Israelis, Palestinians and ‘Love Island’

I have a confession to make: I am one of those few weirdos who never bothered to watch an episode of Love Island.  Which is why my knowledge of this TV show is second-hand at best; and why using this metaphor is – I have to admit – a bit of a cheap trick to get you hooked, dear reader.

I understand the attractions of love – but why on an island?  Perhaps because islands have that strange allure: they are constrained geographies suggestive of enforced isolation from without and imposed intimacy within.

From Gauguin to Attenborough, from Defoe to Swift, we’re all fascinated by islands.  They are world’s quintessential test tubes: riveting experiments in natural and social eccentricity.


With their rich, often over-the-top imagination, ‘pro-Palestinian’ activists could not possibly have missed the metaphoric potential of islands.  They harnessed that potential ‘for the cause’ by portraying the Palestinian Authority-governed areas of the West Bank (defined in the Oslo Accords) as an ‘archipelago’ of small islands in a ‘sea’ of Israeli ‘settlements’.  Such allegoric maps travel far and reach wide; their message is clear: a patchwork of Palestinian ‘islands’ cannot be turned into a viable state.

Not satisfied with the mere allegory, some activists are shouting that message in full-throated, indignant, moralising voice: it is too late for the two state solution.  Often, they blame Netanyahu and ‘his settlements’; but Seumas Milne (a former journalist and currently top courtier to Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn) suggested, even 15 years ago, that the two-state solution was no longer achievable.

Among certain ‘pro-Israel’ activists (and even among some Israelis), such suggestions are a source of dread and despair.  In the absence of a Palestinian state, they say, Israel’s choices are grim: either ‘one-state’ in which Jews will be (or will quickly become) a minority; or else an apartheid state – in which the Palestinians won’t possess full political rights.

A recent Jewish Chronicle article quotes Tal Keinan, an American-Israeli businessman and former Israeli fighter pilot, who argues that there are “only three possible endgames” for Israel:

"The first is that Israel could annex the West Bank and give its Arab residents citizenship – which would mean Israel ‘opening itself to the prospect of demographic suicide’. […]

The second option would be to annex the Palestinian territories without granting the Palestinians citizenship – imposing sovereignty on a large number of people without representation. […]

The final option […] is for Israel to withdraw from most of the territories, with or without an agreement with the Palestinians. If the Palestinians build a state, there will be a state, but if not, the West Bank ‘will likely become another rocket base’."

So there you are: the options are oblivion, apartheid or being bombed to smithereens.  As the current British Prime Minister would put it, doom or gloom!

There’s a debate to be had on whether it is indeed too late for the ‘two state solution’; and whether lack of ‘full political rights’ equals ‘apartheid’.  But I do not wish to go there now.  My question is: are those ‘3 choices’ really the only possible ‘endgames’?  Or are the prophets of doom merely demonstrating their own stale thought processes, their own lack of imagination and creativity?

I am fascinated by islands.  They are such interesting places!  Let’s let our minds travel to a few islands – and see what we can learn.

A ‘Great’ Britain with some little ‘dependencies’

To start with, I won’t have to travel too far: I live on the island of Britain, which some (both on and outside it) still sometimes call ‘England’.  But it isn’t ‘England’ – the island of Britain is part of a sovereign state called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.  Although it is not formally called a federation, this is in fact a federal state made up of four ‘countries’: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – each of them endowed with a great deal of political, economic and cultural autonomy.  Nonetheless, there are nationalist movements in each of these ‘countries’, aspiring to more autonomy and even to outright secession from the federation. 

I have recently travelled to Scotland, where great efforts are being made to revive and expand the use of Scottish Gaelic.  Upon return to London, I discovered that I still had a pocketful of Scottish banknotes.  The ‘Scottish pound sterling’ is worth exactly as much as the ‘British (not English!) pound sterling’; but the banknotes are underwritten by the Royal Bank of Scotland and bear different images from their ‘British’ counterparts.  Those strange-looking banknotes may be legal tender throughout the UK; but they are, let me tell you, viewed with suspicion by London retailers, many of whom seem to see them for the first time.

Another ‘country’ – Wales – occupies a peninsula in the West of Britain.  Wales is very similar in size to Israel, but it is less densely populated.  The vast majority of its inhabitants speak English and only one in five has Welsh as their mother tongue.  Still, Welsh is an official language in Wales, on a par with English; no expenses are spared – everything (from road signs to court summons) is written in both languages.  And children have to study Welsh in school, whether they have any use for it or not.

But ‘Great’ Britain is not as interesting as some of the smaller islands off its coast.  Take for instance the Isle of Man, a territory just one-and-a-half times the size of Gaza Strip.  The Isle isn’t part of the United Kingdom; nor is it a sovereign, independent state.  It is, instead, defined as a ‘British Crown Dependency’.  If you think that this means ‘owned by the Queen’ – think again: Queen Elizabeth the Second could not sell off that piece of real estate to – say – Donald Trump; even if he was interested and however much Her Majesty wanted to oblige!

Most Isle of Man inhabitants have the status of ‘Manxmen’ (and Manxwomen?)  Manxmen are ‘in principle’ British citizens; in principle only, because they cannot, for instance, vote in UK national elections and are hence not represented in the UK Parliament.  Although decisions made in that Parliament can have a huge impact upon their lives.  For instance, Manxmen could not vote in the 2016 Brexit referendum.  But, although the island is not part of the United Kingdom – and also not part of the European Union – its economy is strongly affected by the trade between the two…

Manxmen do elect the 24 members of the House of Keys – the lower chamber of the local ‘Parliament’, which deals with most internal matters.  Issues pertaining to defence, international relations, as well as the final say on matters of ‘good governance’, however, are the competence of the UK government and parliament.

Fiercely dependent:
Manxmen are proud citizens of a British Crown 'Dependency'

Upon application, Manxmen are issued with specially printed  British passports.  But instead of ‘United Kingdom’, those passports declare their bearers citizens of a strange entity called ‘British Islands – the Isle of Man’.  Such passports allow Manxmen to travel to – for instance – EU countries; but, unlike ‘regular’ British citizens, they are not entitled to work there.  Nor are EU nationals entitled to work on the Isle of Man, although they (still) can work in the UK.


The British Crown possesses also other ‘Dependencies’ – including several islands in the English Channel/La Manche: Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney and Sark.  Each island is governed separately, according to its own traditional system, mostly originating in the early Middle Ages.  Their combined population is estimated at around 165,000.  None of the Channel Islands is represented in the UK Parliament and, as a rule, their ‘citizens’ cannot vote in UK national elections and referenda.  Their status is, roughly speaking, similar to that of Manxmen.

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark

If we let our mind fly north-west of Britain, across the North Atlantic ocean, we come across Donald Trump’s latest real-estate project: Greenland.  It is the world’s most sparsely populated ‘country’ – with just one inhabitant on average per 10 square miles of territory; but it is also the world’s largest island: circa 10 times larger than Great Britain and 100 times larger than Tiny Israel.

Politically, Greenland is defined as an ‘autonomous region’ of the Kingdom of Denmark – a ‘region’ 50 times larger than Denmark-proper.  Some call it a ‘constituent country’ – similar in principle to the status of Scotland or Wales within the UK.

Happy Greenlanders

The majority of Greenland’s population (circa 88%) belongs to the indigenous Inuit (a.k.a. Eskimo) ethnicity, akin to the natives of North Canada and Alaska.  They speak their own language.  The balance consists of Danish settlers.

Greenlanders elect 2 representatives to Denmark’s parliament, out of a total of 179.  They also elect the 31 members of Greenland’s own parliament, which in turn elects a local government with a high degree of internal autonomy.  However, the Danish government sitting in Copenhagen is responsible for decisions pertaining to defence and international relations; even for those that directly affect the inhabitants of the ‘constituent country’ of Greenland – such as the permission to locate nuclear weapons on the island.

In 1973, the Kingdom of Denmark (including Greenland) became a member state of the European Community – precursor to the European Union.  But, using its greater autonomy achieved in 1979, Greenland voted in 1982 to leave the economic block – and completed that exit by 1985.  It is no longer part of the European Union; but it is still part of the Kingdom of Denmark, a member state of the European Union…

Economically, Greenland has long been highly dependent on Denmark.  However, for the past decade or so, the Greenlandic government has worked steadily to gradually reduce the economic dependence, with the ultimate goal of attaining political independence.

The Kingdom of Denmark ‘owns’ also another ‘constituent country’: the Faroe Islands.  Their status is roughly similar to that of Greenland: the Faroese elect 2 members of the Danish Parliament, as well as all 33 members of the local parliament.  Just like in Greenland, there is a local government, led by a Prime Minister; there is also a strong movement demanding political independence.  A separate Faroese Constitution drafted in 2011 has been rejected by the Danish government of the time, as ‘incompatible’ and ‘cannot co-exist’ with the Danish Constitution.

The poor ‘rich harbour’

By now, you probably think that ‘special status’ islands are but vestiges of medieval kingdoms, bizarre anachronisms somehow preserved into modernity.  Well, not exactly: some of them are part of relatively young republics.

One such island is Puerto Rico.  ‘Discovered’ by Columbus, it was incorporated into the Spanish Empire and colonised by (mainly) Spanish settlers, who wiped out the indigenous population and culture.  But in 1898, it was conquered by the United States.

The term ‘colony’ is not en-vogue any more; but Puerto Rico is not a federal US state, nor is it part of a state.  It is, therefore, defined these days as a ‘United States unincorporated territory’.  In this context, ‘unincorporated’ means that the US Constitution does not apply in full: only ‘fundamental rights’ are protected, other constitutional rights are not.  As a consequence, although the Puerto Ricans are ‘in principle’ US citizens (since 1917), they cannot vote in US presidential elections and do not have senators or voting representatives in the US Congress.  Instead, the 3.2 million Puerto Ricans elect a local Governor and a bi-cameral parliament.  However, the head of state is the President of the United States.  The jurisdiction and sovereignty belongs to the United States of America and the ultimate power is vested in the US Congress.  Laws adopted by the latter apply to Puerto Rico by default.  Many US federal agencies (notably the FBI) are active in Puerto Rico.

A very lonely star...
Puerto Rico calls itself Estado Libre (Free State). But it is neither an independent state, nor a US state.

As US citizens, Puerto Ricans can serve in the US military – in fact they were historically forced to serve whenever the US adopted compulsory military draft.  However, Puerto Rico also has its own National Guard, distinct from the US National Guard.  The commander-in-chief of the Puerto Rican National Guard is… the President of the United States.

On average, Puerto Ricans are significantly poorer than the citizens of the State of Mississippi – the poorest of US states.

US controls a few other ‘unincorporated territories’ with roughly similar regimes – and they happen to also be islands: Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, U.S. Virgin Islands and American Samoa.

And a ‘fragrant’ harbour

I never noticed any particularly pleasant smell when I visited Hong Kong, but many believe that ‘Fragrant Harbour’ (hēung gong in Cantonese) is the origin of the modern name.
Hong Kong consists of the eponymous island, plus an archipelago of some 200 other islands and two small pieces of territory on the coast of Southern China.  In total, it is not much larger than the Gaza Strip – but it is more densely populated: more than 17,500 inhabitants per square mile, compared to Gaza’s 13,000.

How to live on an archipelago:
one can travel among the main islands of Hong Kong by underground train.

In theory, Hong Kong is part and parcel of the sovereign territory of the People’s Republic of China.  But it certainly does not feel that way.  And it’s not just a matter of a different flag, state symbols and anthem.

The official language of China is Mandarin – written with simplified Chinese characters.  In Hong Kong, it is Cantonese, inscribed with traditional characters.  Which render anything spoken or written in Hong Kong unintelligible to most people in China.

Cars cling to the left side of the road in Hong Kong, still following the British tradition; but they are driven on the right in China.

Five years ago, I travelled to China via Hong Kong.  To start with, I had to apply for a Chinese visa; but when I finally got it, was told that it’s not valid in Hong Kong – where one needs a separate visa; or, in the case of my Israeli passport, no visa for Hong Kong, yes visa for China.

Flights from Hong Kong to Beijing are expensive, as they are considered international flights.  I was advised, instead, to buy a seat on one of the many cars and coaches ferrying passengers from Hong Kong Airport to Shenzhen Airport just across the border with China.  I do not use the term ‘border’ lightly: en-route to Shenzhen, my passport was checked twice, within a 50 yards stretch of road: first by the border police of Hong Kong, then by Chinese border officials.

Once at Shenzhen Airport, I boarded a much cheaper, probably subsidised ‘domestic’ flight to Beijing.

I paid for the transfer from Hong Kong to Shenzhen with Hong Kong dollars, but they’re not legal tender in China; so I had to buy the flight ticket Beijing with Chinese ‘renmimbi’, not accepted in Hong Kong.

All this may sound and feel strange, given that Hong Kong is not an independent state.  Officially, Hong Kong is called a ‘Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China’.  But in this case, ‘special’ is an understatement.

As I am writing this, there are widespread protests in Hong Kong against Chinese ‘interference’ – protests triggered by a change in law allowing certain offenders to be ‘extradited’ from Hong Kong to... another part of China’s ‘sovereign territory’.  Go figure!

So what?

By now, I can hear quite a few of you grumbling: what do all these islands have to do with anything?  Israel has occasionally been called ‘an island’ – as in ‘an island of freedom in a sea of tyranny’; but geographically it certainly is no island.

Well, I’m afraid I used the ‘islands’ allegory only as a crafty rhetorical device.  This isn’t just about islands, there are many other, ‘continental’ examples.

The point is that the ‘sovereign state/no state’ paradigm is based on a false dichotomy.  Reality is much more complex than that; there are almost-states, states-within-states, incorporated ‘unincorporated territories’, ‘constituent countries’, ‘special administrative regions’ and a myriad other ‘unconventional’ political constructs.

It may be that none of the existing models described above precisely fits the requirements of a future Israel-Palestinian Arabs accommodation.  But what these ‘islands’ prove is that there’s a huge breadth of possibilities – rather than a binary option.

Human beings are endowed with imagination, creativity and problem-solving abilities.  They are also ‘tribal’ and seek self-determination: the right to control their destiny, while organising themselves along ‘tribal’ identities that both unite and divide.  And, as a result of all that, human communities have evolved and are evolving in many complex, unusual, original ways.  Because no man is an island; not even on the Isle of Man.

The conflict between Jews and Arabs – or between ‘Israelis’ and ‘Palestinians’ – is a conflict between right and right.  Not a dilemma, or even a multiple-choice question; but an art project, a piece of blank canvas.

We live in a world of endless possibilities.  There are no slim choices, just narrow minds; mankind doesn't inhabit rigid, tidy little boxes – only some men do.

Netanyahu, don’t sell your soul to the Devil!

It is not often that I find myself criticising Israel’s policies.  Not that I agree with everything her governments (left, right or centre) did and do; it’s just that, given the amount of outrageously unfair, obsessively singular and often hate-laden ‘criticism’ directed at the Jewish state, I find Israel more deserving of my support and muzzle my occasional disapproval.  One may admit to failings in one’s own family; but the time to focus on such flaws is not when that family is harassed by hostile strangers with dark intentions.

Yet, even having said all that, the current – off-the-record, but widely-publicised – ‘rapprochement’ between the Jewish state and ‘certain Sunni Arab powers’ makes me uneasy to the point where I feel a need to trigger some debate around it within the Israeli society.

I know that many of my readers will, at this point, raise a quizzical eyebrow: how can a – however unofficial – warm-up in Israel’s relations with the Arab world be anything but a positive development?  Indeed, most people see it as both an achievement and a source of hope.  In his recent address to the ‘United’ National General Assembly, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu implied precisely that:

“… I have to tell you this: for the first time in my lifetime, many other states in the region recognize that Israel is not their enemy.  They recognize that Israel is their ally.  Our common enemies are Iran and ISIS.  Our common goals are security, prosperity and peace.  I believe that in the years ahead we will work together to achieve these goals, work together openly.”

Israel’s eagerness to finally embrace (and be embraced by) her neighbours, even after such a long and bitter conflict, brings credit to its people and its leaders.  Yet both people and leaders need to temper their enthusiasm a notch.

Let us first remember who these neighbours really are; we are not talking, unfortunately, about a reconciliation with the Arab nation; nor, regretfully, about a newly-reached understanding with its democratic representatives.  We are talking about ‘rapprochement’ with a bunch of dictatorial regimes that only represent themselves.  Prominent among them are the world’s last remaining absolute monarchies.  The unofficial leaders of that disreputable pack are the ‘royal’ family of Saudi Arabia – a country rivaling ‘Islamic’ Iran both in medieval practices and in its export of religious intolerance and terrorism.  Why, just the other day, I was reading – avidly – about the beginning of a revolt by Saudi women, who are finally trying to shed their Untermensch status.  The Saudi regime beheads people in the public square, applies amputations and beatings as ‘legal’ punishments, treats foreign workers like slaves – all while plundering and squandering away immense natural resources belonging to their people.  Is this really the kind of ‘ally’ that Israel wants?

Dira Square in the Saudi capital Riyadh. Known locally as "Chop-chop square",
it is the location of public beheadings. 151 people have been executed in 2015
and more than 100 in the first half of 2016. 

Yes, I understand that the ‘Islamic’ regime of Iran threatens both Israel (on several fronts) and the Sunni powers; I get that Western ‘leaders’ are increasingly unable to tell the difference between their arses and their elbows; and I realise that out-of-control, berserk Islamism casts its shadow over the entire region – and beyond.  Yes, I can see an argument that Israel should seek alliances with whoever opposes those immediate dangers – even with the Devil himself.  ‘The enemy of my enemy,’ and all that.  Netanyahu is hardly the first leader to choose ‘the lesser evil’.  Didn’t Roosevelt and Churchill ally themselves with Stalin in order to defeat Hitler?

And, of course, Israel would not be the first democratic country to pursue an ‘alliance’ with detestable dictatorial regimes in the Arab world.  After all, when Saudi and Emirati forces bomb targets in Yemen, they do so using weaponry systems purchased largely from the United States and UK.

But all this proves is that much of the West has lost its way and is wallowing in a foul- smelling concoction of moral relativism and hypocritical moralism.  Why should Israel follow them, rather than – as a true ‘light unto the nations’ – set a better example?

Not a woman in sight -- and no protest, either!

I’m not naïve, believe me.  I understand that often (too often!) it is common interests, not common values, that motivate alliances.  I am not necessarily averse to a bit of ‘real politik’; it’s short sighted politicking I have a problem with.

Even if Netanyahu (like so many democratic leaders) is willing to conquer his disgust, silence his conscience, cover his nose and get in bed with the Saudis – it is unclear what exactly would Israel stand to gain from this very distasteful mating.  Assume, for instance, that things come to a head and Israel needs to attack Iran’s nuclear sites – to prevent the mullahs, in extremis, from getting The Bomb.  How will the Saudi and Emirati ‘allies’ help?  Will Israel mount a ‘joint operation’ with the Saudis?  Very unlikely.  Will the Saudi Royal Airforce (equipped with British warplanes) help Israel in her next war with Hizb’ullah or Hamas?  Yeah, right!

While any putative benefits are doubtful, potential downsides loom large.  Let’s say it bluntly: those hideous dictatorial regimes aren’t going to be around forever.  They may hold on for a while, sure; but they are on the wrong side of history.  Using Middle Eastern tactics, Western weaponry and oil revenues, they might be able to alternately bully and bribe their population for a while – even for a decade or two.  But no lumpenproletariat, however bullied, bribed or indoctrinated, has remained acquiescent forever.  The Middle East is filled to the brim with frustration, simmering in the hearts of two hundred million young Arabs: unemployed, hopeless, maltreated and humiliated.  It is only a matter of time until their anger bursts forth, sweeping away the tyrants – whether ‘secular’ despots or Islamist chieftains – who have robbed them of their future and their dignity.  And when that happens, will Israel want to be perceived as an ‘ally’ of those despicable tyrants?  Or will she want to be found in opposition to them – and hence in a better position to immediately join forces with her natural allies, the forces of modernity?

I understand the temptation.  But those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.  Haven’t we been here before?

In the mid-1950s, besieged by relentless Arab enmity, Israel (under the prime-ministership of David Ben-Gurion) allied itself with Britain and France against Egypt.  The Jewish state wanted freedom of navigation and trade through the Suez Canal – but for the two Western powers this was a last gasp of imperial ambitions.  Ultimately, Israel gained nothing – except a tarnished reputation – from that misjudgement.  In hindsight, it was a mistake for the Jewish state (itself freshly liberated from the British ‘Mandate’) to cooperate with the forces of colonialism – even against a common enemy.

In the mid-1970s, the same keen desire to break the circle of Arab enmity and boycott compelled Israeli leaders to maintain close diplomatic and trade relations with Apartheid South Africa.  Both the late Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin have been involved in those relations – one can imagine the two Jewish leaders had to pinch their nostrils tight to shut off the stench of racism while pursuing that kind of ‘real politik’.  True, at the time most of the democratic world was happily doing business with that racist regime: Israel’s trade with South Africa ($200 million in 1986) was dwarfed by that of USA ($3.4 billion), Japan ($2.9 billion), Germany ($2.8 billion) and UK ($2.6 billion); the Arab world was selling it oil worth circa $2 billion annually.  Be it as it may, ultimately Israel gained very little from its relationship with South Africa at the time; but the perception of ‘friendliness’ between the two is still being used to try and delegitimise the Jewish state.

In late 1970s and early 1980s (mainly under Prime Minister Menachem Begin), Israel forged an alliance with Lebanese Christians (in particular Maronite leaders).  The motivation was similar: both parties perceived a common enemy in the Palestinian terrorist organisations acting on and from Lebanese territory.  From a military point of view, the Maronite militias provided Israel with scant assistance during the war that eventually broke out; but they were to perpetrate the famous Sabra and Shatila massacres, which were again exploited to tarnish Israel’s reputation.

In summary, every time Israel has chosen unsavoury ‘allies’ in the name of some misconceived ‘real-politik’, she has ended up gaining little and instead paying a heavy price in damage to her public image.  Promoters of ‘rapprochement’ with Arab despotic regimes – beware!

But there are also positive lessons that can be learned from the past.  In late 1970s, under Prime Minister Begin, Israel offered asylum to 360 Vietnamese ‘boat people’ – refugees fleeing for their lives from the Communist takeover of their country.  Israel granted them citizenship, full rights and government-subsidized apartments.

In 1993, at the height of the Yugoslavian civil war, Israel (then under Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin) offered asylum – and permanent residency – to circa 100 Bosnian Muslims.  They were initially hosted by the kibbutz movement, but Arab Israelis soon became involved in helping them.

Syrian children

Since the beginning of the Syrian civil war, Israel has been helping thousands of Syrian Arabs – with no regard to faith or political opinion – by offering them free medical treatment.  But here is something else that she can do: offer asylum to – say – 500 Syrian children.  And, just so there is no doubt as to Israel’s purely humanitarian intentions, why not entrust them to the care of Israeli families of the same faith as the children – be they Muslim, Christian or Druze?  That – not cuddling up to hateful dictators – is the type of ‘rapprochement’ I would whole-heartedly support.

Those racist Jews – take two

I have written before about some acti… err… journalists’ strong fascination with ‘Jewish racism’.  An article I’ve published about a year ago explained:

“… for some people, ‘exposing racist Jews’ is liberating; they really need the Jews to be guilty of racism, because it frees their conscience from the pangs – well-hidden but nagging nonetheless – caused by their own anti-Jewish prejudice.  If Jews are ‘racist’, then there is, you see, a good reason to dislike them.”

But why are you talking about Jews, you’ll ask; most of the racism-hunters (though not all!) speak about Israeli racism – not that of Jews in general.  Well, do they really mean ‘Israeli’?  Those ‘exposers of Israeli racism’ show no interest whatsoever in potential racist inclinations among the nearly 25% of Israel’s population that is not Jewish.  ‘Israeli' is just the fig leaf: it’s 'Jewish racism' they’re really after.

Recently, they have discovered some more ‘material’ to ‘substantiate’ that perennial accusation.

First, there was a Pew Research poll (one of the hundreds performed – Israel is after all the most surveyed country in the whole wide world).  Among many other things, it asked respondents to agree or disagree with the statement:

“Arabs should be expelled or transferred from Israel”.

Let us mention, in passing, that the subject of Pew’s poll was religion in Israel (or, in their own words: ‘Israel’s religiously divided society’).  The opinions of both Jewish and Arab Israelis were surveyed.  But Arab respondents were not asked whether they think that ‘some Jews should be expelled from Israel’.  That kind of 'trick question' was reserved for Jews.  Why?  Was it because, in Pew researchers' eyes, Arabs are not suspect of racism? or because, when harboured by Arabs, rather than Jews, such views are justified? or is it that Pew’s researchers are just not interested in anything but Jewish racism?

According to Pew, no less than 48% of the Jews interviewed ‘somewhat agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ that “Arabs should be expelled or transferred from Israel”.  Needless to say, this was like heavenly manna for the habitual ‘Jewish racism-hunters’, who hurried to put their own ‘spin’ on the news.  UK’s Independent, for instance, proclaimed in the title of an article written by Lizzie Dearden:

“Nearly half of Israeli Jews believe in ethnic cleansing, survey finds”

Except that… nobody asked Israelis whether they “believe in ethnic cleansing”.  In fact, it turns out that the Hebrew statement read to respondents literally translates as:

“Some Arabs have to be expelled or moved from Israel”.

Yes, “some Arabs” (‘Aravim’ in Hebrew).  As opposed to “the Arabs” ('HaAravim’).  So what particular Arabs were to be expelled?  The statement did not say.  Nor were there any follow-up questions, aimed at providing better understanding of the answers.  It was all rather vague – and not by chance.  In fact, the questionnaire was deliberately designed to be vague.  As Pew’s Director of Religion Research told Haaretz newspaper,

“… the question regarding support for transfer was deliberately phrased in a general, direct and simple manner.”

I can understand ‘direct and simple’, but why ‘general’?  If the purpose really is understanding the public’s opinions – rather than stitching up accusations of racism – then why not ask respondents whether they wanted to expel ‘all Arabs’ (i.e. ethnic cleansing), ‘the majority of Arabs’ or some particular Arabs – for instance those guilty of terrorism and incitement?

Needless to say, in the context of the terrorist attacks plaguing Israel, most respondents naturally interpreted the statement as referring to terrorists and those inciting terrorism.  After all, this is what previous Israeli governments have done.  In December 1992, for instance, Israel’s government (led at the time by Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin) expelled 416 members of Hamas and Islamic Jihad.  They were transferred by buses and kicked over the border to Lebanon.  It was the largest operation of this kind – but not the only one.

One can agree or disagree with such tactics (I don’t; nor did the other half of Israeli Jews polled by Pew).  But ‘ethnic cleansing’ it ain’t!

Because if it is, then one would have to also indict French President Francois Hollande.  Who, following the terrorist attacks in Paris, has presented the country’s parliament with a bill proposing to strip terrorists of French nationality.

Interestingly, when it comes to such measures proposed in the parliament in France (rather than vague opinions in Israel), The Independent titles are worded in a much more measured tone:

“French plan to strip passports from convicted terrorists passes first hurdle”

Oh, ‘Independent’… The proposal was not to “strip passports”, but to revoke French citizenship from people who were born French and had committed acts of terrorism.  And the purpose of removing citizenship from someone like that is… you got it: expelling them from the country.

Since non-Jewish racism is so uninteresting, Pew did not conduct a survey of French Christians to find out whether they wanted to expel Muslims; but, according to another Independent article,

“… the measure is popular with voters.”

And no, it’s not just the French.  According to a Huffington Post article, in 2014 then Home Secretary Theresa May proposed stripping terror suspects of their British citizenship.  The paper reported Immigration Minister Mark Harper as stating:

"Those who threaten this country's security put us all at risk. This Government will take all necessary steps to protect the public.  Citizenship is a privilege, not a right.  These proposals will strengthen the Home Secretary's powers to ensure that very dangerous individuals can be excluded if it is in the public interest to do so."

The Independent, needless to say, did not accuse Mr. Harper of ‘ethnic cleansing’!

In their keen desire to publicise Pew’s poll as evidence of Israeli belief in ethnic cleansing, the acti… err… journalists neglected to have a look at the reality on the ground.  Which rather contrasts with the alleged results of the survey: the fact is that, for decades now, Arab Israelis are neither ‘expelled’, nor ‘moved’ from the country; the fact is that none of them has been stripped of Israeli citizenship – not even the few who have committed acts of terrorism.  The fact is that no Israeli political party currently proposes to expel Arabs.  One such party had indeed existed – more than 30 years ago.  In 1984, the ‘Kach Movement’, led by the extremist Meir Kahane, managed to barely scrape past the minimum electoral threshold (1%), garnering 1.2% of votes.  Which turned Kahane into a one-man parliamentary faction – before being disqualified for incitement to racism.  Since then, the ‘transfer’ idea has been relegated to the far, dark fringes of Israeli political discourse.  Which, logically speaking, seems rather odd – if indeed 48% of Israelis harbour such opinions.  Logically… but then – logic is not a tool often employed by those keen to find evidence of “Israeli racism”.

Lina Makhoul, an Arab Israeli singer.  In 2013, Lina won the Israeli 
version of TV programme The Voice, with a majority of votes from the
'racist Israelis'.  Who, apparently, did not read the Pew report on
what their opinions really are.

Fast forward to the next piece of ‘evidence’.  A reporter from Israel’s ‘Network 2’ radio station (operated by Israel’s Broadcasting Authority, the Israeli equivalent of BBC) telephoned five Israeli hospitals.  Posing as a pregnant woman, she asked whether after birth the hospital could host her in a room ‘not with a non-Jewish woman’.  Three of the hospitals agreed to her request ‘if possible, depending on the situation in the ward’.  Nurses confirmed that they had similar requests ‘from the other side’, i.e. from Arab women.  On the other hand, two hospitals refused to entertain the request.  Neither the caller nor the responding nurses made any racist comments; neither the request, nor the response contained any explicit racial prejudice.  When contacted by the journalists, Israel’s Ministry of Health condemned the practice and pointed to its guidelines, which unambiguously prohibit discrimination.

Yet accusations of 'societal racism' cropped up, immediate and hyperbolic.  The US magazine Newsweek, for instance, informed its readers of that new Israeli transgression, under the title:

“Apartheid in the Maternity Room”

Apartheid??  Nobody even suggested that women are forcibly segregated into separate ‘racial’ wards.  Jewish and Arab Israeli women give birth in the same delivery room.  Nobody even suggested that they are treated in any way differently, either during or after birth.  Any ‘segregation’ occurring after birth is driven by the women’s own desire to share a room (within the same ward) with someone they feel more culturally akin to.

There is little doubt that Israel’s Jews and Arabs are polarised by the bitter ethno-religious conflict raging for a century now; there is little doubt that there is a lot of mistrust, even hostility between them.  Nobody says that that’s a good thing; but conflict-generated hostility isn't ‘racism’ and it sure as hell isn't ‘apartheid'.

That’s not to say that racism does not exist in Israel.  It does; and racists are only too keen to jump on the band-wagon – just give them an opportunity.  In Newsweek’s words:

“Bezalel Smotrich [a Member of Parliament from the hawkish Bayit Yehudi Party] was unable to contain himself. He tweeted that after giving birth, his wife wanted quiet and did not want to be in a noisy room where Arab parents might hold a hafla (a rowdy party of celebration).”

Attacked on the social media for that statement, both Smotrich and his wife doubled down, revealing disgusting racist views in the process.  The pundits rubbed their hands in delight: finally, they had unequivocal proof that the Israeli society was plagued by racism up to its proverbial eye-brows – or up to and including the country’s parliament.  Except that… Smotrich’s statements were immediately criticised and condemned by the other 119 parliament members – including in no uncertain terms by his own party leader.  They were also condemned during a special session of the Parliament’s Committee on the Status of Women and Gender Equality.  A Committee which, in ‘Apartheid Israel’ is chaired by Aida Touma-Suleiman, an Arab-Israeli Member of Parliament.  An irony that went unnoticed and certainly unreported by the crowd of ‘racism-hunters’.

Once again, nobody bothered to check the facts.  Not that it’s difficult to: anyone visiting an Israeli hospital will find Jews and Arabs being treated in the same wards and in the same rooms, by nurses and doctors who are themselves both Jews and Arabs.

And it’s not just anecdotal evidence; it’s borne out by statistics – if, that is, one is interested in them.  According to a recent article published in Israel Journal of Health Policy Research, 0.51% of Israel’s Jews and 0.34% of Arab Israelis work as doctors.  But, before one rushes to interpret the difference as new ‘evidence’ of anti-Arab racism and discrimination, here’s another few facts: 0.54% of male Israeli Jews and 0.52% of male Arab Israelis (an insignificant difference) work as doctors.  The gap comes from the female side of the two populations: 0.49% of Jewish women are doctors, as compared to just 0.14% of Arab women.  To understand why so few Arab women work as physicians, the researchers interviewed Arab doctors and nurses working in Israeli hospitals.  Here is what a female nurse (Zainab) said:

“I think because of the expectations that women should have a family life. I wanted to study medicine, but everyone asked me, ‘are you prepared to give up your life; not have a family life?’  At some point it affected me, and I came round to their way of thinking.  And now I look at women physicians, Arab and Jewish, who work at the hospital, and it’s hard, it’s very hard.”

Another nurse (Zariffa), opined:

“Medicine is hard work. Some doctors I see here (in the hospital) every day, from morning to night. I wonder if they spend some time with their family, if they sleep at all, if they rest.  So if this is too much for a man, what about women? In our society (in Arab society), the woman needs to take care of the children, to be at home, with the family.”

A male nurse (Jamil) explained:

“According to tradition if a woman is a virgin and not married, her parents are afraid (that she will besmirch the family’s honor). So they try to marry her when she is still young, and this prevents her from choosing to study medicine. […] nursing jobs are seen as women’s work and the work of doctors is seen as manly […] it seems to me this is because of tradition.”

In other words, the issue is not ‘Israeli’ or Jewish racism – but rather cultural traditions within the Arab society.  This, needless to say, isn’t newsworthy for pundits at the likes of Newsweek and The Independent.  After all, they are not really interested in improving the lot of Arabs, but in blaming Jews.

'Apartheid' on a Tel Aviv beach

Racism – real, rather than imagined – exists, unfortunately, in Israel.  Just as it exists, regretfully, in USA, UK, Sweden – and in every other country.  While we are at it, Israel also has many other faults: for instance gender discrimination – and not just among Arab Israelis.  In no respect, however, is Israel worse than many other countries – in fact it scores better than most.

We live in a faulty world.  Those faults – in Israel and elsewhere – need to be condemned and combated.  But mending the world should start where the world is most atrociously broken.  By obsessively, disproportionately chasing racism – real or  imaginary – in the Jewish State, anti-Israel activists (especially when they come dishonestly disguised as ‘journalists’) manage to do two things: the first is to distract and detract from the struggle against really outrageous human rights violations occurring on a daily basis elsewhere; the second is to reveal their own disgusting, stomach-turning prejudice.

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.