Durban III: a sick joke

With all the fuss about the possible UN recognition of a Palestinian state last week, I forgot to say much about the high-level United Nations General Assembly meeting marking the 10th anniversary of the adoption of 'The Durban Declaration and Programme of Action', a.k.a. 'Durban III'.

The theme of the conference was 'Victims of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance: recognition, justice and development'. In fact, Durban III was actually an attempt to distract world attention from racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and intolerance by slinging mud at Israel and the West.

Watch this eloquent, informed, articulate and hilarious 20-minute take on the Durban event by Douglas Murray.

Edinburgh Academic defends Israel

Last spring,270 students at Edinburgh University voted in favour of a motion which described Israel as an 'Apartheid State' and called for a boycott of goods. The Jewish Chronicle, however, reported that the Edinburgh University Students’ Association (EUSA) had confirmed a proposed boycott of Israeli products will not be enforced.

The following letter by Edinburgh University alumnus, Dr. Denis MacEoin (pictured), arguing against the boycott, is one of the most eloquent and informed defences of Israel I have read. Everyone should read it.

I am an Edinburgh graduate (MA 1975) who studied Persian, Arabic and Islamic History in Buccleuch Place under William Montgomery Watt and Laurence Elwell Sutton, two of Britain’s great Middle East experts in their day. I later went on to do a PhD at Cambridge and to teach Arabic and Islamic Studies at Newcastle University.

Naturally, I am the author of several books and hundreds of articles in this field.
I say all that to show that I am well informed in Middle Eastern affairs and that, for that reason, I am shocked and disheartened by the EUSA motion and vote. I am shocked for a simple reason: there is not and has never been a system of apartheid in Israel. That is not my opinion, that is fact that can be tested against reality by any Edinburgh student, should he or she choose to visit Israel to see for themselves.

Let me spell this out, since I have the impression that those member of EUSA who voted for this motion are absolutely clueless in matters concerning Israel, and that they are, in all likelihood, the victims of extremely biased propaganda coming from the anti-Israel lobby. Being anti-Israel is not in itself objectionable. But I’m not talking about ordinary criticism of Israel. I’m speaking of a hatred that permits itself no boundaries in the lies and myths it pours out. Thus, Israel is repeatedly referred to as a ‘Nazi’ state. In what sense is this true, even as a metaphor? Where are the Israeli concentration camps? The einzatsgruppen? The SS? The Nüremberg Laws? The Final Solution? None of these things nor anything remotely resembling them exists in Israel, precisely because the Jews, more than anyone on earth, understand what Nazism stood for. It is claimed that there has been an Israeli Holocaust in Gaza (or elsewhere). Where? When? No honest historian would treat that claim with anything but the contempt it deserves. But calling Jews Nazis and saying they have committed a Holocaust is as basic a way to subvert historical fact as anything I can think of.

Likewise apartheid. For apartheid to exist, there would have to be a situation that closely resembled things in South Africa under the apartheid regime. Unfortunately for those who believe this, a weekend in any part of Israel would be enough to show how ridiculous the claim is. That a body of university students actually fell for this and voted on it is a sad comment on the state of modern education. The most obvious focus for apartheid would be the country’s 20% Arab population. Under Israeli law, Arab Israelis have exactly the same rights as Jews or anyone else; Muslims have the same rights as Jews or Christians; Baha’is, severely persecuted in Iran, flourish in Israel, where they have their world centre; Ahmadi Muslims, severely persecuted in Pakistan and elsewhere, are kept safe by Israel; the holy places of all religions are protected under a specific Israeli law. Arabs form 20% of the university population (an exact echo of their percentage in the general population). In Iran, the Baha’is (the largest religious minority) are forbidden to study in any university or to run their own universities: why aren’t your members boycotting Iran?

Arabs in Israel can go anywhere they want, unlike blacks in apartheid South Africa. They use public transport, they eat in restaurants, they go to swimming pools, they use libraries, they go to cinemas alongside Jews – something no blacks could do in South Africa. Israeli hospitals not only treat Jews and Arabs, they also treat Palestinians from Gaza or the West Bank. On the same wards, in the same operating theatres.

In Israel, women have the same rights as men: there is no gender apartheid. Gay men and women face no restrictions, and Palestinian gays often escape into Israel, knowing they may be killed at home. It seems bizarre to me that LGBT groups call for a boycott of Israel and say nothing about countries like Iran, where gay men are hanged or stoned to death. That illustrates a mindset that beggars belief. Intelligent students thinking it’s better to be silent about regimes that kill gay people, but good to condemn the only country in the Middle East that rescues and protects gay people. Is that supposed to be a sick joke?

University is supposed to be about learning to use your brain, to think rationally, to examine evidence, to reach conclusions based on solid evidence, to compare sources, to weigh up one view against one or more others. If the best Edinburgh can now produce are students who have no idea how to do any of these things, then the future is bleak. I do not object to well documented criticism of Israel. I do object when supposedly intelligent people single the Jewish state out above states that are horrific in their treatment of their populations. We are going through the biggest upheaval in the Middle East since the 7th and 8th centuries, and it’s clear that Arabs and Iranians are rebelling against terrifying regimes that fight back by killing their own citizens. Israeli citizens, Jews and Arabs alike, do not rebel (though they are free to protest). Yet Edinburgh students mount no demonstrations and call for no boycotts against Libya, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Iran. They prefer to make false accusations against one of the world’s freest countries, the only country in the Middle East that has taken in Darfur refugees, the only country in the Middle East that gives refuge to gay men and women, the only country in the Middle East that protects the Baha’is…. Need I go on? The imbalance is perceptible, and it sheds no credit on anyone who voted for this boycott.

I ask you to show some common sense. Get information from the Israeli embassy. As for some speakers. Listen to more than one side. Do not make your minds up until you have given a fair hearing to both parties. You have a duty to your students, and that is to protect them from one-sided argument. They are not at university to be propagandized. And they are certainly not there to be tricked into anti-Semitism by punishing one country among all the countries of the world, which happens to be the only Jewish state. If there had been a single Jewish state in the 1930s (which, sadly, there was not), don’t you think Adolf Hitler would have decided to boycott it? Of course he would, and he would not have stopped there. Your generation has a duty to ensure that the perennial racism of anti-Semitism never sets down roots among you. Today, however, there are clear signs that it has done so and is putting down more. You have a chance to avert a very great evil, simply by using reason and a sense of fair play. Please tell me that this makes sense to you. I have given you some of the evidence. It’s up to you to find out more.

The UN's Triple Whammy.

This week, in the fight for its survival, the United Nations delivered not a double whammy but a triple whammy to Israel.

First, the UN hosted The World Conference Against Racism, a.k.a. Durban III, at which Israel was singled out as the world’s most racist and abusive state. Thankfully, every Western democratic member of the permanent five powers on the UN Security Council boycotted the conference, which virtually guaranteed that Durban III, and whatever racist conclusions it arrived at, would not be able to claim a trace of moral authority.

The second blow was Iranian President Mahoud Ahmadinejad’s speech, in which he once again took the opportunity to denounce Israel. Israeli Prime Minister struck back powerfully and eloquently:

Yesterday, the man who calls the Holocaust a lie spoke from this podium. To those who refused to come here and to those who left this room in protest, I commend you. You stood up for moral clarity and you brought honor to your countries.

But to those who gave this Holocaust-denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people, the Jewish people, and decent people everywhere: Have you no shame? Have you no decency?

A mere six decades after the Holocaust, you give legitimacy to a man who denies that the murder of six million Jews took place and pledges to wipe out the Jewish state.

What a disgrace! What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations! Perhaps some of you think that this man and his odious regime threaten only the Jews. You're wrong.

History has shown us time and again that what starts with attacks on the Jews eventually ends up engulfing many others.

This Iranian regime is fueled by an extreme fundamentalism that burst onto the world scene three decades ago after lying dormant for centuries. In the past thirty years, this fanaticism has swept the globe with a murderous violence and cold-blooded impartiality in its choice of victims. It has callously slaughtered Moslems and Christians, Jews and Hindus, and many others. Though it is comprised of different offshoots, the adherents of this unforgiving creed seek to return humanity to medieval times.

Wherever they can, they impose a backward regimented society where women, minorities, gays or anyone not deemed to be a true believer is brutally subjugated. The struggle against this fanaticism does not pit faith against faith nor civilization against civilization.

It pits civilization against barbarism, the 21st century against the 9th century, those who sanctify life against those who glorify death.

Yesterday, a third body blow was delivered to Israel by the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. In his speech, he stated that:

The goal of the Palestinian people is the realization of their inalienable national rights in their independent State of Palestine, with East Jerusalem as its capital, on all the land of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, which Israel occupied in the June 1967 war, in conformity with the resolutions of international legitimacy and with the achievement of a just and agreed upon solution to the Palestine refugee issue in accordance with resolution 194, as stipulated in the Arab Peace Initiative which presented the consensus Arab vision to resolve the core the Arab-Israeli conflict and to achieve a just and comprehensive peace. To this we adhere and this is what we are working to achieve.

Achieving this desired peace also requires the release of political prisoners and detainees in Israeli prisons without delay...

I come before you today from the Holy Land, the land of Palestine, the land of divine messages, ascension of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and the birthplace of Jesus Christ (peace be upon him), to speak on behalf of the Palestinian people in the homeland and in the Diaspora, to say, after 63 years of suffering of the ongoing Nakba: Enough. It is time for the Palestinian people to gain their freedom and independence (emphasis mine).

Note that President Abbas made no mention of the homeland of the Jewish people.

The time has come for our men, women and children to live normal lives ... for our farmers to be able to take care of their good land without fear of the occupation seizing the land and its water, which the wall prevents access to, or fear of the settlers, for whom settlements are being built on our land and who are uprooting and burning the olive trees that have existed for hundreds of years. The time has come for the thousands of prisoners to be released from the prisons to return to their families and their children to become a part of building their homeland, for the freedom of which they have sacrificed (emphasis mine).

The issue of settlements is raised with tedious regularity but, according to the document West Bank Settlements, Communities, and Facts on the Ground:

The release of thousands of prisoners!? Fear of settlers? According to Palestinian and Israeli sources, the built-up areas of Israeli settlements cover 1.7 percent of West Bank land, The scheduled route of the security fence incorporates between 5 and 8 percent of West Bank land. Israel currently administers 60 percent of the West Bank (known as “Area C”) per the Oslo Agreement.

Netanyahu responded in typically robust fashion:

Ladies and gentlemen, Israel has extended its hand in peace from the moment it was established 63 years ago. On behalf of Israel and the Jewish people, I extend that hand again today. I extend it to the people of Egypt and Jordan, with renewed friendship for neighbours with whom we have made peace. I extend it to the people of Turkey, with respect and good will. I extend it to the people of Libya and Tunisia, with admiration for those trying to build a democratic future. I extend it to the other peoples of North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, with whom we want to forge a new beginning. I extend it to the people of Syria, Lebanon and Iran, with awe at the courage of those fighting brutal repression.

But most especially, I extend my hand to the Palestinian people, with whom we seek a just and lasting peace.

Ladies and gentlemen, in Israel our hope for peace never wanes. Our scientists, doctors, innovators, apply their genius to improve the world of tomorrow. Our artists, our writers, enrich the heritage of humanity. Now, I know that this is not exactly the image of Israel that is often portrayed in this hall. After all, it was here in 1975 that the age-old yearning of my people to restore our national life in our ancient biblical homeland — it was then that this was braided — branded, rather — shamefully, as racism. And it was here in 1980, right here, that the historic peace agreement between Israel and Egypt wasn’t praised; it was denounced! And it’s here year after year that Israel is unjustly singled out for condemnation. It’s singled out for condemnation more often than all the nations of the world combined. Twenty-one out of the 27 General Assembly resolutions condemn Israel — the one true democracy in the Middle East.

Well, this is an unfortunate part of the U.N. institution. It’s the — the theater of the absurd. It doesn’t only cast Israel as the villain; it often casts real villains in leading roles: Gadhafi’s Libya chaired the U.N. Commission on Human Rights; Saddam’s Iraq headed the U.N. Committee on Disarmament.

You might say: That’s the past. Well, here’s what’s happening now — right now, today. Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon now presides over the U.N. Security Council. This means, in effect, that a terror organization presides over the body entrusted with guaranteeing the world’s security.

You couldn’t make this thing up.

So here in the U.N., automatic majorities can decide anything. They can decide that the sun sets in the west or rises in the west. I think the first has already been pre-ordained. But they can also decide — they have decided that the Western Wall in Jerusalem, Judaism’s holiest place, is occupied Palestinian territory.

And yet even here in the General Assembly, the truth can sometimes break through. In 1984 when I was appointed Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, I visited the great rabbi of Lubavich. He said to me — and ladies and gentlemen, I don’t want any of you to be offended because from personal experience of serving here, I know there are many honorable men and women, many capable and decent people serving their nations here. But here’s what the rebbe said to me. He said to me, you’ll be serving in a house of many lies. And then he said, remember that even in the darkest place, the light of a single candle can be seen far and wide.

Today I hope that the light of truth will shine, if only for a few minutes, in a hall that for too long has been a place of darkness for my country. So as Israel’s prime minister, I didn’t come here to win applause. I came here to speak the truth. The truth is — the truth is that Israel wants peace. The truth is that I want peace. The truth is that in the Middle East at all times, but especially during these turbulent days, peace must be anchored in security. The truth is that we cannot achieve peace through U.N. resolutions, but only through direct negotiations between the parties. The truth is that so far the Palestinians have refused to negotiate. The truth is that Israel wants peace with a Palestinian state, but the Palestinians want a state without peace. And the truth is you shouldn’t let that happen.

Well, as they say, it’s not over till it’s over and there will be much discussion over the next week or so. Now is the time for us to pray more than ever for the peace of Jerusalem.

Demo & Counter Demo

Earlier this evening I went up to London support a demonstration Downing Street calling for the United Nations to vote against the bid by the Palestinian authority to be recognised as a sovereign state. It was actually a counter demonstration because a pro-Palestinian demonstration had been organised.

The counter demo was well supported with some 350 people in attendance. As with other Zionist demonstration I've attended, the crowd was good-natured, well behaved and without abusive calls or gestures, even when one or two supporters for the other side made aggressive gestures as they passed.

As with all demos, there was noise. All I could hear from the other camp were angry chants initiated by shrill young females. The anger was countered by the singing of Heveinu shalom aleichem (We bring you peace).

Sadly, we had a nutter over on our side, a highly strung character called Paul who thought he was Christ when he was just a pain in the tuchas. Paul was in full flow when I arrived, shouting New Testament verses about 'vain traditions' and so on. I was alarmed because of what the Jewish people would think, so I took him aside to talk to him. What was Paul not preaching his message of judgement to the other side too? Because he’d been sent to the Jews and to the Gentiles, the others’ time hadn’t come yet. One of the organised assured me that no one was upset by Paul's incoherent ramblings, so I stepped back and left him to continue yelling.

If their supporters are anything to judge by, what the Palestinians primarily want is not so much their own state as the demise of Israel.

There are some hopes that the bid for statehood will fail. A joint statement issued on 26 June 2009 by the United States, the European Union, the Russian Federation and the United Nations makes clear:

Unilateral actions taken by either party cannot prejudge the outcome of negotiations, and will not be recognized by the international community.

Also, any unilateral act by either Israel or the Palestinian Authority is in direct contravention of the Oslo Accords of both 1993 and 1995, which specifically call for a negotiated resolution to the permanent status of Palestinian statehood. The Accords, signed by the PLO on behalf of the PA, explicitly forbid either side from acting in the manner that the Palestinians are now threatening. If the Mahmoud Abbas violates those agreements the whole premise of future negotiations will be undermined and even the legitimacy of the PA itself will be called into question.

A final agreement has to be precisely final and that is why it must be reached by negotiation between the parties. Anything else will be a dangerous mirage for the Palestinians. (Former Spanish PM Jose Maria Aznar, 6 September 2011)

The Palestinian action is also a direct violation of UN Resolutions 242 and 338, the main resolutions pertaining to the 1967 borders, as they both call for negotiated agreements leading to ‘secure and recognized boundaries’. As pointed out in my last but one posting, 1967 and all that, the 1967 lines were never seen as international borders but rather as armistice lines from 1948. A Pal;estinian unilateral declaration of statehood based on the 1967 lines is thus in defiance of these UN Resolutions.

If this motion passes the UN General Assembly, it is widely accepted that future negotiations betweeen Israel and the Palestinians will be significantly more difficult and complicated, as it will be harder for the Palestinians to compromise on their positions. The Palestinians will also have less incentive to achieve a negotiated settlement while continuing to attempt to isolate Israel in the international arena.

A unilateral declaration of statehood by the Palestinians at the United Nations can lead to a stalemate between the sides especially when a peace agreement can be achieved through direct negotiations. (Israel President Shimon Peres, 4 September 2011).

To view a video that shows a peace process that is working, view Israelis and Palestinians Make Peace

Jeff Halper: Settlers in danger from Palestinians. Is he bothered?

In an interview with Russia Today, Santa Claus lookalike Jeff Halper (pictured), says the Israeli Defence Force is preparing settlers for the mass uprising of Palestinians, expected after the UN votes on a Palestinian statehood in September.

The preparations include handing out tear gas and stun grenades to civilians. Military resistance to Palestinians will only bring international sanctions on Israel after Palestine is recognised in September's vote. That's the view of Halper, a political activist and co-founder of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions.

Halper, an Israeli who is able to place an anti-Israel spin on every news item (in an interview with the Church of Scotland magazine Life and Work he was able to castigate his own people for not disliking him!), says every settlement is a military base.

Notice that Halper expects there to be violence against settlers if the UN recognises a Palestinian state on Friday but he doesn’t believe the settlers to be able to defend themselves.

Halper appears to believe that there are no circumstances under which Israel is ever justified in destroying a Palestinian building. Halper has no apparent objection – or at least none that he has ever expressed – however about Israel demolishing Jewish settlements.

And there are several well-defined reasons why Israel has demolished Palestinian homes. Sometimes it is to deter the families of convicted terrorists from continuing to attack Israel. Sometimes homes are demolished in counter-terrorist operations, such as when houses are used as bomb laboratories, or as terrorist headquarters or offices. There are times when homes are demolished because they are booby-trapped. When houses are used as hide-outs or cover for snipers or for launching missiles, they sometimes have to be destroyed. And if homes are in the way or Israeli tanks or armoured personnel carriers, they are demolished.

There may have been times of course when Palestinian houses have been demolished by mistake or even wrongly but the man who opposes the demolition of any Palestinian home for whatever reason would apparently deny settlers (even if they are, in his opinion illegal) the right to defend themselves against murderous attackers.

1967 and all that

There's a lot of talk about Israel withdrawing to the '1967 Borders'.

Does anybody know what the '1967 Borders' were?

There were no borders in 1967!

Between Israel and Syria, and Israel and Lebanon there were (as now) only Armistce Lines, patrolled by the United Nations. There were no peace agreements between Israel and her northern neighbours.

Today, there are still only two internationally acknowledged borders: the border between between Israel and Egypt and the border between Israel and Jordan. These exist because Israel made peace with those two countries.

The Armistice Lines between Israel and Lebanon, and between Israel and Syria came into existence after Israel’s War of Independence in 1948/9, which was forced on the legally established fledgling Jewish State by the surrounding Arab Islamic nations who remain dedicated to the destruction of Israel.

During the 1948/9 War of Independence, the Gaza Strip was illegally conquered and occupied by Egypt. Judea and Samaria provocatively labelled 'The West Bank' were illegally conquered and occupied by the racist and apartheid Kingdom of Jordan, which has never allowed Jews to live within her borders.

The Kingdom of Jordan also illegally conquered and occupied the Old City of Jerusalem against the stated will of the United Nations, which had said in Resolution 181, that the Old City of Jerusalem would be governed by the UN as an 'International City'

In the infamous Resolution 242 passed by the UN in the wake of the June 1967 'Six Day War', Israel was instructed, among other things, to hand East Jerusalem, including the Old City back to Jordan, which had been ocupying it illegally for the previous 19years, and not to the United Nations, from whom Jordan had taken East Jerusalem! This was hypocrisy on an international scale.

It was not 'Palestinians' who had occupied Gaza, Judea, Samaria and the Old city from 1948 to 1967, but Egypt and Jordan, the supposed allies ofthe 'Palestinian Cause'.

So what now does Mahmoud Abbas want the United Nations to do if/when it votes on Friday?

Abbas wants Israel to return to a time of insecurity, when her ‘borders’ were untenable and she was being attacked constantly.

They want her to return to a time of illegality, when Israel’s 'borders' were illegal according to International Law, even though recognised as legitimate by the UN.

Justice, only justice

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is planning to address the UN General Assembly on Friday, shortly after Palestinian Authority President Abbas presents his demand for full membership and recognition as a state. Netanyahu holds no illusions regarding the reception he is likely to receive. ‘The General Assembly is not a place where Israel usually receives a fair hearing,' said Netanyahu, ‘but I still decided to tell the truth before anyone who would like to hear it.’

I believe this week will be the most significant week in Israel’s history since 1948.

The Palestinians remain committed to demanding a state formed from Israeli land, and the bottom line is that while a Security Council veto would deny the Palestinians official member status, the Palestinians appear to be fully committed to that demand. If the vote in the Security Council fails due to a US veto they can seek upgraded observer status at the General Assembly as a non-member state.

Such a move could be interpreted as implicit UN recognition of a Palestinian state. The advantage of this option would be that it would require only a simple majority of the General Assembly. Since around 120 countries already recognise the state of Palestine, it would likely win such a vote overwhelmingly.

If ‘Palestine’ receives recognition as a non-member state, its leaders will be able to sign certain international treaties, such as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The result of such an outcome will be thousands of lawsuits against Israel and isolation and demonization of the State of Israel.

We should all pray that justice will prevail at the UN on Friday.