How not to save Gaza's innocents

It bears repeating: Hamas murdered 1,000 Israeli civilians in cold blood, often in gruesome ways; scores were raped; hundreds kidnapped; 200,000 displaced, millions forced to spend their days and nights in bomb shelters.  A whole month has now passed since the inhuman 7 October massacre.  The world spent most of that time talking not about the slaughter of Israelis, but about Palestinians killed by Israelis.  So much does the world care about innocent victims (meaning of course Palestinians killed by Israelis), that lots of people are already clamouring for a ceasefire.

Of course, there was a ceasefire before 7 October – one that Hamas violated without even the pretence of a provocation.  Those calling for a ceasefire claim that they want to stop the killing of innocents in Gaza.  That this would also allow Hamas to murder more innocents in Israel (as they promised to do) – is no concern of theirs.  The Jews can take care of their own – and they’re not that innocent, anyway.  The good people of the world must take care of Palestinians – who are always innocent!

We do not know how many genuine innocents have actually lost their lives in Gaza.  The only available casualty numbers are those released by Gaza's health ministry, which is staffed and controlled by Hamas.  Only fanatics, idiots and those fatally naïve believe such ‘reports’; and most of the mainstream media, of course.  Jews shedding innocent blood (callously, if not deliberately) is something plenty of people have no problem believing, however fishy the source of information.

But, while Hamas has already been caught inflating casualty numbers, we must assume that some of those killed in Gaza are indeed innocent civilians – because innocent civilians are always killed in wars; however inadvertently and however much civilised armies strive to avoid it.

And it’s not just those killed or maimed.  War takes a terrible toll also on those innocents that survive it: they undergo all kinds of hardship – from fear to physical deprivation, from malnutrition to lack of medical care.

The question is, then: how can that toll on innocents be minimised?  Most pundits – and even lots of Western politicians – appear to suffer from a curious case of 'blinkeritis': whenever they look for solutions, they only see Israel.  Israel is the only key to peacemaking; and certainly to the deliverance of innocents in Gaza.  Get Israel to stop fighting Hamas (which is what they really mean by ‘ceasefire’); or get them to fight in a way that does not harm civilians (how to do that – nobody explains); or at least get them to stop for long ‘humanitarian pauses’ (no matter that they’d allow Hamas terrorists to rest, re-arm and re-supply – i.e. would end up costing more Israeli lives).

Even US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken has been afflicted with blinkeritis: he travelled all the way to Israel to teach the country’s leaders that

"Israel has the right – indeed, the obligation – to defend itself and to ensure that this never happens again."

This was no doubt an eye-opener for the members of the Israeli government and of the Israeli army.  Mr. Blinken did not mention Israel’s right – indeed, the obligation – to bury her dead.  That, apparently, is obvious.

Lip service was, however, soon followed by lecture: Blinken explained to the Israelis that

"how Israel does this [i.e., defend itself] matters."

He urged them to

"take every possible precaution to avoid harming civilians."

No doubt, Israeli generals have a lot to learn from Mr. Blinken.  After all, the US (and UK) quite frequently took “every possible precaution”.  For instance in 2016-2017, when bombing ISIS out of Mosul: it was only thanks to taking “every possible precaution” that a mere 10,000 civilians were killed. (WARNING: Zionist irony!)

Though, in fairness, Mr. Blinken was not Secretary of State at the time.  No, he was only Deputy Secretary of State.  And his boss Joe Biden was not President of the United States – just Vice President.

Western politicians seem to find it much easier to preach to Israel, than to remonstrate with Arab dictators.

The Israelis must have listened with a lot of interest to Mr. Blinken’s valuable lesson, because they do try to do things.  For instance, they told Gaza’s civilians to move to the Strip’s southern half – while the IDF deals with Hamas in the north.  That is a brilliant idea (no doubt Mr. Biden thought of it himself), but it suffers from some small flaws.  Such as the fact that Hamas is present in the south, as well as the north and that it likes to launch rockets from there, as well; which inevitably means that – occasionally at least, Israel strikes the south, too.  Israelis, as we know, have this inexplicable aversion to rockets pummelling their towns and cities.

But, once they travel from north to south, why would Gazans stop at the border and not cross over into Egypt?  After all, that’s what civilians tend to do in times of war: they flee from the bombs, the rockets and the hardship – and do not stop until they’re out of the harm’s way.  Which wouldn’t normally mean south Gaza, for the reasons mentioned above.

During Syria’s civil war, some 7 million people fled the country – mostly to neighbouring Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon.  From there, many found their way to other, more hospitable shores.  As did many Ukrainians who fled the ravages of war in their country and were offered asylum in the West.

In fact, one would be hard put to remember a war in which civilians didn’t cross borders in search of refuge.  Except, that is, the wars between Israel and Gaza.

Since 7 October, Egypt has closed its border with Gaza (including the Rafah crossing) to civilians seeking refuge.

A superficial observer would say that Gazans cannot cross into Egypt because Egypt won’t allow them: since 7 October, that country’s border with Gaza has been closed tighter than a gnat’s chuff.  But a more profound analyst should wonder why is it that the West – the same West that preaches to Israel and gushes torrents of ‘humanitarian concern’ for Gaza’s civilians – does not pressure Egypt into opening its border to provide a safe haven for those innocents?

It's not that the West lacks leverage: the US alone props up Abdel Fattah El-Sisi’s Egypt to the tune of $1.3 billion a year in military aid – despite that dictatorial regime’s awful record of human rights violations.  There are also hundreds of millions of dollars in economic aid, both from the US and from the European Union.  But Western ‘leaders’ are just too cowardly to mess up with Arab dictators; much easier to preach to Jews on how to behave humanely.

It is hard to assess the exact value of the Western aid to Egypt, because that aid takes many forms. But we do know that it's massive.

So there is no pressure on Sisi to open that border.  The Egyptian authorities started – as Arab governments always do – by blaming Israel.  They claimed that Israel bombed ‘in the vicinity of’ the Gazan side of the crossing, making it ‘unsafe’.  Yet it proved safe enough to send humanitarian aid (hundreds of lorries of it) through it into Gaza; just not safe enough to allow people out.  And then it magically became suitable also for the latter purpose – as long as those getting out of Gaza had foreign passports!

When these excuses failed to persuade even the BBC, Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry stated that allowing Gaza’s innocents into the Sinai Peninsula would be unfair to Egypt:

"It's not a matter of transferring the responsibility to Egypt – it is a matter of maintaining the safety and well-being of Gazans on their own territory."

But how exactly does one do that, while also waging a war against a terror organisation intent on denying Israelis safety and well-being on their own territory?  Mr. Shoukry did not feel he had to provide an answer to that question – and the BBC felt no urge to ask it.

Nor did the BBC ask what “responsibility” was Egypt so concerned about; after all, Palestinians – alone among all the world’s many refugees – are endowed with their own dedicated UN aid agency and the West (much more than the Arab ‘brethren’) underwrites that aid, in Gaza and elsewhere, to the tune of $1.75 billion a year.  Given that the cost of living in Egypt is quite low (the minimum monthly wage is below $100), a fraction of that huge amount would feed many a Gazan refugee.

Mr. Shukri’s boss, Prime Minister Mostafa Madbouly, took an even more adamant stance.  Asked why Egypt won’t open the Rafah crossing and allow civilians from Gaza to take refuge, he forcefully stated:

"We are prepared to sacrifice millions of lives to ensure that no one encroaches upon our territory."

Again, no journalist asked exactly how admitting refugees suddenly becomes an encroachment upon Egyptian territory; and why a country that vociferously clamours to end the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza is willing so flippantly to sacrifice “millions of [presumably Palestinian] lives”.

And then we heard from President Sisi, the man (and it’s always a man, never a woman!) who actually makes decisions in Egypt.  He said, in no uncertain terms, that there's a limit to how much Egypt cares about Palestinian lives (that, as we all know, is Israel’s job!):

"Of course we sympathize. But be careful, while we sympathize, we must always be using our minds in order to reach peace and safety in a manner that doesn’t cost us much…"

 Arab dictators are rarely asked difficult questions – a journalist brave enough to do that may never get another interview and might never be allowed to enter the country.  So, as Sisi slammed Egypt’s gates shut in the face of putative Gazan refugees, only naives expected the Western media – concerned as it is about Gazans’ safety and welfare – to harshly criticise that callous act.

On the contrary: Western media outlets fell over each other to ‘explain’ Egypt’s position.  The BBC did so on 17 October; so did its Canadian counterpart, the CBC.  Just a couple of days later, CNN toed the line as well, with an article entitled “The last remaining exit for Gazans is through Egypt. Here’s why Cairo is reluctant to open it”.  Too busy bashing Israel for all her cardinal sins, The Guardian got onto the topic only on 2 November.  Time Magazine, the VOA, NPR… they all carried articles on this subject.  And they all sounded strangely sympathetic to Sisi’s decision.  ‘Strangely,’ because the same journalists declare – at least five times a day, and in sound bytes that get shriller and shriller – their deep distress at the loss of innocent lives in Gaza.

Incidentally, the same media outlets also tend to argue that Western countries are legally bound to take in any and all refugees that reach their territory – and keep them for however long it takes; usually forever.

So, if Germany (population 83 million) must take 2.2 million refugees from Syria, Afghanistan and Ukraine, with the German taxpayer footing that bill, why isn’t that same  ‘international law’ applicable to Egypt (population 110 million) vis-à-vis Gazan refugees, their Arab brethren?  Especially since the ‘international community’ (read: mostly the West) would in any case pay for it?

Almost a quarter of Canada’s population of 38 million is made up of immigrants born outside the country.  Still, the CBC tends to harshly criticise the country’s government, whenever it seems reluctant (or just too slow) to admit more.

Yet when it comes to Egypt, the outlet is much more ‘forgiving’:

"Egypt already hosts 300,000 UN-registered refugees from dozens of countries and has seen an additional 317,000 arrive since conflict broke out in its southern neighbour Sudan earlier this year, so the government may have concerns about hosting a large number of newly displaced people from Gaza for an ‘indefinite’ period of time…"

Except that Egypt does very little “hosting” for those hundreds of thousands of refugees.  They are cared for by international organisations and charities, which spend a lot of (mostly) Western money in Egypt.  A lot, though – granted – much less per capita than they spend on Palestinian refugees…

Still, that concern is shared by academics (but only when it comes to Egypt and Palestinian refugees).  Prof. Constanza Musu from Ottawa University, for instance, is quoted by CBC worrying about the immense difficulty of taking in refugees:

"You need to set up camps and those camps have to be provided with water, with sanitation and with health care, food and, eventually, children have to go to school."

That may be true.  But it is also true that there’s a lot of money already budgeted for providing Gazans “with water, with sanitation and with health care, food and [with education]”.  And I have a nagging suspicion that even camps that are not quite up to Prof. Musu’s standards would be a lot better than staying in Gaza right now.

The Herculean task that Prof. Musu seems to allude to has been performed a few times before.  Turkey, for instance, took in many millions of Syrian refugees – almost 4 million are still in the country.  Even the impoverished (practically bankrupt) Lebanon hosts no less than 1.5 million refugees from neighbouring Syria; and Lebanon’s entire population numbers just 5.6 million!

Prof. Musu also sympathises with Egypt’s security concerns.  The CBC reminds us about Hamas:

“The Egyptian government considers it a a [sic!] terrorist organization and it's also an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is outlawed in Egypt.

Many Palestinians don't have proper travel documents, Musu says, making it difficult to verify identities and prevent Hamas fighters from hiding among fleeing civilians and then operating out of the Sinai Peninsula, where Egypt has fought other Islamist groups, including ISIS, for years."

But it’s OK to call for a ceasefire, which would leave the same terrorist organisation in power in Gaza??

As for Gazan refugees not having “proper travel documents”: is that really unusual, Prof. Musu?  Speaking about Syrian asylum seekers, the Norwegian Refugee Council says:

"70% of refugees lack basic identity documents."

Syria, as we remember, is one of the countries where ISIS operated.  Yet I doubt very much that Prof. Musu would be so accommodating, if Norway (or, for that matter, Canada) were to refuse Syrians asylum because ISIS "fighters" might be "hiding among fleeing civilians"!

In fact, while Gazans may not always have “proper travel documents”, those that present a high security risk are well-known to Israel’s intelligence services.  And those services would no doubt cooperate: even more than Egypt, Israel wouldn’t want Hamas operatives to escape her just retribution by becoming ‘refugees’.

But the reasons Egypt won’t open its gates to refugees from Gaza are not financial, nor are they security concerns; they are political.  The journalists know that – some of them even reported it, though once again with generous doses of ‘understanding’.

Sisi said it himself, in no uncertain terms, as reported by the CNN:

"There is a danger . . . a danger so big because it means an end to this [Palestinian] cause… It is important that [Gaza’s] people remain standing and on their land."

Jordan’s King Abdullah spoke in a similar vein.

In other words, Arab leaders – who perpetuated the refugee problem when they by-and-large refused to naturalise Palestinian Arabs in the host countries (even those born in those countries for 3-4 generations) – are now apprehensive that that problem may be solved not at Israel’s expense.  Hence, they brazenly declare their determination to fight for 'the Palestinian cause' to the last Palestinian (see “millions of lives”).  Gaza’s children are not just used as human shields by Hamas; they are also mere pawns in a ruthless political game.

Unlike Syrians, Afghanis, Libyans or Ukrainians, Palestinians must not be allowed to escape; they must not be offered asylum – lest that should harm 'the Palestinian cause'. Read: the godsend distraction that – for a century now – has channeled Arab frustrations away from the thrones of absolute kings and from the lavish armchairs of no-less-absolute presidents.  A 'cause' that increasingly allows people in the West to wear their antisemitism as a badge of honour, rather than a stigma of shame.

The only place where the Arab leaders (and many 'pro-Palestinian' Westerners) would have the Arab Palestinians displaced is… Jewish Israel.  Of course, they know it ain’t going to happen: if nothing else (and there’s a lot else!) there’s little chance that Gazans would accept bread and water in the Jewish state; and – at this time more than ever before – any contact between these two populations would end up in friction and bloodshed, however ‘humanitarian’ the intentions.

Egypt remains the only country that can immediately save Gaza’s innocents, simply by letting them enter the sparsely populated Sinai.  But Egypt refuses to.

This should come as no surprise, of course.  If dictators truly cared about people’s lives and welfare, they wouldn’t oppress their own populations.

Israeli leaders, of course, value the peace with Egypt – cold as it may be.  They cannot openly criticise Sisi.

But that Western politicians make no effort to pressure – or even bribe – the Egyptian dictator; that Western journalists, academics and charity workers justify his inhumane position, rather than exposing it; that they demand the impossible from Israel, while not even frowning at Egypt; all this shows is the abysmal, disgusting hypocrisy that these people wallow in.  One day, history will judge them and condemn them as frauds lacking in empathy, in ethics and in character.  For now, Israel should firmly close her ears to such ‘critics’ bereft of moral compass.  Two-faced sinners make poor virtue preachers.

The real 'oven-ready' deal

 As I write this, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson is on his way to Brussels, there to meet EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.  The two ‘principals’ are supposed to do their darndest to undo the plonter in the bilateral negotiations and find a ‘creative’ compromise towards a deal.  This is the latest move in an intricate dance that – everybody knows – will only end when it absolutely needs to.

In the run-up to this ‘crucial meeting’, the two sides did what they do best: jockeyed for positions.  As for us, the public, we are being told (by countless journalists and politicians) that the negotiations now boiled down to resolving three issues:

• - EU fishing quotas in UK waters;
• -; ‘Level playing field’ rules;
• - Who/what will police the deal.

It is the same story: whichever paper you read, whichever channel you tune into, you’ll read or hear journalists and politicians parroting what they heard from others – adding to it only their own ideological slant and their sense of self-importance.  Most of these journalists and politicians don’t know what they’re talking about; the others are just lying to us.  The truth is that these ‘issues’ are either unimportant or very easy to solve.  They are (or can be, given the political will) non-issues.  Here is why.

The fishy issue

As long as UK was a member state (and in the transition period following Brexit) EU fishing rules – the so-called ‘Common Fisheries Policy – applied.  This sets quotas for each member state and per each species of fish.  Currently, it allows both British and EU boats to fish in British waters – up to the set quota.  In practice, this means that EU boats catch much more fish in UK waters than British boats catch in EU waters.  Come 1 January 2021 and in the absence of a deal, the UK could in principle keep all the fish for itself and not allow anyone else access to what is, legally speaking, a national resource.  This would negatively affect EU fishermen, especially those from neighbouring countries: France, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark…

Nah, those fish cannot be saved.  They'll go into the pan...

That much is true.  But, when the Economist calls the issue “political dynamite,” that’s bollocks; when French President Emmanuel Macron threatens to scupper the deal over the percentage of fish available to the EU – that is posturing.

For both EU and UK, fishing is a minor economic issue.  We are talking truly ridiculous numbers: the total value of fish caught by EU boats in UK waters is somewhere around $0.6 billion.  For comparison, EU’s total economic output is estimated at $18,000 billion.  In other words, we are talking about 0.0033% of EU’s ‘GDP’!  In terms of employment, fishing provides a means of livelihood for just under 100,000 EU ‘nationals’.  This is almost 0.05% of the entire EU workforce, but only a small fraction of those fishermen ply their trade in British waters.  Measured in FTE (Full-Time Equivalents), France boasts an ‘army’ of 6,623 fishermen – some of whom may even vote for Macron, provided he displays enough Gallic belligerency on their behalf...

‘Level playing field’

If fishing is “political dynamite,” this one’s the equivalent of a nuclear bomb.  Currently, British and EU regulation is practically the same, ensuring that British and European countries can compete fairly in both markets.  Come 1 January 2021, the UK would, in principle, be able to change the rules, reducing the costs and/or boosting the profitability of British firms.  The British government may reduce environment protection obligations; it may improve productivity by forcing employees to work longer hours; it may reduce consumer protection standards; it may even decide to subsidise certain industries.

We must ensure a level playing field forever!

Let’s say that British and European firms both make a particular widget, which is currently priced at €100 per widget.  To manufacture it, companies have to buy Raw Material – also manufactured in the EU and costing €50 per widget.  Raw material is also available from Chinese suppliers at €30 per widget, but such Raw Material contravenes EU’s strict environmental policies and is hence verboten in Europe.  Post-Brexit, however, the British government can in principle decide that the environmental issue isn’t that important, or that it can be mitigated.  If it allows them to buy Chinese Raw Material, British firms would be able to undercut EU companies, potentially pushing them out of the market.

It’s not just about China; in fact, the EU more worried about potential supply of cheaper products from the US.  The European powers that be have worked for decades to keep certain US industries out of the common market – not because they are more littering, but because they are more efficient and can therefore supply cheaper products.

EU’s proposed ‘solution’ to this was that the UK pledges to use the same rules as the EU.  But that would make a mockery of Brexit and would constitutes a particularly painful form of political suicide for any Conservative government.

The British concession was the so-called ‘non-regression’: as part of the deal, the UK would pledge not to lower the regulatory requirements below the current levels – which are aligned with those of the EU.  But European politicians were quick to point out that the EU constantly raises its standards.  So accepting merely ‘non-regression’ may, in the future, still result in a competitive advantage for British firms.  In the words of German Chancellor Angela Merkel:

“We need to have a level playing field not only for today, but for tomorrow, and the day after that.  Otherwise the result will be unfair terms of competition, which we cannot impose upon our businesses.”

Mrs. Merkel’s ‘offer’ was that the deal should include provisions allowing the EU, in the event of ‘unfair’ British regulation, an ‘automatic right’ to retaliate – for instance by curtailing access to certain markets for British goods and services.  But, beyond being unpalatable to any ‘sovereign’ British government, such provisions would be exceedingly complex to design and implement.  What constitutes an ‘unfair’ change in regulation?  Who will determine what is or isn’t ‘unfair’ as opposed to just ‘different’?

This seems like an insoluble conundrum.  In fact, an Irish politician called it an attempt to “square the circle”.

But it’s all just smoke and mirrors.  There is a very straightforward solution: rather than attempting to be restrictive or prescriptive in terms of ‘level playing field’, the deal should simply allow either side to unconditionally terminate the agreement (in its totality, not partially), with – say – one year notice.  This means that, if it feels that the agreement does it more harm than good (for instance, that British firms are enjoying an unfair advantage and are therefore undermining the ‘health’ of the single market), the EU would be able to bail out long before that vaunted single market sustains significant damage.  The one year transition period would allow government agencies and companies to adapt to the new reality.  And, if the agreement is terminated, we would all be no better and no worse than with no deal in the first place.  But the risk of termination would be – I dare say – exceedingly small: the two parties would be more likely to negotiate away small hiccups and weigh eventual drawbacks against broader advantages.  What’s more, any issues would be assessed for their real impact – rather than for the imagined future risks.  From afar, the shadow of an anthill can often be mistaken for a steep mountain!

An unconditional right of termination would ensure that this will always be a relationship between two willing partners; it would defuse the suspicion that it may at some point turn into an unhappy catholic marriage.  And this brings me to the next ‘major area of disagreement’…

Who/what would police the deal

What happens if one of the signatories believes that the other has violated the terms of the deal?  Who is going to interpret what’s been agreed – and make a determination as to what constitutes ‘the terms’?

The EU wanted its own ‘Court of Justice’ to make those determinations.  ‘Keep dreaming!’ responded the Brits.

There are, of course, solutions – international treaties often include complex clauses designing bespoke processes of conflict resolution.

But here’s the thing: international treaties are extremely difficult (and often impossible) to enforce.  If you want an example, look no further than the ‘transition deal’ between EU and UK.  The ink has hardly managed to dry on those pieces of paper, before the UK government introduced a bill aimed at ‘clarifying’ its obligations and ‘protecting the UK’ from ‘extreme EU interpretations’ of what’s been agreed.  Government officials have serenely admitted that the draft bill violated international law, albeit only in a “specific and limited way” (rather than in a general and unbounded manner, presumably!)

This may sound unpleasant to certain hypocrites and wishful thinkers; but the reality is that a sovereign state cannot – except in the most extreme circumstances – be forced to comply with ‘international law’, or with treaties it signed.

So the best – nay, the only – guarantee that an agreement will be complied with is making sure that it is and remains in the best interest of its signatories.

Luckily, he is protected by International Law...

An unconditional termination clause would make ‘policing the deal’ and ‘conflict resolution processes’ superfluous.  It is catholic marriages that account for the most acrimonious divorces – just ask Henry VIII!

So why are they fighting?

But, if the ‘major areas of disagreement’ are actually non-issues, why this prolonged, painful ‘process’?  Why the rancour, the recriminations, the bitterness?

To understand this, one has to appreciate that the European Union has long ceased to be about economics.  In the 1975 referendum, the UK voted to enter the Common Market – an economic bloc; in 2016 it voted to leave the European Union – a political project.

Consequently, the conflict between the UK and EU isn’t about the economy, as we are being led to believe; it is about ideology.  Nothing exemplifies this better than a recent Twitter-facilitated ‘conversation’.  On 2 December 2020, UK Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Alok Sharma posted:

“The UK was the first country to sign a deal with Pfizer/BioNTech - now we will be the first to deploy their vaccine

To everyone involved in this breakthrough: thank you

In years to come, we will remember this moment as the day the UK led humanity’s charge against this disease”

I’m no fan of the Rt. Honourable Sharma; one can dispute the taste he displayed in an official tweet that sounded like the boastful cheering of a football fan.  But that’s not what he was criticised for.  No, Mr. Sharma’s tweet was criticised for being nationalistic.  Within 3 hours (which is warp speed in diplomatic terms), a certain Andreas Michaelis, Germany’s Ambassador to the Court of St. James, weighed in – also on Twitter:

“Why is it so difficult to recognize this important step forward as a great international effort and success. I really don't think this is a national story. In spite of the German company BioNTech having made a crucial contribution this is European and transatlantic.”

Listen to the music: the German envoy wasn’t objecting because Mr. Sharma omitted to give credit to the vaccine’s ‘German connection’.  No, he was annoyed by Sharma’s expression of national pride.

And therein lies the difference: born as a sensible economic alliance, the European ‘Union’ is now an ideological movement – one that aims to gradually wipe out the nation states in favour of a new (some would say ‘artificial’) European identity and its political manifestation: a supra-national entity (some would call it an empire).  Hence the relentless push against any trace of ‘nationalism’ – even the mild, benign form that many would call ‘patriotism’; hence the instinctive, knee-jerk reaction against manifestations of such ‘nationalism’ – whether in the UK, in USA, or elsewhere; hence the hostility towards Israel – the embodiment of such ‘nationalist’ aspirations.

The problem the EU has is that this ideological push does not really have much to show in terms of popular support; it is the dream of a political, economic and intellectual elite, which is promoting it without much consultation with those they seek to re-educate and re-mould.  Consequently, as the push towards ‘multilateralism’ and ‘European identity’ advanced, so did the (generally hostile) popular reaction to it.  What’s worse, from the point of view of the promoters of ‘the European project’ is that the initially diffuse popular reaction soon drew the attention of politicians eager to ride that ‘populist wave’.  There is, within the EU itself, a rising ‘Euro-sceptic’ sentiment, a centrifugal tendency that worries the ‘internationalists’.

Brexit was, of course, by far the most powerful manifestation of that tendency – and it has shocked and shaken the ‘Union’ to the core.  The worst nightmare of the ‘Europeans’ is another ‘exit’, a second member state that would decide to contradict the ‘EU line’ ideologically and cross it politically.  That would be, from the point of view of the ‘European project’ a disaster.  The ‘Unionists’ must avoid it at all costs and ‘sell’ Brexit as a complete outlier, a regrettable setback and – most of all – as an unmitigated mistake.

Hence, from EU’s point of view, Brexit must be (or at least must look like it is) very painful for the UK; and if pragmatic interests (economic and political) have to be sacrificed in the pursuit of that ideological imperative – so be it.  On the other hand, they cannot go too far: EU’s economy is already on its knees; and a spurned UK would be a loose cannon aimed at the European prow.

My conclusion is that a EU-UK deal is not just a possibility – it’s the only possibility.  The ‘solutions’ to all the ‘major disagreements’ are simple; a deal could have been signed months ago.  But that’s not to say it will be signed today, tomorrow or by 31 December.  It might indeed; or it might not – if the EU powers that be feel that they can afford to postpone it to 2021.  Paradoxically, Biden’s election makes the latter outcome more likely.  But postponing has a price – and not just an economic one: once the UK absorbs the ‘birth pangs’ of the new situation, the British government’ desire to do the deal will go down a notch, with the result being a stiffening of its position in the ensuing negotiations.  Meanwhile, the EU will have to absorb a few pangs of its own; and, since they will not be equally felt by the various member states (Ireland, for instance, will feel more pain than Austria), the vaunted ‘European unity’ may start to fray at the seamline of opposing interests.

As for us… We the People will continue to be misinformed by lazy and incompetent journalists; deceived by scruple-less politicians; and generally treated with contempt by arrogant fools with a superiority complex and a sense of entitlement.  Until (not unless!) we do something about it.

How much, Mr. Osborne?

Imagine that tomorrow morning Israel amasses troops on the outskirts of Ramallah.  A plane carrying the Palestinian leadership regrettably crashes en-route to negotiations in Israel.  To avoid another unfortunate accident, a few Palestinian leaders ‘agree’ to ‘merge Palestine into Israel’.  The next day, Israel’s Parliament (the Knesset) declares the West Bank as the 'Palestinian Autonomous Region', an indivisible part of the State of Israel.  A regional government is appointed, made up of Jewish Israelis and ‘friendly Muslims’.  Civil servants are sacked if they ‘look Muslim’ (i.e., wear beards if they are men or veils if they are women, if they fast during Ramadan, etc.)  Hundreds of thousands of Jewish Israelis are settled in the Region, lured by better-paid government jobs, while the Region’s Muslim inhabitants are ‘encouraged’ to move elsewhere to ‘better assimilate’ into the Israeli society.  Any dissent is swiftly and brutally dealt with, the leaders being either executed or carefully ‘re-educated’ over a few decades in prison.

If you think that such scenario would cause a global uproar the like of which has never been heard before – you are certainly right.  But hey – don’t worry!  Just give it a bit of time, they’ll all get used to it.  Look forward to a visit from UK’s Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Right Honourable Whateverthenamewillbe, who will smile kindly and offer his country’s considerable expertise and entrepreneurial spirit to help develop the Palestinian Autonomous Region to its full potential.

What – you think that’s extremely unlikely?  Well, you may be right again.  But it has just happened elsewhere.

Situated to the north of Tibet, the territory of Xīnjiāng has been, for many centuries, inhabited by a Muslim population speaking Uyghur – a Turkic language.  Like many other territories, Xīnjiāng (pronounced Shinjang in Uyghur) has had a turbulent history – alternating between Mongolian, Chinese and Tibetan rule; occasionally, the Uyghurs managed to govern their own affairs – at some point even establishing an Uyghur Khaganate.  The latest such attempts occurred twice in the 20th century, when Uyghurs declared the territory’s independence under the name of East Turkestan Republic.  In August 1949, with the Chinese Communist Army approaching, five Uyghur leaders boarded a Soviet plane, to attend a conference in Beijing; they all perished in a mysterious accident.  It was thus left to three other leaders – who wisely chose to travel by train! – to agree to join the People’s Republic of China.  Communist China incorporated Shinjang as the Xīnjiāng Uyghur Autonomous Region.  Several Uyghur armed groups continued to resist the Chinese takeover, but were eventually defeated, their leaders either fleeing or being caught and executed.

Enticed with plush jobs, millions of Han Chinese have settled in the ‘Autonomous Region’ – causing the ratio of Uyghurs in the Region's population to plummet from 73% in 1955 to circa 45% in 2000.

Just like every other Chinese citizen, Uyghurs are required to learn Mandarin and use it in dealing with the authorities.  Overt displays of Uyghur nationalism – however peaceful – are harshly suppressed as ‘separatism’.  Muslim religious practice is ‘subtly’ and not so subtly discouraged.

Hundreds and perhaps thousands of people have been killed in the frequent bouts of violence that erupt in the Region, with Uyghur rebels clashing with Han settlers, as well as with the Chinese police and army.  Nobody really knows how many have been imprisoned and executed.

In May 2014, the otherwise ‘progressive’ New York Times reported that China’s leader, Xi Jinping,

has called for tighter state control over religion and for better assimilating Uighurs into Chinese society, including moving more Uighurs from Xinjiang to other parts of China, where they can live among the Han, the nation’s dominant ethnic group.

The paper further reported that Mr. Xi also announced that China will use “special measures” in Xinjiang to “deal with special things”.  No specifics were given.

Even Amnesty International – which usually treads as if on eggshells when it comes to criticising dictatorships – reported:

On 28 July [2014], state media reported that 37 civilians were killed when a ‘knife-wielding mob’ stormed government offices in Yarkand County (in Chinese: Shache) and that security forces had shot dead 59 attackers. Uighur groups disputed this account, putting the death toll much higher and saying rather that police opened fire on hundreds of people who were protesting against the severe restrictions placed on Muslims during Ramadan. Uighurs faced widespread discrimination in employment, education, housing and curtailed religious freedom, as well as political marginalization.

But all that did not stop the Right Honourable George Osborne, Chancellor of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom, from visiting China at the head of a large delegation, eager to increase the economic cooperation between the two countries.  Mr. Osborne has even visited Xinjiang – presumably to see how British firms can benefit from China’s investments in the Region’s infrastructure – an infrastructure that (so Uyghurs claim) is designed to serve the Han settlers.

By the way, words like ‘settlement’ or ‘settlers’ were never pronounced in the many speeches and interviews given by the Right Honourable on this occasion.  Nor are they to be found in any official UK declaration in the context of China.  There is clearly a big difference (though also a very subtle one, ‘coz I can’t see it!) between Han Chinese settling in Xinjiang and Jewish Israelis settling in the West Bank.  Because when it comes to the latter, Her Majesty’s Government does not mince words:

Our position on settlements is clear: they are illegal under international law…

Needless to say, none of the disciplined and ‘progressive’ mainstream journalists who interviewed Mr. Osborne was rude enough to ask why that exalted International Law applies to one case, but not the other.  Nor did Her Majesty’s Opposition – rendered even more ‘progressive’ by its new leader Jeremy Corbyn – raise any major moral objections to the idea of a closer relationship with the Chinese Occupation (‘occupation’ – either with or without the capital ‘O’) was yet another word blatantly absent from the whole UK-China conversation).

In case you wondered, let me reassure you that there are no plans to distinctly label Chinese products made by Han settlers in Xinjiang or Tibet – even though the UK Foreign Office wants to ‘expedite’ the implementation of such labelling for products made in Israeli settlements.

Nevertheless, some people and organisations did criticise Mr. Osborne’s visit and his eagerness to collaborate with China, pointing out that the Communist regime in Beijing is one of the world’s worst human rights violators.  But even that criticism was calm, measured and polite; there were no calls to ‘Boycott, Divest and Sanction’ China – that particular punishment appears to be reserved exclusively for use against the Jewish State.

Mr. Osborne has shrugged off even that light and mannered criticism, explaining that

I have raised the human rights concerns that we have with the Chinese authorities as part of the broader conversation.

The conversation must have been very broad indeed – or perhaps it was conducted in Chinese whispers.  Because the Chinese hosts don’t remember that part at all.  In fact, the Chancellor has been praised by Chinese government-controlled media for… not raising the human rights issue.  One Chinese paper called him

the first Western official in recent years who focused on business potential rather than raising a magnifying glass to the 'human rights issue’

The paper further opined that Mr. Osborne’s behaviour should be emulated:

It should be diplomatic etiquette for foreign leaders not to confront China by raising the human rights issue.  Keeping a modest manner is the correct attitude for a foreign minister visiting China to seek business opportunities.

Mr. Osborne may not be “foreign minister”, but he appears to understand why he is required to keep “a modest manner”:

Of course we're two completely different political systems and we raise human rights issues, but I don't think that is inconsistent with also wanting to do more business with one-fifth of the world's population.

And therein is – obvious for all but the wilfully blind to see – the double standard: China is a huge country – as well as an economic, political and military power.  Israel is almost exactly the size of Wales and its economy is on a par with those of Singapore and Hong Kong.  Her Majesty’s Government does not wish to upset China; it does not care if it upsets Israel – in fact that might earn it a few brownie points with Arab dictators who rule over half a billion people and command the majority of the world’s oil and gas reserves.

All of which does not make it moral.  In fact, it reminds me that, a few years ago, I was walking with a Jewish friend through the streets of Amsterdam.  All of a sudden, my friend – a happily married, moral-to-the-point-of-obsession man – knocked on a window and asked the woman inside ‘How much?’  ‘Eighty euros’ answered the prostitute, ‘do you want to come in?’  ‘No’, answered my friend, ‘I just wanted to know’.

And so, since the UK Government’s benevolent interpretation of International Law appears to be for sale – just like the body in the Amsterdam window – may I respectfully ask Mr. Osborn how much it is?  I just want to know…

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.

Israel and Gaza: a ‘guide to the confused’

At Politically-incorrect Politics, we don’t beat around the bush.  Therefore, let us first of all state clearly: the expressions of hatred against Israel that we’ve seen in the past few weeks are nothing but outbursts of anti-Jewish prejudice, which found in the Gaza conflict opportunity to manifest and convenient cover.  I am not talking only about the shouts of ‘Jews to the gas’ heard at ‘humanitarian protests’ in France and Germany; or about the smashing of synagogue windows in Belfast; or about the verbal abuse and threats against yarmulke-wearing Jews on the streets of London.  No, I am also referring to the one-sided media coverage and the venom-laced words of some ‘journalists’ and politicians; all of which have become essential components of a self-sustaining vicious spiral of hatred.  I am also talking about the general atmosphere of mass hysteria which so resembles the beginnings of a pogrom.

There are various levels of anti-Jewish prejudice: from the subliminal and very rarely externalised distaste to the overt, militant Judeophobia; from the concealed tendency to judge harsher anything Jewish, to berserk, murderous rage; and all the shades in-between.

We have seen all these unmistakable manifestations; we have also heard the usual attempts at denial: ‘it’s anti-Zionism, not anti-Semitism’, ‘it’s against Israel, not against the Jews’, etc., etc.  Prejudice makes people so oblivious – some just can’t understand that ‘anti-Zionism’ is inherently anti-Semitic, because it denies Jews a right awarded all other peoples: that of national self-determination; that Jerusalem and the Land of Israel are woven into the Jewish religion and secular culture even more tightly than Mecca and Medina are into the Islamic religion and culture; that, wherever they live, the vast majority of Jews perceive Israel not just as a place their relatives live in, but also as the embodiment of their national aspirations, the torch-bearer and safe-keeper of their distinct, ancestral culture.  European Jews listen in disbelief to those denials: they don’t just sound false, they are fundamentally absurd.  Hence the reaction, which ranges from deep concern and unease – to decisions to make aliya.  A record number of 5,000 French Jews will immigrate to Israel this year, despite the war and daily rockets; the others are busy organising themselves for self-defence.

Let us not, however, paint everything with the same brush: while a large proportion of the ‘pro-Palestinian’ mob harbours various levels of anti-Jewish prejudice, there may be people who join-in out of misconstrued good intentions, duped by groupthink or brainwashed by the media offensive.  To these people we owe an opportunity to learn the facts; a chance to change their mind before they become accomplices to this modern version of pogrom.  The following brief, structured as a Q & A session, is meant for them.

Question: Why did Israel attack Gaza?

Answer: Israel didn’t.  The previous ceasefire, achieved on 21 November 2012, held after a fashion until the second half of June 2014.  ‘After a fashion’ meaning that ‘only’ 70 rockets and mortar bombs were launched from Gaza in 2013 and 132 in January-May 2014.  But 65 rockets and mortar bombs were fired from Gaza in June 2014 alone.  This bombardment intensified in the first week of July.  Israel started Operation Protective Edge on July 8, initially with air strikes targeting Hamas objectives.  It did so because the intensity of rocket attacks could no longer be tolerated.

Rockets fired on Israel from Gaza, daily between July 1st and July 8th, 2014.

Q: But it wasn’t Hamas.  The rockets were launched by other Palestinian factions.

A: Hamas is the de-facto government of Gaza.  They control by far the largest and best armed militia in the territory and have demonstrated that are capable to stop other factions from firing, when they perceive that as being in their own interest.  In any case, Hamas has admitted that rockets fired on July 7 had been launched by its own ‘fighters’.

Q: But Israel has provoked Hamas by arresting scores of Hamas members in the West Bank.

A: There was no provocation.  On 12 June 2014, three Israeli teenagers were kidnapped in the West Bank.  In an effort to find them, Israeli security forces did what many police forces do, even in less compelling circumstances: it rounded up the usual suspects.  Such ‘usual suspects’ naturally included Hamas militants, since Hamas had consistently called for kidnapping Israelis.

Q: But the Israelis knew that the youngsters had already been killed; there were sounds of gun fire after one of them called the police.  It was recorded, I heard the tape.  And the Israelis found the car with blood in it.  So those arrests were just collective punishment against the Palestinians.

A: Not true.  There was no proof that the youngsters (all of them or any of them) were dead.  They could have been wounded; the whole thing (gun fire, blood, etc.) could have been staged by the kidnappers as a means to divert the search and allow them time to get away.  If your child had been among the three, how would you have felt?  Should the police have called off the search?  Should it not done everything in its power to find the boys?

Q: In any case, Hamas did not order the kidnapping.  I read somewhere that this was a lone cell, a rogue clan who did not follow instructions from Hamas’s leadership, but acted on their own.  Israel knew that, but Netanyahu still blamed it on Hamas.

A: That ‘Hamas did not order it’ is an unproven supposition.  Hamas leadership denied involvement, but also congratulated the perpetrators and called them ‘heroes’.  Like Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organisations, Hamas in the West Bank consists of cells that are not necessarily in permanent contact with the central leadership.  They do not necessarily receive specific orders for each and every ‘operation’, but rather general instructions.  For years now, Hamas leaders have called on their operatives to kidnap Israelis.

Q: Well, Hamas wants to kidnap Israelis in order to secure the release of Palestinian prisoners, who languish in prison for decades, often for throwing stones at soldiers.

A: That’s just cheap propaganda.  While Palestinians throwing stones may go to prison for a few months or a year (as they would if they threw stones at the police in any democratic country), the ones that are in prison for decades had killed or attempted to kill people.  There are still IRA terrorists in British prisons.  How would you feel towards an organisation that would advocate kidnapping YOUR kids so that they can be exchanged for convicted criminals?

Q: Israelis have also kidnapped and killed a Palestinian boy…

A: That is, unfortunately, true.  But Israel’s leaders have never called for revenge against innocents; when the Palestinian boy was found dead, they condemned the act with disgust, in unequivocal terms.  Israel’s police has found and apprehended the perpetrators, who will face trial for their crime.

Q: Maybe Hamas started all this.  But because of the Israeli siege, the situation was becoming unbearable for the population in Gaza.  Hamas acted out of desperation.

A: Anti-Israel propagandists misuse the term ‘siege’.  A siege is meant to conquer a fortress or territory.  Israeli military and civilians left Gaza in 2005 and Israel has no wish to re- conquer it.  Israel’s control of its borders with Gaza and of Gaza’s maritime traffic is neither a ‘siege’ nor ‘occupation’; it is defined in international law as a ‘blockade’ – a legal war tactic.  Its purpose is to limit the ability of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc.  to smuggle in weaponry and materials (such as steel, metal pipes, chemicals, cement) which can be used to produce weapons, build fortifications and other military applications.

The situation in Gaza did recently take a turn for the worse; but not so much for the population – it turned much worse for Hamas.  In addition to its conflict with Israel, Hamas fell out with Iran and Syria, because it sided with the Syrian rebels against Iran’s ally Assad.  Worst of all from its point of view, the new Egyptian government has little sympathy for Hamas, because of its affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood and its past acts against Egypt sovereignty and the Egyptian army in Sinai.  Egypt has closed most tunnels at its border with Gaza.  This has not only prevented Hamas from further arming, but denied it a major source of money, as Hamas had been taxing goods smuggled through the tunnels.

An additional problem for Hamas was the failure to form a ‘national unity government’ with Palestinian rival organisation PLO.  The PLO receives considerable financial aid from the international community – mostly USA and Europe; it receives Palestinian taxes collected by Israel.  As a partner in the ‘national unity government’, Hamas had hoped to get a share of the money, in order to pay its employees, who act as ‘civil servants’ in Gaza.  But these ‘civil servants’ were appointed by Hamas, after firing many of the previous PLO people.  The PLO had no intention to pay for these Hamas ‘civil servants’.  Unable to pay its supporters, Hamas feared the resulting loss of popularity, coupled with PLO’s desire to regain control over the Gaza Strip.  Hamas hoped that another bout of violence with Israel would boost its popularity and force the PLO to support it.

Q: Even if we accept that Hamas started all this, why did Israel have to respond to the provocation?  Hamas may have launched many rockets, but they caused little real damage.  Israel could just have ignored it.

A: Actually, 6 Israelis were injured in June as a result of rockets and mortar bombs.  Hamas was increasing the number and range of missiles launched every day.  While Israel’s Iron Dome rocket interceptor is effective (it destroys 80-90% of the targeted rockets), it is not infallible.  Any failed interception means a rocket that can hit a house, a kindergarten, a school or a hospital.  To further reduce the risk, in many areas schools are cancelled, families sleep in bomb shelters, factories and offices are idle.  The economy is brought to a halt, flights are cancelled, the very fabric of life is torn.  No country can simply ‘ignore’ such things; no democratic government can play ‘Russian roulette’ with the lives of its citizens.  Either it fulfils its most basic purpose (to deliver security) or it’s replaced with one that will.

Q: Even so, Israel’s response was disproportionate.  However bad, Hamas is really very weak.  They can only launch those ineffective, primitive rockets, while Israel ‘whacks’ Gaza with all its might, using its sophisticated weaponry.

A: Iranian rockets launched by Hamas from Gaza have reached Haifa – 100 miles away.  These rockets are only ‘primitive’ insofar as they are unguided – they can be aimed at a city, but not at a particular building.  They are only ‘ineffective’ because Israel has deployed extraordinary means of defence: in addition to the (extremely expensive to build and operate) Iron Dome rocket interception system, it has installed warning sirens, shelters and safety areas built with reinforced concrete.  These greatly reduce Israeli casualties, but do not allow normal life to continue.

Israel could, in principle, respond in a like-for-like fashion, e.g. one strike for each Hamas rocket.  But such tactic is exactly what Hamas is hoping for.  It would allow the terrorist organisation to conduct a war of attrition that would continue for months and perhaps years.  Such war would ultimately not result in fewer Palestinian casualties: since Hamas builds no bomb shelters for its population, civilian casualties would continue to be inevitable on the Palestinian side; but they would eventually mount up also on the Israeli side, in addition to causing economic collapse.

Israeli house hit by Hamas rocket

Q: But why did Israel also have to mount a ground invasion?  This needlessly increased the number of innocent Palestinian victims.

A: Actually, as any military expert will confirm, the opposite is true.  From a purely military point of view, it would have been very easy for Israel to carpet bomb Gaza, much like the allied forces did against German cities in World War II, following the launching of V1 and V2 rockets against London.  But those bombardments caused hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties.  By fighting on the ground, Israel has placed its own soldiers in jeopardy (more than 60 were killed and circa 150 wounded, all of them on the ground); but it has minimised Palestinian casualties, compared to the air-bombardment alternative.

Q: The bottom line is that 2,000 Palestinian died, versus less than 70 Israelis.  Surely this is disproportionate and therefore illegal.

A: There is nothing in international law that requires ‘proportionality’ of casualties.  Many more Germans died in World War II, compared to British losses.  During the NATO bombardment and subsequent invasion of Afghanistan, at least 2,000 Afghan civilians were killed, as opposed to 8 NATO soldiers.  War is horrific and should be avoided if at all possible.  But when it is unavoidable, any army will try to cause maximum casualties among the opposing combatants, while minimising its own losses.  The term ‘proportionality’ in international treaties refers to something completely different.  It requires loss of life and injury to civilians to be proportional NOT in relation to the loss of life on the other side, but in relation to the military advantage anticipated.

Q: But that’s precisely the problem.  80% of Palestinian victims were innocent civilians, women and children…

A: That oft-repeated statement is demonstrably false.  It is an item of propaganda promoted by Hamas and parroted by lazy and biased journalists.

If ‘80% of Palestinian victims were innocent civilians’, then the laws of statistics would ensure that the demographic composition (age, gender) of the fatalities are similar to those of the general population of Gaza.  For the latter, see the Palestinian Bureau of Statistics.

A list of Gazan fatalities has been published by Al-Jazeera.  It is sourced from a Hamas official, so if anything it is slanted against Israel, not in its favour.

An analysis of the Al-Jazeera/Hamas list shows that 80% of the Gazan fatalities are male, despite the fact that men represent circa 50% of the population.  More than 80% are 15 and above, although this age group represents just 56% of Gaza’s population.

The demographic composition of the fatalities is utterly incompatible with the ‘80% innocent civilians’ proposition.  In fact, even if we accept the Hamas count as accurate, the large proportion of adult males among the fatalities is inexplicable unless we assume that at least 50% of the victims were in fact combatants.  Eliminating those 50% adult males from the count, we are left with a population demographically similar to Gaza’s general population.

Q: But even if 50% of the victims are civilians, that is terrible.  It’s criminal!

A: It is indeed horrific.  But it’s neither criminal, nor indeed unique.  Speaking about asymmetrical warfare, Colonel Richard Kemp, former commander of British troops in Afghanistan, remarked:

“The UN estimate that there has been an average three-to one ratio of civilian to combatant deaths in such conflicts worldwide. Three civilians for every combatant killed. That is the estimated ratio in Afghanistan: three to one. In Iraq, and in Kosovo, it was worse: the ratio is believed to be four-to-one. Anecdotal evidence suggests the ratios were very much higher in Chechnya and Serbia. In Gaza, it was less than one-to-one.”

In fact, neither Afghanistan nor Iraq or Kosovo presented the degree of difficulty that Gaza presents in terms of avoiding civilian casualties: in addition to the high population density and the proportion of children (50% and more, if we take 18 to be the threshold of adulthood), IDF had to fight an organisation which deliberately uses human shields to protect its personnel, weaponry and installations.

Hamas rocket fired from a residential area in Gaza City

Q: Israel keeps claiming that Hamas uses Palestinian civilians as human shields.  But there is no evidence of that, it’s just propaganda.

A: The evidence is massive and irrefutable.   Patrick Martin, correspondent for the Canadian Globe and Mail, reports from Gaza, in effect describing what international treaties define as use of human shields and perfidy:

“The presence of militant fighters in Shejaia became clear Sunday afternoon when, under the cover of a humanitarian truce intended to allow both sides to remove the dead and wounded, several armed Palestinians scurried from the scene.Some bore their weapons openly, slung over their shoulder, but at least two, disguised as women, were seen walking off with weapons partly concealed under their robes. Another had his weapon wrapped in a baby blanket and held on his chest as if it were an infant.The shelling of Shejaia took its toll of the civilian population there. While the Israelis had warned citizens two days earlier to leave, many had refused in large part because Hamas said it expected people to remain.”

UN official John Ging (certainly no friend of Israel!) confirmed that Hamas is firing rockets into Israel from the vicinity of UN facilities.

An eyewitness (reporter for a Finnish TV station) reports that she just saw a rocket being fired from the parking lot of the Shifa Hospital.

See here more evidence.

Q: I still don’t understand how come that so many civilians were killed, especially since Israel claims that it warns people in advance, etc.  And how do you explain that the Israeli army bombed UN schools, hospitals, etc.?  I heard a UN official saying that the coordinates of one of these schools has been transmitted to the Israeli army 33 times.  Yet the school was hit.  How do you explain that?

A: First of all, let us clearly state a truth which, however horrible, is still the truth: innocent civilians are killed in every armed conflict; unfortunately, nobody has so far invented an infallible method of avoiding civilian casualties.

Civilian casualties can be caused by any of the following:

•  ‘Returning fire towards the sources of fire’This is a standing order in IDF and part of the military doctrine of every army in the world.  It means that if a soldier or a unit is attacked, the immediate reaction is to return fire towards the attackers.  What does that mean, in Gaza?  Imagine you are a tank commander, part of an armoured task force which typically also includes APCs (armoured personnel carriers;  these vehicles carry troops in combat areas, but are less well protected and carry lighter weapons, compared to tanks).  The tank’s mission is, among other things, to protect the more vulnerable APCs.  In Gaza, the greatest danger for APCs are anti-tank missiles manufactured in Iran, Syria and N. Korea, of which Hamas has a large stock.  These missiles are designed to penetrate armour; they are built using a technology called ‘hollow charge’.  Upon contact with the armour, the charge explodes; if it penetrates the armour, it discharges into the vehicle a jet of high pressure burning gases.  Typically, none of the soldiers inside the vehicle survives.  On 20/07/2014, in Gaza’s Sajaiyeh neighbourhood, an Israeli APC was hit by a Hamas anti-tank missile.  All seven soldiers riding in the vehicle were killed.  We know this because of DNA analysis, as the bodies were disintegrated by the blast and could not be identified otherwise.  Now imagine that you are the commander of the tank charged with escorting and protecting the APCs.  An anti-tank rocket has been fired at the unit; it missed, or failed to penetrate the armour.  The ‘return fire’ doctrine requires that you immediately fire one, two or three shells at the position from which the anti-tank missile was fired (as identified, for instance, by the smoke trail, or at night by the light trail.  Failing to return fire immediately may allow the enemy time to take aim again and fire a second missile.  Any delay might cost the lives of your colleagues.  However great your desire to avoid civilian casualties, as the tank commander you do not have the time to check the coordinates of scores of UN schools, hospitals, etc.  But what happens if the anti-tank rocket has been fired (as the UN has admitted) from the immediate vicinity of a UN school?  The tank’s shells (fired with the intention to hit the enemy) might miss and hit the school; or might kill the enemy (as it happened in the latest such incident), but the shrapnel might also kill innocent bystanders.In Gaza, return fire is the biggest source of civilian casualties; this is why it is so important for the UN not just to make known the coordinates of the school, but also to make sure that no military activities are perpetrated from the vicinity of those UN facilities (for instance, by fencing the area around the facility and allowing only unarmed civilians within the enclosure).
• Secondary explosions or other unforeseen consequencesHamas rocket launching pits figure prominently among the targets Israel wants to hit in Gaza.  The problem is that these are often located within or in the immediate vicinity of civilian locations.  Worse, the launching facilities may contain large numbers of rockets and other explosive material.  In such cases, hitting the launching pit may cause secondary explosions that are much more damaging than the initial strike.  In many instances Israel is able to deliver its strike with sufficient precision, so that just the pit is hit – and not the nearby houses, for instance.  But there is just no way to know how many rockets have been stored there and how large the secondary explosion – if any – will be.  Often, a precise, ‘surgical’ strike takes out the launching pit; but the resulting secondary explosion may demolish an entire street.
• Target identification errorsLots of preparation and intelligence work go into identifying targets such as command and control centres, weaponry and ammunition storage facilities, rocket launching pads, training bases, etc.)  In the vast majority of cases, they are correctly identified and accurately hit.  But war in not a well-organised industrial activity, conducted according to ‘health and safety’ regulations.  Combat is conducted under conditions of uncertainty and huge tension.  A certain level of errors is inevitable; this is why, in every war, there are ‘friendly fire’ incidents; civilians are also hit because of identification errors.
• Palestinian kills PalestinianFrom the point of view of international media, there is only one source for the number of Palestinian casualties: Gaza’s Hamas-controlled Health Ministry.  Needless to say, this is a partisan and highly unreliable source.  At a minimum, it means that every dead Palestinian is automatically assumed to have been killed by Israeli ordnance.  This is, of course, a myth.  In reality, many Palestinians fall victim to Hamas ‘friendly fire’.  Among other things, a considerable proportion of rockets launched against Israel misfire and land in Gaza (the current estimates are around 10%, which means circa 350 rockets; the proportion typically increases as the Israeli army advances and rockets are fired by Hamas from deeper within Gaza).  Even UNRWA spokesman and big-time Israel-hater Chris Gunness had to admit that such rockets fell, for instance, in Beit Hanoun, where the organisation operates a school turned into shelter for refugees.  In addition to such mistakes, Hamas is reported to have executed scores of Gazans suspected of ‘collaboration’ with Israel.  Needless to say, for Hamas (as for all dictatorial regimes) all opponents are ‘collaborators’; once their bodies arrive at the morgue, these ‘collaborators’ are reported as victims of Israel and are included in the headcount of ‘martyrs’.

Q: Whoever is to blame, it is clear that this needs to be solved.  Peace negotiations are held with enemies, not friends.  Why does Israel refuse to negotiate directly with Hamas? 

A: For the same reason that USA and UK do not negotiate with Al-Qaeda or with ISIS.  Not just Israel, but USA, UK, the European Union, Canada and Australia designate Hamas as a terrorist organisation.  This is because Hamas has officially claimed responsibility for acts of terrorism and mass murder against civilians.

Hamas’s Constitution includes the following quotations:

“Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it""The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say: O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.”

Israel does negotiate directly with ‘the enemy’ – the Palestinian Authority.  This is the internationally recognised representative of the Palestinian side in the conflict.  Hamas is not a ‘normal’ enemy, but a band of criminals advocating ethnic cleansing and genocide and guilty of numerous acts of mass murder.

Q: But Hamas won democratic elections.  They are the legitimate Palestinian government!

A: Although often repeated by ‘commentators’ with an axe to grind, this statement is fundamentally false.  The 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections cannot be described as ‘democratic’.  To start with, no elections can be said to be ‘democratic’ when each ‘political party’ operates its own armed militia.  In such cases, the parties can use their militia for actual or implied intimidation tactics in order to influence the elections.  The party with the most powerful militia usually wins.  Democratic elections are only possible when the military and the police are apolitical.

In addition, the Palestinians lack the basic civil freedoms that would enable elections to be democratic: a free press, freedom of speech, free public debate, etc.  How are people supposed to ‘democratically elect’ when they are not even allowed to freely speak their minds without threats and intimidation?

Even had it won truly democratic elections, Hamas would have had to share power with Mahmoud Abbas.  According to the Palestinian law, executive power is shared between the President and the Prime Minister.  The former is elected directly by the people, while the latter is typically the leader of the major in the parliament (a system similar in principle to the French one).  In actuality, however, Hamas refused to share power with Abbas.  Instead, it staged a coup, ousting the President and his party from Gaza and assuming totalitarian power.

Finally, even if the 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections would have been democratic, that does not in itself confer legitimacy to a fundamentally undemocratic, criminal regime.  The Nazis came to power in Germany because a plurality of Germans elected them.  Once elected, the Nazis proceeded to cancel every democratic right; there were no more elections.  There are also more recent examples: as a result of the 2000 elections, the Austrian government ncluded a party with racist/neo-fascist tendencies.  Although this was the result of democratic elections, the European Union decided to impose sanctions against Austria.

To gain legitimacy in government, it is not sufficient for a party to win democratic elections; it also has to govern according to democratic principles.   Hamas stands in complete opposition to such principles.

Q: Palestinians voted for Hamas out of exasperation, because of the Israeli blockade.

A: There was no blockade.  Following the 2005 withdrawal of Israeli military and settlers from the Gaza Strip, an Agreement on Movement and Access was reached between Israel, the Palestinian Authority and the European Union.  According to the agreement, people and non-military goods could pass through the Rafah border crossing between Gaza and Egypt, under the supervision of EU inspectors.  When it acceded to power in 2007, Hamas refused to honour that agreement; it seized the border crossing and refused to allow EU supervision.  In response to this violation and the rocket attacks against Israeli civilians, Israel declared a land and naval blockade.  Although its civilians had not been attacked, Egypt enforced a land blockade at its border with Gaza, in response to Hamas’s violation of the Agreement on Movement and Access.

Q: But Hamas now says that it accepts a ceasefire, provided that the blockade is lifted.  Why is this not good enough for Israel?

A: Because lifting the blockade without tight supervision would allow Hamas to smuggle in and amass heavy weaponry, as well as sending its ‘soldiers’ for military training in places like Iran, Iraq or Syria.  A much stronger Hamas would then be able to resume terrorist activities against Israel, this time from a much improved position and at a time of its choosing.  Israel cannot allow Hamas to grow stronger unhindered, any more than USA or UK would envisage allowing Al-Qaeda or ISIS to accumulate weaponry unimpeded.

Q: I read somewhere that Hamas offered Israel peace – if it withdraws to the 1967 borders.

A: No, Hamas has never issued any peace offer; indeed, the organisation is fundamentally opposed to peace with Israel, claiming that such peace would be against the precepts of Islam.  One Hamas leader (Khaled Meshaal) has casually said in 2008 that the organisation might agree to a 10-year truce (‘hudna’), but only if Israel withdraws from the West Bank and East Jerusalem.  He later clarified that Hamas would also require “full application of the right of the Palestinian refugees to return” (i.e., the ‘return’ to Israel of 5-7 million people of Palestinian descent, mostly born in Jordan, Lebanon and Syria).  Even then, he made clear, Hamas would not recognise the State of Israel.

Q: So you’re saying that Israel has done nothing wrong.  If so, why is it that it is condemned at the UN?  Why is it that it is harshly criticised even by friendly governments such as UK?  Even the US Administration has lately been critical of Israel.  Are they all wrong?

A: No, they are all politicians.  There is just one Jewish state – Israel; there are just about 14 million Jews, half of them scattered around the world.  There are 22 Arab states with a total population of almost 400 million; they control a large proportion of the world’s oil and gas reserves.  In addition, other 35 countries, with a population exceeding 1.2 billion people, define themselves as ‘Islamic’.  Together, the 57 ‘Islamic states’ constitute almost one third of the UN membership – and they vote against Israel on every single subject.  Considering also their economic and political influence over other countries (and over Muslim minorities in the West), they represent a very powerful bloc.  The condemnations and criticism against Israel have nothing to do with justice; they have everything to do with political power, interest and convenience.  Unfortunately, this injustice is echoed and magnified because of anti-Jewish prejudice harboured by many in Europe and elsewhere.  Often referred to as anti-Semitism or Judeophobia, this type of prejudice has been present for centuries in Europe and throughout the Middle East.  The horrors of the Holocaust (themselves the result of extreme anti-Jewish prejudice) have shocked many Europeans and made overt anti-Semitism ‘unfashionable’ for a while, causing some commentators to believe it ceased to be an issue.  But long-held prejudice is stubborn and does not disappear that easily.  There is still, for instance, anti-black prejudice in USA, almost two centuries after the emancipation of African Americans.

For many in Europe, out-of-context and out-of-proportion criticism of the Jewish State is nothing but a ‘safe’ way to express subliminal anti-Jewish prejudice.

Q: So are you saying that one cannot criticise Israel without being an anti-Semite?

A: Not at all!  Feel free to criticise Israel, but in proportion and comparison to other countries.  For instance, since the level of civilian casualties in Gaza is similar to or lower than that registered by American and British forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, one can subject Israel (at most) to the same level of criticism as that directed at USA and UK.  That would in no way be anti-Semitic – in fact it would be completely legitimate.  Conversely, it is not legitimate to single out Israel for extreme criticism, exceeding in intensity anything directed in similar circumstances at other countries.  That kind of ‘special’ criticism is nothing but discrimination and persecution.  Which, when directed at an entire country, nation, etc., are a clear indication of racism.  Anti-Jewish racism is called anti-Semitism.