Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News: Guardian

Showing posts with label Guardian. Show all posts

Sunday, February 06, 2011

Palestine Papers: PA trying to get rid of Netanyahu

Here is another theme of the "Palestine Papers" that The Guardian did not believe is newsworthy: The PA is using the negotiations - and refusal to negotiate - as a way to get rid of Netanyahu and to bring back Livni.

When Netanyahu first started forming a government, Saeb Erekat tried to use his supposed intransigence as a weapon to get the US to go against him. From a February 27, 2009 meeting with George Mitchell:

It seems they are moving towards a government with 65 seats. Livni told Netanyahu her conditions for coalition: two states and political negotiations. AM [Abu Mazen/Mahmoud Abbas] cannot demand less than Livni. We want to continue the political process and negotiations. We are committed to that. But if Israel doesn’t recognize the two-state solution and continues settlements, it will be the last nail in AM’s coffin if we send him to negotiate.

...If Netanyahu forms a government with a party that has 15 seats, with an official platform of ethnic cleansing and expulsion of Muslims and Christians who are Israeli citizens … if Barack Obama wants a policy of reconciliation with the Muslim and Arab world … with your kids dying all over the region.

You have a choice. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. You have either the cost-free way: pressure us to negotiate, which means AM negotiating with Netanyahu under continuing settlement and without recognition – this would be the last nail in AM’s coffin, or you have another choice: take the Annapolis statement: two states, and negotiations over all core issues. If the Israeli government doesn’t include in its mandate the two-states and negotiating on all issues including Jerusalem … [hands GM paper submitted to the EU via the Czechs] We are committed to peace and negotiations for two states, but we won’t engage without this.

Netanyahu will go to President Obama and tell him “Iran.” He will say he is committed. Then he will build settlements in E1 and elsewhere – like he did in Har Homa. You cannot be expected to demand less of Netanyahu than what Livni demanded.

In a later meeting with the Negotiations Support Unit, Erekat talks a little more frankly about his strategy with to split Obama from Netanyahu and get him to wholeheartedly take the Palestinian Arab side.

Hamas is a tool for Netanyahu, he is counting on them to stay the course. And Hamas is counting on Netanyahu to stay the course. Netanyahu’s only card is Palestinian division, and also Ahmadinejad. Everyone can see how Israel is using Ahmadinejad’s comments. Ahamadinjed should be saying we want to add Palestine to the map, not removing Israel from the map. He doesn’t serve our cause with his holocaust denials.

As far as contact with Israel, its business as usual. I talk with Amos Gilad and other generals. Uzi Arad and I mutually do not want to meet with each other. I want to wait to see what they present to Obama. Netanyahu is saying he doesn’t want a two state solution. It is not us who are saying we don’t want to negotiate. Anyone who says they don’t recognize the two-state solution rejects final status negotiations. The question everyone should be asking Netanyahu is, “will you talk about Jerusalem, refugees, etc., Yes or No?”
...
Azem Bichara: There is lots of buildup to Netanyahu’s meeting with Obama, how can we help with that? Should we write an Op-ed before AM’s meeting outlining our ideas?

SE: Do one in my name. Prepare for me a good press conference after AM’s meeting. We need to issue a statement right after Netanyahu’s meeting.

Alex Kouttab: Do you have any concrete idea of what Netanyahu is going to propose to Obama?

SE: He is going to say “we will remove road blocks, outposts, etc. but if a settler child needs a new bathroom, we will build it.” But he will continue to build E1 and demolish homes. He is a master of ambiguity.

At this point, the PA's main card with the US has been their conviction that Netanyahu was going to remain publicly against a two-state solution.

Then Netanyahu publicly said he would support a two-state solution under specific conditions.

This put the Palestinian Arabs on the defensive:

Dr. Mohammad Shtayyeh
1) AM must deliver a speech and he should use the opportunity of the graduation of the Arab American University in Jenin to deliver it from there.

2) We need to have a diplomatic campaign across the world to explain what was misleading
and false in BN’s speech and what our positions are.

3) We have to give BN a hard time in the international arena.

4) We need to summon the Consuls General and brief them so they will deliver the message
to (their) respective capitals before BN goes to Europe.

5) We must not give the impression that we are dealing with this Israeli government. This is a very wise decision. Limit interactions to a minimum and to the most urgent. We need to
focus our time away from negotiations and on our internal affairs.

We don’t need a spokesperson, we need a media machine. We want to launch this campaign
– not have the journalists come to us or wait for us. We have to think of our objective: What
is the purpose of this? A) isolate BN, B) make him resign, or C) or make him change his
position.

Erekat to George Mitchell, October 20, 2009, shows the PA's new intransigent position regarding Netanyahu:

Either they are partners – 67 border, swaps – anything short of that, that’s it. This is a defining moment for the government. Don’t listen to him [BN]. He’s dead, if he has no engagement with us.

And then the next day:

[Erekat]: We cannot have resumption of negotiations with this government. We will punish Netanyahu. He can’t survive without a process with us. We won’t give him leverage of taking us for a ride and continuing settlements while we negotiate. Am I clear, David? This is the decision of the leadership – the PLO executive committee and the Fatah central committee. They won’t allow it. Period. Finito.

David Hale: Your staying in this position means no direct negotiations.

SE: No direct negotiations if there is no freeze and an exclusion of Jerusalem.

DH: So what do you propose?

SE: I know what I’m talking about and I see where things are heading. ... So no Palestinian decision-making body will change this position on the freeze. Not after Goldstone.

... We're also in touch with Israelis and Jewish groups – not [just] J street or just the Labour party. We don’t see Netanyahu as the end of the world – the Lieberman/Netanyahu cabinet. If we go for negotiations with them we will kill the others.

There's a lot more in that last memo that we will get to soon.

(h/t Kramerica)

Palestine Papers: PA says "refugees" must be resettled in Arab states

I found where Al Jazeera put all of the "Palestine Papers" and, in response to the Guardian's absurd assertion that they have already published everything that is newsworthy, here is exhibit A showing otherwise:

On July 2, 2008, the PA produced a "talking points" memo about how the so-called "refugee" problem would ultimately be solved. Presumably this was meant to be used in negotiations with the US and Israel. But by its nature, it is not an off-the-cuff comment of negotiators floating trial balloons to the other side, but an official (if unpublished) position of the PA.

First of all, the PA makes it very clear that they do not want to be the place that some 7 million "refugees" will move to live:

The viability of the future Palestinian State is closely linked to the evolution of the Palestinian population that will live within the future State’s borders. In this regard, the terms of a settlement of the Palestinian refugee issue and the number of Palestinian refugees who will be offered to resettle or return to the future State of Palestine is a core parameter required to assess the viability of that State.

The resettlement/return of refugee communities touches numerous issues such as housing availabilities, access to water, education and social services, employment opportunities, infrastructure, environment etc. The ability of the Palestinian State to meet refugee needs and ensure an efficient functioning of these services will ultimately determine its viability.

Unlike Israel in 1948, which opened its doors to Jews all over the world even though it was severely restricted in resources and cash, the PA is not going to start an open-door policy. In other words, they don't seem to care nearly as much about their fellow "Palestinians" living in stateless misery as Israel does about Jews.

While the PA will still insist on the theoretical "right to return," it recognizes realistically that other Arab states are going to have to offer citizenship:

The Palestinian/Arab peace proposal regarding Palestinian refugees is to find a “just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with UNGA resolution 194”. The goal is to reach a multilateral solution that will be accepted by all parties. For the resolution to be a success, Israel, host States (Jordan, Syria, Lebanon) and third countries will have to offer attractive options to refugees. Therefore, the viability of the Palestinian State also greatly relies on the ability of these stakeholders and the international community to provide with concrete relocation options to Palestinian refugees.

All of this is obvious, but the PA is publicly silent on the issue. Instead of laying the framework to get these Arab countries to gear up for their ultimate naturalization of their Palestinian Arab population, the PA's public position has been the opposite of what this paper states.

In fact, only a few months earlier, Mahmoud Abbas told The Daily Star of Lebanon:

"We would not accept any settlements that would lead to a demographic change in Lebanon. This is totally unacceptable ... We won't accept a settlement that obliges Lebanon to naturalize even one Palestinian."

It is impossible to believe that Mahmoud Abbas was not aware of the contents of this talking points memo. Which means that either he was lying to the Lebanese, or he was lying to the Americans.

Either way, it shows that he is a liar.

Guardian defends its "Palestine Papers" coverage

In the Jewish Chronicle, the Guardian defends itself against the accusations that their coverage of the Palestine Papers was biased and anti-Israel.

I think the record speaks for itself - the Guardian and Al Jazeera misinterpreted and misrepresented the papers to put Israel in the worst possible light, and they weren't above lying to do so.

But I found this part of their defense curious:

Examining the haul of 1600 documents, there were a number of passages that the Guardian's team of reporters agreed are highly significant.

These included the offer by Palestinian negotiators – in the context of an overall peace agreement – that Israel would annex all but one of the settlements in East Jerusalem. PLO negotiators also agreed to a remarkably low number of returning refugees.

These are two of the stories we ran, and almost a week after the rest of the world's media gained access to the documents – all of which are now publicly available – no one has found a major story that we missed. We were led, in other words, by the source material. It is no surprise that the majority of the stories concern the PLO, as most of the documents come from the PLO's negotiations unit.

I've been searching for the entire set of documents since the story broke. At the Guardian website, only 26 of the documents are available - no new ones since January 26th. I similarly cannot find a list of all the documents at Al Jazeera.

So the Guardian is claiming that they only highlighted the papers that are newsworthy, and they bring as proof that no one else has found any newsworthy papers - when they can't be found!

I would prefer to decide for myself what is newsworthy, thank you very much. (I've been doing that with Wikileaks.) Let the Guardian put all 1600 documents on their site and then we can truly decide.

UPDATE: Found them. I'll see if there is anything else newsworthy.

No new "Palestine Papers" since Wednesday

Why have The Guardian and Al Jazeera stopped releasing any new memos since Wednesday?

ElderToons: How the Guardian thinks

References:

Honest Reporting

Robin Shepherd

More Guardian lies about "Palestine Papers"

The Guardian writes:

Palestinian negotiators accept Jewish state, papers reveal

But did they?

Read on:

Palestinian negotiators privately accepted Israel's demand that it define itself as a Jewish state, the leaked papers reveal, while Israeli leaders pressed for the highly controversial transfer of some of their own Arab citizens into a future Palestinian state as part of a land-swap deal.

[B]ehind closed doors in November 2007, Erekat told Tzipi Livni, the then Israeli foreign minister and now opposition leader: "If you want to call your state the Jewish state of Israel you can call it what you want," comparing it to Iran and Saudi Arabia's definition of themselves as Islamic or Arab.

Erekat's quote continues on in the actual memo, "This is their issue, not mine."

The Guardian is purposefully mischaracterizing what Erekat said. He's even said the exact same thing in public! Israel, he says, can define itself as it wishes, but the Palestinian Arabs will not accept it.

So he was not in any way accepting Israel as a Jewish state, unlike how the Guardian phrases it.

The Guardian also tries to spin Livni as wanting to "transfer" Arabs:

The-then Israeli foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, repeatedly pressed in 2007-08 for the "transfer" of some of Israel's own Arab citizens into a future Palestinian state as part of a land-swap deal that would exchange Palestinian villages now in Israel for Jewish settlements in the West Bank

What did the Israelis really say?

Tzipi Livni: We have this problem with Raja in Lebanon. Terje Larsen put the blue line to cut the village in two. [This needs to be addressed.] We decided not to cut the village. It was a mistake. The problem now – those living on Lebanese soil are Israeli citizens.

Udi Dekel: Barka, Barta il Sharqiya, Barta il [Garbiya], Betil, Beit Safafa…

Ahmed Qurei: This will be difficult. All Arabs in Israel will be against us.

Tal Becker: We will need to address it some how. Divided. All Palestinian. All Israeli.

Tzipi Livni: We will need to address it one way or another.

Ahmed Qurei: Of course – it is in borders and territory.

Livni was saying that it is unacceptable to have villages divided arbitrarily, and what a nightmare it is for Ghajar in Lebanon. She, and Tal Becker, are saying that the villages should be in one state or another, not to continue to be divided. She is not advocating "transfer" in the way that the term is used, as ethnic cleansing. Since there would be land swaps anyway, this was an idea she floated, and that the PLO rejected out of hand. (Which indicates how much they want "Palestine" to be the state of "Palestinians.")

Al Jazeera is even worse.

From reading the memos it is clear that both sides were just floating ideas, looking for reactions, trying to get an idea of how the other side thinks about a variety of issues. The talks are very informal. To characterize them on either side as saying that "one side offered this" and "one side rejected that" is ridiculous; the memos reveal (from the Palestinian Arab perspective) the mindset of the players and which "red lines"are pinker than others, but one cannot conclude from them that anything was really up for grabs.

The Guardian, the PalArabs, Israel and the truth

The divergence between how the Guardian is spinning the Palestine Papers release and how the actual leaders of the Palestinian Arabs are reacting teaches us volumes.

So while the Guardian decries supposed Palestinian Arab weakness in recognizing what every sane person does, that Israel will never give up the major Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem...

Palestinian concessions roll on. The Israeli settlements around East Jerusalem? Sold, two years ago...

..the Palestinian Arabs are decrying the idea that they would even consider compromise. Erekat:

In the past few hours, a number of reports have surfaced regarding our positions in our negotiations with Israel, many of which have misrepresented our positions, taking statements and facts out of context.

Other allegations circulated in the media have been patently false. But any accurate representation of our positions will show that we have consistently stood by our people’s basic rights and international legal principles.

Indeed, our position has been the same for the past 19 years of negotiations: We seek to establish a sovereign and independent Palestinian state along the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital and to reach a just solution to the refugee issue based on their international legal rights, including those set out in UNGA 194.

Even though many ideas have been discussed by the two sides as part of the normal negotiations process, including some we could never agree to, we have consistently said any proposed agreement would have to gain popular support through a national referendum.

No agreement will be signed without the approval of the Palestinian people.

And Mahmoud Abbas is even saying that any hint of flexibility in the leaked documents actually reflect Israeli positions, not PalArab positions!

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said Monday that leaked Palestinian negotiation documents deliberately confuse the positions of either side, according to Reuters.

"There was an intentional mix-up. I have seen them [Al-Jazeera] present things as Palestinian but in fact they were Israeli... This is therefore intentional," Abbas said in Cairo.

PLO executive committee member Yasser Abed Rabbo, who was in the negotiations, echoes his pride at Palestinian Arab intransigence:

We did not agree to any proposal regarding east Jerusalem. The only position to which we adhere is Abbas' position that east Jerusalem, according to the 67 borders, belongs to us.

So we are left with two possibilities. Either the Palestinian Arabs were the flexible parties and Israel the intransigent ones, which means that Abbas, Abed Rabbo and Erekat are lying now, or Israel was always the more flexible party and the Guardian is lying now.

We also see from the Guardian's screed that the newspaper is not interested in a real peace, but in forcing Israel to make all the concessions and rewarding the Palestinian Arabs for their decades of terror and refusal to accept Israel as a reality.

Of course, while some details about what Tzipi Livni offered might raise an eyebrow or two, everything Israel has said about the negotiations has been very consistent through the years, and consistent with what the leaks say. The Israeli leadership has repeated the mantra often enough: "We will have to make painful compromises for peace."

Those words about compromise were never uttered by any Palestinian Arab leader or negotiator, because the entire idea of compromise is foreign to them. Especially when they have cheerleaders like the Guardian ready to support their intransigence (and insult the very idea of compromise.) Behind closed doors, perhaps, they float an idea or two, but they can rest assured that their people who they themselves have indoctrinated to hate will reject any plans they pretended to accept to make the US happy.

Israel's position towards compromise has been vindicated. The Abbas regime's intransigence has been verified. And the only side that has nothing to hide is Israel.

Not that the Guardian would ever admit that.

Palestine Papers, day 2: PLO reactions

It is a new day and there are a lot more reactions to the publication of the so-called "Palestine Papers" by Al Jazeera.

I will not go so far as some are to dismiss them as forgeries. There are too many details and too many documents. The Guardian claims that they have been authenticated, and while I am no fan of the Guardian they have incentive to validate them - newspapers do not want to be known to fall for hoaxes like the fake Howard Hughes diaries. The downside for the Guardian is simply too great to think that they did not make a good effort to prove that they are really minutes of meetings from the Palestinian Arab side.

I do believe that the papers reflect the PLO viewpoint of the negotiations, and in many details they might be at odds with the Israeli or American interpretations of those same meetings. We have seen many times that the two sides simply speak different languages.

Another important point to remember is that the PLO knows its own political roadblocks far better than the Israelis or Americans do. While America will push the PLO to make concessions - and the PLO cannot stand up to the US in private the way they proudly do in public - the Arabs know very well that some of the concessions will simply not fly; not for their people and not for the Arab League. They could pretend to put forth supposed peace plans secure in the knowledge that there is no real political way to push them through,and then they can go back to the Americans and say that the "Palestinian street" has tied their hands; they must ask for a few dozen more concessions and put the ball back in Israel's court.

While every Israeli leader across the political spectrum has been relatively honest with the people about the needs for "painful compromises for peace," the PA and PLO never did that. So it is really amusing to see how they are reacting to the release.

Saeb Erekat says that "Al-Jazeera's information is full of distortions and fraud."

Ahmed Qureia, one of the PLO leaders who was involved in the negotiations, said that these were "fabrications" and that Al Jazeera was working for Zionist interests by releasing them.

Qureia is quoted in one of the papers as discussing the Kadima primaries with Tzipi Livni, and telling her "I would vote for you." It can't be good for his career to say nice things to the person who was foreign minister during Operation Cast Lead!

Yasser Abed Rabbo, another member of the PLO Executive Committee, is going further and slamming Qatar (al-Jazeera's home) for being behind the leaks. He is demanding that the Emir of Qatar come clean on his own contacts with Israel and Iran, and says that Al Jazeera would never have done this without the Emir's pushing them to.

Abed Rabbo's statements, incidentally, indicate that the Palestinian Arab (West Bank) media wouldn't publish anything big without the approval of the PA and PLO!

Finally, one can expect that the leakers will be looking over their shoulders for quite a while, hoping that no bullets are heading their way. They are the ones that had the real agenda, and there are only so many people who should have had access to these documents.

(See also Noah Pollak's analysis. Also in Commentary, a good piece by Emanuele Ottolenghi.)

Dishonest Reporter Awards released

Honest Reporting has released its annual "Dishonest Reporter" rewards, noting the worst anti-Israel bias throughout the year in the press.

Highlights include:

Reuters for having so many reporters on the scene before a routine Israeli tree-cutting operation on the Lebanese border - almost as if they knew that the LAF was going to start shooting and killing Israeli soldiers.

The Guardian for similarly claiming to be "at the right place at the right time" with a gaggle of other reporters who were waiting for Arab youths to throw stones at Jewish-owned cars in Jerusalem.

Paul McKeough for his biased and lying article on the Mavi Marmara - that received a prestigious award.

And Time Magazine for their cover story, "Why Israel Doesn't Care About Peace."

Read the whole thing.

Saeb Erekat's lies in CiF

Saeb Erekat, that Palestinian Arab negotiator who the West feels is so moderate because he wears suits and not army fatigues, has once again called for the destruction of Israel - this time in the pages of the Guardian's Comment is Free column.

He couches his demand to the end of the Jewish state in terms of the specious arguments that descendants of Palestinian Arabs who fled in 1948 have a "right to return" to the homes of their ancestors.

Here are some of his lies:

Israel's own admission as a member to the United Nations was contingent on its adherence to the principles of UNGA 194, something it proceeded to disregard once membership was granted.

While the resolution granting Israel's membership in the UN mentions UNGA 194, in no way does it say that it is contingent on it:

Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 and 11 December 1948 and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel before the Ad Hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions,

The General Assembly,

Acting in discharge of its functions under Article 4 of the Charter and rule 125 of its rules of procedure,

1. Decides that Israel is a peace loving State which accepts the obligations contained in the Charter and is able and willing to carry out those obligations;

2. Decides to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.

While I cannot find the specific "declarations and explanations" noted at the moment, Israel's interpretation of 194 at the time was clear - no "return" of Arab refugees could be contemplated until there was a comprehensive peace and until the Arabs who return were willing to "live at peace with their neighbours", a UNGA 194 condition that was never met. The idea that Israel's admittance was somehow conditional is clearly a blatant lie.

The lies continue. Erekat says that "Palestinian refugees [are] the oldest and largest refugee community in the world today." The fact is that the vast majority are not refugees, but descendants of refugees, and that designation was created for them by UNRWA for practical reasons as a working definition but not as a legal definition. If they are legal refugees, then so are hundreds of millions of other people.

The lies continue:

The fact that Israel bears responsibility for the creation of the refugees is beyond argument. Even if the state still claims amnesia for its deeds, Israeli historians have debunked the traditional Zionist mythology and shown how Zionist leaders prior to 1948 formulated plans to displace the indigenous Palestinian population in order to create a Jewish majority state.

While there is a tiny amount of truth to this - plans are created for a lot of situations - there was no actual implementation of any such plans. The vast majority of Palestinian Arabs fled out of fear, not from force; their leaders fled early quite voluntarily leaving the masses without any anchor in the land. They fled because they thought that their Arab neighbors would allow them to resettle or stay until the Jews would be destroyed, but their fleeing showed that their attachment to the land was far more tenuous than the Jews who had no choice but to stay and fight, or die.

The lies continue:

Resolution 194 must provide the basis for a settlement to the refugee issue.

Resolution 194 was a General Assembly resolution, not legally binding. It also required that the Jerusalem area be under UN control - something ignored by Arabs. It does not specify only Arab refugees - in its language, Jews should have been allowed to return to their homes in the Old City and Gush Etzion and elsewhere - a provision rejected by Arabs even today. The entire resolution has no legal validity whatsoever in any peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs, as Israel argued in 1999:

The letters of invitation to the Madrid Peace Conference of 1991 and the Oslo Agreements signed between Israel and the PLO expressly provide that permanent status negotiations are to be based on Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973). No other United Nations resolution is cited. The Palestinians have thus affirmed that a permanent solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will be achieved by a negotiated settlement in West Bank and Gaza Strip territory that is the subject of those Security Council resolutions.

Other provisions of UNGA 194 were roundly ignored by the Arabs as well, such as free access to holy places. It is the Arab actions no less than anyone else that made 194 irrelevant.

Erekat's final lie is that masses of so-called refugees flooding Israel "will lead to a lasting peace." On the contrary, it would lead to the kind of internal terrorism that Palestine suffered before Israel was established, where thousands of people were slaughtered while Jews were a minority.

The entire issue is a ruse meant to destroy the Jewish state, and when the most "moderate" Palestinian Arab leaders are still publicly calling to dismantle Israel by demographic means, it shows that their stated desire for a two-state solution with both states living side by side in peace is an utter sham.

This article also proves that Palestinian Arab rejectionism is not merely a tactical move to improve their negotiating position, but an absolute rejection of Israel as anything other than yet another Arab state. This is the mainstream position of so-called "moderate" Palestinian Arabs, not a fringe extremist position. If the West is serious about a real peace - something that seems literally impossible given such intransigence - it needs to insist that Palestinian Arab leaders admit, publicly, that Israel is not where descendants of Palestinian Arabs who fled in 1948 will live and that they need to be absorbed in Arab countries instead of being the victims of institutional discrimination in every single Arab country as they are today.

That is the issue that Erekat and his ilk studiously avoid mentioning, and it proves beyond all doubt that they do not give a damn about their people but rather want to continue using them as pawns in their six-decade old, single-minded goal of destroying Israel.

CiFWatch takes apart The Guardian's Harriet Sherwood

CiFWatch has a masterful piece that looks at the six month anniversary of The Guardian's Harriet Sherwood reporting from Israel, and seeing if she is meeting her own stated standards of objectivity and going beyond the wire-service coverage to find the deeper stories.

The results aren't pretty:

The entire article is worth reading.

While you are at it, last week CiFWatch published a fantastic flotilla parody which I tweeted and commenters linked to, and if you haven't read it yet you are missing out.

Nice takedown of a takedown of UNRWA

Not all criticism of UNRWA comes from the perspective of the damage it does to Palestinian Arabs. Sometimes, as in a recent Comment is Free piece in the Guardian, the criticism comes because it helps stop Palestinian Arab terror.

The Kieron Monks piece starts off okay:

"Peace Starts Here" is the slogan adopted by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) to promote its work in the Palestinian territories. But why does peace "start here"? Why not 60 years ago when UNRWA began its work with Palestinian refugees? Or 60 years in the future, when we will still be debating the same problems if the aid models do not change.

The timing of Chris Gunness's recent article about the UN agency's work was unfortunate, coinciding with strikes by UNRWA employees, which have paralysed essential services in the West Bank's 18 refugee camps. The laudable initiatives Gunness mentioned – health centres, schools, food for hardship cases – ground to a halt without his agency's patronage.

That's not sustainable development; it's a permanent life-support system. Neither is it sustainable for UNRWA, which had been forced to slash its services because of budget deficits even before the strikes began.

Palestine is one of the world's largest beneficiaries of foreign aid, receiving over $3bn (£1.9bn) annually (not including the budget of UNRWA itself). Yet a quarter of the West Bank population remains food-insecure and half of all Palestinians live below the poverty line.

If relief work is failing, economic development is even more worrying. Prime minister Salam Fayyad told the Annual Capital Forum that Palestine's GDP grew 9% in the past year, but as a former IMF representative he should know that the gains are hollow. In 2009, over 60% of Palestine's gross national income, and almost 100% of government expenditure, came from aid.

But then we start to see his real agenda:

The Palestinian Authority, which receives over $2bn annually, is answerable not to Palestinians, but to its donors. The aid-management structure in Palestine is innately political. At the top level, the ad hoc liaison committee, members include the United States and Israel. The impact of foreign interests can be clearly seen in PA budgets that allocate 10 times more money to security – suppressing resistance to the occupation – than to agriculture, which could be the backbone of the Palestinian economy.

Whoa! He is saying that the PA shouldn't be stopping terrorism; in fact he is implying that terrorism is a good thing!

The rest of the piece makes this clear - Monks' problem with UNRWA (and the PA) is not that they are hurting those they pretend to help, but that they are helping Israel! And so is the rest of the world when they fund these NGOs! It's a conspiracy meant to keep the Palestinian Arabs enslaved forever! Bwahahaha!

Adam Levick at CiFWatch does a very nice job at finding out that Monk's motivations are a bit suspect. Very much worth reading.

Guardian excises Jews from Bible story

A great pickup by Omri from Mere Rhetoric (via email), quoting The Guardian:

Religious tourists in Europe already have the Vatican, Lourdes and Fatima. But the developers behind an amusement park proposed for Mallorca believe they need the attraction of the Holy Land – the continent's very first Christian theme park.

The €10m development is to be built on seven hectares (17 acres) that include the former municipal rubbish dump at Capdepera, in the north of the island, if the plans presented to the town hall come to fruition.

The park will offer visitors everything from the last supper to "live resurrections" in a rolling programme of shows repeated through the day.

...With a cast of extras in the costumes of Romans and early Palestinians, the park advertises itself as "a place where everyone can learn about the origins of spirituality".

Yes, Jesus and his neighbors were all "early Palestinians" who gave the world the origins of spirituality. I guess that the Jewish imperialist dogs only invaded the area around 1948 to unfairly punish the innocent native Palestinian descendants of Jesus' disciples.

But, to be fair, I'm pretty sure that the Guardian would consider Judas to be a Jew.

UPDATE: Melanie Phillips comments on this as well.

Mondoweiss: Hate as “Progressive” Jewish Politics (Adam Levick)

This essay was written by Adam Levick, who blogs at Adam's Zionist Journey. He asked me to publish it here.

Nazi anti-Semitic caricatures during and preceding the Holocaust often portrayed Jews as an octopus-like creature, or some other beast – a category of anti-Semitism known as Zoomorphism. Such depictions would appear in official Nazi publications such as Der Sturmer. These cartoons would sometimes include images of a Jewish beast wrapping its tentacles around the world, representing the malicious control they were purported to exert on international affairs – consistent with anti-Semitic conspiracy theories codified in, among other sources, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Here is one such Nazi cartoon, circa 1938--An octopus with a Star of David over its head has its tentacles encompass the world.[i]

Nazi, Soviet, and, more recently, Arab anti-Semitic caricatures often portray Jews as spiders, cockroaches, and Octopuses – dehumanizing Jews by turning them into animals that are destructive, inhuman and evil. The cartoon below, by the notorious anti-Zionist cartoonist, Carlos Latuff, was posted on the “progressive” Jewish anti-Zionist blog, Mondoweiss recently[ii] – by a frequent Mondoweiss blogger named Seham[iii] – in reference to the Gaza flotilla incident.

This ugly caricature of the Jewish state manages to both employ Nazi-like anti-Semitic imagery of a beastly and monstrous Jewish collective while simultaneously asserting that the Jewish state has become the new Nazi Germany. (Note the Jewish Magen David on the Israeli flag is morphed into a swastika) Such insidious depictions of Israel and Israelis are mostly seen on extremist websites, and is a phenomenon known as Holocaust inversion[iv].

Indeed, narratives which characterize the Jewish state as morally equivalent to Nazi Germany have been codified as anti-Semitic by both the European Union[v] and the U.S. State Department[vi]. As Manfred Gerstenfeld noted, “The core motif of classic anti-Semitism was that Jews embody the most extreme malevolence. During the post-war era, the Nazi regime has become the paradigm for absolute evil. Comparing Israel's conduct to its actions is a new mutation of this ancient theme.” As historian Robert Wistrich has observed, “Anti-Zionists who insist on comparing Zionism and the Jews with Hitler and the Third Reich appear unmistakably to be de facto anti-Semites, even if they vehemently deny the fact! This is largely because they knowingly exploit the reality that Nazism in the post-war world has become the defining metaphor of absolute evil. For, if Zionists are "Nazis" and if Sharon really is Hitler, then it becomes a moral [indeed, “progressive”] obligation to wage war against Israel.”[vii]

Latuff is a Brazilian political “activist” and cartoonist with an impressively large portfolio of work – much of which openly express anti-Semitic themes. Some of his caricatures seem to suggest that Israel is a unique and immutable evil in the world[viii]. His work includes imagery frequently suggesting this moral equivalence between Israel and Nazi Germany – and he has explicitly acknowledged that this indeed his political view[ix].

Latuff's work has been posted on various radical left websites and blogs, as well as several terrorist affiliated websites such as 'The Islamic Front for the Iraqi Resistance' (JAMI) magazine[x], the Lebanese newspaper "Al Akhbar"[xi]. Norman Finkelstein's official website has featured Latuff cartoons[xii]. Latuff’s notoriety includes his participation in the 2006 Iranian International Holocaust Cartoon Competition[xiii] - for his cartoon comparing the Israeli West Bank security barrier with the Nazi concentration camps. Latuff placed second in the contest.

Ian Black, writing for The Guardian, a newspaper not exactly known for its Zionist sympathies, noted that Latuff was among those cartoonists “drawing, without inhibition, on judeophobic stereotypes in the service of the anti-globalisation movement.[xiv]”

Latuff also has employed racist themes in service of his critiques of President Barack Obama[xv].

That such a cartoon would appear on the pages of Mondoweiss[xvi], funded by The Nation Institute,[xvii] is, sadly, not particularly surprising to anyone familiar with the blog. Mondoweiss is an openly anti-Zionist Jewish blog and consistently advances, among other classical antisemitic tropes,[xviii] the argument that Jews exercise too much power over U.S. policy[xix] [xx]and that Jewish “progressive” voices on the Middle East are censored by the organized Jewish community. The viciousness and hatred towards Israel, and the state’s Jewish supporters, can’t be overstated. The main blogger, Philip Weiss, states that “Zionism privileges Jews and justifies oppression, and this appals me.” Weiss has complained that the “suffering of Palestinians that has been perpetrated politically in large part by empowered American Jews who are all over the media and political establishment.” He has openly called for a quota on Jews who work in the media. Weiss refers to Zionism as an ideology of “apartheid and ethnic cleansing.”

Weiss, like fellow liberal, Glenn Greenwald, demonstrating a bizarre left-right anti-Zionist alliance, also has contributed to Pat Buchanan’s paleo-conservative magazine, The American Conservative[xxi]. Weiss’s alliance with Pat Buchanan seems quite consistent with the blogger’s frequent tropes suggesting the existence of an organized Jewish community so powerful as to render the U.S. President impotent to confront its mendacity. In one post, Weiss complains that the U.S. President’s desire to oppose Israel “colonization” has been “nullified politically because of the Jewish presence in the power structure.” He goes on to warn darkly that, “[One fifth] of [the U.S. Senate] are Jews, even though Jews are just 2 percent of the population. Over half of the money given to the Democratic Party comes from Jews. Obama’s top two political advisers are Jewish, Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod. The news lately has been dominated by Obama’s aides Kenneth Feinberg and Larry Summers. And what does it mean that the Treasury Secretary gets off the phone with Obama to confer immediately with Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman and Jamie Dimon of Morgan (Dimon’s Jewish; Blankfein would seem to be)? As I have frequently said, the biggest money game in town on the Republican side is Sheldon Adelson, a Zionist Jew.”[xxii]Such a passage would suggest that the hideously anti-Semitic cartoon posted by Mondoweiss blogger, Seham, isn't an anomaly. Weiss genuinely seems to see Jewish tentacles wrapped around the Obama Administration.

Weiss has even taken positions which seem to flirt with the political dynamic known as the Red-Green Alliance, as exemplified by British politician George Galloway[xxiii]. In one post Weiss openly expressed support for the terrorist group, Hezbollah. In addition to the group’s open and repeated call for the destruction of Israel, Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, has a long and well-documented record of engaging in extreme expressions of anti-Semitism. He has stated, “If Jews all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.”[xxiv] He also said, "If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew.”[xxv] A few days before the Lebanese elections in 2009, Weiss said, “I hope Hezbollah wins….Nobody else seems to care for the poor people in Southern Lebanon.”[xxvi]

While Mondoweiss doesn’t have a fraction of the traffic of some of the more popular progressive blogs – such as Daily Kos and MyDD – it simply can’t be dismissed as a marginal voice within the progressive blogosphere. Its creators and contributors have posted on the most widely read blog in the U.S., The Huffington Post. Also, the influential Talking Points Memo (the 12^th most popular political website[xxvii]), via its TPMCafe site, now syndicates Mondoweiss’s posts.[xxviii] The Nation Magazine, which funds Mondoweiss, has been one of the standard bearers of liberal Democratic thought for years, and is the 24^th most popular political website overall.

New Israel Fund (NIF) – a powerful “progressive” foundation which purports to “work to strengthen Israel's democracy and to promote freedom, justice and equality for all Israel's citizens” – recently posted a link to an essay on Mondoweiss which praised NIF and their President, Daniel Sokatch. The Mondoweiss link appeared prominently on their home page, under their “NIF in the News” section.[xxix] While NIF can’t be held responsible for what others write about them, it is curious that the foundation would at least appear to tacitly endorse such an openly and viciously anti-Zionist blog such as Mondoweiss. It also raises some serious questions about frequent claims by NIF and its progressive Israeli supporters that they are “vehemently opposed to BDS and the broader delegitimization campaign against Israel” – positions which, NIF must be aware, are passionately championed by the bloggers of Mondoweiss.[xxx]

One of the most inaccurate characterizations of Jews, like the bloggers at Mondoweiss, who routinely express contempt for their fellow Jews, and the Jewish state, is that they are “self-hating.” In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. The bloggers at Mondoweiss and their fellow political travellers see themselves as upholding Jewish ethical standards that have been abandoned by the vast majority of Jews in favor of what they would likely characterize as a crude and unenlightened desire to maintain the Jewish nation-state – an antiquated particularism which stands in opposition to what they see as their more “universal” moral values. (Of course, no other national particularism other than Zionism seems to offend Mondoweiss’s belief in universalism – certainly not Muslim particularism, represented most clearly by the 57 nations who are members of the Organization of Islamic Conference – that is, 57 self-described Islamic states.)

Philip Weiss is not a self-hating Jew. Rather, he is a moralizer who has described his anti-Zionism as consistent with the “great idealistic Jewish tradition.” As Anthony Julius has stated, “moralisers have a good conscience and is satisfied by his own self-righteousness. He is not a self-hater; he is enfolded in self-admiration. He is in step with the best opinion. He holds that the truth is to be arrived at by inverting the "us = good" and "other = bad" binarism. He finds virtue in opposing his own community. It is not enough for him to disagree, or even refute; he must expose the worst bad faith, the most ignoble motives, the grossest crimes.”[xxxi]

The “Halo Effect” is a term generally defined as a cognitive bias whereby the perception of a person or group is influenced by the perception of another trait. Halo effects happen especially if the perceiver does not have enough information about all traits, so that he makes assumptions based on one or two prominent traits. This phenomenon has been used by Professor Gerald Steinberg to explain the tendency by many to blindly assume the benevolent intentions of NGOs – many of whom “appropriate [the moral] rhetoric of universal human rights to pursue highly particularistic, political and ideological goals, [and thus avoid] serious analysis and accountability.”[xxxii]

For genuine progressives, and committed anti-racists, the tendency to overlook the clear and unambiguous record of visceral hatred towards Jews and Israel routinely expressed by blogs such as Mondoweiss – due to their veneer of tolerance and universalism – represents another manifestation of the power of the “Halo Effect.” The failure of otherwise thoughtful and sober minds to closely re-examine this political façade represents an utterly appalling intellectual and moral abdication.

[i] http://fcit.usf.edu/HOLOCAUST/ARTS/ARTprop.HTM

[ii] http://mondoweiss.net/2010/05/my-flotilla-newslist-complete-with-henning-mankell-azmi-bishara-norman-finkelstein.html

[iii] http://mondoweiss.net/author/seham

[iv]http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=381&PID=470&IID=1526

[v] http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/material/pub/AS/AS-WorkingDefinition-draft.pdf

[vi] http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/40258.htm

[vii]http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=381&PID=470&IID=1526

[viii] http://artintifada.wordpress.com/2009/01/10/latuff-palestine-cartoons/

[ix] http://intifada-palestine.com/2010/04/interview-with-carlos-latuff-i-dont-trade-ideology-for-money/

[x] http://tales-of-iraq-war.blogspot.com/2008/06/interview-for-jami-magazine.html

[xi] http://tales-of-iraq-war.blogspot.com/2008/04/article-about-my-art-in-lebanese.html

[xii] http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/welcome-to-latuffs-gallery/

[xiii] http://www.irancartoon.com/120/holocaust/

[xiv] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/18/israelandthepalestinians-pressandpublishing

[xv] http://hurryupharry.org/2010/02/09/latuff-anti-jewish-and-anti-black-racist/

[xvi] http://mondoweiss.net/

[xvii] http://www.nationinstitute.org/fellows

[xviii] http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/102301.pdf

[xix] http://mondoweiss.net/2009/10/liberals-like-to-deceive-themselves-about-jewish-power.html

[xx] http://www.thejudeosphere.com/?p=853

[xxi] http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/jan/28/00033/

[xxii] http://mondoweiss.net/2009/10/liberals-like-to-deceive-themselves-about-jewish-power.html

[xxiii] http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-cohen-f04.htm

[xxiv] http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/23/books/the-enemy-within.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2

[xxv] http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths2/Arabattitudes.html

[xxvi] http://mondoweiss.net/2009/05/on-the-verge-of-lebanese-elections-nasrallah-defies-obama-and-israel.html#more-2231

[xxvii] http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.ebizmba.com/articles/political-news-websites

[xxviii] http://sadredearth.com/the-malice-of-mondoweiss/

[xxix] http://mondoweiss.net/2010/06/increasingly-vocal-jewish-left-is-taking-over-the-american-jewish-street.html

[xxx] http://www.nif.org/about/frequently-asked-questions.html#1

[xxxi] http://www.z-word.com/z-word-essays/jewish-anti-zionism-unravelled%253A--the-morality-of-vanity-%2528part-1%2529.html?print

[xxxii]http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=388&PID=863&IID=1067

The Guardian makes a slight correction; still wrong

The Guardian article I quoted this morning has been updated to include the death of an Egyptian guard from rioting Gazans. It took out its self-contradictory part, but kept a flat-out lie:

Israel's strict blockade of Gaza, which has been in place for more than two years, prevents all exports and limits imports to a few humanitarian items. Egypt has also kept its one border crossing with Gaza, at Rafah, largely closed.

The number of items that Israel allows into Gaza, while not a comprehensive list of everything needed, has included a wide variety of categories, way beyond a "few" items. And, as I noted, Israel has allowed flowers and strawberries to be exported from Gaza, both last spring for the flowers (if I recall correctly) and in the past week for both items.

Notice also that Israel "blockades" while Egypt simply "largely closes" its border. The Guardian could not bother to mention that 99% of all goods that enter Gaza is through the party doing the "blockading."

The Guardian publishes Hamas lies

Today, The Guardian published an op-ed by Hamas leader Khaled Meshal. Setting aside the incongruity of a Western newspaper publishing the words of a terrorist who shares the same murderous ideology as Al Qaeda and whose organization's charter is unapologetically anti-semitic, we are also treated to an article that is filled with real lies - not only the half-truths one would expect. For example:

For six months we in Hamas observed the ceasefire. Israel broke it repeatedly from the start. Israel was required to open crossings to Gaza, and extend the truce to the West Bank.

Hamas violated the cease-fire agreement from the start by smuggling weapons continuously. This was the major reason why Israel never fully opened the crossings, although it eased the restrictions significantly. In addition, the cease-fire was meant for all terror groups, not just Hamas, and Hamas encouraged rocket attacks by Islamic Jihad and other groups since the beginning of November.

The West Bank was never part of the agreement, period.

It proceeded to tighten its deadly siege of Gaza, repeatedly cutting electricity and water supplies.

Israel did not cut electricity nor water during the six months.

The collective punishment did not halt, but accelerated - as did the assassinations and killings. Thirty Gazans were killed by Israeli fire and hundreds of patients died as a direct effect of the siege during the so-called ceasefire.

Both false. From the PCHR I count 22 alleged deaths in Gaza during that time period: 4 during the initial shaky couple of weeks when there were still rocket attacks, 6 during the operation in November to destroy the kidnapping tunnel, and the other 8 during the rocket barrages that followed - and nearly all of the 22 were terrorists. As far as the "hundreds of patients" dying, I followed that from the beginning and it was a complete fiction where doctors from Gaza would regularly announce that certain patients died because of the "siege" when pretty much all of them would have died anyway. Israel never blocked sick patients unless they also posed a security risk, and Israel allowed hundreds of patients from Gaza to be treated in Israel during that time, as well as before and after the "truce."

When this broken truce neared its end, we expressed our readiness for a new comprehensive truce in return for lifting the blockade and opening all Gaza border crossings, including Rafah. Our calls fell on deaf ears.

This one is an egregious lie. Hamas explicitly and repeatedly rejected the truce extension, as The Guardian itself reported.

No rockets have ever been fired from the West Bank.

Another lie. They have rarely been fired, but quite a few have been built there.

What is being visited on Gaza today was visited on Yasser Arafat before. When he refused to bow to Israel's dictates, he was imprisoned in his Ramallah headquarters, surrounded by tanks for two years. When this failed to break his resolve, he was murdered by poisoning.

Another Arab fantasy.

Most of the rest of the article is obvious Hamas spin, but that is acceptable for an op-ed (if still reprehensible for a newspaper to allow a terrorist to write on its pages to begin with.)

What is not acceptable is including these lies. A casual reader would understand that the views are slanted but he would expect a major newspaper to vet out clear fabrications. Meshal just managed to spread unabashed falsehoods, which is far worse than just opinion.

This is simply unethical journalism on the part of the Guardian.