Would UN Palestinian Statehood destroy any chance of an equitable peace?

After recent suggestions that Mahmud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, was wavering over a planned request for the UN to recognise a Palestinian state, he has affirmed that he will go ahead when scheduled to address the UN General Assembly on the 23^rd of September. Such a move is expected to cause an environment of intensified strife.

Abbas said he wished to see a Palestinian state recognised on the basis of the 1949 Armistice Lines, which the international media incorrectly labels as the 1967 lines. This would comprise the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and Gaza, occupied by Jordan and Egypt respectively between 1948/9 and 1967. Previously these territories were administered by the Ottoman Empire and latterly the British Mandate.

Although the US is expected to veto the application for full state membership at the UN Security Council, non-member state recognition would probably pass at the UN General Assembly due to the power of the Arab/Islamic (OIC) voting block which typically gets the support of the somewhat leftist third-world Non-Aligned Movement voting bloc that represents a majority of nations within the UN, and has displayed a consistent bias against Israel.

Whether or not recognition of a Palestinian state would be inimical to the peace process, the benefits to the Palestinian cause would be significant. The Palestinian Authority is expected to get a huge majority in the General Assembly and it will appear as a significant diplomatic victory. Recognition will also aid pro-Palestinian groups. Their incessant condemnation of Israel will gain more apparent legitimacy.

UN state recognition, even where no sovereign governing body or borders exist, would allow access to other international bodies, such as the ICC (International Criminal Court), from where the notional State could sue Israel, bringing the common Palestinian lawfare tactic to a new level of intensity.

Although this Palestinian State would only exist on paper, it would still have the capacity to sign treaties with fully fledged nations, which would add to its perceived legitimacy. Many states (e.g. Arab and South American) that already adopt a strong pro-Palestinian line would queue up to offer support. This may in turn pressure the US to give it greater recognition as a full member of the UN over time.

Efforts to dissuade the request for UN state recognition

Generally speaking the path being taken by the Palestinian Authority is seen negatively by the US, the EU and some other interested parties, albeit for differing reasons.

The United States has threatened to cut off aid to the Palestinian Authority if it brings the request to the Security Council but it is unlikely for the US to do so as it would merely reinforce criticism that it display favouritism toward Israel, thus undermining their position as an honest broker in the conflict.

Although the PA have been talking about making this request for almost a year, it does not appear as if the US has attempted to form a strong coalition of allies on the Security Council against the proposal because they appear to be the only member of the Council that has stated it will exercise a veto.

There have been reservations expressed by parties on the Palestinian side too. Both Jordan and Hamas have expressed reservations but the risks to the Palestinian Authority appear to be minimal. One Hamas spokesman said that the result will be “cosmetic, especially when Mahmoud Abbas said his aim is to return to the negotiations with the occupation [i.e. Israel] after all.”

The Quartet on the Middle East, comprising of Russia, the US, EU and UN, are also seeking persuade the PA to stop the statehood bid. Tony Blair, an envoy for the Quartet, stated that they were seeking some sort of mid-way compromise:

The Palestinians are here at the UN now, so the question is … can people find a way that enables the Palestinians to take a significant step forward to statehood at the same time as not ending up in a situation where the UN replaces negotiations?

The European response has been mixed. The President of the European Parliament said the EU does not oppose such a move even if “unilateral declarations or decisions are not the best solution…” German Chancellor Angela Merkel is against recognition of a Palestinian state outside of negotiations, whilst French President Nicolas Sarkozy stated France will recognise a Palestinian state if talks are not established.

The European Union tried to avert conflict at the UN by attempting to renew talks within a short period of time but diplomats stated that the long-standing disagreements over the terms of reference prevented such a move which seems to be is diplomatic speak for Abbas refusing to return to negotiations without a suspension of construction in the settlements and Jerusalem. Since talks would or have failed to get off the ground, the EU also suggested that the Palestinians accept a lesser upgrade to their status at the United Nations. However, without any firm reason to drop the bid for full statehood, which carries richer diplomatic rewards, Abbas is unlikely to accept the offer.

In June France proposed a conference to establish parameters for a resumption of negotiations for similar reasons but was met with disinterest, for which Israel was criticised. However, Nabil Shaath, Fatah’s head of foreign relations, asserted in Lebanon that the PA would not accept the French approach of two states for two peoples.

[The French initiative] reshaped the issue of the “Jewish state” into a formula that is also unacceptable to us — two states for two peoples. They can describe Israel itself as a state for two peoples, but we will be a state for one people. 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…

Dubious legal foundations

Palestine’s status at the UN is currently defined as an “entity” that has observer status with the right to speak at General Assembly meetings, participate in some votes etc.

The Palestinian position is that almost 20 years of occasional talks on statehood have hit a dead end for reasons such as Israel’s refusal to stop settlement construction s in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

However, the path of unilateral action seems to challenge some basic principles of the peace process, including all the internationally accepted frameworks for peace, such as UN Resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), which advocate agreed solutions of the conflict rather than unilateral actions.

The Oslo Interim Agreement of 1995 (also known as Oslo II), to which both parties signed, prohibits unilateral action by either side. Article XXXI states:

Neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations.

The PA is in breach of the agreement by demanding a suspension of settlement construction prior to resuming talks because final status issues are to be discussed directly as stated in Article XXXI. Moreover Israel’s powers in the relevant zone of its jurisdiction (Area C) weren’t limited in this regard according to Alan Baker, who assisted in negotiating and drafting the Oslo Accords:

… the two sides agreed in the 1995 Interim Agreement… on a division of their respective jurisdictions in the West Bank into areas A and B (Palestinian jurisdiction) and area C (Israeli jurisdiction). They defined the respective powers and responsibilities of each side in the areas they control. Israel’s powers and responsibilities in Area C include all aspects regarding its settlements — all this pending the outcome of the Permanent Status negotiations. This division was accepted and agreed upon by the Palestinians…

The main proponent orchestrating the settlement issue over the years has been the Palestinian leadership, which has decided to isolate and take up the issue of settlements as an independent “cause célèbre,” despite the fact that it is among the agreed-upon items to be negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians in the Permanent Status negotiations.

A common Palestinian line justifying the UN bid refers to the “1967 borders” as the just boundaries of their new state, and cite UN Security Council Resolution 242. However, the 1967 borders are in fact the armistice lines that lasted from 1949 to 1967. They were never designated as permanent boundaries by any party. Rather it was an interim cease-fire line to do expressly the opposite as Article 2.2 of the 1949 Jordanian-Israeli agreement attests:

It is also recognized that no provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations.

The fact that the Arab parties in the conflict insisted that the 1949 Armistice lines (Green Line) would have no political significance results in it not having the status of being a true international border. It is worthwhile to add that today many countries, for example numerous states in South America, affirm recognition of a Palestinian state on those very lines. In contrast, UN Resolution 242 (1967) recognises the present Israeli lines as borders until such time as a peace deal is achieved. 242 does not call for full withdrawal to the pre-June 1967 borders despite continual claims to the contrary. As Eugene Rostow, one of the authors of the Resolution, pointed out the wording refers to withdrawal not from “all territories” but unspecified territories whilst ensuring Israeli security. Resolutions that sought withdrawal from all territories were repeatedly rejected at the UN.

Lord Caradon, British Ambassador to the UN at the time and the primary author of Resolution 242, along with Arthur J. Goldberg, the U.S. Ambassador to the UN and another contributor to the text, both asserted that Resolution 242 did not demand Israel to return to the 1949 lines. Goldberg stated:

And it can be inferred from the incorporation of the words secure and recognized boundaries that the territorial adjustments to be made by the parties in their peace settlements could encompass less than a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied territories.

Resolution 242 also stated that all states should have “secure and recognised boundaries free from threats or acts of force”, and that only negotiation can establish such boundaries.

The mandate established by the League of Nations made it legal for Jews to settle anywhere in Palestine, which nullifies any issue of illegality over settlements if they are voluntary. Article 80 of the UN does not allow the institution to hand over any territory appertaining to the Mandate unless Israel, being the representative of the Jewish people agrees

Except as may be agreed upon in individual trusteeship agreements, made under Articles 77, 79, and 81, placing each territory under the trusteeship system, and until such agreements have been concluded, nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.

Consequently, it seems that the efforts to establish a Palestinian state at the UN may in fact be illegal.

An excellent video by Give Peace A Chance covers legality issues.

Probable effects on the Peace Process

Aside from the occasional often ill-judged initiative, the peace process initiated almost 20 years ago has in essence stalled. Whilst many pro-Palestinians pretend Israel is solely to blame for this problem the reality is different. The real issue is whether or not recognition of a Palestinian state will become an impediment to the rather faint prospect of peace down the road. The answer is a very definite “yes”.

Abbas insisted in his announcement that UN recognition would then enable the Palestinians to return to negotiations with Israel. This view seems quite absurd considering the fact that every Israeli prime minister has had an open door policy toward negotiations almost continually for two decades.

The reality is that UN recognition would give the Palestinians considerably greater power in negotiations, tipping the balance very much in their favour. Abbas more or less said so in as many words himself:

Negotiations, no matter how difficult, will be between one state and another…. But we will have obtained the world’s recognition that our state is occupied and that our land is occupied and not disputed territory, as the Israeli government claims.

Having a recognised state will dramatically reduce any incentive to compromise because Israel’s ability to trade territory in exchange for a peaceful solution will be lost. Discussion of land swaps, which were a big part of the 2000 Camp David talks, and the Olmert-Abbas talks in 2008, will also be out because the territory of this notional Palestinian State will be set in stone more so than before.

The Jerusalem Question

Critically the Palestinians would probably insist on possessing all of East Jerusalem when Arafat had agreed in principle to allowing the Jewish neighbourhoods of East Jerusalem to remain within Israel.

Any talks would also lead to a cast iron demand that the Palestinians possess the Temple Mount or Haram, which was the primary reason for Arafat walking out of Camp David over a shared sovereignty proposal. Al Jazeera and the Guardian had lambasted Abbas for even considering an independent consortium to decide the issue in the Palestine Papers controversy that they mocked up with selective leaks in January of this year to harm and perhaps destroy the PA.

Conceding absolute sovereignty to the Temple Mount and the Wailing Wall would be near impossible for Israel in the aftermath of the 1948-49 war, where the majority Jewish population was expelled from East Jerusalem, their religious sites desecrated and destroyed. Jordan banned Jews from access to East Jerusalem. That of course included the Temple Mount, which is Judaism’s holiest site, and the adjacent Wailing Wall, its last standing remnant. Indeed a few Palestinian commentators have acknowledged abandoning the site would fatally undermine the Zionist movement since Zion/Tzion equals Jerusalem.

Palestinian leaders and academics systematically deny the extraordinary historic connection between Jerusalem and the Jews. In 1967, Israel agreed to allow the Muslim Waqf to manage the Temple Mount area, with a view toward preventing religious conflict, even at the expense of Jews who are banned from worshipping at the Temple Mount itself! The considerable effort to maintain religious tolerance has never been properly recognised, and has not been remotely reciprocated. Conspiracist plots are repeatedly invented claiming that Israel seeks to harm the Al-Aqsa Mosque, as a method of incitement.

The PA has maintained the propaganda campaign that disassociates the Temple Mount from any connection with Judaism, and sources claim they intend to hand over control of the holy site to the OIC (Organisation of Islamic Co-operation).

This unfortunate contempt, which even the supposedly the moderate Palestinian Authority display, cannot give the Israeli authorities any faith that a deal respecting Jewish places of worship would be carried out in good faith by the Palestinians. For example, last month the Palestinian Authority TV channel broadcast a documentary that stated they plan to build a Palestinian residential area in place of the Western Wall Plaza in Jerusalem.

They [Israelis] know for certain that our [Palestinian] roots are deeper than their false history. We, from the balcony of our home, look out over [Islamic] holiness and on sin and filth [image of Jews' praying at the Western Wall] in an area that used to have [Arab] people and homes. We are drawing our new maps. When they [Israelis] disappear from the picture, like a forgotten chapter in the pages of our city’s history, we will build it anew [a residential area]. The Mughrabi Quarter will be built here [on the Western Wall Plaza].

The Palestinian Authority has an intensely disrespectful attitude toward the connection of the Jewish faith to Jerusalem. UN recognition of a Palestinian State on pre-1967 Jordanian lines would make it considerably more difficult for Israel to ensure safety of Jewish sites and possess the right to worship at them. If Islamists like Hamas were to take a greater role, which is entirely possible, agreements would be torn up and the stance of the Palestinians toward these Jewish sites could be intensely destructive.

The effects of state recognition on the right-of-return issue

UN recognition of a Palestinian state would give a greater capacity for moral posturing if and when the PA inevitably walk away from talks since Israel will be unable to offer the so-called “right to return”.

The UNRWA, which administers the Palestinian refugees, is a remarkable institution. It is separate from UNHCR, the UN refugee agency, dedicated to aiding all other refugees in the world. In contrast to the UNHCR, the UNRWA has a uniquely liberal definition of that category, which included short-term migrant workers of which there was a substantial influx prior to Israel’s formation. Remarkably it includes the later generations of the original refugees, which has resulted in some five to six million people today.

Israel’s current population consists of almost 6 million Jews and 1.4 million Arabs. Consequently the right of return, which the PA never gave up on (contrary to Al Jazeera’s claims during the Palestine Papers controversy), would subsume the Jewish identity of the State of Israel, which was the cause of conflict with the Arab Islamic world in the first instance. Thus it is seen as an effort to destroy Israel.

Jordan has made attempts to persuade the Palestinian Authority to abandon UN recognition, based especially on Palestinian interests, by claiming that such a bid carries the risk of damaging the PA’s ability to seek the “right of return,” but with the UN decidedly on the side of the Palestinians, such an eventuality seems relatively unlikely.

Maen Areikat, the PLO emissary to the United States recently stated that a future Palestinian state should be free of Jews which mirrors a commonly held view that a Palestinian state should effctively be judenrein. The irony of this view is indeed stark. Israel absorbed most of the Jews that were expelled from the Arab world. Now it must take in not only the Jewish settlers that won’t be tolerated in a Palestinian state but six million Palestinians as well on top of the existing Arab populace!

The involvement of Hamas

State Recognition will be given to the Palestinian Authority while in a loose partnership with Hamas. This coalition government was formed in May to present a united front. However, Hamas opposes any peaceful resolution, the existence of Israel and advocates the genocide of Jews the world over. At one time there was a sharp contrast between Hamas and Fatah/PLO but this move may over time increase the radicalism within the PA, whilst increasing the creeping international legitimisation of Hamas.

Contrary to what apologists keep asserting, Hamas’ stance with regard to Israel’s existence has not softened. For example, the organisation’s foreign minister, Mahmoud Al-Zahar, asserted a month and a half ago that Hamas would view any Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank, or agreement with the Palestinian Authority, as only a ‘first stage’ towards the destruction of Israel in its entirety. Children are also a long-term component in this vision:

At this moment in time, we say to you, first of all: We want Palestine in its entirety – so there will not be any misunderstandings. If our generation is unable to achieve this, the next one will, and we are raising our children on this. Palestine means Palestine in its entirety, and Israel cannot exist in our midst.

Some conclusions

The Palestinian bid for statehood breaks numerous commitments since 1993 with the signing of the Oslo accords. Effectively Abbas is pursuing a Palestinian state without having to pay the heavy price of truly recognising Israel. Ironically enough, a Palestinian people unwilling to accept peace with Israel is the cost of decades of incitement against the state as a recent poll forcefully indicates.

It is likely but not a given that the UN General Assembly resolution will be passed because although many countries speak up for a Palestinian state based on the 1949-67 borders, numerous commentators have been saying it will lead to a great deal of Palestinian violence in the spirit of 2011 Nabka Day.

That combined with the Hamas-Fatah union, which may be a strategic error for Abbas, has given the impression that some members of the UN may be afraid of voting in a resolution that could incur a Third Intifada. Indeed it may not be a coincidence that Abbas stressed that any protests in support of the UN bid should not turn violent which would be embarrassing. It does seem likely that the endeavour will spark more conflict.

Does it really matter if UN state recognition will destroy any chance of a meaningful peace settlement? The reality certainly seems to be that the PA doesn’t seek peace, and as if to reinforce that point, Abbas said there was no alternative options the Palestinians could pursue if the bid for UN recognition ends in failure, unlikely as that will be.

There is indeed a reason that even the moderate PA has continuously denied Israel’s right to exist for example to quote one of many examples from the Al-Hayat Al-Jadida PA Newspaper:

Manal Taha, one of the organizers of the event… [said that Israel's aim is] to threaten the resolve within the occupying entity, which continues through the actions of the authorities in Jaffa, Acre, Haifa, Jerusalem, and other occupied Palestinian cities. … Taha called upon everyone to participate in this activity, whose aim is to energize the connection between the Palestinians of the territories occupied in 1948 and [those in] the territories occupied in 1967.

Another example is a narrator in PA TV broadcast addressing Israelis, and asking them to leave, because Israel has no right to exist:

Where are you [Israelis] from? Where are you from? Where are you from? Of course, you’re from Ukraine; of course, you’re from Germany, from Poland, from Russia, from Ethiopia, the Falasha (pejorative for Ethiopian Jews). Why have you stolen my homeland and taken my place? Please, I ask of you, return to your original homeland, so that I can return to my original homeland. This is my homeland; go back to your homeland!

Israel, the US and other sectors of the international community are opposed to the Palestinian move at the UN. The truth remains that a true Palestinian state can only be created through direct negotiations.

The founding a Palestinian state is not remotely the root issue of the conflict. The idea has been fully accepted by Israel subject to the negotiations process. Peace is the issue and it will only come with a mutual recognition of each party’s conflicting rights. UN recognition would ignore Israel’s concerns over security, and recognition by its long standing opponent as the national home of the Jewish people. Thus this one-sided UN bid will simply snuff out an already extremely fragile movement toward peace.


Ps. Aish offers a humorous account of the UN bid.


This article is also posted on the Crethi Plethi website.

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

Jesus Christ: The (politically correct) Way

A widely syndicated article by Reuters — a rather daft non-news piece about a feminist ultra politically correct effort to rewrite the story of Jesus as an androgynous girl, by the similarly androgynous Kristen Wolf raises a number of important ethical questions about the media today. To quote the article:

Decades later, after… studying the Bible and mythology, as well as reading retellings of once-male stories from a female point of view, Wolf thought there was a need for a new take on the Biblical tale of the Messiah… The result was the story of Anna, a tomboy in ancient Palestine whose androgynous appearance leads to her being disguised as a boy and sold to shepherds.

This “story” not only changes of gender of Jesus Christ but evidently appears to disassociate the ancient Christian links with Judaism by citing a female-only cult living by an ancient philosophy.

Captured and taught by a group of women who live according to an ancient philosophy, she tries to spread their teachings to ordinary people.

Regardless of one’s belief in the truth of Jesus Christ being the Son of God, the work relativises the figure of Jesus to that of a myth with no genuine historic content:

Wolf said that she didn’t want to be critical of any religion, but instead sought to tap into one of the major stories still told in modern society — just from a slightly different angle.

“The stories need to be dusted off and re-invigorated. My intention was to create a new story that we tell differently, that brings out the timelessness of this story, this person Jesus,” she said.

Whilst no religion should be given exclusive domain over the control of ideas appertaining to works upon which its faith are based, questions could nonetheless be asked about the intent of promoting an ultra politically correct revisionist book, which would no doubt be disturbing or offensive to many Christians across the globe. It would be difficult to conceive of the media doing anything remotely similar with a book that challenges the established orthodoxy of Islam, even in a work of fiction.

Questions could be asked as to why a major international media institution would seek to broadcast this book around the world. Clearly the free publicity of a syndicated international story would be immense.

What is it that causes the media to take the unusual step of promoting such a book in this fashion?

The answer may lie in established social trends that originated in moral relativism and cultural changes especially from the 1960s onward. At the root of these developments is a hostility towards Judeo-Christianity and the West itself, leading to a deep emotive romanticisation of all that is alternative, and non-western. This is an undercurrent in academia that reveals itself in subtle and sometimes overt ways. Truth is diminished and seen as something that ought to be overcome in the pursuit of a certain ideal, a notion advanced by academics and philosophers like Richard Rorty. Indeed Wolf cites her time in academia as a major source of inspiration for the book.

In keeping with the effort to subsume the truth in the name of achieving political goals, the piece continues the disturbing trend of calling the region of ancient Israel and Judea “Palestine”. In fact it is a quite well known historic fact that Hadrian actually renamed Judea as “Syria Palaestina” in 135 AD in an effort to disenfranchise the Jews of their homeland as part of a great effort to root them out of the area, after the Simon Bar Kokhba revolt of 132–135 AD against the occupation of the Roman Empire, which trampled on their rights. The Romans brutally crushed the revolt, killing in excess of half a million Jews, prohibited Torah law, the Hebrew calendar, destroyed precious religious objects, and Jews were forbidden from entering their capital.

The name change was intended as a mockery as it related to the Philistines, an ancient enemy of the Jews that disappeared from history more than 600 years previously. The new moniker was part of the gradual process of erasing the Jewish presence from Judea which was considered troublesome. Ironically the strategy has found new expression after Arafat adopted the Palestinian moniker for local Arab peoples as a propagandistic stunt, and even labelled Jesus the first Palestinian terrorist! For people to use that name for an era when it was not historically applicable reinforces the myth that the Jews have no meaningful tie with Israel.

In the case of “The Way”, it is clear the author similarly intends to set forth a new myth for political reasons. To quote the FAQ on the author’s own website:

Years later, my youthful discontent would mix with a variety of influences — my own personal experiences, college studies with Jesuits, independent study of prehistoric cultures, mythology, ancient and modern spiritual traditions, and the leading-edge scholarship that had uncovered efforts throughout history to remove the feminine from the spiritual domain.

Having felt the negative impacts of living under a religion that sets the male higher than the female, and having seen the disastrous effects such an imbalanced belief system has on humanity, our world, and all of creation, I decided to try and instigate change.

Whilst identified as fiction, the book’s unusual purpose, other than simply to tell a story, is repeatedly affirmed in the article and on her website. It is clearly intended to become a sort of liberal-left political myth, bizarrely intended to be utilised in the same way as the old version of the story of Jesus Christ:

The New Testament also depicts Jesus as a revolutionary, but there is no account of where he would have learned his revolutionary, counter-culture philosophies. Moreover, in the biblical texts, there is no mention or record of him from age twelve when he appears at the Temple to age thirty when he begins his ministry. It is therefore conceivable that during his Missing Years, he encountered and studied a spiritual philosophy that was highly different from, even opposed to, the prevailing one. This is the possibility that THE WAY explores.

THE WAY is, at its heart, an attempt to breathe new life into our collective mythology, our collective conscience. It is a tale that asks, “If it were thought possible that one of history’s greatest spiritual leaders had been female, how might women and men feel differently about themselves, one another, and the world?”

The Way is another manifestation of the sometimes bizarre credo that academia and the mainstream media pushes onto the world, as illustrated in an extract from Peter Sissons’ recent book about the BBC. The unjustified assumptions at the core of this broad liberal-left movement have taken on the demeanour of a religion as many have observed, where it can be near impossible to address controversial truths without very severe censure. A prevalent example is having any criticism of Islam labelled “Islamophobic” or “racist”, whether justified by facts or not. Accordingly, all Western values, be they good or bad, have been undermined.

In this respect, it is entirely appropriate for the media to advance a book like The Way, for it represents a religious mythology intended to advance the values of a near religious but ironically secular ideology.


This article is also posted at http://www.crethiplethi.com/jesus-christ-the-politically-correct-way/media/2011/

Eilat Terror Attack: A most peculiar use of language

With the recent tragic events where Palestinian terrorists killed nine Israeli civilians, one cannot help but be reminded of the peculiar terminology that the mainstream media uses when reporting such events. International media outlets like Reuters, and local media outlets like the Irish Times and Irish national broadcaster RTE used strangely neutral words like "gunmen" in their respective reports.

From Reuters, syndicated by the Irish Times:

A damaged civilian bus ambushed by gunmen… [image caption]

Gunmen killed at least seven people and injured 30 others in attacks on vehicles in southern Israel today…  

…special forces were called in and engaged the gunmen as police and military closed roads around Eilat, a popular Red Sea resort. The military said between two and four gunmen were killed…. 

A senior Israeli official said the gunmen, unable to cross into Israel through the heavily patrolled border with the Gaza Strip…

The politically neutral term "gunmen" was used no less than six times in the article, which was revised. Similarly RTE also made repeated use of the word:

In the first incident, gunmen opened fire a bus. Minutes later, an improvised explosive device detonated beneath a military vehicle.

It is indeed bizarre to use such a word for a highly organised and sustained assault on civilians and their infrastructure, in a region famed for such activity, where heavy weaponry was used. The mild word use is peculiar especially after Palestinian terrorist activity has been widely reported in the Sinai in recent months, up until a few days ago – Indeed the authors of these articles are aware of this fact, to quote the Reuters piece:

…a senior Israeli official said they had infiltrated from the Gaza Strip through Egypt's Sinai desert. Israel's military said the incident began when "terrorists shot at a bus on its way [to the city of] Eilat and then fired an anti-tank rocket at another vehicle.

It was a grave terrorist incident that took place in several locations," defence minister Ehud Barak said in a statement. "It reflects the weakening of Egypt's hold in the Sinai and the broadening of activities by terror elements.

Mark Regev, a spokesman for prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, said Israel "has specific and precise information that these terrorists who targeted Israelis today came out of the Gaza Strip".

Whilst it is correct for journalists to reserve some judgement without verification, the use of heavy weaponry aimed at civilian targets in that region could only result in one belief: a heavy suspicion of a terrorist attack. Yet the reader has to rely on the Israeli government quotes to get a sense of that view.

The RTE article goes on to state:

It was later confirmed that seven Palestinians were shot and killed in the area after the attacks.

Whilst the icons for clicking on video footage of the televised news reports carried the text:

Six One News: Multiple casualties in Israeli violence

Nine News: 20 killed in Israeli violence

The report fails to state that the "gunmen" are likely to be terrorists. It also misleadingly identifies the violence as "Israeli", which is rather ambiguous because although the violence occurred in Israel, the source of that violence was very likely not to be Israeli. Moreover, it is remarkable that both articles failed to mention that the people attacked, injured and killed on the buses were actually Israeli civilians. There was also a notable failure to mention that children were amongst the dead on the Israeli side whist mention of the death of a Palestinian boy in Gaza was prevalent.

Unfortunately the selective use of terminology which reflects political bias is nothing new. News agencies commonly characterise Mahmoud Abbas, King Abdullah of Jordan and other Arab leaders as "moderate" even though they lead rather oppressive regimes where incitement to violence is accepted, whilst they refer to Avigdor Lieberman as "far-right" or an "ultra-nationalist". Similarly Benjamin Netanyahu is often described as a "hawk", a remarkably strong term to use for a mainstream politician.

Worse still is the failure to characterise obvious terrorism as terrorism, whilst often inferring blame on Israeli activities, which results in a clear legitimisation of Palestinian terrorism even against civilians.

This media bias has existed for a considerable time. Websites like Camera, Honest Reporting, Just Journalism, and CIF Watch feature extensive examples of systematic bias going back many years.

One example of the contrasting use of language is a New York Times piece that asserted "Jewish terror is not new" by citing two relatively rare examples of killings from the mid 1990’s. The use of such strong language was peculiar in this instance. To quote Honest Reporting:

 …the examples cited above were acts of violence that stand out precisely due to the unusual scenario of Jews initiating such acts. But while the NY Times refers to "Jewish terror", the thousands of acts of violence carried out by Palestinians against Israeli civilians are carried out by "militants," "fighters" or "gunmen" according to the newspaper. […] So, while Palestinian acts of violence against Israeli civilians are not "terror" according to the NY Times, this term is abused to describe a scenario where it loses its real meaning.

Another contrast in the selective use of terminology with regard to this story was found in the Wall Street Journal. Their treatment of the Norwegian atrocity led with the headline "Savage Terrorist Attacks". By contrast the headline in the same publication, less than a month later, stated "Militants Kill Civilians In Israel Near Egypt". Whilst the terrorist killings in Norway was of course on a much larger scale, the events in Israel did constitute the same type of activity, and it was only with the bravery of the bus driver, and the swift response of Israeli forces, that a far larger number of civilians weren’t killed there.

The failure for the media to mention terrorism regarding Israel takes on other forms. For example an Irish Times article from late last year about Shawan Jabarin failed to mention or allude even briefly to  his well known terrorist links. He is known to be a senior member of the terrorist organisation, PFLP (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine), for which he has been imprisoned several times and even denied entry into Jordan

Like other tragic events in Israel, the reporting of the latest terrorist incident there has been filtered and toned down by a very real prejudice. This is continually revealed by the now very common double standards in which a highly moderated language is applied for one side of the conflict alone, whilst the media embraces the ever fashionable Palestinian cause with little compunction.

The moral of this story should be clear. Put bluntly, the international media values the lives of Palestinians more than Israeli’s. Palestinians have personal stories while Israeli’s are barely even civilians. The mainstream media throughout the world bears a great deal of responsibility for a subtle legitimisation of the violence of the Palestinian movement at the expense of Israeli civilians. It screens the impact of this violence, whilst every step of the way waxing lyrically about the Palestinian cause.

Also posted at http://www.crethiplethi.com/eilat-terror-attack-a-most-peculiar-use-of-language/israel/2011/

Basic untruths and omissions in the mainstream media aid Palestinianism

A new video by Israel's Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Danny Ayalon, called "Israel Palestinian Conflict: The Truth About the West Bank" makes a number of good points about the basic divergence between simple well established facts on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and how they are reported. This issue has a profound impact on the debate.

The clip alludes to the point that the mainstream media continually forwards certain basic fabrications of the historical record. It is clear these fabrications lend a great deal of legitimacy to Palestinianism.

Worth mentioning as well is the media’s twisted account of the history of the conflict found in virtually every news article on the subject of Jerusalem. Revealingly, the coverage by Associated Press, the BBC, and other mainstream news outlets, commonly include a paragraph on past conflict over Jerusalem. For some reason the failure to even briefly mention Jerusalem’s status before the 1967 Six Day War, when Israel took over the eastern side of the City from Jordan, is consistent. One example is

Israel seized east Jerusalem in the 1967 Six Day War, annexed the ancient city, and established the nation's capital there. The international community, however, does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and embassies in the country have based themselves in Tel Aviv.

After the British Mandate had ended in 1948, Jordan occupied what is now commonly called "Arab East Jerusalem" in the 1948-49 War. This occurred at a time when Jerusalem had in fact been a Jewish majority city for a long time, due in part to its importance to the Jewish faith. The Jordanians expelled the Jewish populace and handed their land and much of their property over to the Palestinians. Furthermore Israel in actual fact "seized" the city in a defensive war that they fought on three fronts (Syria, Egypt and Jordan). It cannot be a coincidence that the mainstream media in its many reports on Jerusalem fail to mention any of these points in Israel’s favour.

Danny Ayalon adds that the so-called "occupied territory" or "OPT" of the West Bank is in fact a disputed territory similar to other territories like Western Sahara and Kashmir. The West Bank cannot truly be considered occupied, in part because the League of Nations ruling on the area allows Jewish habitation throughout Palestine, and partly because it was not previously under the domain of a legitimate sovereign. Jordan’s annexation of the territory in 1950 was only accepted by two other nations and the State renounced any claim over the area in 1987.

Another interesting point is the fact that the Arab parties in the conflict insisted that the 1949 Armistice line would have no political significance. In effect it does not have the status of being an international border. It is worthwhile to add that today many countries, for example numerous states in South America, affirm recognition of a Palestinian state on those very borders. However, UN Resolution 242 (1967) recognises the present Israeli borders until such time as a peace deal is achieved. It does not call for full withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders despite repeated claims to the contrary. As Eugene Rostow pointed out the wording refers to withdrawal not from "all territories" but unspecified territories whilst ensuring Israeli security.

It is odd that many are hopelessly uninformed about the conflict despite the fact that it features heavily (perhaps excessively) in the media today. Clearly a two-state solution is the desired outcome of a peace process where the Palestinians get the vast majority of the West Bank and all of Gaza, with some land swaps as were agreed by both parties during the previously attempted peace solutions. However, the impact of the all too common propagandistic distortions of the basic historic record by the mainstream media is damaging. It feeds world-wide pro-Palestinianism and Arab/Palestinian militancy. It makes the limited opportunities of securing a just and lasting peace considerably harder.

Potentially Suspect Blast in Cyprus

On Monday the media reported a story about intense explosions at a naval base in Cyprus that killed 12, injured 62, and knocked out half the electricity supply. The incident has a connection with tensions in the Middle East because the blasts occurred at a cache of weapons seized from an Iranian vessel. The explosions were so intense they blew out almost all the windows of a local village called Zygi, a popular destination for tourists. Hours later fires were reportedly still raging and Greece agreed to send troops to assist the Cypriots. Journalists were not allowed to access Zygi or the naval base during this time.

The explosions occurred in the containers of Iranian munitions seized from a Cypriot flagged ship called the M/V Monchegorsk in January 2009. It was intercepted by the US navy in the eastern Mediterranean. A UN Security Council panel asserted that the shipment violated an arms embargo against Iran, adopted as part of a 2007 UN sanctions resolution. The resolution asserted that "Iran shall not supply, sell or transfer from its territory any arms and related materiel, and that all states shall prohibit the procurement of such items from Iran." These sanctions were imposed due to their refusal to halt their nuclear programme or to facilitate UN inspection. The cargo of weapons was put into storage but the UN failed to dispose of it since that time.

Some media outlets reported that the Monchegorsk was actually suspected of carrying arms destined for the Gaza Strip, which is controlled by Hamas. To quote the article by the Wall Street journal:

The discovery of arms is worrying to Washington because the U.S. and Israel have long maintained that Iran and Syria supply Hezbollah militants in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza with armaments.Iran has well known connections with Hamas and Hizbullah. Iran has strong links with both Hamas and Hizbullah. On numerous occasions in the past Iran has attempted to supply Hamas and it also funds the running of the organisation. However, Iran denied the weapons were intended for either group, and reacted furiously to the interception of the ship bound for Syria, which is its principle ally in the region and a supporter of the same terror groups. Apparently the Iranian ambassador visited the Cypriot presidential palace for a meeting shortly after the explosions.

The Agence France-Presse media outlet (AFP) reported that the weapons were stored in excessively hot conditions leading to concerns about their stability. Indeed this may of course be the cause of the blasts. However, it does seem rather coincidental that the explosions took place less than two weeks after Greece and the Republic of Cyprus took steps to prevent the flotilla sailing to Gaza, in part since it has been two and a half years since the cargo was seized. Hamas’ political elite in Syria strongly condemned Greece’s actions as "inhuman". Both Greece and Cyprus are of course very closely linked.

Time will tell the cause of the blasts but a possible link with the Middle-East may become one line of enquiry, especially since Hamas’ political elite in Syria strongly condemned Greece’s actions as "inhuman", even though such expressions are to be expected. It should be noted that the connection between Hamas and the Gaza flotilla has been established by numerous sources such as the Iranian channel Press TV which reported collusion between the flotilla organisers and a leading member of the terror group, and Dutch Newspaper De Telegraaf.



Note: A similar article to the above by the same author was originally published at The Propagandist

With pro-Palestinianism you’re with us or against us

An unremarkable event in the Dail (Irish parliament) two days ago reminded me of a distinctive trait commonly found amongst advocates of Palestinianism. Socialist members Richard Boyd-Barrett and Joe Higgins both tried to suggest Irish PM Enda Kenny was trying to stop the so-called "activists" on the Irish Flotilla ship from going to Gaza when all Kenny had said was that the government was advising against Irish citizens undertaking the action because it was potentially dangerous.

This is clearly a reasonable point to make after the trouble on last year’s Mavi Mariner. So what was the problem? Did Boyd-Barrett and Higgins want Irish citizens to make an informed choice or not? Should the Foreign Office not advise that Irish citizens could face a potentially hazardous situation if they chose to break a military blockage? I imagine it would have been remiss not to issue such advice.

Therefore what prevented Boyd-Barrett and Higgins from understanding such a simple argument? Could the phenomenon witnessed in the Dail be indicative of a common feature found in pro-Palestinianism, a hysterical black and white "you’re either with us or against us" stance?

Nowhere more so than with this contentious issue does a stark belligerence manifest itself whenever there is a divergence of opinion from the predominantly pro-Palestinian narrative. Other than on a number of pro-Israel websites, it seems that whenever someone endorses an opinion that’s mildly critical of the Palestinians or mildly supportive of Israel, they are subjected to extreme criticism almost without exception. An example is the vitriolic scorn heaped upon authors of articles that don’t roundly condemn Israel, or posters that defend the State in the Comment is Free (CIF) section of the Guardian.

We see this in the melodramatic language of Joe Higgins, TD, who must have knowingly misrepresented the truth about Gaza when he that stated the supplies being brought in were "critical"

I ask the Taoiseach again to stand and call for the Israeli Government not to hinder in any way this flotilla, which is bringing critical supplies, as it travels to Gaza. I also ask him to demand of his EU counterparts to get some spine in their bodies, in contrast to the lily-livered statement they issued at the end of the summit in which the Taoiseach participated, merely calling for restraint. Why does the Taoiseach not say, in the interests of suffering human beings, that they have an absolute right to the supplies that every other country will get unhindered?

Of course it’s common knowledge that massive amounts of aid are being transported into Gaza by Israel on a daily basis. For example between the 19^th and 25^th of June 2011 Israel brought in almost 30,000 tons of aid which included construction materials. Mathilde Redmatn [or more correctly "de Riedmatten"], deputy director of the Red Cross in Gaza has acknowledged there is not a humanitarian crisis at all. Indeed supplying the populace is a legal requirement of the blockade. Furthermore the Israeli government has repeatedly appealed for the aid to be brought to designated docks and transferred to Gaza after inspection but the organisers of the flotilla have refused as they continually did in the past.

Enda Kenny gave an interesting response, the tone of which couldn't contrast more:

As Taoiseach, I call upon the Israeli Government not to take any action that would cause injury or harm to people who have particular motives. The boat involved last year contained no aid. The European Union, for its part, will continue to use its diplomatic and political connections and initiatives to see that the political discussions on the future of the Palestinian people recommence, together with the discussions that must take place about the Israeli-Palestinian problem, which has gone on for many years.

He spoke firstly about the safety of Irish citizens. He then referred to the fact that the Mavi Mariner carried no aid, just as the Irish ship, Challenger II, did not. It sounds as if Enda Kenny like many others is beginning to question the intent of these supposed activists. Interestingly he referred to the need to find peace. In light of his scepticism regarding the aid, it can perhaps be inferred from that point that he feels the present efforts to break the blockade are a provocative stunt rather than an effort to find peace.