The Rachel Corrie Case and the judicial reasoning for its dismissal

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 statements at the time assert that Corrie actually "dropped to her knees" before later behaving in a bizarre nigh on suicidal fashion by climbing the 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 girl who 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 devoted to 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-Palestinian stances. 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 conclusions on 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.

Child Abuse Arrests Involving the Jordanian Paralympic Team

Three men associated with the Jordanian Paralympic squad were arrested in Northern Ireland on Monday the 20^th 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 22^nd) 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."


A similar article is also published at the Iconoclast.

Bomb alert at the Israeli Embassy to Ireland

Image: Andy McGeady

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.



Also published at the Iconoclast.

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.

"Top Commander Reiterates Iran's Commitment to Full Annihilation of Israel"

An article entitled "Top Commander Reiterates Iran's Commitment to Full Annihilation of Israel" published by the Fars News Agency, reaffirms the Iranian leadership's wish to destroy Israel despite the pressure of sanctions. The article features the pronouncements of one Hassan Firouzabadi, the "Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces". He made assertions such as "The Iranian nation is standing for its cause that is the full annihilation of Israel". 

Such statements, at a time of great international tension, should make it slightly more difficult for the many Western apologists of the regime, that condemn any prospective Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. The same people are willing to play fast and loose with the lives of millions of innocents by minimising the shocking fanaticism of the regime, casting doubt on the translation of a certain famous statement (much of it a quibble over "map" rather than "pages of time"), and ignoring the prolific number of other genocidal threats that eminated from the Iranian elite since the year 2000.

It is widely acknowledged that Iran sends hundreds of millions of Dollars each year to Hamas and Hizbullah, as well as providing arms and assistance with the training of these terrorist organisations. However, the article goes on to state that during a sermon at Tehran University in the month of February, Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei openly acknowledged that Iran got "directly" involved in the 2006 Lebanon War.

Although it is unclear what "directly" strictly means in this instance, it may constitute some form of actual engagement with the IDF. Khamenei’s comments also suggest Iran may have been involved to a similar extent in the 2008-09 Gaza War. Such an admission makes it clear Iran is engaged in an unofficial fracas with Israel, and further justifies an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities from a moral perspective, easily conforming to Just war theory.

The Fars News Agency is widely understood to be closely affiliated with the Iranian regime so any quibbles about agenda driven Western "translations" should not be a cause of debate. To quote an extract of the article:

Addressing a defense gathering here in Tehran on Sunday, General Firouzabadi said that nations should realize the threats and dangers posed by the Zionist regime of Israel.

He reiterated the Iranian nation and Supreme Leader's emphasis on the necessity of support for the oppressed Palestinian nation and its causes, and noted, "The Iranian nation is standing for its cause that is the full annihilation of Israel." […]

Earlier this year, Supreme Leader of Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei stressed in explicit remarks Iran's direct involvement in the Palestinian and Lebanese confrontation with Israel, including the Lebanese Summer 2006 33-day resistance against the Zionist regime.

"Wherever Iran interferes, it announces it in a very straightforward manner. For instance, we interfered in confrontations against Israel, which resulted in the (Lebanese) victory in the 33-day war and (Palestinians' victory in) the 22-day (Gaza) war," Ayatollah Khamenei said, addressing millions of Friday Prayers worshippers on Tehran University Campus in February. […]

"The Zionist regime is a real cancerous tumor that should be cut and will be cut, God Willing," Ayatollah Khamenei underscored.

A similar article was also published at The Iconoclast.

Another notch in the bully-boy bedpost of the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign

The BDS movement can chalk up another minor victory when the Irish folk band Dervish were forced to pull out of a concert in Israel recently, after yet another anti-Israel onslaught by the pro-Palestinian (or rather, anti-Israel) Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign (IPSC or “IPSG” as noted in some articles), whose “street theatre” on Dublin’s main thoroughfare gained considerable notoriety. To quote an article in the Irish Independent from the 6^th of May:

The band cancelled the tour planned for June, citing an “avalanche of negativity” and “venom” directed towards them on social media websites. Dervish singer Cathy Jordan said the band members were not politically minded and were only due to go on the three-date tour at the invitation of an Israeli friend and musician called Avshalom.

The group said they have opted out of the tour because they were unaware there was a cultural boycott in place when they agreed to the performances. In fact, there is no official boycott of Israel and artists are free to play in the country if they wish.

In response, Minister for Justice, Alan Shatter criticised the IPSC with an unusual intensity:

The Irish Palestinian Solidarity Group’s action in directing its members to ‘target’ the website of the musical group Dervish in order to intimidate the group into cancelling their planned concerts in Israel is nothing other than cyberbullying. [...]

It is absolutely understandable that the group, in the face of an ‘avalanche of negativity’ and ‘venom’ on social media websites took the decision to cancel their concerts — but it is a great pity that the bullying tactics of the IPSG worked.

If the IPSG were in any way interested in promoting peace and reconciliation in a troubled part of the world they would recognise the value of cultural and artistic exchanges and the contribution such events make to fostering understanding and tolerance. But, unfortunately, IPSG’s interest is not in peace and reconciliation.

It is particularly extraordinary that the orchestrated campaign targeted at Dervish occurred at a time when thousands have lost their lives in Syria and the IPSG have remained silent about the crimes against humanity being committed there.

Shatter voiced the kind of concerns that many have been expressing about the IPSC for years. Of course, the polar opposite view of the cancellation was expressed by the IPSC itself. Step forward one Dr. Raymond Deane, a fine specimen of humanity, who added salt to the wound by smugly congratulating Dervish for giving in. In stark contrast to Dervish's own statement, he denied that any bullying took place prior to the cancellation, and also took the opportunity to fling mud at his hated "Zionists" with a nonsensical story about them bullying Dervish subsequently:

…it is the other way around. All you have to do is look at the remarks made by zionists after Dervish made the laudable decision to pull out of the tour.

We have congratulated them on their decision.

Deane also lashed out in the Irish Times, calling Alan Shatter’s comments the “type of psychological projection you always get from Israel’s supporters.” Deane continued:

Intimidation and bullying is about the only tactics they have because they don’t have truth or justice on their side. They like to pretend they are the victims when they are the victimisers.

Well in this case Dervish were clearly the victims rather than Israel itself because the band is not particularly well known in the Jewish State, and while Deane was talking about Israel, he could have also been inferring that Dervish are also behaving like victims that victimise since he probably believes that they possess “Zionist” sympathies.

Raymond Deane is a well-known face in the Irish pro-Palestinian movement. He is a government-funded “modernist classical composer” of dubious repute. More notably he is the founder of the IPSC. To quote a Front Page article:

He is a… founding member of the IPSC, a former chairman, and “Arts, Cultural and Sports Boycott Officer.” He wrote a letter to a prominent newspaper claiming the Israeli medical team landed in Haiti to take pictures for the purposes of propaganda and promptly went home. Like many pro-Palestinians, Deane has an extraordinary capacity to sling mud at anyone who dares defend Israel, but objects strenuously to its return. Historian Dermot Meleady challenged his assertions in the letters pages of the Irish Times newspaper, which led to Deane threatening libel.

A quote from Deane in 2008 shows how extreme he really is — perhaps even supporting a nuclear assault: “President Ahmadinejad has repeatedly expressed hopes for an end to the Zionist regime, a hope shared worldwide — including within Israel — by people of more impeccable democratic credentials than the Iranian president. “The provision of training and logistical support to Hamas” — nominally, the democratically elected government of the Palestinian people — is to be welcomed as a small counterbalance to US and EU support for the murderous Israeli regime.”

Deane has also compared the defence of Israel with the defence of paedophilia.

However, the IPSC doesn’t seem to have persuaded Dervish of the righteousness of their anti-Israel cause, despite the band having cancelled their performance. On the 1^st of May singer Cathy Jordan stated on Dervish’s website:

Dear friends, today I arrived back from the US and although I was aware of the concerns with our proposed visit to Israel, I wasn’t quite prepared for the extent of the venom directed at us.

A few months ago an old friend and fellow musician Avshalom asked us to play in Israel. Avshalom is one of the people we met on our travels who moved and inspired us not just through his music but through his attitude to life. He is one of the good ones, a citizen of the world who looked not for the differences between people but for the stuff that connects them. […]

So many times we have played concerts where a powerful connection is made between musician and audience, where creed and colour have no bearing and what exists is love.

Our friend Avshalom also believes this and that is why we wanted to play in Israel, to promote love between two divided communities that he has worked all his life to unite.

A few years ago I used to be “against” this and “anti” that, which ended up just filling me with anger and frustration when things didn’t go my way. Anger is a dangerous thing. When left unchecked, it can turn into hate which spreads like a cancer until it has consumed its host. I do not believe that fighting hate with hate is the way to peace. […]

It was far from our intention to stir up all this anger and hatred, when the opposite was what was intended. In hindsight, it was very naive of me to think our motives would not be misunderstood and misrepresented. So much so it started an avalanche of negativity which has made it impossible for us to make the trip regardless of our motives.

From Ms. Jordan’s statement it would seem she believes the IPSC is driven by very intensive “anger” and “hatred”. Perhaps the sceptre of anti-Semitism may have been behind her remark “Anger is a dangerous thing”, and indeed the conduct of the IPSC, in their strenuous efforts to isolate and demonise Israel, has decidedly pointed in that direction.

It is important to note that the actions of the IPSC are not in any way a one-off. They are in fact standard pro-Palestinian bully boy tactics that are commonly used in preventing bands performing in Israel today. On that point it should be noted that the IPSC is associated with the more internationally focused Palestinian Solidarity Campaign, an entity with very substantial resources.

It is also worth noting that similar pro-Palestinian actions have been directed at Irish people that dare support Israel publicly. One such example of abusiveness that reached the media was the treatment of Corkonian Israeli-supporter Cliona Campbell.

Likewise, the trend of pro-Palestinians bullying artists for even expressing a mild like or sympathy for Israel is not unknown, e.g. a Face Book page advocating an attack on Mary Byrne, who is a relatively new celebrity figure after having won fame on a TV singing contest. What was her sin? Saying during a radio interview that she had a nice time on a Kibbutz years ago! To quote the Face Book page in question:

“About: *LONG LIVE PALESTINE LONG LIVE GAZA*
Description: Mary Byrne is an XFactor contestant from Ireland.
During an Xtra Factor interview she revealed she had spent a year in Israel working on a Kibbutz.
She is a Zionist and must be exposed as such.
PLEASE SUPPORT THIS PAGE & SHARE AMONGST YOUR FAMILY/FRIENDS!”

Alan Shatter, the sole Jewish minister in Government, has also been the focus of a considerable degree of ire. For example, former MP and well known pro-Palestinian, Chris Andrews, tweeted that Shatter was “Israel’s puppet in Ireland” last year. Similarly, Senator Terry Leyden, head of the Friends of Palestine parliamentary group, said in the Irish Senate that Mr. Shatter had an undue level of influence over foreign policy on Palestine even though Mr. Leyden would know that Mr. Shatter’s own office has little or nothing to do with foreign affairs. The foreign ministry is held by deputy Taoiseach (Prime Minister) Eamon Gilmore, and his support for the Palestinian cause is well known, e.g. Gilmore voiced very strong support for a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state, and quite frequently criticises Israel’s actions, especially with regard to the settlements. Thus Leyden’s assertions raised the image of a certain kind of irrational paranoia that decidedly typifies anti-Semitism.

Irish Independent contributor Concubhar O’ Liathain also asserted that Dervish was caught up in a one-sided boycott against Israel. He also referred to his own experiences of the tactics used by the pro-Palestinian movement:

Back in 2005, I witnessed the type of negativity and venom Dervish received when a friend of mine, Belfast Irish-language activist Gearoid O Caireallain, invited an Israeli academic, Dr Shlomo Izre’el, to speak about the lessons that the Irish language could learn from the Lazarus-like resurrection of Hebrew, once an almost extinct language, but now the spoken vernacular in Israel.

There were protests and mounting pressure to withdraw the invitation to speak at the event in West Belfast — but it’s testament to the independent mind of O Caireallain and the Irish-speaking community there that this pressure was withstood. The lecture went ahead, the knowledge was shared.

And that wasn’t an unusually hostile reception for an Israeli academic in Belfast. For example, last year the blatant thuggery of the movement was very much on show when an academic had to be rescued by security officers at Queen’s University.

Yet intense opposition to any cultural or academic contact with Israel, no matter how slight, will in fact make little or no difference to the legitimisation of Israel’s position because the Palestinian perspective on the conflict has for a very long time been the predominant one in Ireland, and by a very considerable margin as Mr. O’ Liathain suggests:

There’s no shortage of people to tell the Palestinian side of the story in Ireland, how they’ve been brutally suppressed by the Israelis, how they’ve been forced out of their homes and lands, how their villages have been divided by the Israeli-built barrier wall. […]

I read a website containing a list of the victims of Palestinian attacks since 1994. It ran to several pages and contained thousands of names of the dead and wounded.

I mention this because we rarely hear this in Ireland. It’s not that the deaths of the Israelis somehow outweigh those of the Palestinians — the suffering of the Israelis is largely ignored here.

The popular cause is that of the Palestinians, they are oppressed and their resistance is to be admired and not examined, it seems.

Pro-Palestinians constantly squawk on about “legitimising occupation” and other tired clichés, with regard to the visits of academics, and very basic cultural contact, such as musicians, sports people etc. going to and from Israel.

However, such contact doesn’t even pose a remote threat of such a thing happening because Ireland has long been hostile to Israel without any pressure to boycott. Therefore, the acts of the IPSC et al actually resemble a form of psychological warfare, in essence an ongoing effort to demonise and isolate an enemy in a battle toward its eventual destruction. These activists overwhelmingly support a “one-state” solution, or in other words a Palestinian victory.

Good on Foley’s

On a related note Israel advocacy group StandWithUs sent out the following email last week:

…Foley’s pub, Merrion Row, Dublin 2 (near St. Stephen’s Green) has been flying the national flag of Israel from its upper window for the past week.

The move began when the proprietor learned of the annual celebration of Israel’s Independence Day, Yom Hatzmaut, which this year fell on 26 April and was celebrated in Dublin on Monday 30 April, and decided to fly the blue-and-white Star of David flag of Israel in honour of the occasion.

Despite pressure from some predictable quarters to remove the flag, the pub has courageously continued to fly it.

If you happen to be in that part of town and are considering where to have lunch or are planning a meeting, a dinner or a social evening, we strongly recommend that you consider Foley’s as a venue and, if you feel like it, express your support to the management.

If you cannot go there, an email of support would also be good; send it to Foley’s bar.

The “predictable quarters” are of course Raymond Deane and the IPSC, as pro-Israel group Irish4Israel noted.

Postscript

News has just emerged that Raymond Deane and the IPSC are now targeting novelist and poet Gerard Donovan because he is scheduled to appear at the International Writers Festival in Jerusalem this week. After being unable to contact him directly (translation: he didn’t return four emails to his university department – the result of being elsewhere due to a serious illness), they published an open letter. The IPSC’s absurd contention is that his appearance will somehow "whitewash" Israel.

Meanwhile, Senator Paschal Mooney, a member of the opposition Fianna Fáil party, has added his voice to that of Minister Alan Shatter’s by condemning the IPSC’s campaign "of intimidation and bullying" against Dervish, during a session in the Irish Senate. Perhaps the IPSC’s own bully-boy tactics could also do with a touch of that aforementioned "whitewashing"?

PPS

Gerald Donovan wrote an excellent response to Deane, where he humorously describes the IPSC’s ilk as the "perfect" humans:

EVERY GENERATION creates the right monsters to destroy itself… Now let me suggest the monster of our time is a device that creates the perfect human. This human hears what he wants to hear, sees what he wants to see and already knows everything he needs to know. The machine’s primary attribute is a shield through which nothing can penetrate that suggests what our man hears and sees may not be the whole truth.

In short, this machine provides him certainty in a world that, if left unfiltered, is otherwise an arbitrary, capricious and infuriating place. Behavioural economists call this phenomenon the psychology of denial, and it can result in an uncompromising and sometimes dangerous delusion that brooks no interference.

Donovan pointed to the irony of Deane receiving a substantial Irish tax payers grant each year, whilst intimidating Irish artists. He referred to Deane’s hypocrisy in having his music performed in Hong Kong when under the rule of China. Donovan related to how Deane criticised the Irish Times for a "steady campaign of defamation of human rights activists", a comically thin-skinned remark made in relation to a critical letter published in the paper some years ago that led Deane to threaten legal action. In fact the Times is known as perhaps the most pro-Palestinian mainstream newspaper in Ireland, often giving the IPSC, IAWM etc. an unduly positive hearing. It even misrepresented the Six Day War as an aggressive act on Israel’s part in the photo caption for Donovan’s article.




A similar article is also posted at Anne’s Opinions, Anne having contributed to the writing of this piece.

This article was also published at Crethi Plethi.

Another low point in the BDS Movement



Margaret Novak at the 2012 General Convention of the United Methodist Church held in Florida

Delegates at the recent General Convention of the United Methodist Church (held from the 24^th April to May 4^th, 2012) approved a resolution calling for a boycott of Israeli goods made in the West Bank.

It was to be expected as the United Methodist Church has for some time expressed substantive hostility toward the Jewish State. There was a great deal of hand-wringing over the supposed harm being done to Palestinian Christians due to the “Occupation” but zero concern over the treatment of Palestinian Christians by the Palestinian Authority itself. Nor was there much worry expressed over the systematic cleansing of Christians from the Islamic Middle East, such as the ongoing oppression of Arab Christians in nearby Syria and Egypt, not to mention recent events in Southern Sudan, Mali, Nigeria…

During another anti-Israeli resolution that failed to pass, which sought the divestment of the Church’s stock in three multinational companies that do business with Israel, the sheer bigotry of one speech by a BDS campaigner stood out. The individual in question: One Margaret Novak of the two-man Yellow Stone delegation to the Conference.

Margaret Novak stated to the assembly, without any subsequent censure:

I would just ask us all to imagine we were United Methodists in the 1930s and 40s [and] that our Board of Pensions held stock in the very successful manufacturing firms in Germany that bid and received the bids to manufacture the ovens for the concentration camps.

At what point would we decide it was time to divest?

How much evidence would we ask for before it was time to stop the wholesale destruction of people?

Whilst the comparison of Israeli policies in a conflict zone to the destruction of Jews in the Holocaust is a common defamation of the Jewish State, which doesn’t remotely stand up to any sort of impartial analysis as the condition of the Palestinian populace in the West Bank improved considerably since the so-called “occupation” began in 1967, with their welfare comparing favourably with neighbouring countries, Ms. Novak went one stage further by comparing three modern multinational companies that dared to do business with Israel with the very firms that manufactured the ovens used during the extermination programme known as the Holocaust.

What are these diabolically evil companies from which Ms. Novak sought divestment? Step forward Caterpillar, Hewlett Packard and Motorola! Ye ebil be responsible for the slaughter of the Palestinians!

It would be an exaggeration to describe Ms. Novak’s assertion as a new nadir in the BDS Movement since activists for that very cause routinely engage in blood libel, for example the aggressive year-long protests in Australia against a Jewish-Israeli chocolatier that featured the signature chant “There’s blood in your hot chocolate”.

Nonetheless, such a statement of moral equivalence represents an interesting insight into the extreme moral depravity of those involved in BDS campaigning, their extremist stances, and frequent attacks on any sort of positive collaboration between Israeli’s and Palestinians. In totality it points to the fact that BDS campaigners do not seek a just solution to the conflict but rather wish to perpetuate it until Israel’s destruction.

Ms. Novak played the BDS Movement’s signature tune that slanders Israel with Holocaust imagery. It is a rather ironic thing to do. Despite their claims that BDS(M) is based on the boycott of Apartheid South Africa, it actually has its origins in the anti-Semitic Arab economic boycott of Israel, which was initiated several years before the Jewish State was born, mere months after the atrocities of the Holocaust were revealed to the world.

The policy of the Arab League was based on an older Arab boycott of Jewish businesses, which started circa 1920. In various guises it became a critical element in achieving within a few decades an effective Judenrein of the Middle East. Interestingly, similar boycotts were instituted in other parts of the world at the same time, not merely the Judenboykott of 1930’s Nazi Germany. These boycotts were driven by nothing other than naked unabashed anti-Semitism. Today same the strategy is ennobled with a fashionable humanitarianism but the behaviour of those involved reveals its true intent.



This article was also published at Crethi Plethi.

Postscript

I thought it was important to note Ms. Novak's status in the United Methodist Church as it further indicates her extreme opinions are representative of elements within the institution. David Fischler, a Presbyterian Church pastor noted in the comments section of this article:

...this woman isn't just some run-of-the-mill kook. She has been on the United Methodist Commission on Communications for years, been vice president, and is one of the most important laypeople in her annual conference and the Western Jurisdiction. When she spoke, lots of people knew her as a leading UM layperson, and not just a nut who got elected to GC because nobody else was willing to go (she was, in fact, the only lay delegate from Yellowstone AC).