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).

Promoting Palestinian Terrorism: A look back at the media coverage of the Palestine Papers

A media orchestrated political storm blew through the volatile Middle East last year with the release of over 1,600 confidential documents relating to Palestinian negotiations with Israel, in an effort to obtain a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The event was notable, not only for being the largest leak relating to the conflict itself but for the way in which it was spun by the media institutions involved, thus offering a rather unique insight into the way these agenda-driven outlets form the news.

The leaks, dubbed “The Palestine Papers” or “Palileaks”, were released with much hype from the 23^rd to the 26^th of January 2011 by Qatar based broadcaster Al Jazeera, and The Guardian newspaper. The leaks were also given pre-eminence by the international media. They cover a decade of discussions between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, ending in 2010 with dialogue mainly involving the Obama administration. The content, initially leaked to Al Jazeera alone, was taken from the Palestinian Negotiation Support Unit (NSU), the primary technical and legal backup team for their negotiations.

Al Jazeera and The Guardian made some striking assertions in their co-ordinated presentation of the Palestine Papers, even to those familiar with the peace process. Most of their coverage focused on the last sustained effort at peace through 2007-08 when Ehud Olmert was Israel’s prime minister.

The Palestinians were apparently willing to largely forfeit the right of return for the so-called Palestinian refugees (according to the uniquely liberal UNRWA definition of the term) with the exception of a symbolic 100,000. International control of the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, which sits on the remains of the holiest of Jewish sites, was purposed until a permanent arrangement was reached.

The PA was apparently willing to give up significant land claims, and accept the continuation of almost all Jewish communities in contested areas of East Jerusalem. The Old City section would be under Palestinian sovereignty, except the Jewish Quarter and some of the Armenian Quarter. In return the Palestinians sought a trade of Israeli land, including an area of the State near the West Bank where many of Israel’s Arab citizens live.


Responsible journalism or propaganda?

Al Jazeera introduced the material on the 23^rd to fanfare whilst asserting the very noblest of reasons for releasing the papers:

Because of the sensitive nature of these documents, Al Jazeera will not reveal the source(s) or detail how they came into our possession. We have taken great care over an extended period of time to assure ourselves of their authenticity. We believe this material will prove to be of inestimable value to journalists, scholars, historians, policymakers and the general public. We know that some of what is presented here will prove controversial, but it is our intention to inform, not harm, to spark debate and reflection – not dampen it.

In view of such noble sentiments one would have thought this a Copernican event where understanding of the Middle East would be turned upside down in perpetuity! And yet despite the comforting words, some that support Israel were incredulous, an understandable reaction when confronted by a supposed reality opposing that to which one is accustomed. Surprise or shock seemed to be a common response amongst supporters of Israel but scepticism was perhaps most appropriate given the sources of this tale.

Rather than take a responsible approach to the material, Al Jazeera and The Guardian spinned the leaks from the outset. For example, The Guardian forwarded an extremely negative interpretation of the leaks. Apparently the documents demonstrated that Palestinian leaders were going to desperate lengths to make a deal with an “intransigent” Israel, in stark contrast with their tough public stance! The clearly outraged editorial introducing the papers stated:

It is hard to tell who appears worst: the Palestinian leaders, who are weak, craven and eager to shower their counterparts with compliments; the Israelis, who are polite in word but contemptuous in deed; or the Americans, whose neutrality consists of bullying the weak and holding the hand of the strong

A novel feature of the coverage was the extent of the melodramatic language used to describe the Palestinian leaders, as if betraying feelings of anger or pre-reflecting an expected degree of anger in the Guardian readership, over a moderate stance found in the Palestinian Authority, which seemed willing to make some concessions in order to achieve peace! Rather than congratulate them, they are “craven”. Rather than the papers showing some civility amongst negotiators, they “shower… with compliments”.

Seamus Milne, Guardian associate editor, headed the Palestine Papers project, which he described as

… a study in the decay of what in Yasser Arafat's heyday was an authentic national liberation movement…

Milne contrasts the rotten PA with real liberators like the North-Vietnamese/Vietcong and Algerian National Liberation Front. Of course both were very destructive movements under which many people suffered, illustrating yet again the worrying left-wing tendency of placing ideology above human life.

The Leaks released over a four day period seemed selective, which even Guardian columnist Jonathan Freedland reluctantly acknowledged “Of course it should be said that this cache of papers is not exhaustive and may have been leaked selectively; other documents might provide a rather different impression” but this rare admission by a slightly more nuanced critic of Israel was an exception rather than the norm at the Guardian.


The Jerusalem Issue

Supposedly the Palestinian Authority was prepared to concede all Jewish neighbourhoods in and around East Jerusalem with the exception of Har Homa, as well as the Armenian Quarter, during the 2007-08 talks between Olmert and the PA. This point was one of the principle revelations dwelt upon.

Al Jazeera didn’t hold back in their criticism of the Palestinian Authority:

Arafat rejected the offer and defended the Palestine Liberation Organization’s unwillingness to compromise on the sovereignty of the Haram [AKA the Temple Mount]. His was a principled position that quickly earned him the scorn of Israelis and Americans alike - though universal support at home, and throughout the Islamic world.

In contrast to Arafat’s “principled position”, their attitude toward senior negotiator Saeb Erekat, who was willing to be “creative” (presumably a negative quality at Al Jazeera), couldn’t be more different:

Whether he [Erekat] made the following overtures to win the admiration of his American counterparts, or merely to break the deadlock created by the extremist Netanyahu government, it is not clear; what is absolutely clear, though, is that the proposed tinkering with the legal status of the Haram al-Sharif is dangerous and unprecedented. Despite the obvious the risks entailed, Erekat nonetheless, made this “creative” suggestion...

The Clinton Parameters formula was put forward as the solution to the issue by Olmert, and Erekat seemed to accept it as the starting point. At Camp David in 2000, the proposed Palestinian state would gain religious autonomy over the Haram or Temple Mount, though Israel requested that space be set aside for Jewish prayer on the site. This very issue was the point on which the Camp David Talks broke down so it was necessary for there to be some flexibility and indeed “creativity” to resolve the impasse – surely an admirable quality for a negotiator to resolve a difficult situation? But no - Al Jazeera pushed it as a betrayal of the Palestinian people. They singled out for criticism Erekat’s proposal of an independent body to resolve the issue:

… the chief Palestinian negotiator appeared totally disconnected from his own people, as well as his wider Arab and Muslim constituency, when he made this “creative” overture about Old City and the Haram. He apparently, was so consumed by the negotiations that he became oblivious of the import of his remarks among Arabs, Muslims and - most of all - his own people.

…even Condoleezza Rice realised the extreme sensitivity of the Haram… She called on both sides to “leave it unresolved.”

Even by Al Jazeera’s standards, it was absurd to claim that Erekat’s proposal of an independent body to resolve the Temple Mount issue was acquiescing to Israel, whilst simultaneously citing Condoleezza Rice’s suggestion that the site should be left unresolved as proof of Erekat’s insensitivity because it would surely remain under Israeli sovereignty which would ferment more hostility in the Islamic world since it is frequently used by Islamists as a method of inciting violence. An independent body would be intended to come to a fair resolution, something Al Jazeera and The Guardian were seemingly against.

An independent analysis of the leaks by the moderate religious group Christians for Fair Witness found that Al Jazeera generally portrayed the idea of international control over the Haram as a PA proposal. The idea wasn’t mentioned during negotiations with Israel, and was not official PA policy. Thus the issue was hyped out of all proportion.

Apropos, Al Jazeera’s prejudice can be seen in lines like “It must be recalled that when the Jewish Quarter was confiscated by the Israelis on 18 April 1968, only 105 of the 595 houses were owned by Jews.” In fact, the remainder of the besieged Jewish populace of the Old City was indiscriminately killed and expelled in 1948, and their property handed over to Muslim-Arabs when Jordan annexed the territory in 1950, with holy sites desecrated.


Substance versus spin

The “Palileaks” presentation illustrates a stark counter-factual to the evident reality. For example, it is odd that a weak PA refuses to negotiate with Netanyahu, supposedly because he rejected an extension of a freeze on building in Jewish areas of East Jerusalem, most of which they had accepted Israel keep.

Al Jazeera and The Guardian’s stance on the leaks do not withstand scrutiny. An accurate account of the documents wouldn’t have been beyond their means since they possessed them for an extended period.

For example, one of the leaked memos during the talks attests that 198 prisoners were released by Israel upon request of the PA, while the PA offered nothing in return for the gesture, suggesting strength instead of weakness. Al Jazeera also baselessly blamed the PA for preventing the release of thousands of Hamas prisoners.

If the leaks are to be believed, Abbas agreed to 100,000 refugees as a compromise over Olmert’s suggestion of 10,000. According to one document, Abbas reportedly stated that it would be irrational to expect Israel to absorb five million or even one million. However, the opposite was the case in other documents, for example Section 6.2 of “NSU Recommendations on Refugees Issues” presents a robust if not combative stance:

Can PLO accept a solution to refugees without recognition of responsibility from Israel?
No. This question is an individual right of the refugees (no compromise possible). Such recognition is necessary for “real” peace.

Would the PLO eventually agree to the insertion of the proposed Israeli preamble on the “recognition of the suffering & loss endured by both people etc.”?
No. Such a phrasing is potentially detrimental as it overlooks the singularity of the Palestinian refugee issue.

Another document titled “Notes on Refugee Calculation,” states that part of the Palestinians’ approach to advancing the so-called “Right of Return” involves calculating the number of refugees that would return to Israel in a practical fashion since the amount Israel could absorb is limited but without ultimately reneging on the right for all Palestinians:

• This approach is obviously the best political strategic option for the Palestinians, as it does not require relinquishing the option of return for millions of Palestinians… […]
• Such an approach may be based on Israel’s actual absorption capacity. Israel’s maximum absorption capacity based on past immigrant absorption is at least 60,927 per year (average number of immigrants over 20 year period).
• Viewed another way, Israel’s past absorption practice indicates that they have the capacity to settle 1,016,511 million persons over a 10 year period (from 1990-2000).

Many pro-Palestinians have echoed The Guardian’s assertion that the documents prove Israel sought to colonise the West Bank by quoting Tzipi Livni, Olmert’s foreign minister: “The Israel policy is to take more and more land day after day and that at the end of the day we'll say that it is impossible, we already have the land and cannot create the state.” However as Just Journalism noted, Livni was clearly describing the Palestinian viewpoint, in contrast to Israeli policy. An unlikely misunderstanding at The Guardian!

Similarly, a Livni quote, splashed all over the media, stating that she is “against international law” was taken out of context. She made the comment with respect to mentioning international law in a joint statement being drawn up, where the Palestinians did not want mention of Quartet principles either.

Livni mentioned during negotiations with Ahmed Qurei that Israel was “giving up the Golan” in talks with Syria. Returning the Golan Heights to a bitter enemy would have made Israel considerably more vulnerable. Such a highly controversial move doesn’t add weight to the idea Israel wasn’t keen on making peace with its enemies.

Al Jazeera and The Guardian made much of the fact that Abbas wasn’t allowed to take a map of Olmert’s final settlement offer. Again this was portrayed as a contemptuous act by the Israeli’s. However, according to Olmert, the reality was very different:

On September 16, 2008, [Olmert] presented Palestinian Authority President Abu Mazen [Mahmoud Abbas] a map that had been prepared based upon dozens of conversations that the two held in the course of the intensive negotiations after the Annapolis summit… Giving Abu Mazen the map was conditioned upon signing a comprehensive and final agreement with the Palestinians so it would not be used as an 'opening position' in future negotiations the Palestinians sought to conduct.

Please note, other sources, such as CIF Watch, Elder of Ziyon, and Christians for Fair Witness, provide detailed analysis of the numerous other obfuscations constructed by Al Jazeera and The Guardian from the leaks.


Contemporaneous accounts of the Olmert-Abbas process

The “Palileaks” presentation also clashed dramatically with coverage in 2008 relating to the talks. Olmert was said to have made generous concessions to Abbas, more than Barak made at Camp David.

Abbas adopted a tough stance, rather than meekly holding out a begging bowl, whilst Olmert conceded around 93%/95% of the West Bank territory demanded by Abbas/Fatah with territorial trades of between 5%/6.5% to make up the difference, and a corridor to link the West Bank and Gaza as one entity. The division of Jerusalem was to be dealt with at a later time in one such arrangement.

The reports at the time illustrated that Abbas was hardly a pushover. According to some sources he threatened to quit his presidential post if not given a sufficiently good deal, to quote INN:

The PA also demands - and Israel has apparently agreed to give - a corridor through the heart of Israel connecting Judea and Gaza. This, even though the two districts were never politically linked before the Oslo Accords of 1999 placed both of them under Palestinian Authority control.

In August Abbas rejected an offer that included withdrawal of 93% of the West Bank. The Palestinians would receive land in the Negev, and free passage between Gaza and the West Bank. Olmert’s plans indicated a preference for giving the Palestinians agricultural land rather than desert.

Reports focused on the generous terms of the peace deal, for example Olmert appeared to be discussing the transfer of 98.1 percent of the West Bank. Judging by some of the statements he made at the time, there also appeared to be urgency in his mission, due to a worry over changing circumstances:

We can argue about every small detail and find that when we are ready for an agreement there is no partner and no international support.

Some speculated Olmert was trying to take a lead over Livni, who was challenging his leadership of the Kadima party.

Subsequently Abbas said the offer would have given the Palestinians territory equalling 100% of the West Bank but asserted that the onset of Israel’s war in Gaza ended negotiations. Many reports on the issue state the same.

However, talks ended three months earlier, and there were strong dismissals of the offer from the Palestinian side, long before the Gaza war started. According to an interview Olmert gave in 2009:

He (Abbas) promised me the next day his adviser would come. But the next day Saeb Erekat rang my adviser and said we forgot we are going to Amman today, let's make it next week. I never saw him again.

Olmert’s version of events was reinforced by the leaks according to Christians for Fair Witness because documents indicate the Palestinians had decided ahead of the September 16^th meeting with Olmert not to make alternative suggestions, and a decision was made to end discussions until a new US president was in office the following year.

Interestingly there have been attempts to resurrect Olmert’s plan as the basis for further negotiations. Olmert has been in contact with current Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to whom he has also not presented the September 16^th map. Netanyahu has been involved in peace talks with Abbas’ representatives in Jordan, which the international media seem to be studiously ignoring.

Robert Wexler, a former US congressman influential in Obama’s circle, adopted elements of the plan when he spoke in Israel recently. However, he advocates a unilateral disengagement of 4.5% of Israel’s territory as a gesture of appeasement! A rather stupid suggestion in the aftermath of the disengagement of Gaza, and Abbas’ reluctance over the offer. The notion may be indicative of a hard-line approach should Obama be re-elected in November.


The response of the Palestinian Authority

Leaders in the Palestinian Authority immediately denied the veracity of the Palestine Papers, some saying parts of the documents were fabricated. They believed Al Jazeera intended to discredit the PA, which would be in the interest of rival factions Hamas and Hizbullah. Protests soon followed.

Ahmed Qureia, a senior negotiator in the talks, stated:

many parts of the documents were fabricated, as part of the incitement against the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian leadership.

Chief negotiator, Saeb Erekat, called Al Jazeera’s reports “lies and half truths.” He claimed the documents concerning Jerusalem related to an Israeli proposal, rather than a Palestinian one. He also denied there was an offer to limit the return of refugees.

One PA statement asserted that many ideas have been discussed as part of the negotiations process, including ideas they would never have agreed to. Such discussions stripped of context would be highly damaging.

Some documents apparently aren’t dated which leaves open the possibility that they were modified. Abbas called for independent authentication, which hasn’t been forthcoming. Nonetheless it is more likely that the documents are authentic but selectively released and the content spun for an agenda.

According to Al Jazeera, one document indicated that the Israeli authorities informed Abbas in advance of the 2008 plan to invade Gaza due to Hamas’ rocket assault. Abbas and the relevant Israeli official deny the charge.

Interestingly, President Mahmoud Abbas said that he kept Arab countries fully briefed on the negotiations with Israel. He publicly sought permission from the Arab League to hold talks during some of the periods in question.

All the Arab countries know our position. We have been providing the Arab countries with details about the negotiations and all that we were offered. 

These documents are designed to create confusion. I saw them [Al-Jazeera] broadcast things that they attributed to Palestinians. In fact, these were Israeli [proposals].

Abed Rabbo and other officials contributed the paranoid conspiracy charge that Israel was involved in the efforts to stain the reputation of the PA, and astonishingly enough, some see Al Jazeera as a Zionist channel because it doesn’t always feature stories of their liking. However, this is to be expected coming from a region where almost all evils are blamed on Zionism/Jews, and a significant portion of this criticism is politically motivated against the Qatari regime.


Overt Incitement

Al-Jazeera featured some extraordinary commentary on the leaks. The language used makes it difficult to deny the charge of incitement:

The Palestinian Authority (PA) has shown operational willingness to co-operate with Israel to kill its own people, The Palestine Papers indicate.

During the furore demonstrators in Gaza burned effigies of Abbas and assistants, with Israeli flags hanging around the necks. A coffin featuring pictures of Mahmoud Abbas, Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, and Saeb Erekat, was also torched.

The Guardian published a cartoon of Abbas as an Orthodox Jew clutching an uzi. The image is by Carlos Latuff, well known for his antisemitic themes.

Erekat spoke frankly:

What Al Jazeera people are doing is asking Palestinians to shoot me, physically. That's what they are doing. They are saying: 'You are guilty and thus you should be executed'. Speaking for me and my family, they are inciting against our lives.

Two weeks after the release of the Papers, Erekat resigned as chief negotiator, citing responsibility for the leaks, and concern over matters of safety.

Similarly, when asked in an interview “How do you understand the intent of the Jazeera and Guardian leaks of the Palestine Papers,” Bassma Kodmani, executive director of the Arab Reform Initiative, replied:

It was malevolent, seeking to paint the PLO leadership and negotiators in a bad light by revealing embarrassing details. Most of the details revealed were in any case known to many. But the presentation was malevolent. […] This was some sort of incitement.

Al Jazeera’s approach to the PA/Fatah was nothing new. In 2009, they briefly closed the broadcaster’s offices in Ramallah because it was asserted on-air that that Abbas was involved in the death of Yasser Arafat, the foremost Palestinian hero. The PA accused the station of incitement, and a longstanding bias against their organisation.


An ideologically pro-Palestinian attack

Although the criticism of the PA was more damaging at least initially, perhaps the harshest spin was aimed at Israel. Apparently the leaks illustrated the extent of Israeli “intransigence” in the face of all the “craven” Palestinian concessions. Headlines such as “Palestine Leaders Weak and Increasingly Desperate” left readers in no doubt as to who was to blame: Israel and to a lesser extent the US.

This stance reflects one of the principle claims of the pro-Palestinian movement: an aggressive Israel, determined to Judaise Jerusalem and colonise the West Bank, refuses to make peace with the peace-loving Palestinians. Although unjustified by the leaks, this is the meme Al Jazeera/Guardian adopted.

Of course this posturing was not unique to The Guardian and Al Jazeera at the time. The mainstream media adopted the line those two news outlets took. Shock was expressed about a weak PA but media commentators firmly grasped the familiar sight of a belligerent Israel, an image that they helped create.

One such black comedy, in the early hours of the 25^th on the international news channel ‘France 24’, consisted of an English female reporter, and another rosbif reporter in Washington, repeatedly pushing more extremist positions than a representative of Palestinian broadcasters being interviewed. The Palestinian man kept advocating discussion with Israel, whilst their insistent stance was that time over negotiations actually benefit Israel’s position, inferring that the West Bank was going to be annexed any day! It seems what passes for the journalism today is in fact a liability to the safety and security of many in the region.

The Papers gave rise to hate-fests, such as an event at the University of London, where a member of the British Liberal Democrat party, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, said that Jews are “deeply prejudiced” but “not lacking in intelligence”


Promoting a terrorist agenda at The Guardian

The unusually harsh criticism directed at the Palestinian Authority led to a distinct suspicion amongst some commentators that Al Jazeera and The Guardian were not only trying to taint Israel but destroy the PA in the eyes of Palestinians. Both outlets strongly advocated the involvement of Hamas over the PA:

The Palestinian Authority may continue as an employer but, as of today, its legitimacy as negotiators will have all but ended on the Palestinian street.

Thus, The Guardian clearly knew their coverage would cause a lot of damage. On the final day of the release of the papers, an article in The Guardian by Osama Hamdan, a Hamas official no less, states:

The Palestinian negotiators named and quoted in these documents have betrayed their people and the Palestinian cause. We are in no doubt that, as a result of these revelations, they have lost their credibility for good. It is unthinkable that the Palestinian people will ever approve any deal concluded with the Israelis by this team of negotiators, for they will always be suspected of selling out and of betraying the cause. The Palestinian people can never believe that what these individuals pledge in public reflects how they bargain or deal in private.

As an immediate response to these revelations, we in Hamas have begun a series of communications and meetings with Palestinian factions and prominent personalities to discuss practical measures. It is our responsibility to regain the initiative in order to protect our cause and isolate those who have betrayed it.

Evidently Hamas’ take on the issue is very much in harmony with that of The Guardian and Al Jazeera, In other words, any possibility of a peace deal is at an end! Also notable is the war-like intent, with talk of “isolating” traitors. Furthermore, accusations of treachery by some elements within the Palestinian cause quite frequently carries a death sentence.

In a similar vein, Alistair “Hamas” Crooke was upset because Tony Blair was working to limit the strength of terrorist groups:

… degrading the capabilities of the rejectionists: Hamas, PIJ [Palestinian Islamic Jihad], and the al-Aqsa Brigades…

… that resulted in a situation where the EU wouldn’t negotiate with these er… “rejectionists”! Are they rejecting the peace process or Israel’s existence? Is fighting terrorism morally wrong at the Guardian?

Most recently The Guardian has been promoting the Global March to Jerusalem campaign, which is strongly aligned with Iran, Hamas, and a number of other proscribed terrorist organisations.

With The Guardian possessing some of the same key positions as Hamas, defending Hamas to the hilt in certain articles, advancing a stance that empowers Hamas, and providing them with a platform to echo said views, should it not be evident that this media institution supports a recognised terrorist group?

The Guardian’s inventive and unending Israeli bashing, e.g. Deborah Orr turning the exchange of over 1,000 Palestinian prisoners for Gilad Shalit into an attack, has long been a subject of debate, since the paper often skirts borderline antisemitism. There are foundations for racism being a motivating factor at The Guardian, which has promoted and sold Gilad Atzmon’s virulently antisemitic book The wandering who?


Al Jazeera’s unambiguous connection with terrorism

Al Jazeera’s connection with terrorist insurgency in Iraq and terrorist advocacy is famed.
Many defend Al Jazeera, the most widely watched news channel in the Arab world, by asserting that it is attacked on all sides of the political spectrum. However, other international news organisations, such as the BBC and Reuters, often provide unflattering content about the US but with little criticism.

Their former managing director was recorded saying Al Jazeera was at Saddam Hussein’s service. Indeed, many deemed the broadcaster an enemy operation inciting against America so overt was their support of terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan, whilst giving voice to Al Qaeda’s ideology. To quote an article by Sherry Ricchiardi, published in the American Journalism Review:

Erik Nisbet, an Ohio State University professor… likened the situation on the Arab-language channel of Al Jazeera to an American channel giving airtime to the Ku Klux Klan. “They would report on them, but they are not going to do in-depth interviews or invite them to be on mainstream talk shows and let them say anything they want, but Al Jazeera does”

Al Jazeera is thought to have colluded with Hizbullah during the 2006 Lebanon war by repeatedly televising prohibited location information where rockets landed. In 2008, they held an on-air birthday party for a Lebanese terrorist convicted of killing four Israeli’s. Seven months after the release of the Palestine Papers, senior journalist Samer Allawi, admitted to having ties with Hamas.

Coming in the aftermath of the murder of three Jewish children, a rabbi and three solders on French soil recently, French president, Nicolas Sarkozy has joined Britain in preventing the entry of Sheikh Youssef al-Qaradawi, the famous Qatari-based cleric who regularly appears on the Al Jazeera. Al-Qaradawi has defended terrorist insurgency in Iraq which caused the death of over 100,000 civilians, claimed the Holocaust was divine punishment for the Jewish people whilst simultaneously denying it as exaggerated, and has celebrated Palestinian terrorism.

Oh Allah, take this oppressive, Jewish, Zionist band of people. Oh Allah, do not spare a single one of them. Oh Allah, count their numbers, and kill them, down to the very last one.

With their support of militant Islam, Iraqi and Afghani insurgents, and with the head tax now being collected by Iraqi Islamists, one might well wonder if Al Jazeera should in fact be Al Jizya?


Ziyad Clot, Clayton Swisher, and the agenda of the “whistleblowers”

The Guardian stated the documents were leaked over several months from several sources. They noted three names: Rami Dajani, who assists Tony Blair as the Middle East Quartet’s envoy, and lawyers Zeinah Salahi and Ziyad Clot. Supposedly the NSU negotiations team grew increasingly unhappy. Apparently negotiations were perceived to be a failure, and it was felt the Palestinian side was making excessive concessions, causing some to leave.

The Palestinian Authority has its own suspicions. Erekat said the papers were leaked by Clayton Swisher, and Alastair Crooke, an ex-MI6 British agent and adviser to the European Union’s High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy! Crooke has significant involvement with Hamas for which he is an apologist, and also writes for The Guardian (cf. “Promoting terrorist agendas”).

A few months later Ziyad Clot admitted in The Guardian that he was one source of the leaks:

My own experience with the "peace process" started in Ramallah, in January 2008... Only 11 months into my job, in November of that year, I resigned.

Clot became an advisor to the Emir of Qatar after his stint at the NSU, and reputedly worked for Al Jazeera.

Clot’s justification for releasing the Palestine Papers was nonsensical bluster, to say the very least:

the Palestine papers illustrated the tragic consequences of an inequitable and destructive political process which had been based on the assumption that the Palestinians could in effect negotiate their rights and achieve self-determination while enduring the hardship of the Israeli occupation.

Bizarrely, it would seem that Clot wants a solution before negotiations have even begun, or none at all.

The "peace negotiations" were a deceptive farce whereby biased terms were unilaterally imposed by Israel and systematically endorsed by the US and EU. Far from enabling a negotiated and fair end to the conflict, the pursuit of the Oslo process deepened Israeli segregationist policies and justified the tightening of the security control imposed on the Palestinian population, as well as its geographical fragmentation. Far from preserving the land on which to build a state, it has tolerated the intensification of the colonisation of the Palestinian territory.

In actual fact, the Oslo accords were signed up to by both parties. Settlement activity continued in the Israeli sector but that was due in no small way to the fact that Arafat repeatedly walked away from a settlement that would have given him the lion's share (upwards of 90%) of the West Bank. Moreover, the West Bank and Gaza were intended to be geographically united. Thus Clot’s justification is a crock.

Far from maintaining a national cohesion, the process I participated in, albeit briefly, was instrumental in creating and aggravating divisions among Palestinians… My experience over those 11 months in Ramallah confirmed that the PLO, given its structure, was not in a position to represent all Palestinian rights and interests.

The above statement is indicative of Clot’s innate sympathy for the extremist position of other groups like Hamas. He would sooner resign, and attempt to destroy the elected representatives of the Palestinian people, rather than contribute to achieving peace. After his time in the NSU, Clot published an extremely negative book about the negotiations, interestingly titled “There will be no Palestinian state”, that asserted Israel didn’t intend to make any concessions.

Clot is firmly in the “one-state” or “bi-national” solution camp, more accurately known as “the destruction of the State of Israel” or “the Rwanda Solution”:

I think the "Geneva Initiative", and with it the solution of "two states", are no longer topical. I think it is well beyond the point where the two-state solution was still possible. I wonder if it was ever possible. […]

Because we know very well that, if there is no creation of a Palestinian state, the only option left on the table - beyond the status quo or less than an expulsion of Palestinians as 'can not be excluded - it is the unique solution of the state, a binational state that would mean the end of the State of Israel as a Zionist project. 

Clot has been personally involved with attempts to incite violent border confrontations with the IDF, when he helped organise Nakba Day demonstrations in May 2011, leading to twelve deaths, which aided Assad’s regime with a useful diversion.

Clayton E. Swisher, a US citizen who previously served as a bodyguard in the US State Department, is another suspected source of the leaks. He used to also work in Erekat’s office. Like Clot, he left after a period of months, and soon began working at Al-Jazeera - the paralleled career paths of these two individuals is surprising.

Some have wrongly assumed that since Clot admitted being a whistleblower, it left Swisher out of the frame, when in fact Clot’s apologia mentions leaks from other sources. The Swisher connection is doubly significant since he was presented as Al Jazeera’s Palestine Papers Specialist, and continues to head their rather orwellian “Transparency Unit”, in Ramallah.

Swisher’s book “The Palestinian Papers - the end of the road?” issued just four months after the leaks, replicated the line taken at Al Jazeera and The Guardian on the Olmert-Abbas negotiations. The posit advanced here is that the papers prove that the efforts to achieve a two-state solution are at an end due to the weakness of the PA and Israel’s arrogance. He argues that acceptance of the Jewish State cannot feature in any peace process. Swisher admires those “committed to liberating all of historic Palestine”, thus echoing the Hamas line to a tee.

As with Clot, Swisher’s ideological motivation for issuing the leaks is plain enough. He seeks the annihilation of the Jewish State, and a Palestinianism recommitted to a terrorist strategy:

My friends, when people in Cairo and Tunis and now Libya, maybe, can overtake regimes entrenched, as well-funded and well-armed as those regimes, that is the pure proof that non-violent resistance and other forms of resistance can achieve a different outcome. That is what it (the PA) has abandoned to its own detriment and that is what you see in these Papers.

The Qatari Connection

Ironically, in one of the leaked documents Ahmed Qurei, a negotiator for the Palestinian Authority, told Tzipi Livni:

Iran is against us, Qatar is against us

In the aftermath of the Palileaks furore, Qatar has been increasingly associated with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In February Abbas, Erekat, and Hamas leader Kalid Mashaal, visited the Emir of Qatar, and held a conference in the capital of Doha, to implement an important reconciliation agreement between the rival Palestinian groups.

Abbas returned to Doha, later that month, to make a particularly aggressive speech, where he claimed there was no Jewish connection with the Temple Mount, and Israel was attempting to Judaise the city. These are the common refrains utilised by Palestinian movement to incite violence, thus suggesting a hardening of Abbas’ stance.

It is reputed that Qatar has begun bankrolling Hamas to the tune of $200 million US. There are persistent rumours that Khaled Meshaal seeks to move Hamas’ base from conflict-torn Damascus to Qatar or Jordan. The Crown Prince of Qatar arranged a meeting between Hamas and the Jordanian ruling class, with the aim of re-establishing co-operation. The Crown Prince accompanied Meshaal to Amman.

Al Jazeera was established and bankrolled substantially by the Emir. The suspicion that it serves Qatar is not unfounded since the broadcaster (particularly its Arabic channel) closely tracks Qatari foreign policy.

Qatar’s enthusiasm for the rebellion in Libya was evident. They influenced the Arab League, donated money to the rebels, and provided training. Al Jazeera’s coverage of the revolt was intensive. A similar situation occurred in Tunisia and Egypt. Some cite the negative reaction of numerous repressive Arab states to Al Jazeera’s coverage as an example of the broadcaster’s merit in challenging the status quo. Yet coverage is very selective. Al Jazeera largely ignored uprisings in neighbouring Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, betraying its use in the interests of Qatar which seems intent on gaining influence in the region.

With the Palestinian conflict occupying the foremost importance in the Middle East, and Al Jazeera having tamed the PA, Qatar is now ideally placed to benefit from a prestigious role in the conflict.

It has been noted that Al Jazeera does not criticise Qatar, even though it is a monarchy with no independent legislature. Although not the most repressive nation in the region, it has a poor human rights record. The fact that The Guardian not only fails to criticise Qatar but has been known to feature glowing accounts of the nation may indicate an uncomfortably friendly relationship with the ruling elite.


Unpleasant Consequences

Striping away the hype, the most dramatic thing the Palestinian leadership did, if the leaks are to be believed, was agree to 100,000 refugees. If the Palestinian negotiators accepted such a proposal, they should be applauded for it represented a triumph of pragmatism over bare-knuckle ideology. However, not only are there reasons to doubt the PA’s willingness to make such a compromise, Israel’s supposed partners for peace, have continued to incite against them.

The PA has pushed one message at the international community, and something very different to the people to which they ought to be selling a fair peace settlement. It did not bode well for any peace deal. The anti-Israeli/Jewish hate mongering that was the norm in Palestinian culture came back to haunt a ruling elite that fostered it, who were in turn seen as not being extreme enough in their stance on Israel.

At the time of the leaks, Tony Blair, the Quartet’s Middle East envoy, stated:

I think it's hard to tell right now, but its [the leaks] intention was to be extremely damaging. I think we've just got to be big enough to say, OK, whatever al-Jazeera are putting out, we're going to get on with making peace.
 

At a time when Hamas’ support was slipping, in part due to the impact of the embargo, the leaks strengthened their credibility in a region reared on intensive incitement against the Jewish State.

The optimistically titled “Arab Spring”, which soon followed the “Palileaks controversy, threw off the relatively moderate secular chains that impeded Hamas’ spiritual forefathers, the Muslim Brotherhood, from gaining power in the region. In January Hamas’ Ismail Haniya received a heroes welcome in Tunisia from the Islamist regime. He toured the Middle East, his reception indicative of their newfound support. This popularity will also alter the PA elections in May.

It is difficult to evaluate what influence the Palestine Papers furore had on the Arab Spring but it is plausible to suggest they were a further ingredient in an increasingly explosive mix. The PA is seen as a secular relatively moderate movement, which its enemies accuse of being in the pockets of the West. Mubarak, a friend to Abbas, was toppled in part for similar reasons. The Muslim Brotherhood may also play a role in a fragile Jordan, where there were mass demonstrations supporting Hamas.

The politics of a post-Mubarak Egypt was a long term fear in the Middle East. Indeed the worsening relationship between Israel and Egypt is likely to usher in a new era of conflict, perhaps through the back door of Gaza, as with the Fedayeen in the 1950’s and 60’s. In March a committee of the newly elected Islamist Egyptian parliament voted unanimously to support a report declaring Israel their “number one enemy”. The Egyptian leadership declared a commitment “to assist the Palestinian struggle/resistance in all its forms and manifestations,” which translates as providing direct assistance to Palestinian terrorism.

The Fatah-Hamas alliance is moving closer, without any reaction from the Obama administration. There has also been word Fatah/PLO may return to “popular resistance” after the Second Intifada under this alliance.


Conclusion

It should be very clear that Al Jazeera and The Guardian crossed a very overt line with their spin of the leaks. The agenda of these two media institutions goes beyond the heavily biased coverage of other media outlets. This action is in some ways an equivalent of the activities of certain passengers aboard the Mavi Mariner, who transformed from being supposed humanitarian activists to combatants, when they planned a violent response to the boarding of the IDF.

Both institutions knew the leaks in selective form represented a huge obstacle for the PA to recover from. Yet they further distorted and misrepresented the content to forward a political agenda that would devastate any possible peace process. A weak discredited PA would find it near impossible to offer a deal to its people. This in turn greatly aided the agenda of terrorist groups hostile to a peaceful solution. It is also evident that they knowingly incited against the elected representatives of the Palestinian people.

The calculated release and spin of the Palestine Papers involved the promotion of a continued state of terrorism, and has had a corrosive impact on a conflict already virtually impossible to resolve, whereby certain parties with extremist agendas eliminated the potential of a future process. The seriousness of such an act should not be underestimated, and as such both companies deserve to be subject to censure.




This article is also published at the New English Review.