I know, I know: we are way past Yom Kippur. But who says it’s only on that one day a year that we must say “I’m sorry”?
As yet another Arab country (Sudan) agrees to normalise relations with the Jewish state, quite a few people owe us all (and to themselves) a heartfelt apology.
Journalists
The decay of journalism is one of the greatest challenges to
21st century democracy. Real
journalists (read: people who value objectivity, have respect for facts and are
capable of insights) are becoming rare and far between; those depleting ranks
are being filled with political activists for whom ‘journalism’ is a weapon,
rather than a vocation. And the saddest
thing is that they can get away with not even having to admit they were wrong;
mainly, perhaps, because most people did not pay attention to their pathetic screeches
– in the first place.
Zvi Bar’el, for instance, would probably describe himself as
a senior journalist. He sports the rather
serious-sounding title of Middle East Affairs Analyst for the Israeli newspaper
Ha’aretz; he even has a PhD in the History of the Middle East. One of his ‘analyses’
was published a few weeks ago (after the UAE deal announcement),
under the assertive title:
“Israel's Deal With the UAE Spells New Conditions for Ties With Arab States”.
Some may say that’s only stating the obvious – and I
couldn’t agree more. But I’m not
complaining about the lack of insight – I’ve come to expect that; the problem
is that nowhere in his learned article does Analyst Bar’el utter the words: ‘I
got it wrong, folks – I’m sorry!’
“Without Solution to Palestinian Issue, No Arab State Will Seek Relations With Israel”
Mr. Bar’el began that previous ‘analysis’ by quoting
Netanyahu’s statement, delivered at the UN:
“Many have long assumed that an Israeli-Palestinian peace can help facilitate a broader rapprochement between Israel and the Arab World. But these days I think it may work the other way around: Namely that a broader rapprochement between Israel and the Arab world may help facilitate an Israeli-Palestinian peace. And therefore, to achieve that peace, we must look not only to Jerusalem and Ramallah, but also to Cairo, to Amman, Abu Dhabi, Riyadh and elsewhere.”
Ha’aretz’s Middle East Affairs Analyst then proceeded to
ridicule Netanyahu for that statement.
No, Arab country, declared our friend Zvi with iron-clad certitude, will
“seek relations” with Israel unless the latter first magics up a “Solution
to [the] Palestinian Issue”. Well,
the UAE (an Arab country by all accounts, including its name) did. And two others (so far!) followed.
Hmm… so who looks ridiculous now? Forgive my French, but I’d say that Zvi Bar’el
has made a bit of an ass of himself. Someone
should tell him that, despite the partial homophony, the title of ‘Analyst’
does not derive from the word ‘anal’!
It is a sorry state of affairs when ‘Analysts’ (and
journalists in general) are utterly ignorant of what is happening – until the
moment it becomes public knowledge. There
were plenty of clues for Mr. Bar’el to pick up.
For years now, Netanyahu has been throwing thick hints about impending peace
with the Arab world; so did Trump. That
there was considerable rapprochement was common knowledge. And, if nothing else, it was clearly spelled
out in the latest Coalition Agreement. No,
not the part about ‘annexation’ – leave that one to the hapless ‘analysts’; no,
the part that says:
“The Prime Minister and Substitute Prime Minister will act together and in a coordinated fashion to advance peace agreements with all our neighbours and to advance regional cooperation […] all this while aiming to protect the security and strategic interests of the State of Israel, including the need to preserve regional security, uphold existing peace agreements and strive towards future peace agreements.”
The words “peace agreements” feature no less than
three times in that one paragraph.
Enough of a clue – you’d think – to pique the curiosity of even a thick,
jaded Ha’aretz Analyst.
But ‘journalists’ like Bar’el aren’t attuned to facts or evidence;
they are driven by ideology, by beliefs.
According to Mr. Bar’el’s ‘secular religion’, Netanyahu and Trump are
perennial liars – never to be believed; Israel’s desire for peace is forever
suspect – lip service designed to hide nefarious intentions; and the plight of
the Palestinian Arabs is the #1 issue in the whole wide blimming world. For a certain ilk of pseudo-liberals, the
above statements are Gospel – and one does not question scripture!
Now, I don’t wish to be too harsh: valued Middle East
Analysts (even those with a PhD and – incredibly, I know – even those writing
for Ha’aretz) are of course allowed to make mistakes, just like the rest of
us. But… forgive me if I humbly opine
that, besides being a mark of character, admitting one’s mistakes should be a
minimum requirement for retaining one’s credibility; if not one’s job.
But let’s stop picking on poor Zvi Bar’el – he is far from
the only culprit: pretty much every other ‘Analyst’ (and probably his dog, too)
agreed with him. Until very recently,
they all said that, while the Gulf Arab countries did not mind having the
political equivalent of furtive sex with the Jewish state, they wouldn’t dreeeeam
of formalising that relationship without Palestinian blessing. And I have yet to hear one of those
‘analysts’ saying the magic words: ‘I was wrong’.
Which brings me to the next category.
The ‘anti-annexation’ activists
Anything involving Israel and the Palestinians is guaranteed
to attract a disproportionate amount of attention from ‘activists’ with an axe
to grind. But few things caused such a
berserk torrent of unbridled criticism like the ‘annexation’. Convinced (mainly by their own prejudice)
that all Netanyahu ever wanted was to despoil the Palestinians of ‘their’ land,
lots and lots of people – from New Israel Fund, Yachad, J-Street and other
‘usual suspects’ to Western European politicians and US Democratic Party senators
– came out to ‘express their grave concern’ with ‘the annexation plans’. After all, as all of them declared (without
even bothering to explain why) ‘annexation’ spells the death knell of the
two-state solution – doesn’t it?
Even some of the people who are genuinely pro-Israel were
baffled. Why would a previously very
cautious Netanyahu suddenly seem so keen to do something ’so radical’? Well, as many an organisational behaviour
consultant will tell you, most people don’t like change: given a choice, they
tend to choose the ‘devil they know’; or at least to put off getting acquainted
with the new fiend. To effect a change,
sometimes it is necessary to manufacture a crisis…
We know now that the UAE deal has been in the making for
many months. And one does not need a PhD
in Middle East History to understand why it ultimately happened.
The threat of ‘annexation’ did that – and more. In the words of ‘a White House official’ (quoted
by Walla and the Times
of Israel):
“We have been talking about this [the Israel-UAE normalisation] for over a year, but the issue of annexation created the atmosphere in which a deal became more attainable.”
This only sounds counter-intuitive to clueless ‘analysts’
and green (and I don’t mean just ‘Green Party’) European politicians. In Middle Eastern politics, the ‘annexation’ was
never an impending ‘catastrophe’; no, it was a brilliant gambit: it provided
the Emiratis with the opportunity to ‘save the Palestinians’ and ‘to save
peace’ – all while doing what they wanted to do anyway. As for Netanyahu, he ‘reluctantly agreed’ to
forgo something he didn’t really want to do in the first place (except under
much more propitious circumstances), in return for peace with Arab world’s
rising star. Both sides achieved not
just their purpose – but also found a way to sell that outcome to their domestic
constituencies.
But was it really a gambit, I hear you asking? Or was Netanyahu somehow ‘dissuaded’ at the
last moment from putting in practice those nefarious ‘annexation plans’?
Well, what plans – pray tell me? ‘Annexing’ land (i.e. governing it as part of
Israel’s sovereign territory) is a rather large logistic operation. It involves establishing (or at least
re-deploying) government offices, security installations, centers of
authority. At a minimum, it involves
re-deploying military assets. Yet no
preparations were made – or even sketched; no plans were submitted for
approval; no sites were earmarked, not one army unit was moved. Not just people in the street, but ministers
and military commanders were left wondering what – if anything – was going to
be annexed: a few symbolic dunams? The
Jordan Valley? 30% of the West Bank?
Plans? There were no ‘plans’. And why do you think that is?
The ‘annexation’ was a manufactured crisis, which enabled
UAE leaders to present normalisation as the solution.
As for ‘anti-annexation activists’, none – to the best of my
knowledge – has so far admitted they were wrong. In fact, a few saw fit to express their great
relief at the ‘suspension of annexation plans’.
Demonstrating either intellectual dishonesty or – more likely – just
sheer stupidity.
‘Anti-racists’
There is more to apologise about than merely going over the
top about ‘the annexation’. A couple of
years ago, I happened to have a discussion with a leading activist from New
Israel Fund – UK. We were in a small
group and she launched into a rant about ‘the blatant racism’ that – in her
view – was taking over the Israeli society; she rather aggressively asked me to
condemn it. I replied that I unreservedly
condemn it; I added that, unfortunately, there is indeed despicable racism in
Israel – just as there is in the UK, USA and elsewhere. ‘Oh, no,’ she said with something I can only
describe as cold anger. ‘There is much,
much more racism in Israel.’ I wanted to
ask her for the evidence behind such grave accusation – but she gave every
indication that, if I wasn’t going to admit that Israel was more racist
than other countries, she wasn’t interested in any further debate with me.
For years now, it has become fashionable in certain circles
to accuse not just Netanyahu, not just ‘the Israeli government’, but ‘the
Israeli society’ en-bloc of racism, of callousness and lack of desire for
peace, of ‘land theft’ and other sins.
The ‘evidence’ typically consists of ‘Israeli behaviour’ (as
narrated and interpreted by the accusers), politicised opinion surveys (with
questions the like of which are only ever asked of Israelis) and ‘anecdotal
evidence’ – all of which demonstrate ‘deeply-entrenched anti-Arab racism’ and
other such base attitudes.
These ‘Israeli attitudes’ are then employed to call for
international ‘pressure’ on Israelis – who, as racist warmongers, cannot be
expected to make peace of their own volition.
Speaking about opinion polls, however, one
was performed after the UAE announcement: it seems that nearly 80% of ‘the
Israeli society’ supports the agreement with UAE over ‘the annexation’; less
than 17% expressed the opposite view. In
fact, since the announcement, the entire country has been in a celebratory
mood. It seems that, despite their
engrained anti-Arab racism and their lack of desire for peace – Israelis dream
of traveling to the UAE, of doing business there, of having Emirati Arabs visit
and do business in the Jewish state.
Hundreds of Israelis were visible on Twitter, seeking to make friends
with the Arabs they purportedly despise out of racial prejudice…
And it wasn’t just people in the street: the much maligned ‘right-wing
Israeli government’ voted unanimously in favour of the Abraham Accords – as did
parliamentarians representing ‘extreme right’ opposition parties. In fact, the only Israeli party that voted
against peaceful relations with the United Arab Emirates was… the Joint (Arab)
List! Needless to say, none of the ‘peace
activists’ criticised the Israeli Arab parliamentarians for that stance. Pseudo-liberals – as we know – only see
faults in Jews.
‘Prominent British Jews’
But there’s somebody else who owes the Israeli public – and their
own community – an apology. A few months
ago, 40 ‘prominent British Jews’ wrote a letter to Israel’s Ambassador to London,
protesting ‘the annexation’. So what’s
wrong with this, you ask? Surely British
Jews – whether ‘prominent’ or not, are entitled to write to the ambassador of
the Jewish state? Of course they are;
but they chose a rather weird way to do it.
You see, if I want to send a letter (whether to an ambassador or to the
lovely man who sweeps the street in front of the Embassy, it does not matter),
I use the good services of the Royal Mail.
Of course, I’m not ‘prominent’; if I were a bit posh, I might use a
courier – or send my personal valet to drop the letter at the Embassy. But that’s not what our ‘Prominent Jews’ did;
no, they published their letter in
the newspaper. Which newspaper,
you’re asking? Why, Ha’aretz of course –
what else?!
And what did they write, these ‘prominents’? Well, they expressed their “unprecedented
level of concern”. As well as the
following ‘analysis’:
“We are yet to see an argument that convinces us, committed Zionists and passionately outspoken friends of Israel, that the proposed annexation is a constructive step. Instead, it would in our view be a pyrrhic victory intensifying Israel’s political, diplomatic and economic challenges without yielding any tangible benefit.”
Needless to say, there were other, even saucier passages,
all faithfully and gleefully reproduced by other “friends of Israel” – such as The
Guardian and the BBC.
Judging by the above emphatic pronouncement, one would be
tempted to think that ‘the Prominents’ are all high-level experts in Middle
East politics. But… no, they’re not. They’re not even Ha’aretz Middle East Affairs
Analysts. Most of them are politicians
and businessmen, a few even political activists masquerading as Rabbis.
What is unclear is: why do these people (who live in Britain,
pay taxes in Britain, vote in Britain and do not have to serve in the army in
Britain) presume to publicly tell Israelis what to do? I wonder how would they feel if 40 ‘prominent
Israeli Jews’ would have published a letter in The Guardian, declaring something
like ‘we are still to see an argument that convinces us that Brexit is a
constructive step’?
Why do these arrogant pricks think they understand Israel’s
needs and interests better than the elected representatives of the Israeli
public? Why do they see themselves as
responsible adults, while viewing Israeli leaders (some of whom have fulfilled for
many years positions of vast responsibility in government and/or security
forces) as little more than children?
Most believed that Netanyahu – the new Genghis Khan, just as
reckless, primitive and bent on destruction as the old one – was about to
inflict a huuuge catastrophe upon the Jewish state and on the entire Jewish
people. But a cooler, more sober, more
‘anal’ analysis might have concluded that Netanyahu is anything but
reckless. Sure, like Trump, Netanyahu
isn’t everybody’s cup of tea. Hate the
man, if you so wish; despise him for his cigars, his ice-cream, his alleged
corruption, his spiteful wife or his undeniable achievements. But reckless?
No, this guy’s a calculated son of a bitch – if ever there was one. Netanyahu may play for high stakes – but his
game is chess, not backgammon: he does not roll the dice.
By and large, the demarché of the ‘prominents’ was no
surprise – most of them have said and done stupid, outrageous things in the
past. Unfortunately, this time their
ranks included also people like Howard Jacobson, whom I respect. What possessed you to add your distinguished
name to that shameful list, dear Howard?
I know, I know: we are way past Yom Kippur. But not past redemption, not yet. It’s not too late. Please: would you be a mensch and say “I’m
sorry”?
- Follow Us on Twitter!
- "Join Us on Facebook!
- RSS
Contact