Article in World Politics Review
"The irony of great tragedies is that their smallest moments are the ones that truly touch us. Statistics and death-counts impress strategists and historians. But the image of a terrified boy crouching behind his father in the crossfire of armed fighters -- and then dying in his father's arms -- has the power to melt hearts, ignite fury, and move people to action.
Such was the case with Mohammed al-Dura, the Palestinian boy supposedly killed by Israeli soldiers in September 2000 during a gun battle with Palestinians. His story sparked outrage around the world and added fuel to a raging fire that exploded into an even greater inferno after news of the 12-year-old's death. But what if the tragedy did not happen? What if it was all a hoax? History cannot be undone. Perhaps we can at least avoid repeating it.
The impact of the al-Dura story is difficult to exaggerate. The look of terror in the boys' eyes as he and his father take cover behind a barrel amid a shootout at the Netzarim Junction in Gaza has become indelibly etched in the collective mind of the Middle East. The unforgettable video -- an amazing exclusive for a French reporter and his cameraman -- became a powerful symbol that mobilized public opinion and spurred many more killings.
In the first terrorist decapitation video of our gruesome era, the killing of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, young al-Dura plays a key role. The boy's image is superimposed as the killers show Pearl declaring "I am a Jew," just moments before they brandish their sharp knives and perform their unspeakable act. Throughout the Muslim and Arab worlds, there are countless roads and parks and monuments named for al-Dura. Egypt, Tunisia and even Belgium released stamps with the poignant picture. Al-Dura was the rallying cry for the Intifada of 2000, which left thousands dead.
As it turns out, the al-Dura story may be less sad but even more infuriating than we thought. An appeals court judge in France has just ruled against the France 2 television station and its celebrity reporter Charles Enderlin, the journalist who told the story to the world although, he admits, he was not there when it happened. Enderlin filed a defamation lawsuit against Philippe Karsenty, a media watchdog who argued the reporting was so filled with inconsistencies, gaps and misinformation, that the evidence indicated the whole thing had been a propaganda hoax. The judge agreed that Karsenty has presented a "coherent mass" of information casting legitimate doubt on the reporting.
The famous video clip lasted only 57 seconds. Enderlin says his Palestinian cameraman shot 28 minutes. The clip amounts to a montage of a few images, with Enderlin's narration declaring the boy dead and accusing Israel of killing him. The entire world took Enderlin at his word, despite his well-known record as a fervent foe of Israel. When the judge demanded the full raw video, Enderlin mysteriously showed only 18 minutes. The boy is seen walking away after he's declared dead, and there is no blood on the father, whom Enderlin claims was seriously wounded. Nowhere is the killing shown. Independent observers who have seen the film say the whole thing appears staged. One French reporter says the first 20 minutes look like Palestinians are "playing at war," repeatedly falling and getting up.
Detailed ballistic reports say it would have been physically impossible for an Israeli bullet to reach al-Dura. Perhaps Palestinians killed him. But the whole performance could have been a grand display of street theater.
Not surprisingly, news of the French judge's ruling against the activist anti-Israel journalist received almost no attention in the Arab world, in France, or in any of the countries where the story cemented a version of history that says Israelis are to blame for all the suffering in the Middle East.
There is no shortage of suffering among Palestinians and Israelis, and there is plenty of blame to go around on both sides. In this case, however, bad journalism shares in the responsibility for much of the pain -- and the deaths -- that followed. Unfortunately, we cannot undo history.
The dead are gone, and a distorted version of the conflict will remain with many who saw the deceptive clip of the al-Dura story. Millions will reject doubts about the killing. Future students of journalism should study this event, however, even as they review the story of their slain colleague Daniel Pearl. It's a lesson for all of us: Bad journalism can kill."
Saturday, 31 May 2008
Charities for terror, by David Frankfurter
Posted by David Frankfurter on LiveJournal:
"With court cases and wide debate surrounding the linkage between certain Islamic Charities and the funding of terror organisations, it is interesting to note that even the Palestinian Authority is worried enough to take action.
Ha'aretz reported earlier this week (full article): "The [senior Israeli security] source noted that the PA has outlawed 300 charity organizations, most of them affiliated with Hamas, and its security forces have stepped up their monitoring of imams in West Bank mosques."
And who should know better than the Palestinian Authority on this particular topic?"
"With court cases and wide debate surrounding the linkage between certain Islamic Charities and the funding of terror organisations, it is interesting to note that even the Palestinian Authority is worried enough to take action.
Ha'aretz reported earlier this week (full article): "The [senior Israeli security] source noted that the PA has outlawed 300 charity organizations, most of them affiliated with Hamas, and its security forces have stepped up their monitoring of imams in West Bank mosques."
And who should know better than the Palestinian Authority on this particular topic?"
Friday, 30 May 2008
Google founder: "My family left Russia because of anti-semitism"
Article by Tom Gross @ Mideast Dispatch:
"Google founder Sergey Brin, who stayed on in Israel for a few days after the conclusion of last week’s 60th anniversary celebrations, has told the Israeli daily Ha’aretz that “anti-Semitism was the main reason his family left Russia.”
As I mentioned in a previous dispatch, Brin, 34, was in Israel for President Shimon Peres’ presidential conference “Facing Tomorrow,” and took the opportunity to visit Google’s growing Israeli offices. He said Google is also considering buying some Israeli hi-tech start-up companies.
Brin was born in Moscow in 1973 to Jewish parents. His father, a would-be physicist, was banned from Moscow University under a Communist Party decree banning Jews from physics departments.
Ha’aretz writes: “Mikhail Brin decided to study mathematics instead, and was offered a place although the entry exams for Jews were sat separately, in rooms that were notoriously known as ‘the gas chambers.’ In 1970, he graduated with distinction. Later, he gained his PhD from the University of Krakow, and worked for the Russian economic policy-planning agency.
“Sergey’s mother, Evgenya, worked in the research lab of the Soviet gas and oil institute. Like her husband, she had struggled against the anti-Semitic discrimination which prevailed in the Soviet academia, and defied it.
“... The Brins decided to leave Russia in 1977. Despite the fear of being declared “refuseniks,” Evgenya was adamant to leave.
“In 1978 they applied for emigration permit, and as a result Mikhail was fired and Evgenya had to resign. The family barely got by for several months until their application was approved in 1979. Shortly afterwards, the gates of the Soviet bloc were hermetically closed for emigration.”"
"Google founder Sergey Brin, who stayed on in Israel for a few days after the conclusion of last week’s 60th anniversary celebrations, has told the Israeli daily Ha’aretz that “anti-Semitism was the main reason his family left Russia.”
As I mentioned in a previous dispatch, Brin, 34, was in Israel for President Shimon Peres’ presidential conference “Facing Tomorrow,” and took the opportunity to visit Google’s growing Israeli offices. He said Google is also considering buying some Israeli hi-tech start-up companies.
Brin was born in Moscow in 1973 to Jewish parents. His father, a would-be physicist, was banned from Moscow University under a Communist Party decree banning Jews from physics departments.
Ha’aretz writes: “Mikhail Brin decided to study mathematics instead, and was offered a place although the entry exams for Jews were sat separately, in rooms that were notoriously known as ‘the gas chambers.’ In 1970, he graduated with distinction. Later, he gained his PhD from the University of Krakow, and worked for the Russian economic policy-planning agency.
“Sergey’s mother, Evgenya, worked in the research lab of the Soviet gas and oil institute. Like her husband, she had struggled against the anti-Semitic discrimination which prevailed in the Soviet academia, and defied it.
“... The Brins decided to leave Russia in 1977. Despite the fear of being declared “refuseniks,” Evgenya was adamant to leave.
“In 1978 they applied for emigration permit, and as a result Mikhail was fired and Evgenya had to resign. The family barely got by for several months until their application was approved in 1979. Shortly afterwards, the gates of the Soviet bloc were hermetically closed for emigration.”"
Thursday, 29 May 2008
Wiesenthal Centre denounces bogus 'Israeli' assault on Arabs subliminal Jew-hatred inculcation
"In a letter to Belgian Prime Minister, Yves Leterme, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre's Director for International Relations, Dr Shimon Samuels, expressed revulsion at "the repulsive manipulation of public opinion staged last Saturday in Nivelles near Brussels."
A group of Belgian self-proclaimed "Socialists", in ostensible Israeli army uniforms, descended from a jeep and other vehicles bearing Israeli flags to assault keffiyeh-bedecked local Arabs in the town's commercial centre.
Samuels described the scene as "barking orders while pushing elderly people to their knees, grabbing a baby from its carriage, the message was registered in the faces of innocent shopkeepers and passersby."
- See video '"Psychodrame Nakba" à Nivelles'
The Centre added, "Those Belgian onlookers, last Saturday, lost their innocence as they were mentally raped. They know that there are no Israeli military operations in their town, but they and their children will always remember the Star of David on the vehicles, the snatching of babies. The demons of medieval blood libels are, thereby, subliminally reinforced. The organizers will have succeeded in dramatically reigniting fear of their fellow Jewish citizens."
The letter continued, "Following the mayhem in which the 'soldiers' drove the 'Arabs' into the 'Bethlehem Deheishe Refugee Camp', the microphone was taken by Socialist City Councillor and former Defence Minister, André Flahaut. Under Palestinian banners, he drew parallels between the performance and Nazi atrocities against the Jews."
Samuels noted that "the same minister had, reportedly, excused the vandalism of the Anderlecht Holocaust Memorial as due to Israeli policy and, allegedly, proposed shooting down any American plane overflying Belgium en route to Iraq."
The Centre suggested that "Belgian politicians must be reminded of the short distance between Nivelles and Malines (Mechelen), the transit point for the deportation of Belgian Jewry to Auschwitz."
The letter also emphasized that "Saturday's street defamation of Israel was not only a disturbance to public order; it was a violation of Belgium's commitment to the OSCE Berlin Declaration (2004), and the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism's Working Definition of Antisemitism (2004), both of which include Holocaust revisionism and the demonization of the State of Israel, by analogy with Nazism, as incitement to contemporary Jew-hatred."
The Centre called on the Belgian government "to publicly denounce such group libel, prohibit any repetition and to condemn the behaviour of Councillor Flahaut and his co-speaker, Ecologist Federal Deputy Thérèse Snoy."
"Mr Prime Minister, pardon our astonishment that of all countries, such a provocation was organized in Belgium – hardly the place nor the time to import a conflict in which peacemakers are focussed upon a two-state solution," concluded Samuels."
A group of Belgian self-proclaimed "Socialists", in ostensible Israeli army uniforms, descended from a jeep and other vehicles bearing Israeli flags to assault keffiyeh-bedecked local Arabs in the town's commercial centre.
Samuels described the scene as "barking orders while pushing elderly people to their knees, grabbing a baby from its carriage, the message was registered in the faces of innocent shopkeepers and passersby."
- See video '"Psychodrame Nakba" à Nivelles'
The Centre added, "Those Belgian onlookers, last Saturday, lost their innocence as they were mentally raped. They know that there are no Israeli military operations in their town, but they and their children will always remember the Star of David on the vehicles, the snatching of babies. The demons of medieval blood libels are, thereby, subliminally reinforced. The organizers will have succeeded in dramatically reigniting fear of their fellow Jewish citizens."
The letter continued, "Following the mayhem in which the 'soldiers' drove the 'Arabs' into the 'Bethlehem Deheishe Refugee Camp', the microphone was taken by Socialist City Councillor and former Defence Minister, André Flahaut. Under Palestinian banners, he drew parallels between the performance and Nazi atrocities against the Jews."
Samuels noted that "the same minister had, reportedly, excused the vandalism of the Anderlecht Holocaust Memorial as due to Israeli policy and, allegedly, proposed shooting down any American plane overflying Belgium en route to Iraq."
The Centre suggested that "Belgian politicians must be reminded of the short distance between Nivelles and Malines (Mechelen), the transit point for the deportation of Belgian Jewry to Auschwitz."
The letter also emphasized that "Saturday's street defamation of Israel was not only a disturbance to public order; it was a violation of Belgium's commitment to the OSCE Berlin Declaration (2004), and the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism's Working Definition of Antisemitism (2004), both of which include Holocaust revisionism and the demonization of the State of Israel, by analogy with Nazism, as incitement to contemporary Jew-hatred."
The Centre called on the Belgian government "to publicly denounce such group libel, prohibit any repetition and to condemn the behaviour of Councillor Flahaut and his co-speaker, Ecologist Federal Deputy Thérèse Snoy."
"Mr Prime Minister, pardon our astonishment that of all countries, such a provocation was organized in Belgium – hardly the place nor the time to import a conflict in which peacemakers are focussed upon a two-state solution," concluded Samuels."
Former Belgian Minister sparks ire of Jewish community with remarks on Israel, EJP
From the European Jewish Press
"A former Belgian Defense Minister sparked the ire of the Jewish community after he reportedly compared Israel’s policy toward the Palestinians to the fate of the Jews during World War II.
In a speech last Saturday at a pro-Palestinian gathering in Nivelles, near Brussels, André Flahaut, a Socialist MP and city councillor, compared Israel to a Nazi state, according to CCOJB, the umbrella representative group of Belgian Jewish organizations.
He was quoted as saying: “Like any normal person, I am revolted when I see children suffering, when I see maltreated women, who are raped, when I see maltreated men and freedoms ridiculed. During the twelve years and half I was minister, I left no stone unturned so that the atrocities against the Jews during WWII be remembered and not forgotten. I also ask that one have the same commitment, the same determination to make that the voice of those who suffer today is heard and to avoid banalization. I am determined to fight against all exclusions, all nazisms, all fascisms wherever they are.”
In a statement, the “Union of Deported Jews in Belgium-Daughters and Sons of the Deportation”, urged Flahaut to publicly retract his comments.
Flahaut, who was Defense Minister in the former government of Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt, denied later that he made anti-Jewish comments.
He said the gathering on Saturday was organized by a group advocating dialogue between Israel and Palestine.
When he arrived at the meeting, Flahaut was heckled by a Jewish representative who blamed him for his presence.
The former minister added: "I answered that I am in favour of dialogue and that I have always been determined to fight all forms of violence, racism and extremism. My speech remained general and balanced. I never questioned any state."
During the gathering, pseudo-Israeli soldiers wearing weapons staged a mock repression of Palestinians to illustrate what organizers called in their leaflets the "expulsion of Palestinians in 1948 when Israel was created."
An Ecologist MP, Thérèse Snoy, denounced "pressure from certain Jewish groups" on the city's authorities to ban the demonstration."
See:
For Belgian Minister Israeli military operations in Gaza are "shocking"
In 2008 lots of events hostile to Israel will be hosted - or have already taken place - ... to coincide with Israel's 60th birthday. Here is a small sample:
Norman Finkelstein at Brussels Nakba commemoration day
Israelis compared to Nazi SS on Belgian radio blog
Zionism, a "Tumour in the midst of Judaism", Belgian radio forum
Masarat, Belgium in the Middle East, by the Islam in Europe blog
Content of Belgian-sponsored Palestinian festival irks Jews, JTA
Zan Studio of Ramallah - anti-Israeli artists invited to Belgium
Palestinian festival sparks controversy - Belgium
Israel on trial in Brussels: Iranian and Syrian Ambassadors give standing ovation to judges
Lebanon war mock tribunal condemns Israel and U.S.
"A former Belgian Defense Minister sparked the ire of the Jewish community after he reportedly compared Israel’s policy toward the Palestinians to the fate of the Jews during World War II.
In a speech last Saturday at a pro-Palestinian gathering in Nivelles, near Brussels, André Flahaut, a Socialist MP and city councillor, compared Israel to a Nazi state, according to CCOJB, the umbrella representative group of Belgian Jewish organizations.
He was quoted as saying: “Like any normal person, I am revolted when I see children suffering, when I see maltreated women, who are raped, when I see maltreated men and freedoms ridiculed. During the twelve years and half I was minister, I left no stone unturned so that the atrocities against the Jews during WWII be remembered and not forgotten. I also ask that one have the same commitment, the same determination to make that the voice of those who suffer today is heard and to avoid banalization. I am determined to fight against all exclusions, all nazisms, all fascisms wherever they are.”
In a statement, the “Union of Deported Jews in Belgium-Daughters and Sons of the Deportation”, urged Flahaut to publicly retract his comments.
Flahaut, who was Defense Minister in the former government of Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt, denied later that he made anti-Jewish comments.
He said the gathering on Saturday was organized by a group advocating dialogue between Israel and Palestine.
When he arrived at the meeting, Flahaut was heckled by a Jewish representative who blamed him for his presence.
The former minister added: "I answered that I am in favour of dialogue and that I have always been determined to fight all forms of violence, racism and extremism. My speech remained general and balanced. I never questioned any state."
During the gathering, pseudo-Israeli soldiers wearing weapons staged a mock repression of Palestinians to illustrate what organizers called in their leaflets the "expulsion of Palestinians in 1948 when Israel was created."
An Ecologist MP, Thérèse Snoy, denounced "pressure from certain Jewish groups" on the city's authorities to ban the demonstration."
See:
For Belgian Minister Israeli military operations in Gaza are "shocking"
In 2008 lots of events hostile to Israel will be hosted - or have already taken place - ... to coincide with Israel's 60th birthday. Here is a small sample:
Norman Finkelstein at Brussels Nakba commemoration day
Israelis compared to Nazi SS on Belgian radio blog
Zionism, a "Tumour in the midst of Judaism", Belgian radio forum
Masarat, Belgium in the Middle East, by the Islam in Europe blog
Content of Belgian-sponsored Palestinian festival irks Jews, JTA
Zan Studio of Ramallah - anti-Israeli artists invited to Belgium
Palestinian festival sparks controversy - Belgium
Israel on trial in Brussels: Iranian and Syrian Ambassadors give standing ovation to judges
Lebanon war mock tribunal condemns Israel and U.S.
Wednesday, 28 May 2008
Myths and Historical Fact, from A Liberal Defence of Israel blog
Myths and Historical Fact posted by Denis @ A Liberal Defence of Israel blog
"The following was sent recently to the Irish Times in response to a long letter that had appeared there. (...)
Despite Tomas McBride (Letters, 22 May), supporters of Israel do not need to resort to myth in order to justify the existence of a modern Jewish state. Let's leave the Torah to one side for a moment. Israel came into being, not from a mythical 'Jewish invasion' of British mandate Palestine, but as the result of a long political process that started in the late 19th century as the Ottoman empire drew to its end. After the second world war and a long debate, the United Nations voted by a majority for the creation of a small Jewish state alongside other mandate or ex-mandate states. In other words, Israel was carved out of the old empire much as modern Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, or Jordan. This happened in part because post-war re-apportionment of land in general is commonplace, but for the greater part because the UN was a new way to administer international law and the necessary adjustments between nations. The nearest parallel was the resettlement of 2 million people following the partition of India to create Pakistan (and, later, Bangladesh) — oddly enough, no Muslim voices are raised to complain about this.
Unfortunately, nations in the modern form, modelled on the concept of the Westphalian state, had never existed in Islam (though various forms of Arab nationalism, like Jewish nationalism, were being advocated in this period). This is why the Arab states who invaded Israel with the expressed intention of driving all Jews into the Mediterranean simply refused to behave like UN member states at all. That Jews had taken control of even a tiny sliver of Islamic territory was anathema, giving rise to what was in essence a religious animus calling for genocide. By that time too, Palestinian politics had been irredeemably tainted by association with the Third Reich. The Reich's leading Arab collaborator, Hajj Amin al-Husayni, the Palestinian leader, had fled after the Nazi defeat and was feted in Cairo as a hero of the Arab people.
To dismiss Jewish longing to return to Israel as merely a myth-centred nonsense displays an absolute insensitivity to aspirations, whether religious or national. All peoples, religions, and nations have founding myths. The Jews have one of the strongest. Their belief in a land that was given them by God may or may not be historically true, but it is a vivid, enduring, and necessary expression of the significance Jews have placed in Israel for thousands of years. Jerusalem is sacred to Jews much as Mecca and Medina are to Muslims. It is certainly much better attested than the historically invalid attempt of modern Palestinians (a hybrid group) to assert Palestinian occupation of that land for a similar length of time; or to claim a link between modern Palestinians and the ancient Philistines; or, most glaringly, that the Jews have never had a historical connection to the land. Pull the other one.
For two thousand years, Jews have expressed a daily hope of return to the Holy Land. That sense of belonging, that connection to history, are something greater than myth, though often inspired by it. We do not mock other religions for holding non-rational beliefs, we do not try to make political capital out of national struggles based on a longing for a returnto a Golden Age. The statue of Cuchulainn outside the General Post Office is there for a reason. Or consider the opening words of the Proclamation of Independence: 'IRISHMEN AND IRISHWOMEN: In the name of God and of the dead generations from which she receives her old tradition of nationhood, Ireland, through us, summons her children to her flag and strikes for her freedom.' Or all those murals of King Billy crossing the Boyne.
Jews trace their origins back as far as that and further. That is why they chose and were given a homeland where every town, every hill, every river, every archaeological excavation, and every stone in the Western Wall resonates. And given the momentous horror of the Holocaust and how close mankind came to witnessing an extermination of the Jewish people, that resonance could not have been greater. Persecuted though we may have been by the British occupation, we were never in danger of being wiped out. Since 1948,the Palestinian Arabs have increased from 1,700,000 to 2.5 million (with claims of over 3 million). That is the truth of the 'Palestinian Holocaust', another myth that is swallowed too readily. If I am to believe in the right of the Irish people to a homeland where Cuchulainn may or may not have walked, how can I deny the Jews their unarguable right to seek refuge for the first time in two millennia in a land they have prayed for every day of their lives? By contrast, Jerusalem has little resonance in Islam: soon after migrating to Medina, the prophet Muhammad, who had prayed towards Jerusalem in imitation of the Jews, turned his back on the city and chose instead to pray towards Mecca, as all Muslims do today. Jews recite the words of the Psalm: 'If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand wither, let my tongue cleave to my palate if I donot remember you, if I do not set Jerusalem above myhighest joy'. The Qur'an doesn't even mention Jerusalem.
The Arabs cannot have it both ways. They cannot belong to the United Nations and work to undermine its very principles. Their states are dictatorships and absolute monarchies, they deny their citizens basic human rights, they reduce women to an inferior status, they deny religious minorities the freedoms called for in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Yet they denounce Israel, the only country in the Middle East that implements those rights in a democratic state. What are we looking for, in the end? Stability, democracy, the rule of law, rights for everyone regardless of colour, sex, or creed? Or genocide by Hamas and Hizbullah, followed by theocratic rule that will bring executions, stonings, and the minimum of rights for any remaining religious minorities? Israel has achieved great things. It has some way to go, but every time we attack it or snipe at it or give terrorists succour, we undermine the very things we claim to stand for."
"The following was sent recently to the Irish Times in response to a long letter that had appeared there. (...)
Despite Tomas McBride (Letters, 22 May), supporters of Israel do not need to resort to myth in order to justify the existence of a modern Jewish state. Let's leave the Torah to one side for a moment. Israel came into being, not from a mythical 'Jewish invasion' of British mandate Palestine, but as the result of a long political process that started in the late 19th century as the Ottoman empire drew to its end. After the second world war and a long debate, the United Nations voted by a majority for the creation of a small Jewish state alongside other mandate or ex-mandate states. In other words, Israel was carved out of the old empire much as modern Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, or Jordan. This happened in part because post-war re-apportionment of land in general is commonplace, but for the greater part because the UN was a new way to administer international law and the necessary adjustments between nations. The nearest parallel was the resettlement of 2 million people following the partition of India to create Pakistan (and, later, Bangladesh) — oddly enough, no Muslim voices are raised to complain about this.
Unfortunately, nations in the modern form, modelled on the concept of the Westphalian state, had never existed in Islam (though various forms of Arab nationalism, like Jewish nationalism, were being advocated in this period). This is why the Arab states who invaded Israel with the expressed intention of driving all Jews into the Mediterranean simply refused to behave like UN member states at all. That Jews had taken control of even a tiny sliver of Islamic territory was anathema, giving rise to what was in essence a religious animus calling for genocide. By that time too, Palestinian politics had been irredeemably tainted by association with the Third Reich. The Reich's leading Arab collaborator, Hajj Amin al-Husayni, the Palestinian leader, had fled after the Nazi defeat and was feted in Cairo as a hero of the Arab people.
To dismiss Jewish longing to return to Israel as merely a myth-centred nonsense displays an absolute insensitivity to aspirations, whether religious or national. All peoples, religions, and nations have founding myths. The Jews have one of the strongest. Their belief in a land that was given them by God may or may not be historically true, but it is a vivid, enduring, and necessary expression of the significance Jews have placed in Israel for thousands of years. Jerusalem is sacred to Jews much as Mecca and Medina are to Muslims. It is certainly much better attested than the historically invalid attempt of modern Palestinians (a hybrid group) to assert Palestinian occupation of that land for a similar length of time; or to claim a link between modern Palestinians and the ancient Philistines; or, most glaringly, that the Jews have never had a historical connection to the land. Pull the other one.
For two thousand years, Jews have expressed a daily hope of return to the Holy Land. That sense of belonging, that connection to history, are something greater than myth, though often inspired by it. We do not mock other religions for holding non-rational beliefs, we do not try to make political capital out of national struggles based on a longing for a returnto a Golden Age. The statue of Cuchulainn outside the General Post Office is there for a reason. Or consider the opening words of the Proclamation of Independence: 'IRISHMEN AND IRISHWOMEN: In the name of God and of the dead generations from which she receives her old tradition of nationhood, Ireland, through us, summons her children to her flag and strikes for her freedom.' Or all those murals of King Billy crossing the Boyne.
Jews trace their origins back as far as that and further. That is why they chose and were given a homeland where every town, every hill, every river, every archaeological excavation, and every stone in the Western Wall resonates. And given the momentous horror of the Holocaust and how close mankind came to witnessing an extermination of the Jewish people, that resonance could not have been greater. Persecuted though we may have been by the British occupation, we were never in danger of being wiped out. Since 1948,the Palestinian Arabs have increased from 1,700,000 to 2.5 million (with claims of over 3 million). That is the truth of the 'Palestinian Holocaust', another myth that is swallowed too readily. If I am to believe in the right of the Irish people to a homeland where Cuchulainn may or may not have walked, how can I deny the Jews their unarguable right to seek refuge for the first time in two millennia in a land they have prayed for every day of their lives? By contrast, Jerusalem has little resonance in Islam: soon after migrating to Medina, the prophet Muhammad, who had prayed towards Jerusalem in imitation of the Jews, turned his back on the city and chose instead to pray towards Mecca, as all Muslims do today. Jews recite the words of the Psalm: 'If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand wither, let my tongue cleave to my palate if I donot remember you, if I do not set Jerusalem above myhighest joy'. The Qur'an doesn't even mention Jerusalem.
The Arabs cannot have it both ways. They cannot belong to the United Nations and work to undermine its very principles. Their states are dictatorships and absolute monarchies, they deny their citizens basic human rights, they reduce women to an inferior status, they deny religious minorities the freedoms called for in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Yet they denounce Israel, the only country in the Middle East that implements those rights in a democratic state. What are we looking for, in the end? Stability, democracy, the rule of law, rights for everyone regardless of colour, sex, or creed? Or genocide by Hamas and Hizbullah, followed by theocratic rule that will bring executions, stonings, and the minimum of rights for any remaining religious minorities? Israel has achieved great things. It has some way to go, but every time we attack it or snipe at it or give terrorists succour, we undermine the very things we claim to stand for."
Monday, 26 May 2008
English Parliament debates growth of anti-semitism in Britain, by Irene Lancaster
From Irene Lancaster's Diary:
"English Parliament debates growth of anti-semitism in Britain, and calls on the BBC and the Church of England to do more
(...) the parliamentary debate about the growth of antisemitism in Britain. It took place last week, on Thursday, May 15th.
If you go to the comments section on the Engage webpage, you will find out how to access the video of the debate.
Here is part of what two MPs from different parties said about the matter of antisemitism in today's Britain. I have reversed the order in which they appeared:
Andrew Dismore (Hendon, Labour)
"The threat and reality of anti-Semitism is with us ... Jewish people are the only community in our country who live in a permanent state of siege and underlying fear ... although I am not Jewish, I am targeted because I am seen as someone who stands up for the Jewish community. I have had hate mail and death threats. I have been on the receiving end of action by the Muslim Public Affairs Committee..."
Mark Prichard (The Wrekin, Conservative)
" ... in some, but not all, parts, the BBC is still institutionally biased against Israel.... I welcome the comments that Pope Benedict made in his Cologne speech. I think the Church of England should do more; it should speak out against anti-Semitism."
This was an important debate, which took place on the date by Gregorian calendar of Israel's 60th anniversary. The debate linked antisemitism in Britain to the way Israel is reported in the media, specifically mentioning bias in the BBC as a Government-funded organisation, and calling on the Church of England to do more to speak out.
The most obivous cause for concern still remains the atmosphere and reality of campus life for Jewish students and staff in many universities. However, the BBC and the Church of England - pillars of the establishment - could do a great deal more to influence the pervading ambience in the country. This might go some way to assuage the feeling 'of permanent state of siege and underlying fear' experienced by the Jewish community of this country, correctly expressed by the non-Jewish Labour MP for Hendon, NW London.
Another worrying feature is the universities' admission policy, which many feel discriminates against the Jewish community as an ethnic minority.
Contrast with President Bush's speech of congratulations to Israel on her 60th, which he gave in the Israeli Knesset (originally modelled on the British parliament), which took place on the same afternoon as the parliamentary debate on anti-Semitism in London."
"English Parliament debates growth of anti-semitism in Britain, and calls on the BBC and the Church of England to do more
(...) the parliamentary debate about the growth of antisemitism in Britain. It took place last week, on Thursday, May 15th.
If you go to the comments section on the Engage webpage, you will find out how to access the video of the debate.
Here is part of what two MPs from different parties said about the matter of antisemitism in today's Britain. I have reversed the order in which they appeared:
Andrew Dismore (Hendon, Labour)
"The threat and reality of anti-Semitism is with us ... Jewish people are the only community in our country who live in a permanent state of siege and underlying fear ... although I am not Jewish, I am targeted because I am seen as someone who stands up for the Jewish community. I have had hate mail and death threats. I have been on the receiving end of action by the Muslim Public Affairs Committee..."
Mark Prichard (The Wrekin, Conservative)
" ... in some, but not all, parts, the BBC is still institutionally biased against Israel.... I welcome the comments that Pope Benedict made in his Cologne speech. I think the Church of England should do more; it should speak out against anti-Semitism."
This was an important debate, which took place on the date by Gregorian calendar of Israel's 60th anniversary. The debate linked antisemitism in Britain to the way Israel is reported in the media, specifically mentioning bias in the BBC as a Government-funded organisation, and calling on the Church of England to do more to speak out.
The most obivous cause for concern still remains the atmosphere and reality of campus life for Jewish students and staff in many universities. However, the BBC and the Church of England - pillars of the establishment - could do a great deal more to influence the pervading ambience in the country. This might go some way to assuage the feeling 'of permanent state of siege and underlying fear' experienced by the Jewish community of this country, correctly expressed by the non-Jewish Labour MP for Hendon, NW London.
Another worrying feature is the universities' admission policy, which many feel discriminates against the Jewish community as an ethnic minority.
Contrast with President Bush's speech of congratulations to Israel on her 60th, which he gave in the Israeli Knesset (originally modelled on the British parliament), which took place on the same afternoon as the parliamentary debate on anti-Semitism in London."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
