Preaching Gospel – or Gossip?

The moniker ‘useful idiots’ was coined decades ago to describe Westerners (writers, journalists, political activists, etc.) duped into supporting the Soviet regime.  As part of Stalin’s tactics, such naïves were typically invited to tour the Soviet Union, to ‘experience’ life under the Communist regime.   Carefully ‘shepherded’ from the shadows, lacking any real knowledge of the political and cultural background of the place they were supposed to ‘experience’, they typically returned to enthusiastically ‘share’ with others their manufactured ‘experiences’ – in effect becoming valuable cogs in the Soviet propaganda machine.  It was only much later that some of them woke up and saw the reality behind the carefully constructed sham.

British writer and Nobel Prize winner Doris Lessing was one of them; in her memoirs, she writes about her 1952 visit to ‘the Soviet paradise’:

“I was taken around and shown things as a ‘useful idiot’... that’s what my role was. I can’t understand why I was so gullible.”

Hamas is listed by the EU as a terrorist organisation.
But some Europeans are not beyond posing
for propaganda pictures with Hamas leaders.

The Soviet Union is long gone to history's rubbish bin; but the ranks of the gullible are never depleted, nor are the ranks of those willing to use them.  In the Middle East (an area rich not just in oil, but also in dictators badly in need of some ‘good PR’), the practice has been honed to a fine art.  The gullible are employed (usually at their own expense!) to report about ‘experiences’ ranging from ‘improvement in the situation of Saudi women’ to ‘Palestinian non-violent resistance’.

Those “taken around and shown things” include, for instance, members of an outfit called the Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine & Israel (EAPPI).  According to its website, the organisation “brings internationals to the West Bank to experience life under occupation” and “provide protective presence to vulnerable communities” (which in practice means “to the Palestinians”; Israelis are usually not worthy of ‘protective presence’ or indeed solace; not even when they are innocent victims of despicable terrorism in the very area in which EAPPI operates).

But the EAPPI activists’ role is not just to ‘experience’ and ‘protect’; upon their return home, they are supposed to“campaign for a just and peaceful resolution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict through an end to the occupation”. After witnessing such ‘campaigning’, the Board of Deputies of British Jews stated:

“… whilst EAPPI's aims may appear admirable, its programme lacks any kind of balance and shows nothing of the context of a hugely complex situation. Unsurprisingly its graduates return with simplistic and radical perspectives, giving talks against Israel which do nothing to promote an understanding of the situation in the Middle East, much less promote a peaceful and viable solution to its problems. Members of Jewish communities across the country have suffered harassment and abuse at EAPPI meetings …”

If one needs evidence that the Board was right, suffice to pore a bit over ‘testimonies’ provided ‘from the field’ by some EAPPI’s activists.   Which, apparently, is situated in the 'Occupied Palestinian Territories'.

Resin cast of a piece of pottery inscribed in ancient Hebrew.

Found in the ruins of "the historic Jewish city of Samaria".

Which, apparently, is part of the 'Occupied Palestinian Territories'.

In his ‘West Bank diary’, one such activist describes his visit to the village of Sebastiya.  The account starts on a lyrical note, with descriptions of the “green ploughed fields of Sebastiya”, which remind him of his native Dorset (needless to say, it did not occur to this activist to question how “green ploughed fields” in arid Middle East square up with Palestinian complaints about the chronic lack of water imposed by the nasty Israelis).  The lyrical part continues with a guidebook-like description of the “impressive set of ruins and buildings, including some from the historic Jewish city of Samaria”, as well as “the tomb of John the Baptist, which sits next to a Mosque in the village centre”.

But the idyllic descriptions soon give way to the latest evil deed perpetrated against peaceful Palestinians by the nasty Israeli settlement of Shavei Shomron.  Of course, it does not occur to the EAPPI activist to ponder whether there might be a grain of legitimacy for a Jewish ‘settlement’ whose name translates as ‘Back to Samaria’ at the site of “the historic Jewish city of Samaria”.  Instead, he describes it as “built on land occupied in 1977 by the messianic Jewish movement Gush Emunium [sic!]” which “believe[s] that Israeli victory in the 1967 war was a sign of divine redemption.” He goes on to describe how these nasty messianic Jews pump what “is believed” to be “industrial sewage” unto “the Olive Groves of Sebastiya” (yes, with capital letters!)

Up to this point, there’s nothing extraordinary in all this: Western ‘pro-Palestinian’ activists often parrot such accusations made by their Palestinian ‘guides’, with no attempt whatsoever to verify the facts. But mere gullibility becomes outright silliness when the author of the ‘diary’ informs his readers that

“Around 600 dunumns [sic!] (square kilometres) of land are estimated by local farmers to be affected by the leak”.

Now, admittedly not everyone knows what a dunum is (it’s an Ottoman unit of area equal to one thousandth of a square kilometre; not one square kilometre!).  But anyone endowed with intelligence, critical thinking and even minimal understanding of the place he’s come to ‘experience’ may want to question how one sewage pipe can pollute 600 square kilometres of land – i.e. an area equal to about 11% of the entire West Bank!  And that, AFTER one has decided that the “local farmers” are indeed who they claim to be, that they tell the truth and that they have the expertise needed to “estimate” such matters. Needless to say, the EAPPI activist makes absolutely no attempt to ‘hear the other side of the story’ – in other words to ask the ‘settlers’ accused of such gargantuan crime what they might have to say in their defence.  (I do hope that this EAPPI chap never gets drawn to jury duty!)

But wait, that’s not the entire extent of the nasty settlers’ crimes.  Because, according to “local farmer Ahmed Kayed”

“Pigs are also released on a regular basis from the settlement into his fields, causing damage.”

Really?  Observant Jews, who believe in ‘signs of divine redemptions,’ grow pigs??  I have to say that – despite everything – I’m growing a bit fond of “local farmer Ahmed Kayed”.  I mean, let’s face it, he at least shows spirit: being employed to ‘guide’ Western ‘useful idiots’ towards the ‘right conclusions’ must, after a while, become quite a boring job; why not play a good prank or two, to see how far Western credulity can really be stretched?  If nothing else, it helps pass the time and gives a man something (someone?) to laugh about with his friends in the evening, over a cup of tea and a hookah.

One of the pigs released from the Israeli settlement.

 According to 'local farmers', they (the pigs, not the farmers!) are
genetically engineered for maximum damage to Palestinian crops.

Leaving aside Mr. Kayed’s private entertainment – delightful as it must have been – the fact that his story was ‘bought’ is rather sad.  Sure, not everyone is familiar with even the most basic tenets of Judaism; but shouldn’t individuals sent to the region in order to ‘experience’ and ‘protect’ – let alone ‘campaign’ and pass judgments – be equipped with an ounce of knowledge of the customs and beliefs of the populations involved?  And failing that – what happened to good ol’ Google?  Was he unwell that day?  And – seriously now – shouldn’t the EAPPI activist have given the accused 'settlers' the elementary right of speaking in their defence, before trumpeting the accusation as fact to the entire world?  Isn’t that an essential principle of the ‘justice’ he claims to serve?  Had he asked them, he would have discovered that anything to do with pigs is just as repugnant to Aharon Kahn as it must be to Ahmed Kayed!

In case EAPPI activists have not noticed, there’s a rather bitter conflict going on in the region they clumsily meddle in.  Bitter enough for people to be ready to kill, let alone lie.  So why should Palestinian accusations be taken at face value and a judgement pronounced without hearing ‘the defence’??  Is there some ‘international law’ that proclaims that Palestinians never lie?  Had the UN issued any Resolution in that respect?  I have to confess that I rather lost track of ‘United’ Nations Resolutions – after all the ‘well-oiled’ (ahem!) Arab voting machine has produced more Resolutions condemning Israel than those condemning gender apartheid-Saudi Arabia, labour-camp-North Korea and top-executioner-Iran taken together.  But, even if such Resolution had been issued, a prudent EAPPI activist would still do well to check the facts.  Who knows?  In the end, as we've seen with Iran’s nuclear programme, such Resolutions are sometimes negotiated away in some sort of ‘agreement’, some  ‘diplomatic solution’ which renders those capital-letter Resolutions just as ineffective as my own low-case New Year resolutions!

Now, I generally see credulity as a mark of innocence.  But when it is employed to slander an entire people and call for their persecution, I think it takes on an altogether more sinister meaning.


And then there are those who just repeat the slanders, with no attempt whatsoever to verify their veracity.  Take for instance a certain J. Moodey, who heads a Christian charity with activities in the Middle East.  In his blog (published on the charity’s official website!), Mr. Moodey makes similar allegations of Israeli misconduct, before ‘informing’ his readers that

“Another Palestinian community affected by settler pollution is the town of Sebastiya, to the north-west of Nablus. A recent article by a participant in the Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel (EAPPI) reported that pollution from three factories in the nearby settlement of Shavei Shomron, producing aluminium, leather and plastics, were producing a ‘noxious’ grey liquid which was leaking onto some 600 square kilometres of local Palestinian farming land”.

As ‘evidence’, Mr. Moodey provides a link to the ‘West Bank diary’ discussed above. Now, Mr. Moodey is an ex-banker (with Rotschild!); as such (and as head of a charity handling millions of pounds of donors’ money) one must assume that he is quite proficient with numbers and would never – for instance – write 600 million on a cheque, instead of 600 thousand.  And yet, this is exactly the magnitude of the error made here: 600 square kilometres are 1,000 times more than 600 dunums.  And –  to eliminate any possible confusion from his readers’ minds I guess – Mr. Moodey got rid of the “dunumns” in the original ‘diary’ and left just the square kilometres.  Which publicly accuses this particular ‘settlement’ of having polluted an area almost twice the size of the Isle of Wight!!

The Bible teaches

“You shall not spread a false report.”  (Exodus 23:1)

But hey – I guess this injunction from the Je… er… Zionist Bible is just another piece of propaganda meant to stifle debate of those terrible crimes committed by the Zionist entity.

Europe must hang her collective head in shame!

Scattered across Europe, with a language of their own and a distinct culture, they have been subjected for centuries to severe persecution, maltreatment and harassment.  It all culminated with the Holocaust, in which they were systematically exterminated.  But in today’s Europe, they still face racism and discrimination.

Abducted? No. But taken away by racist "authorities"
from the only family she ever knew.

No, I am not talking about the Jews; I was referring to the Roma people. A recent incident should serve as a stern warning to those many Europeans (including large swathes of the European media) who harbour dark, foetid prejudice.  It should highlight the problem – and the need to urgently and decisively deal with it – to the European political leadership.  Let us not mince words; after all, this is “Politically-incorrect Politics” – not the BBC.  During a “sweep” (read: blanket house-search) by the Greek police, the cops noticed a four-year-old child; her blond hair contrasted with the complexion of her parents.  Questioned, the latter explained that the girl had been transferred to their care by her Roma mother.  But for racist policemen (and for many a racist media outlet) that explanation was suspect by definition.  Surely the Aryan-looking Maria, the “blonde angel” could not be the daughter of an “inferior race”, swarthy Roma mother.  And the only “reasonable” explanation was… that she had been abducted from her obviously Aryan parents.  Why “abducted”?  Well, because – for those who don’t know – that’s “what they do”.  That’s the anti-Roma version of the anti-Semitic blood libel.  Jews kill non-Jewish children; Gipsies abduct non-Gipsy children.  A slightly different accusation; the same medieval prejudice.

Demolished lives

So deeply entrenched is the prejudice, that the suspicion alone was enough for the police to arrest the couple and for the social services to take the child away from the only family she ever knew.  All this, while the no-less-prejudiced European media largely took the accusation at face value, with zero attempt to challenge it.  (What's the point in having a free press, I ask, if it's free to share the prejudice, rather than unmask it??  What's the point in having journalists if they see their role as conveying hearsay, rather than searching for the truth?)

It turns out that little Maria’s mother was Roma (and probably blond as well, as many Roma really are behind the dark veil of bigotry surrounding them).  It turns out that she gave the child into the other couple’s care, because she was unable to raise her.  And no wonder: throughout Eastern Europe, Roma are still severely discriminated against.  They are being continuously humiliated and are often subjected to verbal abuse and physical violence; they are socially ghettoised in pauper, derelict neighbourhoods; being discriminated in terms of employment, they are condemned to abject poverty and practically forced into either begging or stealing; their children are segregated in the worst schools, which perpetuates the problem ad infinitum.

Yes, end it NOW!

Not that Western Europe fares much better.  The authorities of the Dannish city of Helsingør decided (in the 21^st century!) to segregate Roma children in “special classes” in the city schools.  In Italy, mobs perpetrated pogroms against entire Roma camps, extracting “revenge” for crimes committed by individual Roma.  Germany has deported en-bloc 50,000 Roma asylum seekers from Kosovo.  They were kicked out after having spent more than 10 years in Germany; many were children born, raised and educated in Germany.  France (what happened to “Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité”??) deported so far circa 20,000 Roma, despite the fact that they were European Union nationals.  51 Roma camps have been demolished.  In the UK, Andrew MacKay MP stated in a House of Commons debate that “they [Roma and “travellers”] are scum”. It is time for all this to stop.  It is time to cast away shameful, Dark Age prejudices.  I have created a petition demanding that the European Commission designs and implements programmes aimed at fighting this reprehensible phenomenon.  If you feel the same, please sign it: http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/Stop_antiRoma_racism/?copy.

West Bank Settlements Episode 2: Why oh Why?

The previous “episode” of the “Settlements” series examined the claims of illegality of Israeli construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem – and found them to be shaky at best.  The episode finished however, with question marks: whether legal or illegal, are “settlements” the right thing to do?  Why continue to develop them, in the face of so much criticism – however hypocritical?

To even attempt an answer to that question, one needs to at least try and comprehend Israel’s motivation in building settlements.  I say “Israel”, rather than "the government of Israel", because since 1968 every Israeli government has built settlements (or built in the settlements).  Many of Israel’s critics prefer to “forget” this detail; it is, after all, easier and more politically correct to accuse Netanyahu, Likud, or the Israeli “extreme right”; but it is also specious.  In reality, recent governments (including Netanyahu’s) have been in some ways less active than the previous ones: they may have built in existing settlements, but have established no new ones since 1998.  Interestingly enough, it was right-wing Israeli governments that evacuated 18 settlements in Sinai, 21 in Gaza and 4 in the West Bank.  As for Netanyahu, he was the first and so far only Israeli prime minister ever to agree to a 10-months “freeze” of settlement construction.

That's how BBC portrays Israeli Jews

For Israel-haters such as the notorious Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Israeli motivations are not worthy of research at all.  Not that those motivations are so very clear to them: depending on the particular hater’s opinion or even mood, such motivations are declared to be either religious fanaticism or secular greed.  The former “explanation” seeks to portray Israelis as crazed zealots driven by biblical promises; it is stimulated by the image of Israelis as stereotypical black-hat-gabardine-and-sidelocks Jews – an image pushed also by the media.  The latter “explanation” tends to view Israelis as forever interested in “land grab”; it is fuelled by a different stereotype – that of “greedy Jews”.  But the main problem with these two explanations is not that they reflect prejudice; it is that they don’t really make sense.  Except, that is, for the “don’t-bother-me-with-the-facts” crowd.

Statistics show that a considerable majority of Israeli Jews describe themselves as “seculars”.  They don’t keep kosher, drive on Shabbat and rarely go to a synagogue.  Hardly the religious zealots that might place biblical covenants above current political and demographic logic.  “Well, that may be”, object the haters.  “Israelis may not all be extremists – but they are led by extremists”.  The problem with that accusation is that none of Israel’s prime ministers so far has been a practising Jew; they were all “seculars”; so were most ministers and most Knesset (Parliament) members – unsurprisingly given the composition of the population and Israel’s democratic system of governance.  The next canard haters usually employ is that, while Israeli leaders tended to be secular, their coalitions depended on religious parties.  But while religious parties may occasionally have punched above their weight in Israel as a result of being “coalition kingmakers”, those with knowledge of Israeli politics will know that – at least in the last 20 years or so – those religious parties tended to be much more interested in preserving their constituency’s budgets and privileges, than in settlements or claiming the West Bank.  Simply put, the “religious fanaticism” motivation flies in the face of reason.  It cannot explain anything.

How about the “land grab” theory, then?  Is Israel establishing settlements out of greed for more land?  Well, the question is: what is the value of that land to Israel?  After all, even those anti-Semites who believe that Jews are genetically greedy don’t really think they are also stupid.  The West Bank is essentially devoid of any natural resources.  Haters and Western naïves will, of course, repeat ad nauseam the canard about settlements “taking the best land”, but no, they don’t.  Most West Bank settlements are built on hilltops, where agriculture is difficult, if at all possible.  That’s why there were no Arab villages there, in the first place.  Interestingly by the way, the “land-as-agricultural-asset” view is of course a Palestinian concept, which the Westerners simply undiscerningly repeat.  Frankly, despite her agro-Zionist beginnings, today’s Israel is not interested in agriculture: it accounts for just 2.5% of the country’s GDP and provides employment for just 2% of her labour force.

How much land is there to “grab”, anyway?  According to the pro-Palestinian organisation B’Tselem, in 2010 the West Bank settlements’ built-up area totalled 1% of the West Bank.  In 2000, the Palestinians themselves (more precisely, the PLO Negotiations Department) estimated that “all of the settlements in the West Bank currently occupy approximately 2 percent of the West Bank”.  So, in 30-40 years of “settlements”, Israel managed to “grab” between 1 and 2% of the West Bank.  However, let’s be generous: let us assume that Israel would somehow (hard to imagine how, but let’s go ad absurdum…) end up not with 2%, but with 10% of the West Bank.  That would increase Israel’s current area (almost exactly the size of Wales) by a whooping… 3%.  Some “land grab”!  Is THAT what the settlements are all about?

A variant of the “land grab” theory is the “water grab”.  According to this conspiracy theory, the settlements “happen” to sit atop West Bank’s scarce water resources, which of course Israel wishes to appropriate.  Well, if they did, that would be an interesting case of water flowing upwards, since as mentioned most West Bank settlements are located on hilltops.  The reality is that aquifers are not aware of borders and populations.  They span underground for many miles, on both sides of the Green Line and are more easily accessible from the valleys, not from the hilltops.

So if neither religious fanaticism nor greed for land, what is the reason, then?  Are Israel’s leaders (all of them, since 1967) plain idiots?  Some certainly seem to think so; even some well-meaning but very naïve Jews have taken to wringing their hands in despair, rather foolishly “buying” the Palestinian narrative that the “ever-expanding” settlements will lead to the “one state solution”, Israel’s demographic demise.

Israel’s difficulty is, of course, that officially disclosing the real reasons would be self-defeating.  But since I am in no way connected to the government of Israel, I feel free to analyse those reasons here.  As for you, reader, if you find them credible, then well and good; if not… rest assured that officially Israel will deny them, anyway.  But no, Israeli leaders are not idiots; nor are they religious extremists or yearning for “land”.  Then what?

There are three different reasons for Israel’s obstinate entrenchment on the “settlements” issue.

First, there is a security-related reason.  Sure, Israel has – in the regional context – a strong army.  But her challenge has always been the lack of strategic depth in the East-West direction.  At her most narrow point, Israel is just 9 miles wide between the Green Line and the Mediterranean.  Worse, there are just a couple of miles as birds fly between the Green Line and the densely populated areas of the Coastal Plain, where half of Israel’s population lives.  And while IDF is indeed strong, its strength relies on speed and manoeuvrability; which can only manifest itself in wide flanking movements, not in static defence.  (Actually, the only time Israel attempted static defence – the Bar Lev Line in 1973 – it failed as irredeemably as the Maginot Line had 33 years earlier).  Thus, in her pre-1967 “borders”, Israel is vulnerable to an attack from the East along that longest border.  While a Palestinian or Jordanian attack on that eastern border may not be a problem, a “slender” Israel would fear an Iraqi, Iraqi/Iranian or even a pan-Arab attack.  In that context, some of the larger settlements contribute strategic depth: they are likely to remain under Israeli control in any envisageable situation, most likely as “fingers” of territory pointing eastwards.  Such Israeli-controlled territory can become crucial in terms of concentration of force and providing a base for flanking manoeuvres.

The 2008 Olmert offer map: note the settlement "fingers" protruding eastwards

The second reason has more to do with the desire for peace, than it has to do with confrontation.  Balanced and intelligent observers know (and have known since at least 1937) that, short of ethnic cleansing and genocide, territorial partition and the creation of two states (one Jewish, the other Arab) is the only solution to the problem.  But, despite many attempts so far, that solution has proved elusive.  Officially, the Palestinian Authority demands a state in West Bank and Gaza.  Ominously, however, they always stop short of confirming that fulfilment of that demand will immediately bring about a complete end to the conflict.  Past offers (Clinton 2000; Taba 2001; Olmert 2008) came extremely close to fulfilling the official demand of 100% of West Bank – especially if we consider the land swap and the West Bank-Gaza “free movement” corridor.  Even Jerusalem was to be divided and some sort of arrangement was on offer for the Holy Basin.  Yet all such offers were ultimately rejected by the Palestinian side.  Why?

Contrary to popular belief, it was not the result of some abstract form of “Arab intransigence”.  It was the doubt that that was the best achievable deal.  Were the Palestinian leaders convinced that no better deal could be achieved, they would have accepted the offers.  But they were not convinced, hence they did not.  There is a strong current of belief in the Palestinian (and generally Arab) society, which tends to regard the West Bank and Gaza as “in the pocket”.  According to this world view, Israel can ill-afford to annex the West Bank, because she does not want to absorb its more than 2 million Arab inhabitants.  On the other hand, maintaining the West Bank under occupation opens her to accusations of “apartheid”.  Hence, assert promoters of this view, withdrawal from the West Bank is an Israeli interest, more than it is a Palestinian one.  In effect, they say, West Bank and Gaza are already “Palestine”.  All the Palestinians have to do – goes this theory – is “steadfastly” wait; time and demography is on their side and will eventually lead to their “regaining” of “all of Palestine”.  It would be a mistake to believe that such views are shared only by supporters of Hamas; in fact, it is also deeply entrenched within the ranks of the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority.  Of course, not all Palestinian leaders are convinced that such dreams will ever come true; but, since Gaza is already “disengaged” and the West Bank essentially “in the pocket”, there seems to be no harm in waiting.  Why rush and sign on the dotted line, when a better deal may be waiting just around the corner?  It is here that, in Israel’s view, the “settlements” may make a difference.  In negotiations, actions speak; words are just noise.  Israel’s “message” has always been that, each time Arabs refuse to make peace, they lose an opportunity; the next offer will necessarily be smaller.  Consolidating the settlements is Israel’s way of telling the Palestinians that they have something to lose; that if they choose to spurn peace now, less “land”, rather than more, may be on offer next time.  Some may call it a rather extreme negotiations tactic; but when were Middle Eastern politics anything else but an exercise in brinkmanship?

There is, as well, a third motivation for settlements: Israel knows from past experience that, whenever she makes a concession, it is nonchalantly pocketed by the other side, discounted immediately by her critics and even soon forgotten by her allies.  All of whom then turn to demanding the next concession.  Israel did not get less criticism when she withdrew from South Lebanon, “disengaged” from Gaza or allowed Arafat to take control of 40% of the West Bank; in fact, all that brought Israel new and harsher criticism.  Israel has learned that she will be criticised, whatever she does or fails to do.  Channelling the criticism onto “settlements” is, in the context, the lesser evil from an Israeli point of view.  It focuses haters’ energies in a direction which is, frankly, rather innocuous; it allows European and US leaders to sue for Arab oil and sympathy by delivering the obligatory criticism of Israel; while continuing to support her in the more essential aspects.

And that’s what the “illegal settlements” are for.

West Bank Settlements Episode 1: Legal or Illegal?

These days, Israel’s critics appear to have developed a particular attachment to the expression “illegal Israeli settlements”.  This is not because they believe that some settlements are legal; in fact, they claim that all settlements are illegal.  And it is this repetitive use that spurred me into researching the issue.  Let me explain: being well acquainted with the practice of brainwashing employed by dictatorial regimes, I have a strong distrust for anyone trying to “persuade” me by endlessly repeating a “mantra”.  People who believe that the settlements are illegal are certainly at liberty to present their case.  But, if that case is so obvious and clear-cut, why the incessant repetition?  Nobody says “illegal theft”, “illegal robbery” or “illegal murder”.  Why is there a need to say “illegal settlements”?  Might it be, I wondered, that the case for illegality is not actually as persuasive as its promoters would have us believe?  Might it be that the repetition is meant to insinuate itself into the subliminal memory of people who are neither particularly knowledgeable of nor particularly interested in the facts?  I tend to think that such “subliminal messaging” is not just unethical, but also suspect: it is typically employed to “buttress” shaky arguments.

So let us examine, one by one, the arguments for illegality.

Geneva

The case for illegality relies almost entirely on the Fourth Geneva Convention  (GC-IV), an international treaty signed in August 1949.  Because the document represents an agreement (i.e. a contract) among signatory states, the latter are referred to in the document by using the legal term “High Contracting Parties”.  The agreement opens, therefore, with the statement:

“Article 1: The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.”

The Convention deals with situations of war and occupation and aims to set limits to the permitted acts undertaken by states in such situations.  In terms of the “settlements”, the paragraph cited as relevant is the following:

“Article 49: […] The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

Obviously, no Israeli was ever “deported” into the West Bank.  As for “transfer”, the term is subject to much (and inconclusive) debate among legal experts.  Some say that “transfer” implies the use of coercion or threat thereof and is only marginally different from “deport”; indeed, that is the common interpretation of the term “population transfer”, to which the Convention appears to refer.  Others claim, however, that the offer of economic incentives (such as cheaper houses) amounts to “transfer”.  In the absence of legal precedents and of impartial courts (more about that later), the issue can only be argued endlessly.

But let us take a step back.  The first question legal scholars ask before debating the provisions of a contract or law is: is it applicable to the issue at hand?  The applicability of contracts and laws is usually defined in a preamble or in the first paragraphs.  The Fourth Geneva Convention is no different: Article 2 defines precisely to what type of “occupation” the Convention’s provisions apply.

“Article 2: In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party [emphasis added], even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.”

In other words, the “occupation” provisions are only applicable to cases in which territory belonging to a signatory state is occupied by another signatory state.

Even if we extend the applicability beyond signatory states, it certainly remains true that the Convention refers to occupation of a state’s sovereign territory by another sovereign state.  Control over a territory not part of a sovereign state may be called “occupation” if someone really wants to; but it is not“occupation” in the sense of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

The fact that in June 1967 the West Bank was not part of a sovereign state is beyond reasonable argument.  According to the recommendations included in UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (1947) most of the territory now known as the West Bank should have been part of the proposed Arab State, which was to be established on the territory of the former Mandate of Palestine, alongside a Jewish State.  But the Resolution was rejected wholesale by the Arab League and by the local Arab leadership – and it was never implemented.  Towards the end of 1947, portions of the local Arab population reinforced by various units of “volunteers” trained in and armed by the neighbouring Arab states launched a civil war against Jewish neighbourhoods, villages and road traffic.  Following the withdrawal of the last British troops in May 1948, the regular armies of all neighbouring Arab states (reinforced by contingents from several other Arab and Muslim states) invaded, with the declared intention of dismantling the newly-proclaimed Jewish State.  Hostilities ended in 1949, when Israel and the four neighbouring Arab countries (Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon) signed bilateral armistice agreements.  During the war, Jordan had occupied the West Bank, while Egypt occupied the Gaza Strip.  In 1950, Jordan unilaterally annexed the West Bank; but the act was rejected by the Arab League and all other countries except Great Britain.  In any case, Jordan formally cancelled  the annexation in 1988, declaring that the West Bank was not part of Jordan and that the 1950 annexation had only been meant “to safeguard the remaining Arab territory of Palestine from Zionist expansion”.

In summary, the West Bank is not part of any sovereign state.  Which renders the occupation-related provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention inapplicable to this territory.

West Bank’s status as “territory with no established sovereignty” or “disputed territory” is by no means unique; nor is it very uncommon.  See this(incomplete) list of territorial disputes around the globe.

He said, she said, they said, everybody said…

When challenged to prove the claim of settlement illegality, Israel’s critics often resort to that “infallible argument”: they are illegal because… everybody says they are.  Followed by a “list” starting with the United Nations, continuing with the International Court of Justice, politicians, law experts and ending perhaps with members of the Israeli political opposition.  Of course, that’s not “everybody”.  There are, for instance, very distinguished experts in international law who opine that the settlements are perfectly legal.  They include, among others:

• Sir Elihu Lauterpacht CBE QC LLD, British International Law expert, Founder and Director of the Research Centre for International Law at Cambridge University.
• Julius Stone, Professor of Jurisprudence and International Law, University of Sydney, University of New South Wales, Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence and International Law, University of California. Author of 27 books on jurisprudence and international law.
• Stephen M. Schwebel, Professor of International Law and Organization, Johns Hopkins University in Washington, D.C. Served as Judge at the International Court of Justice, on the Permanent Court of Arbitration, ICSID, etc.
• Eugene V. Rostow, Dean of Yale Law School, Professor Emeritus of Law and Public Affairs.
• Thomas Buergenthal, Professor of Comparative Law and Jurisprudence, Dean of Washington College of Law. Served as Judge at the International Court of Justice. Author of more than a dozen books and a large number of articles on international law, human rights and comparative law subjects. Recipient of the 2008 Gruber Prize for Justice for his contributions to the promotion and protection of human rights in different parts of the world.
• Alan Dershowitz, Professor of Law, Harvard Law School (at age 28, the youngest Professor in the history of Harvard). Senior advocate, specialising in civil liberties and human rights.

However, if “everybody” HAD said that settlements were illegal, that still wouldn’t make it so.  The “everybody says so” assertion is nothing but the logical fallacy known as “argumentum ad populum” or “the bandwagon argument”.  The earth is not flat and pandemics are caused by neither witches nor Jews; yet at some point “everybody” believed those claims to be irrefutable truth.

“United Nations” and its many anti-Israel resolutions figure prominently in “settlements-are-illegal” propaganda.  In such arguments, the organisation is portrayed as some sort of ultimate authority, a veritable Ministry of Truth.  But the UN is not some sort of abstract authority; it is a political organisation consisting of member states, each represented by its respective government – the majority of which are undemocratic and unrepresentative.  Moreover, it cannot seriously be claimed that these governments, in their activity at the UN, pursue some sort of ideal of truth and justice; rather, like all governments, they act in accordance with what they perceive as their national interest (at best) – or the interest of the ruling regime (at worst).  The UN itself can hardly boast a democratic structure: member state representatives are not elected, but appointed by their respective governments – themselves often not the result of democratic elections; each government (whether that of democratic Sweden’s or that of North Korea) gets one vote in the General Assembly – which given the current situation means that any General Assembly Resolution can pass if it is backed by enough totalitarian regimes.  A discussion of UN Ganeral Assembly’s composition would not be complete without mentioning the fact that circa 30% of UN member states are members of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation; these states vote against Israel on every single issue.  As for the other 70% of UN membership, most are of course rather more interested in good relationships with the oil rich and populous Arab and Muslim countries than they are in supporting Israel or taking potentially costly moral stances.  Which led the great Israeli diplomat Abba Eban to quip: “If Algeria would propose a resolution stating that the earth is flat and condemning Israel for flattening it, the UN General Assembly would adopt it by 130 votes in favour, 10 against and 30 abstentions…”

But the real power does not reside in the General Assembly – its improperly named “resolutions” are in fact mere recommendations.  The only resolutions endowed with legal relevance are those adopted by the Security Council.  The latter includes five “permanent members” which have the right of “veto” – i.e. in practise can decide which resolutions are adopted and which are not.  The right of veto does not simply ensure that they can stop in its tracks any resolutions they don’t agree with; because nothing can pass unless they allow it, the five “permanent members” possess an invaluable asset, allowing them to wheel and deal in power and influence.  The ranks of the “permanent members” include such paragons of democracy and human rights as Russia and China.  As for the other 10 “non-permanent” members, they are elected by the General Assembly from their respective geographic regions.  The UN election rules specify that at least one of the “non-permanent” members has to be an Arab state.  There is no requirement in terms of democratic credentials or human rights record.  Hence, the representatives of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi was elected twice to serve on the UN top decision-making body; the representatives of the Syrian “Assad dynasty” regime served three times; Iraq served twice; Egypt served four times; Morocco three times, Jordan twice, Lebanon twice, Yemen once, etc.  The Saudi gender-apartheid regime has recently been elected to “represent” mankind as a member of that “distinguished” Council.  Israel, needless to say, was never elected to sit on the Security Council.

Not every Security Council Resolution is legally binding.  While all may carry weight in terms of international relationships, only those issued under Chapter VII of the UN Charter (which refers to “Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression”) are binding and can be enforced by coercion.  In the entire history of the United Nations, only 15 such resolutions have been issued; none of them dealt with the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Even Chapter VII Resolutions are, however, not laws – they can at most be described as decrees.  While the Security Council is endowed with power of decision and implementation, its undemocratic and unrepresentative composition denies it moral authority.  The Security Council is not a legislative assembly, nor is it a court of law.  It can neither legislate nor interpret law.

In addition to the General Assembly and the Security Council, a large number of committees, commissions and working groups and other organisations operate under the UN umbrella.  One such organisation is the UN Human Rights Commission.  This commission – whose mandate was “to examine, monitor and publicly report on human rights situations in specific countries or territories, as well as on major phenomena of human rights violations worldwide” – included among its members the representatives of serial human rights abusers, such as the ruling regimes of Cuba, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Zimbabwe; a moral nadir was reached in 2003, when the representative of Libya’s dictator Muammar Gaddafi was elected Chair of the UN Human Rights Commission.

Promoters of the “everybody says argument” hold, however, a trump card; or so they believe.  When all their other arguments fail, they’ll always mention the decision of the “International Court of Justice”; usually, without mentioning that it was an advisory opinion – by no means a verdict.  The even bigger problem with the “International Court argument” is that, as I’ve already mentioned in another blog, ICJ is indeed international, but it isn’t a Court, nor does it have anything to do with Justice.  ICJ is just another UN commission; its members (it is highly improper to call them “judges”) may or may not have studied law before making a career as politicians or professional diplomats; who were nominated by a “UN member state” (read “regime”) and elected by the UN General Assembly as a result of horse trading between “member states”.  Which in practice means that each “judge” faithfully votes in accordance with the interests of his/her country/regime, with zero regard for “Justice”.

In desperation, promoters of the “everybody says” argument may even quote statements by various European politicians, blasting the settlements’ “illegality”.  But of course, the same promoters very often disagree with said politicians on pretty much every other issue; which renders the “argument” rather intellectually dishonest.

Kosher but stinks?

In summary, the “illegality” arguments are shaky indeed.  Like any mantra, the incessant repetition of “illegal” is meant to prevent free thinking; it’s nothing but a dishonest attempt to throw sand in our eyes.

But whether legal or illegal, are settlements a smart thing to do?  After all, just because something is kosher, it does not follow that a Jew should eat it!  Why are settlements needed?  Why does Israel insist on expanding settlements, when they seem to generate so much acrimony in her international relationships?

On that and other questions in future articles in the “Settlements” series.

Murderers for Peace

As a condition to its participation in peace negotiations with Israel, the Palestinian Authority  has demanded the release of terrorists who murdered civilians in cold blood.  What does this say about Palestinian leadership's sincerity, desire for peace and commitment to abandoning violence?

Abbas smiles in the company of Amna Muna, the terrorist
who lured 16-years-old Ofir Rahum to his death in 2001

Isaac Rotenberg was born in Poland in 1927.  Most of his family was murdered in the Holocaust, victims of the Sobibor death camp.  But Isaac managed to escape from the camp and joined the partisans.  After the war he tried to make his way by ship to Mandate Palestine, but was apprehended by the British Mandate Authorities and interned in a detention camp in Cyprus until 1947. After his release Isaac arrived in pre-state Israel and found work in construction, as a plasterer.  On 29 March 1994, the 67 years old Isaac was at his place of work in Petah Tikva when he was attacked by two Palestinian terrorists, who used axes to hit the back of his neck.  Critically wounded, the victim died two days later.  The murderers were identified as Abu Moussa Salam Ali Atiya and Shabbir Qassam Taher Hazam.  It appears that they had committed the murder as an act of initiation towards admission into a terror organisation affiliated with Fatah, the main component of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO).  They did not target Isaac Rotenberg in particular, they just needed to kill a Jew.  The two murderers were apprehended, tried and sentenced to life in prison. But they will not end their lives in prison.  In fact, Ali Atiya is already free, while Taher Hazam is likely to emerge from prison in the next few months.  Both were included on a list of prisoners whose release the leaders of the Palestinian Authority demanded as the “price” for negotiating towards a peace agreement with Israel.  The list includes 104 “prisoners”, most of which have been found guilty of indiscriminate, cold-blooded murder of civilians. Officially, the Palestinian Authority explains that the 104 committed their acts “in times of conflict”, before the signing of the Oslo Accords, which included a commitment by the PLO to renounce terror.  This is an interesting justification, especially in light of the fact that the Palestinian leadership and their supporters frequently cite “international law” in support of their cause.  We are left to wonder: did international law permit deliberate killing of civilians before the Oslo Accords?  More importantly, on what paragraph of international law does the Palestinian Authority base its demand to release terrorists guilty of such crimes? But that is not the end of the story.  Lest someone naïve enough should think otherwise, let me mention that the terrorists are not transferred from Israeli to Palestinian prisons, there to complete their punishment; nor are they quietly sent to their homes, there to live in shame, ostracised by a society disgusted with their acts.  No, the released terrorists were received with singing, dancing and fireworks.  They earned a warm welcome by none other than Mr. Mahmoud Abbas, Chairman of PLO, President of the Palestinian Authority or, according to his self-bestowed title, President of the State of Palestine.  Mr. Abbas shook Ali Atiya’s hand and thanked him for his contribution to the Palestinian cause – the highlight of which contribution was the murder of Isaac Rotenberg. Mr. Abbas is often portrayed in Western media as a moderate.  Many Westerners urge Israel to “strengthen” Abbas, as the most peaceful of Palestinian leaders.  One needs to wonder: how is demanding the release of terrorists compatible with that image?  Why would someone who wants peace praise the acts of such murderers and kiss them three times on the cheek?  And what message does this send to the Palestinian population Mr. Abbas is supposed to lead towards peace?  What does it signal to a young generation of Palestinians that Abbas has solemnly committed to educate in the spirit of tolerance? Many Western commentators (especially on the far-left side of the political spectrum) claim that recent Israeli plans to build additional apartments in East Jerusalem amount to “a provocation”.  If building apartments is a provocation, how does one call embracing terrorists who murdered Israeli civilians in cold blood?  At the very least, such shameless behaviour casts a huge doubt over Mr. Abbas’s sincerity, both when he says that he wants peace and when he claims he renounced the path of violence.

Progressive blindness

Egyptian masses may have no experience of democracy; but their instincts are better than those of some Western “progressives”.

I will never understand the weird empathy that certain self-proclaimed Western “progressives” chronically manifest towards Islamism.  Perhaps they are unable to distinguish between Islam (a monotheistic religion akin to Christianity and Judaism) and Islamism (a supremacist ideology which manipulates and misuses religious concepts in order to achieve political goals).  At home in the West, progressive persons strive towards complete gender equality – and (needless to say) rightly so.  When it comes to Islamism and its proponents, however, some Western “progressives” barely dare to tiptoe around the issue; let alone call the spade a spade – i.e. blatant, abhorrent discrimination, oppression and often outright gender apartheid.  In the West, progressives battle for full equality of same gender couples in the eyes of the law.  So why wilfully ignore the fact that for Islamists homosexuality is a capital crime?  In the West progress means, as a matter of course, the separation of Church and State; elsewhere, however, some “progressives” applaud “moderate Islamists”.  Do you get it, folks?  “Moderate” Islamism – i.e. “gender apartheid –light”, rather than the full version.  It appears that, in the eyes of some “progressives”, what is good for British, French or German citizens is not necessarily good for Egyptians, Tunisians or Libyans.  If that is not racism, then I suggest that – for the sake of consistency – those “progressives” also need to revise their attitude towards “moderate” Ku Klux Klan leaders.
The latest evidence of such profoundly flawed (and fundamentally racist) attitudes is provided by an editorial recently published by The Guardian.  Written in elegiac tones, it refers to the recent events in Egypt, which resulted in the dismissal of Mohamed Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood regime.  Guardian empathises with Morsi, calling him the “democratically elected president”.  Referring to Egypt’s presidential elections as “democratic” is at best a misuse of the term and at worst an attempt to deceive.  Those elections may have been “free” – even calling them “fair” is very problematic, for a number of reasons.  But “democratic”??  Need we remind the editors of The Guardian that democracy (a concept they purport to promote) involves more, much more than free elections?  For instance, such “small details” as the rule of law, the separation of powers, a free press, an open public debate with no imposed taboos?  All of which were conspicuously absent in Egypt at the time of Morsi’s election – and still are?  Not to mention that, while shamelessly characterising Morsi as “democratically elected”, not even Guardian can bring itself to claim that he ruled democratically.  In fact, as Egyptians know only too well, once elected Morsi did nothing to build democratic institutions (the mandate he was actually entrusted with); quite the opposite: he did his utmost to weaken any institution showing signs of independence – and ruled by decree, in the “best” tradition of dictators.
While The Guardian admits (rather euphemistically) that “Morsi failed to make good on [his] promises”, they still choose to deplore his removal.  “[W]hich standard is more important than the one which decrees that transfers of power can only be enacted peacefully and through the ballot box?” asks The Guardian mournfully and rhetorically, decrying Morsi’s toppling.  Indeed, peaceful transfer of power is what characterises a democracy.  But under the Muslim Brotherhood regime Egypt was not a democracy – nor was it likely to become one.  President Morsi was no democrat; he was a dictator-in-the-making who (as dictators do) used democratic jargon to cover very undemocratic actions.  Dictators are not removed by “peacefully enacted transfers of power”; they are toppled by popular revolt supported by the military, just as Mubarak was.  The Guardian’s lack of intellectual honesty is made even more blatant by their characterisation of the events as purely a “military coup”.  Sure, the military were the ones that “closed the deal” – that’s what usually happens.  That’s what happened in the end also when Mubarak was toppled.  After all, ultimately someone needs to forcefully remove the dictator – and it can only be done by the military or with their support.  But Guardian dishonestly ignores the millions of Egyptians who called for Morsi’s removal.  The formal act of deposing Morsi might have ultimately been performed by the military; but to call it purely a “military coup” is to close one’s eyes and ears to the unequivocally expressed will of the Egyptian masses.
Where The Guardian finally loses any sense of ridicule is where it claims that “[t]he ousted Muslim Brotherhood […] are now fighting for constitutional democracy”.  No, they are not.  They are fighting to impose their supremacist view of the world, which should be anathema to anyone who calls him/herself progressive.
It is too early to predict where the latest events in Egypt will ultimately lead to.  But, in the case of Morsi and his regime, the judgement expressed by the Egyptian people is the right one – and that should be a source of optimism.  Perhaps the false “progressives” in the West ought to learn from the good instincts of Egyptians; those Western “progressives” might thus be reminded that while being elected bestows legitimacy, it does not bestow unconditional legitimacy.  Being elected by the majority does not confer a mandate to rule by decree, but to rule within a fair framework of checks and balances.  That is precisely what distinguishes democracy from a “tyranny of the majority”.  The Nazi party came to power in Germany as a result of free elections.  That did not make their hateful regime “legitimate”.  Unlike Guardian’s confused editors, true progressives understand that legitimacy does not arise just from the way a leader is elected, but – crucially – from the way s/he rules.