Yachad, Airbnb and a new untogetherness

Like the vast majority of Israelis, I am pro-peace.  I supported the withdrawal from South Lebanon, the disengagement from Gaza, the Oslo Accords.  I would have voted in favour of a deal along the lines of Olmert’s 2008 offer, had it been accepted by the Palestinian leadership.  Which means that I would have supported Israel’s withdrawal from some 95% of the West Bank, including the evacuation of many settlements.

Don’t get me wrong: I never thought that ‘the settlements’ are a serious obstacle to peace.  After all, there was no peace when there were no settlements; and the sure-proof way to ‘stop the settlements’ and ‘dismantle the occupation’ – if indeed that is what they want – is for the Palestinian leadership to make peace.

But I know there are people – including Jews in Israel and the Diaspora – who think otherwise, who have come to resent ‘the settlements’.  I disagree with them, for the reasons mentioned above – and more; but they are entitled to their opinion.

‘The’ settlements?

But this is not about being pro or against ‘the settlements’.  It’s about discrimination against Jews.  A few days ago, Airbnb has decided to de-list B & Bs owned by Jews in the West Bank.  Their press release is dishonestly entitled ‘Listings in Disputed Regions’.  ‘Dishonestly,’ because the decision targets just one ‘Disputed Region’ – the West Bank; which happens to be ‘disputed’ by Jews.  This is not about settlements in disputed territories; it’s about ‘the settlements’ – the only ones inhabited by Jews.

Writing for The Spectator, Brendan O’Neill puts it better than I ever could:

So alongside being the only country that pop stars refuse to play in, and the only country whose academics are boycotted on Western campuses, and the only country whose dancers and violinists cannot perform in cities like London without gangs of people screaming them down, and the only country whose produce is routinely avoided by luvvies and liberals, now Israel is the only country that has been politically punished by holiday app cum conscience of the Twitterati, Airbnb.

The world is, of course, full of ‘Disputed Regions’; lots of them are subject to ‘settlement’ by one of the parties to that dispute; and Airbnb happily operates in quite a few of them.

One of the more than 150 Tiobetans who self-immolated in protest against the
Chinese occupation and policies.

Formerly an independent (albeit relatively underdeveloped) state, Tibet was conquered by the Chinese Army in 1950.  China has been ruling the region with an iron fist ever since, in the face of visible Tibetan opposition – manifested for instance through periodic revolts and numerous acts of protest, including more than 150 instances of self-immolation.  The Free Tibet organisation (headquartered in London) accuses the Chinese occupation of causing more than 1 million fatalities among Tibetans; many more have been tortured; others live in abject poverty; the Chinese authorities are trying to forcibly assimilate the Tibetan population, actively discouraging them from enjoying their own culture, from practising their religion and from speaking their own language.  Moreover, China is actively encouraging settlers from among its own dominant Han ethnicity to move to Tibet.  No equivalent of B’tselem was ever allowed to operate in Tibet of course, so the exact number of Han settlers is unknown, but it is claimed that they threaten to become the majority in the region.  The Han settlers and ‘collaborating’ Tibetans are rewarded with economic benefits that are denied to the rest of the population.  In the words of the Dalai Lama:

The new Chinese settlers have created an alternate society: a Chinese apartheid which, denying Tibetans equal social and economic status in our own land, threatens to finally overwhelm and absorb us.

I found 300+ properties listed by on Airbnb.co.uk in Tibet’s capital Lhasa alone.  As far as I could see, they are all listed in Mandarin (the language of the Han settlers), rather than in the Tibetan language.  I randomly checked out 20 of those properties –all 20 hosts had Chinese (rather than Tibetan) names.  Quite a few actually disclose their origin in the ‘Hosted by…’ section.  “I’m from Inner Mongolia [a region in Northern China]”, writes the owner of Airbnb listing #25988191.  “In 2013, I resigned from a foreign company in Shanghai and then moved to Lhasa” – location #28316356.  “From Chengdu [capital of Sichuan Province in the South-West of China], came to Lhasa alone in 2013” – location #24162447.  “I graduated from Jinan University in 2012 with a master’s degree in journalism. At the end of October 2013, I moved to Tibet by myself.” – location #14696223.

Tibet is just one example.  In 1974, the Turkish army invaded Cyprus, conquering the northern 40% of the country.  The ethnic Greek inhabitants fled or were expelled almost to the last person.  No Greek Cypriot remained, for instance, in the seashore resort of Famagusta, which had been predominantly Greek.  Most of Varosha – Famagusta’s main tourist neighbourhood – was fenced off by the Turkish army and declared a ‘closed military area’.  Here’s the testimony of a journalist from The Telegraph:

Today, one part of Famagusta still remains entirely sealed off by rusting barbed wire, fiercely guarded by Turkish troops. Known as Varosha, it represents about 20 per cent of Famagusta and was the prime tourist area, comprising the stretch of golden sand, behind which stand skeletons of bombed and abandoned hotels and apartments, and streets of looted shops, restaurants, mansions.

The ghost town is heavily guarded by soldiers, and aggressive signs make it clear that this is a no-go area.[…]

For the past two years, I have been visiting the north and south of Cyprus regularly to research a novel. In that time, I have seen extensive building work taking place in the area surrounding Varosha, making it unrecognisable to former inhabitants. A large population of settlers from the Turkish mainland live there, their lifestyle and culture very different even from that of the Turkish Cypriots.

Ethnic distribution in Cyprus, before and after the Turkish invasion.

 Circa 40,000 Turkish troops still ‘protect’ Northern Cyprus and its ethnic Turkish inhabitants – including some 250,000 Turkish settlers, who are thought to represent by now the majority of Northern Cyprus’s population.  And who often live on land (and even houses) formerly owned by Greek Cypriots.

In 2012, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Turkey must pay circa EUR 20 million in compensation to Greek Cypriot owners of hotels and other businesses.  In its Resolution 550/1984, the UN Security Council stated that it:

Considers attempts to settle any part of Varosha by people other than its inhabitants as inadmissible and calls for the transfer of that area to the administration of the United Nations.

Needless to say, that request was rejected by Turkey, as were various condemnations of its ‘settlement’ policy.

Airbnb.co.uk lists 39 properties in Varosha alone (there are hundreds in Famagusta and the rest of the ‘Disputed Region’ of Northern Cyprus).  Unsurprisingly, the owners generally have Turkish names.  At location #24539082, host Ergin (a Turkish male first name meaning ‘mature man’) advertises his ‘Chic and Design Boutique Hotel at City Center’, which offers 36 en-suite bedrooms.  The hotel’s location is given as Kıbrıs (the Turkish equivalent of Cyprus), but the page also describes the location as ‘Turkey’.

Airbnb serenely lists locations in Western Sahara, Kashmir, Myanmar, Rwanda, Sudan, even a solitary one in Crimea. Let’s not forget the Falkland Islands, and a location listed as ‘Gibraltar, United Kingdom’ – a description that will surely rile quite a few Spaniards.  And dozens of other ‘Disputed Regions’ around the globe, many of which have seen horrendous atrocities.  And more: how many of the thousands of B & Bs in Poland are really Jewish houses taken over by neighbours – some as ‘reward’ for collaboration and betrayal?  How many belonged to the millions of ethnic Germans, Ukrainians and Lemkos that, between 1945 and 1950, were violently thrown out of their ancestral homes and lands?  Who knows?  Who cares?  Certainly not Airbnb!

‘Together’ with whom?

It doesn’t matter how you feel about ‘the settlements’ or about ‘Israeli settlers’.  Even if they were thieves and criminals, what justification is there for targeting them, while ignoring others who act in the same way – and much worse?  When one targets a specific category of ‘offenders’ (rather than a specific type of offence), this has nothing to do with ethics and justice; it has everything to do with discrimination and persecution.

And when Jews are (again!) subjected to such obvious double standards; when the words ‘Jews’ and ‘boycott’ are once more unashamedly spoken in the same sentence – you’d hope that any Jew worthy of the name would feel outraged.

Well, apparently not.  As soon as the news came out, a London-based outfit called ‘Yachad’ took to the social and traditional media to… express support for Airbnb’s discriminatory decision.

Of course, we are all by now accustomed to various As-a-Jew’s – people for whom bashing the Jewish state is their main link to Jewishness.  But Yachad claims to be “the pro-Israel, pro-peace movement for British Jews”.  “THE”—no less!  It’s their Twitter profile.

So why would “the” pro-Israel, pro-peace movement for British Jews (or even ‘a’ or ‘any’ “movement for British Jews”) support blatant anti-Jewish discrimination?

According to Yachad’s Director Hannah Weisfeld,

Recognition of the green line [sic!] is recognition of Israel’s legitimacy within those borders.  Glad to see @Airbnb recognises Israel’s legitimacy

Deputy Director Maya Ilany claims that

Contrary to Airbnb’s critics, the company has effectively reaffirmed Israel’s legitimacy as a sovereign state within the Green Line.

“Effectively”??  There is a Hebrew word for this kind of outrageous spin – and it’s not ‘yachad’: it’s ‘chutzpah’!

No, Airbnb has neither ‘recognised’ nor ‘reaffirmed’ Israel’s legitimacy – its press release contains no such declaration.  In fact, that official statement never mentions the term “legitimacy” or any of its synonyms; nor does it include the word “Israel”, though it does refer repeatedly to “Israeli settlements” and “Israelis and Palestinians”.

Of course, even had it been issued, such “recognition” would be absolutely worthless.  As a commercial enterprise, Airbnb was constituted in order to turn profits and make money for its shareholders; it is not in the business of conferring “legitimacy” and sovereignty on anyone and anything – nor does it have any moral standing to do so.

In fact, Airbnb’s press release reveals the trigger for their decision:

[M]any in the global community have stated that companies should not do business here because they believe companies should not profit on lands where people have been displaced.

We know who those “many in the global community” are: BDS activists and supporters.  Who, as we also know, consider the entire Israel “lands where people have been displaced.”

In fact, Airbnb’s decision is one of “2 big BDS victories” described in a gleeful Palestine Solidarity Campaign statement.  Far from differentiating between ‘Israel proper’ and ‘the settlements’, the PSC statement calls Airbnb’s decision “a significant positive step in the right direction” and wraps it together with

a host of other victories for the BDS movement in recent months, including decisions by artists Lana Del Ray and Lorde to pull out of planned concerts in Israel in accordance with the call for a cultural boycott.

Neither Lana Del Rey, nor Lorde had planned any concerts in ‘settlements’; both were scheduled to perform in ‘Israel-proper’, before succumbing to torrents of abuse from what the PSC calls a “coalition of human rights activists”.

No doubt in order to generate more such “victories”, the same PSC statement also calls for

Support the campaign to boycott this year’s [sic!] Eurovision in Israel.

I.e., the Eurovision Song Context scheduled to take place next year in Tel Aviv.

PSC is right to call Airbnb’s step a ‘big BDS victory’.  Of course, BDS is not about boycotting ‘settlements’, but boycotting Israel and her supporters.  But the BDS’ers will take it one step at a time, like a drug pusher who will sell you pot, before one day switching you to ‘the real stuff’.  Once the initial barrier is breached (i.e. once a person is persuaded that boycotting ‘some Jews’ is a noble, moral endeavour), it is easy to push further.  For instance, Israeli telecoms cover also the West Bank – or at least Area C.  If Bezeq (the Israeli equivalent of BT) stopped providing services to the West Bank, then not just ‘Israeli settlers’, but also Palestinians would be deprived of telephone and internet services.  But that, as we know, does not necessarily bother the BDS activists, who present Bezeq as ‘a company profiting from the Occupation’.  Or take a ‘report’ produced by a coalition of Christian charities obsessed with the Jewish state.  Entitled ‘Trading Away Peace’, it states:

Settlements in the West Bank produce a range of industrial goods, mostly manufactured in purpose-built industrial zones.  Like the settlements themselves, the industrial zones are a violation of international law, which prohibits the occupying power from constructing permanent infrastructure in occupied territory, unless it is for military use or serves the interests of the occupied population.

Yachad would no doubt claim that the report ‘reaffirmed’ Israel’s legitimacy.  But that was neither its intended, nor its actual outcome.  Among the ‘examples’ of companies “in violation of international law” the report cites one I am familiar with, in a professional capacity.  With a turnover in excess of US$ 1 billion, Keter Plastic is arguably the world’s largest and most innovative manufacturer of garden furniture, as well as household and related products.  Headquartered in Herzlia (just north of Tel Aviv), Keter sells in more than 100 countries – including a few Arab countries – and operates more than two dozen factories in Israel, Europe, United States and Canada.  One of these production facilities is located in the Barkan Industrial Park, about 5 miles on the ‘wrong side’ of the Green Line.  The workforce consists mostly of Palestinians from the area, with a smattering of Jews.  The Barkan factory produces less than 5% of Keter’s turnover, but that was enough to include it in the report as one of the ‘international law violators’; which further caused the United Church of Canada, the US Presbyterian Church and the Quaker Council For European Affairs (QCEA) to call their faithful to boycott it.

The QCEA is an interesting example of how ‘settlement boycott’ becomes ‘Israel boycott’ and further snowballs into boycott of Jews who support Israel.  In 2012, the QCEA published a ‘Discussion Paper’ meant to ‘inform’ their movement.  In reality, it’s a blatant anti-Israel propaganda document.  But arguably one of the most interesting passages is the one describing an example of successful boycott.  It reads:

Take the example of a boycott campaign against McDonald’s that has been carried out throughout the Middle East: “McDonald’s is a ‘major corporate partner’ of the Jewish United Fund. In its own words, the Jewish United Fund ‘works to maintain American military, economic and diplomatic support for Israel; monitors and, when necessary, responds to media coverage of Israel.’ Also, McDonald’s chairman and CEO, Jack M. Greenberg, is an honorary director of the American-Israel Chamber of Commerce and Industry. McDonald’s […] announced it is closing down its operation in the Middle East due to loss of revenue as a direct result of the boycott (Oct 2002), and is replacing Greenberg as its chairman and CEO (Dec 2002). Since the launch of the boycott campaign, two of Jordan’s six McDonald’s franchises have closed due to lack of business. In Egypt, McDonald’s decided to change its brand name to Manfoods this past March, in an attempt to dodge the boycott. It had no effect and Egyptian police forces were ordered to guard the entrances to McDonald’s restaurants, after stone throwing incidents took place. A total of 175 restaurants will be closed at a loss of $350 million.

Note that the document published by the QCEA cites among the boycott’s ‘successes’ the purported dismissal of “Greenberg” (not Mr. Greenberg – as people would normally be referred to in Europe!) for the ‘crime’ of serving as the honorary director of the American-Israel Chamber of Commerce and Industry.  Note also that McDonald’s – Middle East is brought as purported example of successful boycott in a document discussing BDS, but is actually – according to its description – ‘classic’ Arab boycott of Israel.  This is more evidence that BDS is not ‘a new movement’ that started in 2005, but just a rebranding of the Arab League boycott, an old declaration of economic warfare.

In conclusion, it is only in Yachad’s imagination – either self-delusional or deceitful, but certainly weird – that settlement boycotts ‘confer legitimacy’ on Israel.  Such boycotts are not meant to highlight the difference between Israel and ‘Israeli settlements’, but between Israel and all other countries.  For people who are less informed (i.e., for most people) the message is that Israel is the epitome of evil; a case on its own, the world’s number one human rights violator.  Why else would companies like Airbnb select Israel – and only Israel – for this ‘cruel and unusual’ punishment not meted out on any other state since Apartheid South Africa?

Yachad’s support for boycotts is a new development in the history of this organisation.  Yachad was founded in 2011 as a ‘dissent organisation’ which claimed that the mainstream, elected leadership of the British Jewish community (the Board of Deputies, the Jewish Leadership Council) are blindly supportive of Israel.  Although its criticism of Israeli policies and actions was often acerbic, initially Yachad was opposed to boycotts of any kind.  In a website post dating from 2013, the group explained:

As a pro-Israel organisation, Yachad believes Israel should be allowed to thrive. Whilst we are opposed to the ongoing occupation, and do not support new investment inside the Israeli controlled West Bank, including in East Jerusalem, we are also opposed to a policy of isolation. […]

Using boycott as a policy tool also implies that the solution to the conflict can be imposed externally without a genuine negotiations process and that the responsibility for achieving peace in the region lies solely with Israel.

Assuming that the 2013 statement above truly reflected its beliefs, Yachad has clearly changed its policy.

Despite its protestations, Yachad understands that steps targeting only Israeli settlements are discriminatory.  Indeed, referring to the uber-controversial EU decision to label produce from ‘Israeli settlements’, Yachad refers to the claim that such labelling:

is inconsistent with the way other territorial disputes are treated.

The Yachad document further comments:

This is largely true. In a commonly cited example, tomatoes grown in Western Sahara but exported by Morocco are labelled as product of Morocco.

But the fact that Israeli Jews are treated in a manner “inconsistent” with how others are treated (read: they are discriminated against) does not prevent Yachad from supporting that discriminatory policy.  And their support for ‘labelling’ (which at the time was presented as fundamentally different from boycott) has now morphed into a full throated support for Airbnb’s boycott.

In fairness, this type of gradual radicalisation of positions shouldn’t surprise anyone.  It is typical of fringe organisations, that struggle to persuade and attract larger numbers of supporters.  They start by presenting what they see as a ‘moderate’ view, in the hope of branding themselves as a ‘broad church’.  But, since in truth they are anything but moderates, their leadership cannot fail to – sooner or later – show their true colours.

In Hebrew, Yachad means ‘together’.  Nice name; but the reality is, these days, that Yachad is ‘together’ with those who target Jews – and only Jews – for boycott.

Yachad’s “founding statement of core principles” (found on their website) opens up with a touching declaration of love:

We are Jews who love Israel, who stand with Israel, whose lives are bound up with Israel. We believe in its right not just to exist, but to flourish. We stand against those who defame it.

Nice words; but there is little evidence of “love” anywhere else on that website.  This reminds me of the proverbial wife beater who, when dragged before a judge, cried:

But I love her to bits, Your Honour!  I only beat her so she knows she’s done wrong and needs to mend her ways…

Love shouldn’t hurt.  If it hurts, it’s not love – it’s abuse.  Like all abusive relationships, Yachad’s “love” batters, not betters.  On behalf of the vast majority of Israelis – who resent boycotts and those who support them – let me urge Yachad: will you PLEASE love us a little less!

FIFA, shm-IFA

To those of us lucky enough to live in free countries, the word ‘elections’ is full of positive connotations; it brings to mind democracy and freedom of choice.  But for that majority of the world population straining under totalitarian rule, ‘election’ means worse than an exercise in futility: it adds insult to injury by throwing the mockery of freedom in the face of those who have none.  The recent FIFA ‘elections’ fell precisely in that category.  More than 200 national football associations were represented and could vote in those elections; but, with the exception of a minority – those originating from the Free World – those associations are nothing but branches of totalitarian regimes.  They do not care about sport, about football; they are there to defend the political interests and boost the stature of the ruling regimes.

Little wonder, therefore, that FIFA is corrupt to the bone – so are the regimes themselves.  Little wonder that, despite the recurring, grotesque, enormous scandals, the same President has been re-elected over and over again with the votes of the unfree, heading FIFA’s ruling junta for almost two decades; after all, isn’t this precisely how things are done in dictatorships??

But if you think that FIFA is the most scandalous case – think again.  This is not an exception – it is the norm in ‘international bodies’ in which democracies and dictatorships are ‘represented’ and vote on equal footing.  It is the norm, for instance, in each and every one of United Nations’ many assemblies, councils, commissions and committees.  If you think that it is ridiculous for FIFA to re-elect a President on whose watch corruption has reached gargantuan proportions, then have a look at these ludicrous (nay, tragic!) facts: the current membership of the ‘United’ Nations Human Rights Council (yes, Human Rights!) includes Saudi Arabia, Qatar, China, Russia, Morocco, Algeria, Vietnam, Cuba...  These ‘human rights luminaries’ far outnumber democracies like UK, France and Netherlands and practically drive the agenda of the Council.  In 2014, the ‘Islamic Republic’ of Iran was elected (by fellow tyrannical regimes) to sit on the UN Commission for the Status of Women!  I mean Iran – where women are harassed on the streets by the ‘morality police’ and where the ‘law’ prescribes 70 lashes or 60 days in prison for women ‘revealing in public’ more than their hands and faces!

When at the ‘United’ Nations abhorrent oppressors are in charge of ‘human rights’ and male supremacists hold sway on the status of women, are you still surprised that they set the tone at FIFA??

Blatter has now resigned; there’s at least a chance that FIFA will be cleaned up.  But the much more influential ‘United’ Nations will remain un-purged, mired in deeply entrenched, cynical, disgusting immorality.

And why is this happening?  Needless to say, the fault lies with the dictators, with the tyrants themselves; but they could not do it alone – not without accomplices.  Those accomplices are the ‘leaders’ of democratic nations, who – rudderless in the ocean of moral relativism – keep ‘engaging' with the despots, in effect collaborating with them to the point of handing them control over international institutions.  'Engaging'???  We would never contemplate thieves acting as judges and murderers sitting on a jury; we wouldn’t even countenance crooks on the Board of a commercial company.  Yet we allow them to call the shots not just at FIFA, but – appallingly – at the ‘United’ Nations.  And it is not that we can’t do anything about it, no: we actually hold the power!  In fact, it is the democratic, free world that typically provides the funds that allow those institutions – whether FIFA or the UN – to function.

Between 2011 and 2014, FIFA received revenues of $5.7 billion – more than the annual economic output of the African nation of Togo.  But, trust me, it did not come from Togo!  FIFA says that it got the money by selling television rights (43%), marketing rights (29%) and ‘other revenue’ (28%).  And who pays for television and marketing rights?  I doubt that Togo’s national broadcaster Télévision Togolaise can pay for a minute of Sepp Blatter’s time, let alone a minute of a World Cup match.  No, friends, it is us, the inhabitants of the Free World, who are – indirectly but very, very dearly – paying the lion’s share of FIFA’s money.  It is we who fund the broadcasters that pay for television rights; it is to us that World Cup sponsors sell their goods.

The situation is not much different at the ‘United’ Nations.  In 2014, the ‘United’ Nations voted itself an annual budget of $5.5 billion.  This is the so-called ‘core budget’, as it does not include non-core business such as peace-keeping ($7 billion), as well as a host of other expenses separately funded by member states.

Some Nations are more 'United' than others...

And who coughs up the dosh?  You got it, friends: it’s us!  USA alone supplies 22% of UN’s money.  And by the time one adds Japan, Canada, Australia, South Korea and the top 6 European countries, the Free World’s bill easily exceeds two-thirds of the ‘United’ budget.

And what does all that mean?  Well, I hate to break it to you, folks: it means we’re all in the dock; we’re in cahoots with criminals, we are their enablers.  Whether we like it or not, we did not just provide the money that allowed Sepp Blatter to run his MaFI(F)A; shockingly, we pay for the mockery that is the ‘United’ Nations.

Revolting as you may find it, we share the guilt.  Whenever another Saudi citizen is denied his/her rights, tortured or executed (90 have been ‘legally’ beheaded so far in 2015), a bit of that sweat and blood is on our heads; after all, it is with our money that the Saudi ‘representative’ (some ‘Prince’ or other – no princesses allowed) was enthroned at the ‘United’ Nations Human Rights Council, there to shield his medieval monarchy from well-deserved opprobrium.

Sorry, folks: I know it is not us ordinary Joes; it’s the bloody politicians who choose to cavort with tyrants.  But we elected the politicians; and we allow them to do it.  And as long as we do that, as long as we remain silent while our hard-earned money enables the crimes, we shoulder a portion of their guilt.  Can you feel it, my brothers, my fellow men?  Can you feel the humiliation of the Iranian woman harangued in the middle of the road and told to dress as a black walking coffin – or else?  Can you sense the desperation of the Tibetan monk who immolates himself to protest Chinese oppression?  Can you hear the silent scream of the emaciated immigrant worked to death in Qatar?

If you do – if, like me, you are sick of seeing your money misused and your goodwill abused, your conscience soiled and your intelligence mocked – then tell your politicians how you feel about it.  Let them know that if they keep robbing us of what we most cherish – our integrity – we’ll deprive them of what they most desire: their power.

An Open Letter to the British Methodist Church

Leaders and believers of the Methodist Church,

I am an Israeli Jew.  I do not represent the Government of the State of Israel and hold no official capacity.  I am just ‘the street’.  Yet, you’ll find that my opinions are similar to those held by an overwhelming majority of Israeli Jews; having lived, studied and worked in the United Kingdom, I know that they are also similar to those of an overwhelming majority of British Jews.

I have decided to write to you because I believe in justice and in the force of good.  I am essentially an optimist who still thinks that one can speak to people’s conscience, even that of people who are hostile.

I have read the ‘briefing document for the Methodist people on the arguments for and against the Boycott Divestment Sanctions Movement’.  I understand that the authors (or perhaps some of them) have made an effort to produce a balanced document.  Yet this ‘briefing’ is anything but balanced; it’s profoundly unjust.  In fact, it reminds me of one of those bitter Jewish anecdotes I’ve heard from Israelis who – they or their parents – had experienced Stalin’s persecutions.

Stalin was a man who believed in ‘justice’.  That meant that those who strayed away from the prescribed ‘just path’ (and they often ‘happened’ to be Jews) were tortured or threatened into ’confessing’ their ‘crimes’ before being awarded a show trial, hearing the pre-determined verdict and being shot.  As the anecdote went, at some point a judge – keen to quickly extract a confession – told the defendant: “Look, Lev Davidovich, we already know that you are guilty.  This court just needs to decide – of what!”.

Like the judge in the anecdote, the ‘briefing document’ starts from the assumption that Israelis are guilty – the only question it wishes to address is ‘the arguments for and against’ a particular ‘cruel and unusual’ punishment.

And what exactly are we so ‘obviously’ guilty of??  Of remembering and longing through centuries for our lost homeland?  Of returning to it, with League of Nations agreement, to build, in part of that ancestral homeland, a country we and our children could call ‘our own’?  Of claiming what every other nation is granted as a matter of course – the right to national self-determination?  Of agreeing to partition that homeland upon realising that another people also claimed rights in it?  Of successfully defending ourselves against those who, having rejected any accommodation, attacked us with openly genocidal intentions?  Of being victorious in battle, yet continuing to extend our hand in the search of peace, offering an independent state to those who attacked us in ways unprecedented in the modern history of mankind?  Sure, we have also made mistakes; we haven’t always lived up to the ideal; we are not angels.  Are you – who wish to boycott us??  Who of you is entitled to throw the first stone?

You accuse us of ‘occupation’.  Yes, we occupy the West Bank.  Although it is part of our ancestral homeland, although we may have historical rights to it, most of us do so reluctantly, only because we have been attacked from that territory and – as the Gaza and Lebanon experience unequivocally shows – would be attacked again, if we just left without an iron-clad agreement.

Yes, we are ‘occupiers’; how about you?  Is Israeli occupation of the West Bank less or more justified, compared to the British occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan?  Isn’t there, somewhere in the Methodist theology, a teaching about ‘the log in your own eye’?  Have you at some point written a ‘briefing document’ on the pros and cons of boycotts against the United Kingdom?

Your ‘briefing’ explains that

for a Palestinian in the West Bank every aspect of everyday life is over-shadowed by the experience of military occupation.

But if you look at every statistic (life expectancy, average income, levels of education, infant mortality, etc.), you’ll find that an Arab from Hebron is more fortunate than an Afghan from Helmand and a Palestinian from Bethlehem will not swap his lot with an Iraqi from Basra.  Yes, we interfere – however reluctantly – with the lives of Palestinian Arabs; we do it not because we enjoy it, but only to protect our own children.  What’s your excuse?

Your ‘briefing’ appears to deny that the Jewish State is being singled out, that anti-Jewish prejudice is involved, that this obsessive, single-minded targeting amounts to persecution.  Well, rather than arguing about subjective perceptions, let us perform a tiny experiment and gain objective data: for instance, let’s search for the term “Israel” on the Methodist Church website.  I just performed such a search and found no less than 375 items, all of them fiercely critical of my country.

Now let us do a similar search for ‘North Korea’; this is a dictatorship that denies people even the most basic human rights.  A recent UN report states that

In the political prison camps of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the inmate population has been gradually eliminated through deliberate starvation, forced labour, executions, torture, rape and the denial of reproductive rights enforced through punishment, forced abortion and infanticide. The commission estimates that hundreds of thousands of political prisoners have perished in these camps over the past five decades.

The Methodist Church website mentions North Korea in 23 items.  Many of those items are neutral and not critical of the country and its leadership.

Saudi Arabia is one of the world’s last absolute monarchies.  While Saudi men and women are deprived of political rights, the female half of the population is subjected to what can only be described as gender apartheid.  In the words of Arab-Swiss scholar Elham Manea, Professor of Political Science at the University of Zurich

Women in the Kingdom, a 2008 Human Rights Watch report maintains, are systematically treated as perpetual minors through a system instituted by the state that infringes on their basic human rights.

In other words, every adult Saudi woman, regardless of her economic or social status, must obtain permission from her male guardian to work, travel, study, seek medical treatment or marry. She is also deprived of making the most trivial decisions on behalf of her children. This system is supported by the imposition of complete sex segregation, which prevents women from participating meaningfully in public life.

Sex segregation is strictly monitored by the government's Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (the religious police) in all workplaces with the exception of hospitals. Unlawful mixing between sexes leads to the arrest of the violators and criminal charges. The brutality of the members of this commission and the unequal punishments men and women receive when committing the same 'crime of mixing' was best described by the Saudi writer Samar Al Muqren in her novel "Ni'saa al Munkar - Women of the Abominable," published in 2008, which she wrote based on her work as a journalist. [...]

More gravely, it is nearly impossible for victims of domestic violence to independently seek protection or obtain legal redress because the police often insist that women and girls obtain their guardian's authorization to file a criminal complaint, even when this complaint is against the guardian!

Moreover, even when women manage to file a domestic violence case, often the measures taken against the perpetrators are flimsy and shameful. For example, in May, Jeddah's Summary Court convicted a man for physically abusing his wife to the point of hospitalization, but sentenced him to learning by heart five parts of the Quran and 100 sayings of the Prophet Muhammad.

Finally, Saudi Arabia applies a personal law system based on the Hanbali School of Islamic Jurisprudence, the most strict and literal among the Sunni schools of jurisprudence. The result is that a male guardian has the unilateral authority to marry off his female ward without her consultation and to dissolve a marriage he deems unfit.

Despite its awful track record of human rights violations and its recent military intervention in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia continues to be one of the main buyers of British-made military equipment.  Prime Minister Cameron has recently met with leaders of the Saudi regime, in a declared effort to increase sales of weaponry.

The Methodist Church website mentions Saudi Arabia  a total of 3 times.  All are casual, with no reference to Saudi women’s plight and no criticism.  (Incidentally, let me mention that it’s entirely conceivable that the activists who accuse Israel of ‘apartheid’ travelled to the Methodist Conference in cars fueled with Saudi petrol, produced by Saudi companies that do not employ women!)

The situation of women is only slightly better in the Islamic Republic of Iran.  There, the authorities execute more people than in any other country except (the much more populous) China.  Among the many ‘crimes’ that warrant the death penalty in Iran are ‘adultery’, ‘witchcraft’ and ‘war against God’.  Just as in the case of Saudi Arabia, the Iranian regime has enshrined Muslim supremacism in the country’s laws.  Other religions are subjected to limitations and persecution and ‘apostasy’ (i.e. converting from Islam to another faith) is punishable by death.

The Methodist Church website mentions Iran 16 times.

I could go on and on…  If anti-Jewish prejudice is not involved, then it must be that the Jewish State is the world’s most heinous human rights offender – 15 times worse than North Korea, 100 times worse than Saudi Arabia...

The ‘briefing document’ acknowledges that

It is argued that trade sanctions against Israel (which currently do not have much international support) would be unjust as this would be inconsistent with the approach taken to occupation in other contexts including China’s occupation of Tibet, Morocco’s occupation of Western Sahara and Turkey’s occupation of northern Cyprus.

but then proceeds to claim that

Such comparisons are fraught with difficulty and therefore questions of consistency will always be contested.

They are indeed “fraught with difficulty” – for those intent on singling out the Jewish state.  The Methodist Church has asked its adherents to boycott Israel essentially because it occupies the West Bank and is building ‘settlements’ in that territory.  The Church has never even considered boycotts against China, Morocco and Turkey, although each of these countries occupies foreign territory and builds settlements with much less justification.

Israel has occupied the West Bank, a territory to which it can lay historical claims, which was not an independent state but part of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.  The control of that territory passed to Israel as the result of a defensive war.  Here is how BBC’s Jeremy Bowen (certainly no friend of Israel!) describes the start of Jordanian-Israeli hostilities in his book ‘Six Days’:

The Jordanians opened fire along the confrontation line.  Its [sic!] artillery fired into Jerusalem, mainly, though not always and not accurately, at military positions.  The UN observer force, that had maintained the armistice for a generation, tried unsuccessfully to arrange several ceasefires.  Bullets narrowly missed Britain’s senior diplomat in Jerusalem, the consul-general Hugh Pullar, and crashed into his offices.  [...] Pullar had just returned from a meeting with a senior Jordanian official.  He had asked him if the Arabs’ basic intention was to eliminate Israel.  In a ‘distinctly chilly’ way, the official said it was.

In contrast, on 6 October 1950, the Chinese army invaded Tibet – an independent state that had never-ever threatened China.  The Tibetan government complained to the United Nations, but – acting in accordance with their own political interests – India and UK prevented the issue from being debated.

After just six years of Chinese occupation, Tibetans revolted; between 1956 and 1962, a veritable war took place between Tibetan guerrilla fighters and the Chinese Army.  It is estimated that circa 87,000 Tibetans were killed during this rebellion.  It is more difficult to assess how many Tibetans died because of Mao’s 'Great Leap Forward' policies; according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, estimates vary between 200,000 and 1,000,000.  Circa 6,000 monasteries were destroyed during the Chinese 'Cultural Revolution'.

The Chinese authorities practice a policy of transfer of Chinese settlers into Tibet.  According to the Tibetan government in exile, there are at least 7.5 million Chinese settlers in Tibet; their numbers continue to grow due to policies which grant economic advantages to the settlers, while denying them to Tibetans:

The continued population transfer of Chinese to Tibet in recent years has seen the Tibetans become a minority in their own land. Today the six million Tibetans are vastly outnumbered by Chinese immigrants, who are given preferential treatment in education, jobs and private enterprises. Tibetans, on the other hand, are treated as second-class citizens in their own country.

In the words of the Dalai Lama:

The new Chinese settlers have created an alternate society: a Chinese apartheid which, denying Tibetans equal social and economic status in our own land, threatens to finally overwhelm and absorb us.

All this did not prevent UK Prime Minister David Cameron from conducting recently an official visit to China, heading what was officially called "the largest British trade mission ever to go to China".  Mr. Cameron did not take this opportunity to visit Occupied Tibet. UK Prime Minister’s approach to dealing with China is nothing if not enthusiastic:

Some in Europe and elsewhere see the world changing and want to shut China off behind a bamboo curtain of trade barriers. Britain wants to tear those barriers down.

No country in Europe is more open to Chinese investment than the United Kingdom.

I will champion an EU-China trade deal with as much determination as I am championing an EU-US trade deal.

In 1975, Morocco invaded Western Sahara, despite an International Court of Justice verdict rejecting territorial claims by both Morocco and Mauritania, and recognising the Saharawis' right to self-determination.  According to Al-Jazeera:

Hundreds of thousands of Moroccan settlers were encouraged to enter Western Sahara with state-subsidised property and employment, under the army's protection.  [...] The country is now the last United Nations-designated ‘non-self-governing territory’ in Africa, and is home to between 100,000 and 140,000 Moroccan military personnel (despite a total population of just 500,000).  [...] The fighting drove much of the indigenous population of Western Sahara into refugee camps in Tindouf in southern Algeria, but some remain as a minority within the territory, west of the 2,600-kilometre separation wall that Morocco built during the war with the Polisario.

In 1974, the Turkish army occupied 40% of the territory of Cyprus, an independent state which never threatened – let alone attack – Turkey.  The Greek/Christian inhabitants of occupied Northern Cyprus were ethnically cleansed; the number of Greek Cypriot refugees that have never been allowed to return to their homes is estimated at between 140,000 and 200,000. They were replaced by Turkish settlers.  (Incidentally, let me mention that the whole process occurred under the proverbial noses of British soldiers, as the UK has two military bases on the island).

In its judgement of Cyprus v. Turkey, the European Court of Human Rights found Turkey guilty of violating 14 articles of the European Convention of Human Rights.

According to a report published in 2003 by the EU Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography:

It is a well-established fact that the demographic structure of the island has been continuously modified since the de facto partition of the island in 1974 as a result of the deliberate policies of the Turkish Cypriot administration and Turkey. Despite the lack of consensus on the exact figures, all parties concerned admit that Turkish nationals have been systematically arriving in the northern part of the island. According to reliable estimates, their number currently amounts to 115 000 [In 2003, when the entire population of Cyprus was circa 1 million.  The number of Turkish settlers already exceeds 200,000]. […]  The Assembly is convinced that the presence of the settlers constitutes a process of hidden colonisation and an additional and important obstacle to a peaceful negotiated solution of the Cyprus problem.

The Turkish-populated Northern Cyprus is separated by the rest of the country by a 180 kilometres-long barrier, built by the Turkish army.  Those allowed to cross it can do so through one of 7 checkpoints.

In their desire to justify the singling out of the Jewish State, the ‘briefing paper’ authors make the following extremely strange remark:

It should be noted that none of these situations offer direct comparisons to the situation in Israel/Palestine. For example, while the occupation of Northern Cyprus is made possible with the military intervention of Turkey, the people of Northern Cyprus do have a functioning system of self-governance within a clearly defined geographical area.

It is not clear why “none of these situations offer direct comparisons to the situation in Israel/Palestine”, except for the fact that – unlike the case of Israel in the West Bank – all of these situations (involving occupation and settlements) are completely devoid of any reasonable justification.

As for the attempt to give Turkey a free pass by claiming that “the people of Northern Cyprus do have a functioning system of self-governance within a clearly defined geographical area”, this crosses the boundaries of the absurd.  Indeed, after ethnically cleansing every single Greek/Christian Cypriot from Occupied Northern Cyprus and replacing them with Turkish settlers brought from Anatolia, Turkey has declared the occupied 40% of Cyprus ‘independent’ (as the ‘Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus’) – a declaration which has been recognised by one country: Turkey (a ‘recognition’ condemned by several UN resolutions). So, to emulate Turkey’s “functioning system” (which the ‘briefing document’ appears to imply is more acceptable than the Jewish State’s behaviour), Israel would have to forcibly evict the West Bank’s Palestinian Arab population, which would allow her to declare an ‘independent’ state, perhaps under the name of the ‘Jewish Republic of Western West Bank’!

None of this makes sense; none of these pretexts and excuses justifies singling out the Jewish State for the ‘cruel and unusual’ punishments of boycott and sanctions, while all the other cases have never even been debated.  Of course, neither the singling out, nor the specific punishment can be seen as evidence of anti-Jewish prejudice, can they?  Jews and boycotts?  Surely it must be a coincidence!  Surely the hundreds of years of European anti-Jewish rhetoric (much of it propagated by Christian Churches) must have evaporated one sunny day, leaving no trace!

The ‘briefing document’ claims that the BDS movement stems from the “Palestinian civil society” and that it “comprises 170 Palestinian organisations.”

This is mind-bogglingly naive.  The Palestinian Authority is not a democratic government.  No “civil society” may function without its approval.  Indeed, those “170 Palestinian organisations” are nothing more than departments, branches and associations set up and controlled by the PLO.  This allows the Palestinian Authority to officially reject BDS (to officially support it would constitute a violation of agreements signed by the PA), while sustaining it in practice.  In fact, BDS is nothing but a re-branding of the Arab Boycott, which has been in place for many decades.  (Incidentally, let me suggest that if under the oh-so-awful Israeli occupation the “Palestinian civil society”  has managed to set up 170 organisations acting in unison against the Jewish State, then it surely must follow that Palestinians are the best organised people in the world, while Israelis are the most incompetent occupiers!)

Your ‘briefing document’ notes that

the BDS Movement intentionally does not specify whether its stated aims would be best met by one or two states;

and yet the ‘briefing’ seems to deny that the purpose of the ‘movement’ is to dismantle the Jewish State and replace it with an Arab/Muslim one.  I wish I could believe that this is just the result of naivety; but it seems more like ostrich strategy.  The term “intentionally” means that behind the action there is a hidden intention (hidden, as it is certainly not declared); what do the authors of the ‘briefing document’ believe that hidden intention to be??

The BDS ‘movement’ calls for the “Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties”.  According to none other than the PLO, the ‘refugees’ (defined as people of Arab ethnicity, born in Arab countries – sometimes for 4-5 generations and from marriages with local Arab women – whose ancestors in the male line had lived in the Mandate of Palestine for at least two years) number 7 million.  Together with the Arab Israelis, they would constitute a clear Arab majority.  How exactly do the authors of the ‘briefing’ propose that transforming Israel into an Arab-majority state does not equate dismantling the Jewish State and denying Jews their right to self-determination??

There is, of course, plenty of evidence, the intention is not very well hidden; it’s just that the authors of the ‘briefing’ choose not to see it.  Or indeed, hear it ‘straight from the horse’s mouth’.  Here are some quotes from the most prominent BDS leaders:

Omar Barghouti founder of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI): “The current phase has all the emblematic properties of what may be considered the final chapter of the Zionist project. We are witnessing the rapid demise of Zionism, and nothing can be done to save it, for Zionism is intent on killing itself. I, for one, support euthanasia.”  [Hmmm, Jews and euthanasia?  When have we heard that before?]

As’ad Abu-Khalil, leader of academic BDS in the United States: “Justice and freedom for the Palestinians are incompatible with the existence of the State of Israel.”

Ahmed Moor, United States BDS leader: “OK, fine. So BDS does mean the end of the Jewish state….I view the BDS movement as a long-term project with radically transformative potential….In other words, BDS is not another step on the way to the final showdown; BDS is The Final Showdown.”  [Hmmm, ‘Final Showdown’?  it used to be called the ‘Final Solution’...]

In fact, this is not about ‘one state’ versus ‘two states’.  Were they interested in the truth, the authors of the ‘briefing’ might have viewed a recently released Hamas propaganda video.  The video, produced by the organisation whose Constitution calls for the killing of all Jews (the same organisation elected with a majority of votes by the Palestinian population of West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem) explains that Israeli Jews can choose between death and ‘being returned to their countries of origin’ – the video ends with the image of yarmulke-wearing Jews being shepherded onto ships by armed and masked Hamas ‘fighters’.

An additional interesting paragraph in the ‘briefing’ argues that

While the situations of apartheid South Africa and that of Israel and the occupied territories differ markedly, it is clear that boycotts, divestments and sanctions helped to shift the understanding and perception of the white South African population. The global cultural and sporting boycott in South Africa was a particularly effective tool in persuading the white South African public that apartheid had to be brought to an end.

Now that is logic!  Like saying

"While the two diseases are markedly different (one was severe cancer, the other at most a curable indigestion), let’s treat them both with chemotherapy; after all, we think it helped with the cancer…"

Whenever I hear Israel accused of apartheid, I am overcome by deep sadness.  Not because I take this malevolent accusation seriously, but because I am reminded of the passing away of my father...  After undergoing heroic (but alas unsuccessful) surgery performed by the supremely skilled team of Prof. Ahmed Eid, a Jerusalemite Arab and Head of the Surgery Department at Hadassah Medical Center, my dad spent his last days in the hospital’s Intensive Care Unit, two yards away from a West Bank Palestinian patient.  Both Jew and Arab received the dedicated care of the Unit’s doctors and nurses, themselves a mixture of Jews and Arabs.  Some apartheid!

But let me end this long missive…

Some of you may, I think, be just naives duped by unscrupulous ‘activists’ and in search of a ‘cause’.  To you I say: ‘Wake up!  Your good intentions are being exploited to do evil.’  But to those who hide their subliminal prejudice under the mantle of ‘justice’, to those who single out the Jewish State (and only the Jewish State, because… well, because… we’ll think up a reason), to you I say: ‘You shall not prevail’.  Maybe you can hurt us; but you won’t deter us.  Boycott us!  We’ve been boycotted before; in fact, we’ve been in much worse predicaments throughout our history – and survived.  Divest from us!  We have regained a portion of our ancestral homeland – it’s all we need; we re-settled in it, our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren were born in it; we re-built it, investing it with our sweat, blood, tears and hopes.  There is nothing you can do to make us turn it into another Syria.  Sanction us!  If mismanaged, impoverished, ridiculous North Korea withstands your sanctions, so shall we.  I promise you.