liars, they are the ones who must be butchered and killed…”

Excerpts from a sermon delivered by Ahmad Bahr, acting speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council, which aired on Sudan TV in 2007. “Oh Allah, Count their numbers, and kill them to the very last one… defeat the Jews and the Americans.

This sort of material is far from unknown. There is a large amount of similar content on the web. It is no secret that Palestinian incitement to hatred against Israel, and Jews generally, is a defining feature of their culture. It is commonly cited as a response to those doggedly supporting the Palestinians. And yet such genocidal hate mongering is continually ignored by the international media and world leaders.

A predominant feature of the pro-Palestinian movement in the last decade has been to advocate for a one-state solution where Muslim Palestinians will make a majority of the populace. This is not terribly far from the stance terrorist organisations like Hamas adopt in seeking a one-state solution involving the abolition of Israel as a Jewish state. It is clear that the pro-Palestinian movement including the BDS boycott campaign has done at least as much to delegitimise Israel as Hamas but in a shorter timeframe. It would seem that many Palestinians have learnt this lesson, which explains why only 45% said they subscribed to the Hamas charter’s statement that the only solution to the Palestinian problem is jihad.

Perhaps related is the finding that 65% of Palestinians preferred talks to violence. An article about the Poll by the Guardian highlighted that two-thirds of Palestinians favoured talking over violence. However, before celebrating the imminent possibility of peace, it must be noted that 66% stated that a two-state solution should only be an interim solution followed with a single Palestinian state, echoing Arafat’s dishonest “two-stage” approach to the peace process. Such views are clearly a recipe for further conflict rather than peace.

It is no coincidence that elsewhere in the media the poll was reported with a startlingly dishonest slant. Such coverage, which ignores the results suggesting extremism, is a reflection of broad media coverage, which shies away from negative portrayals of the Palestinians even if it makes for a better news story. It perpetuates the pro-Palestinian myth that Israel is exclusively to blame for a lack of peace. Coverage on pro-Palestinian websites also whitewashed the poll findings.

Interestingly Israel welcomed the statistic that demonstrated Palestinians preferred talks to violence which on the face of it is bizarre since the survey also found that 61% of Palestinians reject a two-state solution. It’s telling that they welcomed one statistical finding that only sounds positive when stripped of context perhaps because any faint suggestion Palestinian fantaticism may be on the decrease is welcome news.

During the same month that the Poll was taken, Nabil Shaath, one of the most senior politicians in the Palestinian Authority, asserted in an interview on the Lebanese ABN TV station that the PA will never accept a two-state solution to the Conflict:

The recognition of a [Palestinian] state is basically a bilateral action, which receives the blessing of the UN. This act, however, will make many things possible in the future. Eventually, we will be able to sign bilateral agreements with states, and this will enable us to exert pressure on Israel. […] The story of “two states for two peoples” means that there will be a Jewish people over there and a Palestinian people here. We will never accept this…

This is one of many examples of unguarded talk from the supposedly moderate Palestinian Authority as a cursory look at Palwatch and Memri will attest.

It is clear the vast Western support base for the Palestinian cause is in actual fact facilitating a continued state of strife, where no pressure whatsoever is brought to bear on the Palestinians to make any meaningful concessions for peace. The genocidal character of the incitement and the celebration of terrorism is excused, ignored, and often justified.

It can be concluded that neither the apparently moderate Palestinian leaders, nor most of the Palestinian people themselves, seek a meaningful peace with Israel, nor do many of their supporters. There is an ugly truth behind the findings of the Poll, and in the present situation where the prospect of peace is more distant than ever, the UN recognition of a Palestinian state would be an unmitigated disaster.


Also published at Crethi Plethi