Logic and prejudice: from BC to BBC

The international media is once again abuzz with reports of Israeli atrocities.  Allegedly, after helping establish an aid organisation called Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) and heavily promoting it as an alternative to UN and other outfits, the Israelis proceeded to kill innocent civilians trying to reach that GHF aid.  And – also allegedly of course – this wasn’t even a one-time mistake, but occurred 3 days in a row.  Such allegations, if true, raise the suspicion that a crime was committed.

Which is interesting, because one of the first questions that a crime investigator asks is: ‘What is the motive?’  Understanding the crime motive is relevant in itself, but can also bring us closer to identifying the criminal, via the next query: ‘Who might have a reason to commit the crime?’  This logic is so blindingly obvious that people already understood it more than 2,000 years ago: the famous Roman lawyer and orator Marcus Tullius Cicero coined the phrase "Cui bono?” (to whom is it a benefit?)

Weird, therefore, that the question of motive has never come up, despite the very extensive coverage of the events by every international media outlet.  What was obvious to Cicero in the 1^st century BC never occurred in 2025 to the BBC!

One thing is clear: this omission can’t be attributed to lack of attention.  The Corporation has followed the events live, publishing and broadcasting tens of thousands of words on this topic.  The handful of ‘sources’ have been quoted ad nauseam, their stories reiterated countless times – sometimes in copy/paste fashion – in dozens of articles and news items.  At least a score of BBC journalists have been mobilised to cover the events.  Those included International Editor Jeremy Bowen, whose remit apparently is to ‘analyse’ issues in depth, to provide ‘insights’ and make ‘professional judgements rooted in evidence’.  They comprised also BBC Verify – the Corporation’s new investigative department, whose role is to weed out disinformation and propaganda from genuine news.

And something else should be clear, too: it’s not that the ‘crime motive’ is obvious here.  After all, the Israelis spent lots of time and effort setting up this alternative humanitarian relief mechanism, one that took Hamas out of the equation – both as beneficiary and as ‘custodian’ or ‘protector’ of the aid.  The New York Times called the project “an Israeli brainchild.”

There must have been extensive discussions between the political and military echelons within Israel; and then with the US Administration, to flesh out the concept and ensure the latter’s support; then funding had to be raised – much of it supplied by Israel, if we are to believe Yair Lapid, the country’s head of the opposition; staff had to be recruited, contractors employed, food purchased, packaged and transported.

As the BBC itself reported, the IDF – already stretched by 18 months of war – took time and dedicated resources to plan and prepare the logistics: 4 distribution hubs, complete with warehouses, accommodation quarters, access routes and fenced perimeters.

All that must have cost a fair amount of money, let alone time, effort, political capital and attention from decision-makers.

Having made that large investment, why would the Israelis then shoot into crowds of Gazans attempting to do exactly what they (the Israelis) so wanted them to do: get aid from GHF, rather than from UNRWA, World Food Programme or UNICEF?

Israelis may be many things, but idiots they’re not.  These are the same people who killed a Hamas leader in arguably the most secure location in Tehran; the same people who maimed their enemies by supplying them with ‘special’ communication devices.  Are we now to believe that they cut their noses to spite their faces – not once, not twice, but three times, on three consecutive days?

On the other hand… ‘Cui bono?’  Obviously, the main beneficiary is Hamas.  If, while lying low in their tunnels, Hamas’s surviving leaders can tune into the BBC, they must surely rub their hands in delight.  After all, sabotaging the GHF is vital if Hamas is to retain its sway over Gaza’s hapless population.  The hand that feeds you is the hand that leads you – and everybody in Gaza knows that no unarmed, ‘neutral’ aid organisation can supply one can of beans without Hamas’s ‘protection’ and assent.  Which is why, as the BBC itself reported (on 27 May, i.e. days before the ‘suspected crime’):

“Hamas has publicly warned Palestinians not to co-operate with GHF's system.”

The BBC has also reported (though occasionally, rather than ‘live’) what Hamas does to Palestinians who “co-operate” (or ‘collaborate’) with ‘the Occupation’:

“Two Palestinian men accused of collaborating with Israel have been executed in the Gaza Strip, the Hamas-run interior ministry says . . . Three others were also executed – on charges of murder . . . Four were hanged and one was executed by firing squad because he was a policeman…”

‘Cui bono?’  Well, Cicero would say ‘Hamati bono!’ (it benefits Hamas!)  So how come nobody seems to have investigated the possibility of Hamas acting on its ‘warning’?  How come Jeremy Bowen hasn’t ‘analysed’ that possibility?  Or even raised the issue as a – however remote – possibility?

It’s not like what actually happened and who did what is obvious – much as BBC’s output might lead many to believe so.  Sure, we have testimonies from ‘medical personnel’.  But, even if we choose to believe them – and there are reasons not to – they only tell us that dozens of Gazans have been killed and injured, mostly by bullets.  They shed no light on who fired those bullets.  They also reveal nothing about who those Gazans are.  Mostly young men, it seems – which is why few photos showing those victims have been published; and why the ‘medical personnel’ have made few references to their gender and age: corpses of young men have lower emotional value.

In any case, gender and age prove nothing in this instance: yes, Hamas terrorists are more likely to belong to the ‘young men’ category; but so are family members sent to pick up food on behalf of their families.

In summary – to circle back to the ‘crime’ analogy – we may have a body.  But no evidence to identify the victim, let alone the perpetrator.

One of the surprising features of this ‘news’ is the dearth of eyewitness testimonies, as well as of direct, relevant video evidence from the field.

Or, rather, it should be surprising.  If you think Europeans are addicted to their mobile phones – try the Middle East!  Most young people in Gaza (and the description ‘young people’ encompasses the vast majority of Gazans) have never used a landline phone; they probably never owned a ‘conventional’ camera.  But using mobile phones – to communicate, take pictures and shoot videos – is second nature.  Everything is being filmed – from Hamas’s 7 October ‘exploits’ to aspects of everyday life.  And, if anything, this cultural propensity has only intensified during the war, with photos and videos acquiring added importance as ‘evidence’ or propaganda tools.

Yet, strangely, nobody – none of those hundreds of Gazans purportedly attacked en-route to the GHF distribution hub – thought of filming the Israeli soldiers (or indeed Israeli tanks!) allegedly shooting into the crowd.  After spending a goodly amount of our licence fee investigating, BBC Verify was forced to admit that they ‘verified’… absolutely zilch:

“Very little footage has emerged purporting to show the moment of the shooting. But one clip posted online showed people running with gunfire audible. BBC Verify geolocated the footage to a road near SDS 1 and established it was newly published on Tuesday although we cannot say for certain it relates to Tuesday's incident.”

As for eyewitness accounts, they are also unusually scarce and sketchy:

“Yasser Abu Lubda, a 50-year-old who has been displaced from Rafah, told the Associated Press (AP) news agency that the shooting began shortly before 04:00 local time. Rasha al-Nahal, another witness, told AP ‘there was gunfire from all directions’.”

Neither eyewitness quoted appears to have seen who was shooting.  Either that, or they’d rather not say.

But some ‘sources’ offered much more ‘vibrant’ accounts:

“Mahmoud Basal, a spokesperson for the Palestinian Civil Defence agency, told the BBC that the incident again occurred a few hundred metres away from the Al-Alam roundabout. He said most of those killed or injured ‘were hit by gunfire from tanks, helicopters and quadcopter drones’.”

“Palestinian Civil Defence” sounds like something Mother Theresa might’ve approved of; most people won’t know that it’s just an agency of the Hamas ‘government’ and that Mr. Basal is a medium-rank Hamas official.  The BBC knows it, of course, but… hey-ho, it’s a ‘source’, ‘innit?  Hamas “told the BBC;” and the BBC (including BBC Verify) dutifully published.  With attribution, of course!  However misleading it may be.

It seems also that in BBC parlance, “[v]erify” does not include asking Hamas impolite questions like ‘Where is your evidence?’

And nobody at the BBC (or at many other media outlets) thought of asking themselves ‘Why would the Israelis concentrate tanks, helicopters and quadcopter drones to… shoot themselves in the foot?’

What BBC Verify failed to… ‘verify’ is even more enlightening: these days, every corner of the globe is being scrutinised by – among other things – high-resolution cameras mounted on satellites.  Everybody spies on everybody, but some of these satellite feeds are available to buy from private companies like SkyWatch.  And, while not tracking every bullet being fired, these are unlikely to miss the telltale signs left by concentrations of “tanks, helicopters and quadcopter drones” repeatedly firing on masses of people.

The BBC is well-aware of these satellite capabilities – having reported on them and even used them previously in Gaza.

So has BBC Verify examined such footage and ‘forgot’ to tell us that they found nothing?  Have they quietly concluded – in ‘light’ of the ‘testimonies’ – that the chances of finding anything were too low to warrant spending our money?  Or have they assessed that not finding anything would be the wrong evidence to find?

The truth is that... we don't know (and we may never know) with absolute certitude, the truth about what happened close to GHF’s aid distribution hub on 1, 2 and 3 June 2025.  It’s very possible that Gazans have been killed there – but it is also possible that they were killed elsewhere.  They (or some of them) may have been Hamas terrorists deliberately sent to pick a fight and generate PR ‘tailwind’; but it is also possible that they/some of them were innocent people trying to get food for their families.  As for the shooters, they could well have been Hamas, for whom GHF represents an existential threat; but it is also possible that the shooters were IDF soldiers, for reasons that we don’t understand.  A more complex scenario is also possible – for instance one in which Hamas perpetrated the shooting on Sunday, while the IDF fired shots on Monday.  Everything is possible.

And that’s exactly the point: we do not know exactly what happened; not right now, not for sure.  We are – or should be – in the realm of probabilities.  And in the field of contested narratives.  Who are you going to believe: the official agencies of a democratic state (with a strong political opposition, a free press, independent courts, etc.)? or those of a fanatical Islamist, antisemitic organisation – one with a proven track record of violently crushing dissent?

And even if one objects to the descriptions above, logic should still scream ‘Cui bono?’

Yet this is not how many in the international media (and also many politicians, here in the UK and elsewhere in the West) saw things.  And the real question is: why?

Why is it that, when it comes to the Jewish state – and only when it comes to the Jewish state – so many people are willing to suspend logic, critical thinking and healthy scepticism?  Why do they find it so easy to believe that Israelis are willing to murder innocents not just with no pity or remorse, but also without sense or reason?  Why do they automatically choose the least-probable explanation, as long as it’s most damning for Israel?

Why the singling out, the ganging up, the obsession with?  And why does this ‘modern’ attitude towards the Jewish state mimic so closely the ‘traditional’ view of everything-else-Jewish throughout the centuries?

To many international journalists, it was obvious that Israelis were to blame – who else could it be?  And none asked ‘why would Israelis do something like this?’  Because in the eyes of these journalists, Israelis are quintessential Jews; and Jews don’t need a motive to do evil.

So what are you saying – I hear you asking: are all these journalists are a bunch of antisemites?  Do you really believe that?

Sorry, folks, but that’s the wrong question.  This isn’t about ‘being an antisemite’.  Antisemitism is rarely an identity; it’s usually a prejudice.  One that has its roots in early antiquity and still bore atrocious fruits as recently as mid-20^th century.  One that has demonstrably been deeply entrenched and widely spread (to the point of constituting the prevalent view), for hundreds and hundreds of years.  And one that is still harboured by a large proportion of the population in many areas of the world – even here in the UK.

No, the Shoah was not an exception, but an exacerbation: the most powerfully acute flare up among centuries of chronic genocide.

If the current ‘anti-Israelism’ feels so similar to ‘classic’ antisemitism – it’s because it is.

This tweet was 'liked' 88,000 times. No other comment needed.

So it’s not ‘they’re all a bunch of antisemites’ that’s the ridiculous proposition; no, what’s ludicrous is claiming that a social phenomenon that’s been so pervasive and ubiquitous for 2000 years suddenly fizzled out or somehow became marginal in the space of just 8 short decades.  Now, do you really believe that??

 

 

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.

Harping About Hebron

One of the most outrageous, blood-boiling aspects of ‘modern’ political culture is the shocking levels of intellectual dishonesty found among people who claim moral high ground as ‘campaigners for human rights’.

I’ve written before about the Israeli group that calls itself ‘Breaking the Silence’.  Let me remind you, in just one sentence:

“Fair disclosure: I despise Breaking the Silence.  It’s not that they hold opinions that are very different from mine; frankly [sigh], a lot of people hold opinions very different from mine!  Much as I disagree with them, these BtS chaps are entitled to their opinion; they are even entitled to promote those opinions and try to persuade others.  But the way they go about it is, in my view, thoroughly anti-democratic and intellectually dishonest.”

I’ve also written (and not in very complimentary terms, either) about the British group which calls itself ‘Yachad’:

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

The two groups – Breaking the Silence and Yachad – have been working together for years.  And one of the main areas of collaboration is taking British Jews on indoctrination tours – especially to the city of Hebron, in the West Bank.

Why Hebron?  Not because, as Yachad dishonestly claims, it’s “a microcosm of occupation”.  Quite the opposite: rather than being ‘typical’ – as Yachad and BtS would like people to think – Hebron is the worst place in the West Bank.  That’s because some of the most extreme Israelis live in close proximity to some of the most extreme Palestinians.  Agreements have been implemented, which have by-and-large pacified the area and saved lives.  But those same agreements give duplicitous groups like Yachad and BtS an opportunity to bash Israel.

The advert

So, if that’s been going on for a while, why am I writing about it now?  Well, because after the latest such tour, BtS and Yachad have managed to get some free advertising (I am not convinced that it was indeed free; i.e. that no money or other benefits changed hands; but let’s assume it was) from the pages of Jewish News – a British Jewish outlet associated with Times of Israel.  The author is a certain Lee Harpin and his article is entitled “We must fix this for the settlers, soldiers and the Palestinians”.

So that’s why I write about this now: to take apart this disingenuous piece of anti-Israel propaganda and wipe the floor with it.  Sure, people have the right to criticise my country; but, if they do it with ill-will, duplicity or dishonesty, I have the right to expose those rather unpleasant traits.

The first thing I asked myself as I started to read Mr. Harpin’s piece was: who exactly is ‘we’?  If Harpin were an Israeli citizen writing in Hebrew for an Israeli audience (for instance for Ha’aretz, who may be willing to have him), all would be clear and legitimate.  Israelis (read: people who live, pay taxes, vote and put their arses on the line in Israel) have every right to express opinions and try to persuade other Israelis that theirs are the best opinions in town.  But Mr. Harpin isn’t Israeli; he writes in English for a British audience – i.e. people who live, pay taxes and vote in the United Kingdom.  If they are the ’we’, then it’s entirely unclear why “we must fix” anything at all more than 2,000 miles away from where “we” live.

The article’s strapline is no less ‘interesting’:

“Controversial Israeli group Breaking The Silence attracts increasing numbers of diaspora Jews onto its 'occupation tour' in West Bank cities like Hebron.”

And below, still in bold typeface:

“Israeli human rights groups such as Breaking The Silence (BTS) are reporting an increase in bookings from diaspora Jews for ‘occupation tours’ of West Bank cities like Hebron to witness for themselves the situation faced by Palestinians.”

And again, this time in the body of the article, coming from Danielle Bett, a Yachad spokesperson:

“More and more diaspora Jews are visiting the West Bank…”

Well, methinks thou dost protest too much, Mr. Harpin: much as I scoured the rest of the article, I could find no clue what the reported “increase in bookings” was.  Which is ‘a bit’ odd: self-respecting journalists don’t write vague statements bereft of any substance.

And what exactly is the term of reference for that “increase”?  If it’s 2020 or 2021, then Mr. Harpin must be, technically-speaking, correct – and ethically-speaking beyond contempt.  It’s obvious that, if we compare 2022 with the pandemic years, there was a sharp increase in all travel; not just in “occupation tours” to “West Bank cities”, but also in tourism to Timbuktu and Phnom Penh…

And how many Diaspora Jews is “more and more”?  From 8 to 10 – now that’s a whopping 25% growth; but it would be utterly misleading to report “an increase” based on such insignificant numbers...

Let me be clear: I am very suspicious of journalists (or ‘journalists’) who write in this manner: without numbers to support them, such statements amount to subliminal adverts dressed up as ‘news’ and unethically ‘fed’ to the unsuspecting reader.

Journalism?

If one disagrees with Lee Harpin and criticises his views, one is a 'reactionary'. Well, I'm going to call those in his camp (including Yachad and BtS) 'the harpins'. No, not 'an eye for an eye', just contempt for contempt.

 

But let’s go back to Mr. Harpin’s latest ‘journalistic’ contribution:

He begins by giving a broad platform to the BtS ‘tour guide’.  That’s Amir Ziv, the group’s so-called ‘Pedagogy Coordinator’ (‘pedagogy’ sounds so much better than ‘propaganda’ or ‘brainwashing’, doesn’t it?  But it is also indicative of a certain attitude…)

After being so vague about the alleged “increase in bookings”, Harpin suddenly decides to be amazingly precise when reciting Amir’s ‘credentials’:

“[He] had served three years in the IDF, with the 50th battalion of the Nahal Brigade in Hebron and Gaza”.

Such military track record may sound impressive to Diaspora Jews with no experience of army service.  But most Israelis would shrug: millions of them served in the IDF – the males typically for three years.  Of course, Amir did not spend three years in Hebron and Gaza – that’s just Harpin’s journalistic sleight of hand; no Israeli soldier did: garrisoning and anti-terror activity in the West Bank is just a relatively small part of IDF’s mission.  Like so many Israelis, I also served in Hebron (and Nablus, and Ramallah and a handful of other ‘nice’ places).  In total, I spent there many months, including as a reservist, at the height of the intifada.  I have quite a few stories to tell – but they’re not the kind of stories Breaking the Silence or Yachad are interested in; they’ll never publish my testimony, nor will they invite me to guide their tours.

So, a word of warning: yes, Amir Ziv served in the IDF, like most Jewish Israelis; but no, that does not mean ‘he knows what he’s talking about’.  Amir is an outlier; listen to any of his comrades and you’ll hear a completely different story.

Anyone who ever listened to a Breaking the Silence presentation knows how one-sided their tales are.  But Lee Harpin wants us to believe that dear ol’s Amir gives a balanced, sane account, which also highlights Israeli suffering:

“Standing beside a memorial plaque in downtown Hebron to Gadi and Dina Levi – a couple expecting the birth of their first child, who were killed by a Palestinian terrorist wearing a bomb while they were on their way to pray at the nearby Cave of the Patriarchs in 2003 – Amir opened up about the impact of violence, having recently become the father of a baby girl.

Recalling another Palestinian sniper attack in the same area, which killed a young child, he said: ‘Each death, each attack, each time you see violence… it pushed me further away into the realisation we need to fix this. It won’t stop on its own, we have to end it, for the settlers, and soldiers who come here, and for the Palestinians.’”

You got that?  All Amir wants you to do is to help everybody: ‘settlers’, soldiers and Palestinians.  And how can “we” do that?  Why, by bashing Israel, of course!

Imagine that, after the Manchester Arena bombing, a British political advocacy group told a group of Israeli tourists that they must apply pressure on the British government in order “to fix this” for the benefit of all: innocent kids attending a concert, police, Muslims...  I dare say that the vast majority of Brits (including most British Muslims) would take a rather dim view of such ‘human rights advocacy’.

But this is all just the beginning.  Next, Amir goes on to describe what, in his enlightened opinion, are the two things “we need to keep in the back of our mind about Hebron”: 1) the 1929 massacre and 2) the Goldstein massacre.

The juxtaposition of the two events is an attempt to hoodwink people into believing that they are similar.  Of course, they were both criminal, disgusting acts.  But otherwise, they had nothing in common.

The pogrom

The 1929 Hebron Massacre was a pogrom perpetrated by large mobs of Arabs against the local Jewish community – a community that lived in the city for centuries, alongside their Arab neighbours.  Organised in groups of hundreds of men armed with swords, axes and knives, the Arab rioters attacked Jewish houses, synagogues and businesses, murdering and pillaging.  They were joined by some Arab policemen.  Two local rabbis noted, however, that there were also a score of Arab families who saved Jews by offering them shelter in their homes.

But the only one who actually confronted the murderers and tried to stop them was British Superintendent Raymond Cafferata, the commander of the local police force.  Here's part of his testimony:

“On hearing screams in a room, I went up a sort of tunnel passage and saw an Arab in the act of cutting off a child's head with a sword. He had already hit him and was having another cut, but on seeing me he tried to aim the stroke at me, but missed; he was practically on the muzzle of my rifle. I shot him low in the groin. Behind him was a Jewish woman smothered in blood with a man I recognized as a police constable named Issa Sheriff from Jaffa. He was standing over the woman with a dagger in his hand. He saw me and bolted into a room close by and tried to shut me out-shouting in Arabic, ‘Your Honor, I am a policeman.’ […] I got into the room and shot him.”

A British inquiry later established:

“About 9 o'clock on the morning of the 24th of August, Arabs in Hebron made a most ferocious attack on the Jewish ghetto and on isolated Jewish houses lying outside the crowded quarters of the town. More than 60 Jews – including many women and children – were murdered and more than 50 were wounded. This savage attack, of which no condemnation could be too severe, was accompanied by wanton destruction and looting. Jewish synagogues were desecrated, a Jewish hospital, which had provided treatment for Arabs, was attacked and ransacked, and only the exceptional personal courage displayed by Mr. Cafferata – the one British Police Officer in the town – prevented the outbreak from developing into a general massacre of the Jews in Hebron.”

The British authorities imposed a fine on the entire city of Hebron.  Sheik Taleb Markah, a member of the local Arab Executive Committee, was found guilty of inciting the riots – and imprisoned for two years.  But not before the British judges had to take over the cross-examination of the accused – noting that the Arab prosecutor had no interest in... prosecuting.

The Hebron pogrom was part of the August 1929 anti-Jewish riots, which were incited by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and his Supreme Muslim Council.  They cost the lives of 133 Jews.

Back to Mr. Harpin’s article, which – after providing a brief description of the massacre, notes that:

“For the British Mandate, the massacre was confirmation that Jewish existence in Hebron should be brought to an end. The Jews were removed from the area, and placed to begin with in refugee camps.”

In other words: problem – Jews are massacred by Arabs; solution – ethnically cleanse the Jews!

I wonder if Lee Harpin would write with such royal equanimity if Israel were to apply the same kind of ‘conflict resolution’ methodology?

But there’s more than mere equanimity there: kicking the Jews out of Hebron (and the West Bank, and East Jerusalem) is precisely the ‘solution’ advocated by the likes of Yachad and BtS; as well as by Fatah, Hamas and the Islamic Jihad of Palestine.

The ‘Jewish’ terrorist

Now let’s turn our attention to ‘the second thing’ – the event that Amir Ziv tries to ‘sell’ people as a sort of ‘counterbalance’ to the Hebron pogrom.

On 25 February 1994, a ‘man’ called Baruch Goldstein entered an area of Hebron’s Cave of the Patriarchs employed as a mosque.  He opened fire and murdered 29 Palestinians, before being overpowered and killed himself.

Baruch Goldstein mass-murdered innocent, unarmed, defenceless people.  So why do I claim that his horrific act and the 1929 massacre have nothing in common?

Because – however disgusting – Goldstein’s terrorist attack was the act of one individual.  An act condemned in no uncertain terms by the vast majority of the Jewish population in Israel and the Diaspora – and by the entirety of Israel’s political class.

In the aftermath of the crime, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin telephoned Yasser Arafat to express condolences and his disgust for the "loathsome, criminal act of murder".  In a Knesset speech, he addressed Goldstein and any of his ilk thus:

“You are not part of the community of Israel... You are not part of the national democratic camp which we all belong to in this house, and many of the people despise you. You are not partners in the Zionist enterprise. You are a foreign implant. You are an errant weed. Sensible Judaism spits you out. You placed yourself outside the wall of Jewish law ... We say to this horrible man and those like him: you are a shame on Zionism and an embarrassment to Judaism."

Then Leader of the Opposition Benjamin Netanyahu also unequivocally condemned Goldstein’s act (no ifs, no buts), calling it a “despicable crime”.

The Yesha Council (the political representatives of Israeli ‘settlers’) called the act "not Jewish, not human".

The Israeli government immediately outlawed Kach, the organisation to which Goldstein belonged.  Several of its members were placed in administrative detention.

The government also appointed a commission of inquiry headed by then president of the Supreme Court, Judge Meir Shamgar.  While describing the massacre as “a base and murderous act, in which innocent people bending in prayer to their maker were killed," the commission found that Goldstein had planned and perpetrated the massacre alone, not telling anyone about his intentions.

The religious establishment in Israel condemned the act with disgust.  The Sephardi Chief Rabbi was the first to suggest that Goldstein should be buried outside the cemetery, saying:

"I am simply ashamed that a Jew carried out such a villainous and irresponsible act"

In condemning the act, Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi Yisrael Meir Lau used the expression ‘khilul HaShem’ "a desecration of God's name".

Rabbi Yehuda Amital of Gush Etzion (an area of Jewish settlement in the West Bank) said Goldstein had "besmirched the Jewish nation and the Torah".

The indoctrination tour continues

Far be it from me to try and excuse in any way the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre.  Like the vast majority of Israelis, I was absolutely shocked by it and am ashamed that a Jew could do something this evil.  I’ll seek no excuse and countenance no forgiveness for the murderer.  May he rot in hell!

But an individual act, however horrific, does not belong in the same category as massacres perpetrated by multitudes.  Especially when the former was condemned in the harshest possible terms by anyone of any consequence in Israel – while the latter was, on the contrary, incited by the Palestinian leadership of the time, and never condemned by the current leaders.

To present the two crimes as similar or equivalent shows, at best, lack of moral compass; and at worst, an intention to deceive.

In describing the Goldstein massacre, Mr. Harpin somehow ‘forgets’ to mention that it was met with wall-to-wall condemnation in Israel; instead, he merely says that it was “condemned globally by Jewish leaders”.  Why?  I suspect this is because Mr. Harpin (like BtS and like Yachad) is intent on portraying Israel as violent, callous, even racist.

That’s why, while ignoring those many condemnations, he decides to focus on ‘stories’ that are selected for their anti-Israel propaganda value:

“On the day of our visit, last month, we counted 64 stones placed on Goldstein’s grave, some almost certainly by visitors earlier that day, who clearly wanted to pay their respects to him.

‘He gave his life for the people of Israel, its Torah and land,’ state the Hebrew words on his tomb.”

Unsuspecting youngsters brought on these indoctrination tours may be fooled into believing that there’s lots of support and approval in Israel for Goldstein and his murderous act.  But there isn’t: as demonstrated in opinion polls, the vast majority of Israelis were disgusted by Goldstein’s unconscionable act.

The harpins’ ‘spiel’ is to highlight the rare exception and pretend it’s the rule.  There is, of course, no reason whatsoever to believe that the 64 stones (or “some” of them) were placed there “almost certainly by visitors earlier that day”.  Nothing, in fact, could be less certain: these ‘visitation stones’ tend to accumulate in time – perhaps for years.  As for the inscription – shameful as I find it – it was worded and paid for by Goldstein’s family and friends; not by the Israeli state, the Israeli government or the Israeli people.

It's true that there are conspiracy theories according to which Goldstein did what he did to prevent a terror attack only he knew about.  It’s also, unfortunately, true that there are a few extremists who – as extremists do – believe in those theories; but to suggest that they’re more than a tiny fringe of nutters despised by the vast majority of Israelis is a form of libel.

In accordance with the law forbidding the construction of monuments dedicated to terrorists, the Israeli police demolished the shrine built by Goldstein's family and supporters.

What was left, in the middle of nowhere, is just the grave itself and the funeral stone, which according to Jewish tradition should never be disturbed. The group around the grave is, by the way, another indoctrination tour, run by B'tselem. It is possible that Breaking the Silence, Yachad, B'tselem et al. bring more 'tourists' to the site than Goldstein's few supporters!

Even more important than what Harpin chooses to write is what he disingenuously chooses to hide: Goldstein’s forlorn grave sits outside any Jewish cemetery.  His family and his few supporters wanted to bury him in Hebron’s old Jewish Cemetery; they were denied.  They then built around the grave what amounted to a shrine: a small plaza paved with flagstones, complete with decorative lanterns, a few benches, etc.  But the Israeli parliament (the Knesset) adopted a law prohibiting monuments to terrorists.  The law was enforced by demolishing the entire structure, except the grave itself and the funeral stone – which in Jewish tradition cannot be disturbed. 

Compare this with the Palestinian Authority, which celebrates terrorists as ‘martyrs’ and names streets and schools after them; and which pays pensions to their families.  Needless to say, this little ‘detail’ is never part of Amir Ziv’s ‘balanced’ presentations – nor apparently did it merit a mention in Lee Harpin’s hatchet job.

We are NOT all Kahane!

But – hold on – doesn’t Israel do the same?  After all, Lee Harpin informs us that

“Earlier on our tour we had stopped in Kahane Park, named after Rabbi Meir Kahane, the ultra-nationalist politician who co-founded the Jewish Defence League, who served a term in the Knesset before being convicted of terrorism, and was assassinated in 1990.”

Firstly – much as I abhor the man – Meir Kahane was never convicted of actually committing an act of terrorism; though he was indeed convicted in the US (and given a 5-year suspended prison sentence, as well as a $5,000 fine) for conspiring to manufacture explosives.  I mention this only to highlight Harpin’s inaccurate ‘journalistic’ style.  Whatever he was found guilty of, Kahane was a racist and should not be lionised.

I've even searched for the 'famous' Kahane Park on the Kiryat Arba Council website. No trace of it...

But here’s the catch: try googling “Kahane Park, Kiryat Arba”; all you'll find is a tweet by... Yachad; and a couple of pictures uploaded by similar organisations.  Better still, go to Google Maps and search for a place called Kahane Park, Kiryat Arba.  You'll be taken, instead, to the Cave of the Patriarchs/Al-Ibrahimi Mosque.  Now search for any other park, including in the West Bank ‘settlements’.  Try for instance the Ze’ev Jabotinsky Park in Ariel; or the Hazon Yosef Park in Betar Illit – both very easy to find, as are dozens of others.  You can even find a park in Kiryat Arba – it's called Technology Park.  Yet you will not find a ‘Kahane Park’ either in Kiryat Arba or anywhere else in Israel.  Officially – and insofar as most Israelis are concerned – it does not exist.

Of course, the town of Kiryat Arba does indeed have a park; and local extremists do indeed call it ‘Kahane Park’.  But that’s where the facts end and the malicious insinuations of Lee Harpin/Yachad/Breaking the Silence take over.

Here’s the truth: there are people in Israel who admire Meir Kahane and think he was a great man.  They tend to be the same people who think Baruch Goldstein was a misunderstood hero.  How many of those nutters are there?  Well, we know that, in the 1984 elections, Kahane managed to attract a whooping… 1% of the votes.  Fast forward 36 years: in 2020, his disciple Itamar Ben Gvir garnered 0.4%.  It’s true that this is still almost 20,000 nutters; but it’s also true that – despite all the harping – the extreme right in Israel gets much less popular support than it does in several European countries.  Even after a century of conflict!

The vast majority of Israelis do not commemorate Meir Kahane.  The harpins' focus on a tiny extremist fringe is deliberately misleading.  It aims to create a false image.  It's a lie.

Bad, bad Israel! Bad, bad Jewish schools!

But let’s go back to Lee Harpin’s text:

“Under the 1997 Oslo agreement, signed by Israel and PLO, Hebron was divided into two areas: H1 and H2. Responsibility for security and civilian matters in H1 – where most of the Palestinian residents of Hebron live (about 115,000 at the time, now about 166,000) – was formally handed over to the Palestinian Authority as was done in all other West Bank cities.

As for H2, Israel retained responsibility for security matters there, and the Palestinian Authority received authority only for civilian matters relating to local Palestinians. About 32,000 Palestinians and 800 settlers now live in H2.”

The Oslo Agreement was, of course, concluded in 1993, not 1997.  The Taba Agreement (sometimes called Oslo II) – in 1995.  Both were signed by Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat and neither dealt specifically with Hebron.  What was concluded in 1997 was the Protocol Concerning the Redeployment in Hebron.  Benjamin Netanyahu isn’t seen as your typical land-for-peace type of guy, but he was the Israeli prime minister who negotiated that particular agreement – by which Israel relinquished control over the vast majority of the city, handing it over to Arafat.  In return, the latter solemnly promised (again) to rid the Palestinian National Charter of all the passages that denied Israel’s right to exist; to fight terror and prevent violence; to prohibit incitement and hostile propaganda; to combat systematically and effectively terrorist organisations and infrastructure; to apprehend, prosecute and punish terrorists; to confiscate all illegal firearms…  Needless to say, Israel (under the ‘hawk’ Netanyahu) withdrew from every inch of H1; the Palestinian Authority (under Arafat and his successor Abbas) broke every one of its commitments above.  But you won’t hear about that at all from the likes of Harpin, Yachad and BtS!

No, the harpins of this world aren’t really interested in agreements and law – unless as a cudgel to beat Israel with.  They’re interested in ‘human stories’ – provided those make Israel look bad.

“In the city centre we speak with Mohamed Fakhore, a Palestinian business student in his 20s, about life in Hebron under Israeli military control.

‘We want the world to know what is happening here,’ he says. ‘I will be arrested if I step there,’ he says, pointing to the floor five metres in front of him. ‘I have been arrested for this one time before.’

It is heartbreaking to realise Fakhore cannot continue walking alongside us. Strict separation rules mean as a Palestinian is not [sic!] allowed to walk on the same road we all can.

Later, in one [sic!] the few Palestinian souvenir shops still open in downtown Hebron, an elderly store owner, who pours us all coffee, explains that his own wife is unable to visit him at work as a result of the separation policy in operation.

It is, he says, a ‘humiliating’ situation.”

It is mindboggling that the harpins can pretend to want ‘two states’ – but also declare it “heartbreaking” when a border is enforced, separating Israeli-controlled areas from Palestinian-controlled ones.  No, these are not “strict separation rules”, but the provisions of an agreement signed between the parties – with the purpose of reducing friction and disentangling Israel from Palestinian lives.

Apparently the 'strict separation rules' that Lee Harpin complains about aren't quite so strict: here is Mohamed Fakhore having a fun day in Tel Aviv-Jaffa.

It is also no doubt “heartbreaking” that the shop owner’s wife cannot visit him at work on the Israeli side of the city; but I wonder: can Jews own and operate businesses in the Palestinian part of Hebron?

Incidentally, Israeli right-wing extremists also don’t like the partition of the city: they’d like to roam freely through all Hebron and cause mischief.  Extremists of all tinges – unite!

But, while imperfect, inaesthetic and a rich topic of hostile propaganda by Harpin/Yachad/BtS, the Hebron Agreement does what it was meant to do: it saves lives and allows the two communities to run their affairs independently – as much as possible in the difficult circumstances created by conflict, violence and the accompanying mistrust.  Don't take it from me --ask the Mayor of Hebron.  His Message (published in Arabic and English on the municipal website) contains of course the obligatory anti-Israel rant.  But ultimately it says:

"Since 1996, the city has witnessed several dramatic developments after the numerous decades of continuous Israeli occupation. Due to the Oslo agreement and the establishment of the Palestinian National Authority, the city was liberated and able to embrace a form of security and calm environment. These agreements allowed the Municipal Council to develop a comprehensive management development plan, accompanied by a strategic plan, for the reception of the twenty-first century. Indeed, the Hebron Municipality office, through its own efforts and the support of many friends and partners from around the world implemented a multitude of infrastructure projects, which has had a major impact in promoting domestic and foreign investments in the city. Additionally, it is crucial to achieving the revitalization of the boom in the economic, commercial, industrial, agricultural and urban life."

You won't hear that from Harpin; or from BtS, or from Yachad!

Instead, Harpin’s hatchet job ends with the usual indoctrination ‘spiel’ that BtS and Yachad dish out to unsuspecting, naïve Western kids: there are more IDF soldiers than ‘settlers’ in Hebron (as if Palestinian terror and violence did not exist); an interview with some extremists who ‘want it all’ because ‘it was promised to Abraham’ – as if this is why the vast majority of Israelis want the IDF to stay in Judea & Samaria.

Finally, Harpin gives the floor back to Amir Ziv, who utters the following outrageous lie:

“The bottom line is the Palestinian Authority has the freedom to do what we allow it to do.”

Among other egregious acts, in recent years the Palestinian Authority complained to the International Criminal Court (in blatant breach of its obligations under international agreements it signed), alleging that the IDF committed ‘war crimes’ and ‘crimes against humanity’.  Is that something that “we” would allow – if we had the power to stop?  Would we allow PA’s ‘pay-for-slay’ policy – wages paid to convicted terrorists and subsidies to the families of suicide bombers?  Would we allow the despicable indoctrination to hate and violence that goes on in Palestinian Authority schools?

Let me give you just a couple of examples of this latter phenomenon – arguably the biggest obstacle to peace.

The Year 5 Arabic Language textbook used in Palestinian Authority schools teaches the following:

“Our Palestinian history is brimming with names of martyrs who have given their lives to the homeland, including the martyr Dalal al-Mughrabi. Her struggle portrays challenge and heroism, making her memory immortal in our hearts and minds. The text in our hands speaks about one side of her struggle.”

Touching; except that Dalal al-Mughrabi (a member of Arafat’s Fatah movement) took part in the 1978 Coastal Road Massacre.  11 Palestinian and Lebanese terrorists landed on Israel’s Mediterranean shore near Tel Aviv.  The ‘heroic’ Dalal started the day by murdering an unarmed Israeli woman she happened to find on the beach.  She and her mates then proceeded to murder another 38 Israelis (all but one unarmed, uninvolved civilians), including 13 children.

The Islamic Education textbook for the same age group teaches that the Western Wall (which it calls Al-Buraq Wall)

“is part of the western wall of Al-Aqsa Mosque, and the al-Aqsa Mosque, including the Wall, are Palestinian land and an exclusive right of the Muslims.”

Coming back to Dalal Al-Mughrabi: in 2017, the (not very Israel-loving) Belgian government had to freeze funding to the Palestinian Authority when it discovered that an elementary school for girls they funded in the West Bank was named after that 'martyr'.  Nothing like giving little girls a true hero to emulate, huh?

The logo of the Dalal Al-Mughrabi Elementary School for Girls shows her stylised photo superimposed on the map of 'Palestine,' including Israel. The message is clear...

By the way, the school is located in Bayt Awwa, just a few minutes away from Hebron.  But I don't suppose Amir Ziv includes it in his indoctrination tours.  Though it may be a brilliant opportunity to wax lyrical about what "we must fix"! 

The harpins, of course, are not at all concerned about all this.  Quite the opposite: what really bothers them is

“the one-dimensional pro-Israel teaching [in] Jewish secondary school[s].”

Hmmm… Really?  Do Jewish secondary schools in the UK lionise Baruch Goldstein, calling him a martyr and a hero and encouraging the students to keep his memory immortal in their hearts and minds?  Do Jewish secondary schools in the UK teach that Al-Aqsa is “an exclusive right of” the Jews?  Is there, somewhere in the UK (or the entire world, for that matter, a school named after Baruch Goldstein??

'Intellectual' child abuse

I left the worst for last: arguably the only truly heartbreaking aspect of Lee Harpin’s screech is when he decides to bring his daughter Ruby into it.  Presumably, she is bothered by the fact that her “social media is flooded with ‘Free Palestine’ propaganda”, so she “insisted” to go on that BtS/Yachad indoctrination tour.

Except that, just a couple of paragraphs further on, we find Ruby and her ‘delightful’ dad attending a “Palestine demo”; that is, one of those ‘protests’ at which slogans like ‘Free, free Palestine!’ and ‘From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free!’ are par for the course; and where one so often finds flags and symbols of terror organisations alongside antisemitic banners and slogans, some amounting to overt calls for genocide and ethnic cleansing.

As history teaches us, young people are particularly vulnerable to brainwashing and indoctrination.  I’m afraid that youngsters like Ruby belong in the same category as the Palestinian students: both are cynically being used as political cannon fodder by unscrupulous adults with an ideological axe to grind.  If we are ever to stop the bloodshed and make peace, then children and youngsters – both Jewish and Arab – must be protected from this form of 'intellectual' molestation.

Israel’s Nation State Law: drink driving vs. sober analysis

Recently, the Israeli Parliament (the Knesset) has adopted a piece of legislation entitled ‘Basic Law: Israel – the Nation State of the Jewish People’.  Pretty much everything that happens in Israel can be described as ‘controversial’ if one follows traditional news outlets (let alone the social media).  But this new law is certainly even more ‘controversial’ than usual.  It has been criticised by many in Israel and by most Jewish organisations in the Diaspora.  Others, of course, have defended it.

There are three main ‘strains’ of criticism: the first basically accuses the Israeli legislators of unnecessarily ‘rocking the boat’.  Indeed, despite the brouhaha, the new law does not ‘do’ anything; it has no practical effect, it does not change the reality on the ground one iota.

A second type of criticism is that the law is poorly designed and drafted: it includes superfluous articles, while leaving out important principles.

I confess that I feel a lot of sympathy towards both these criticisms.  But then there is a third category – those who claim that the law is terribly wrong, even utterly evil.  The degree of ‘wrong’ varies between ‘incompatible with democratic principles’ and ‘profoundly racist’ – depending mainly on the critic’s own ideological inclinations.

Confronted with this new development in Israel, most commentators did what they always do – they quoted other pundits.  I’m otherwise inclined – rather than playing the pointless ‘X said/Y said’ game, I suggest taking a look at the actual text and analysing it, article by article.  Tedious – I know; but also meaningful.  Those who have no patience for such things are invited to let journalists tell them what they should see and think.

If you are still with me, let’s see what we have:

1a. The Land of Israel is the historical homeland of the Jewish people, in which the State of Israel was established.

This is only controversial among Israel’s enemies.  It’s also hardly new: Israel’s Declaration of Independence famously stated:

The Land of Israel was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped. Here they first attained to statehood, created cultural values of national and universal significance and gave to the world the eternal Book of Books.

 The League of Nations Mandate also declared

[R]ecognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;

Let’s move on:

1b. The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people, in which it fulfils its natural, cultural, religious and historical right to self-determination.

This is nothing else than ‘Zionism in a nutshell’.

The next article is much more controversial:

1c. The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.

I’ve heard a lot of criticism that points (without actually quoting it) to this particular article.  What I haven’t heard is a counter-proposal.  If we’re not saying that, what are we saying?

Are we saying that the Palestinian people also “has the right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel”?  One can say that, if one is so disposed – but one cannot say that and militate for the two-state solution.  If the Palestinian people can exercise self-determination in Israel, then what’s the point of a Palestinian state?

Are we then saying that anyone who’s an Israeli citizen “has the right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel”?  Again, one can say that – but how then is Israel “the national home of the Jewish people”?  How does one justify the Law of Return, which gives any member of the Jewish people (but not to non-Jews) the almost unconditional right to become an Israeli citizen?  How does one justify the Jewish character of the state – the flag, the symbols, the holidays, etc.?

Let me quote again from the League of Nations Mandate:

the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

It seems rather obvious: the League recognises that the ‘national rights’ belong to the Jewish people; when it comes to “the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”, it sees only “civil and religious [but not national]rights”.

This is further strengthened in Article 4 of the Mandate:

An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.

… and Article 7:

The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.

No equivalent provisions were envisaged for the non-Jewish communities.

Nor was that view abandoned with the dissolution of the League of Nations and its replacement by the United Nations.  UN General Assembly Resolution 181(II)/29 Nov. 1948 called for the establishment of two states and it referred to them as “the Jewish state” and “the Arab state” – although both states were to include minorities belonging to the other ethnicity.  In each state, the Resolution called for:

Guaranteeing to all persons equal and non-discriminatory rights in civil, political, economic and religious matters and the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of religion, language, speech and publication, education, assembly and association;

Again, the reference is to “civil, political, economic and religious [rights] […] and fundamental freedoms”, but not to ‘national rights’, or ‘national self-determination’.  To the authors of the Resolution, it seemed obvious that the ‘national’ rights in the Jewish state belonged to Jews – why else would they define it as “the Jewish state”?

Finally, Israel’s Declaration of Independence proclaimed

the natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate, like all other nations, in their own sovereign State.

The Declaration also states:

The State of Israel […] will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture;

Just like the previous documents, the Declaration differentiates between on one hand ‘national rights’ (which it assigns to the Jewish people); and on the other hand other individual and collective rights, as well as basic freedoms, which are to be enjoyed by all inhabitants of the State, without discrimination.

Still, to people coming from a certain ideological environment, all this does not sound right.  In a recent Jewish Chronicle article, Jonathan Freedland fulminates:

Israel has explicitly granted collective rights to one group of citizens and denied them to another.

The article implies that this is inherently racist; it even hints that Israel may now be accused of apartheid – with more justification than before.  The author then goes on to claim that Israel is no longer a democratic country:

Those used to shouting that ‘Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East’ will need to find another slogan — because this is not how democracies behave.

Except that Freedland’s own country recognises Christmas and Easter as official state holidays (‘bank’ holidays).  Neither Rosh Hashanah, nor Eid-El-Fittr (or indeed Diwali, the Chinese New Year, etc.) enjoy that status.  The Christian cross (but not the Star of David or the Islamic Crescent) features on the national flag.   The Church of England is UK’s Established Church and no other faith has that status; the Head of State is also the Head of the Church, etc.  It would seem that – on some level at least – the UK has “granted collective rights to one group of citizens and denied them to another.”

UK does not have a constitution, so that ‘granting’ is done in practice.  But other countries do it explicitly – in fact at least as explicitly as Israel did.

Let’s have a look, for instance, at the Slovak Constitution.  Its Preamble proclaims:

We, the Slovak nation, mindful of the political and cultural heritage of our forebears, and of the centuries of experience from the struggle for national existence and our own statehood, in the sense of the spiritual heritage of Cyril and Methodius and the historical legacy of the Great Moravian Empire, proceeding from the natural right of nations to self-determination, together with members of national minorities and ethnic groups living on the territory of the Slovak Republic, in the interest of lasting peaceful cooperation with other democratic states, seeking the application of the democratic form of government and the guarantees of a free life and the development of spiritual culture and economic prosperity, that is, we, citizens of the Slovak Republic, adopt through our representatives the following Constitution.

Note that the Preamble postulates a “Slovak nation” acting “together with members of national minorities and ethnic groups”.  The term “together with”unites, but also divides.  It clearly says that “members of national minorities and ethnic groups” are not part of the “the Slovak nation”, though they arepart of the citizenry of the Slovak Republic.  In fact, the Preamble establishes two kinds of “we” – two collectives:

• “We, the Slovak nation”, and
• “we, citizens of the Slovak Republic”.

The equation it draws is: “We, the Slovak nation” + “national minorities and ethnic groups” = “we, citizens of the Slovak Republic”

How is this fundamentally different from ‘Jewish people’ and ‘Israeli citizens’?

Crucially, the Slovak Constitution talks about “the natural right of nations to self-determination” – a discussion included in the “Slovak nation” term of the equation and not in the ‘minorities/citizenry’ one.

This is not mere semantics.  Slovakia is home (but obviously not ‘national home’) to a sizable – circa 10% –  ethnic Magyar (Hungarian) minority, which has lived in the country for many centuries.

Demographics of Slovakia: the yellow areas have majority Magyar population.

Yet the Preamble to the Slovak Constitution is designed in ethnic terms.  References to “the spiritual heritage of Cyril and Methodius and the historical legacy of the Great Moravian Empire” are no doubt very meaningful to the (West-Slavic) “Slovak nation”; but the (non-Slavic) Magyar minority may find it hard to identify with such symbols of Slavic character.  In fact, they may be decidedly underwhelmed by “the historical legacy of the Great Moravian Empire” (830-907 CE) and prefer to remember the Kingdom of Hungary, which – from circa 1000 CE until after World War I – included the territory of modern-day Slovakia.

The Slovak Constitution is not some outdated document, preserved merely by tradition: it was adopted in 1992.

Has Jonathan Freedland read the Slovak Constitution?  Would he say that it “has explicitly granted collective rights to one group of citizens and denied them to another”?  Would he say that it justifies claims of ‘apartheid’?

Yet Slovakia acceded to the European Union in 2004.  The accession process involves punctilious verification that the country fulfils the Accession Criteria, the first of which is:

political criteria: stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities;

The European Union has judged Slovakia (with the Constitution I quoted from above) to fulfil the criterion above.

But let us return to the Israeli Nation State Law.  Paragraph 3 says:

3. The capital of the state: Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel.

In the case of Israel (and only in the case of Israel!) this is seen by many as controversial.  But it isn’t new: it is nothing but ‘copy and paste’ from another Israeli law – ‘Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel’, adopted in 1980!  Paragraph 1 of that law states:

Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel.

Another controversial provision of the Nation Law states:

4a. The state’s language is Hebrew.

4b. The Arabic language has a special status in the state; Regulating the use of Arabic in state institutions or by them will be set in law.

4c. This clause does not harm the status given to the Arabic language before this law came into effect.

The BBC claims that the

so-called Jewish nation state bill […] downgrades Arabic from official language status

Except that Arabic has never been an official language in the State of Israel.  It has been (along with Hebrew and English) an official language in the British Mandate of Palestine.  While the State of Israel never declared Arabic (or English) an official language, it did enshrine in its laws and regulations the obligation of state institutions to provide services in Arabic, as well as Hebrew.  Articles 4b and 4c of the new law in effect guarantee the continuation of that obligation.

But is that (to borrow Jonathan Freedland’s expression) “how democracies behave”?  Let’s start with Jonny’s own country: it may surprise him to learn that the official language of the United Kingdom is English and… English.  Of course, the UK government provides services in Welsh (and occasionally in Hindi, Punjabi, Gujarati, Bengali, etc.) – but these are not official languages in the UK.

The official language of Sweden is Swedish, notwithstanding the fact that a sizable proportion of Sweden’s population has Finnish as their mother tongue.

When it comes to language, Slovakia is infinitely harsher than Israel: a 2009 amendment to the ‘Language Law’ not only establishes Slovak as the only ‘state language’ throughout the country’s territory, but severely restricts the use of Hungarian – even among ethnic Magyars.

According to EU Observer:

The Law […] seeks to regulate any and all meetings, gatherings, associations and other forms of communication by insisting on the parallel use of the ‘state language’, Slovak, whenever and wherever members of the minority get together in public, and ‘public’ is very broadly defined. Thus, if a group of Hungarian-speakers establish a literary circle, say, their proceedings would have to have a parallel Slovak translation, whether anyone actually needed this or not.  Minority-language schools are obliged to run their administration and documentation in Slovak and the same applies to the health service. The armed forces, the police and the fire service are to be monolingually Slovak. This last, by way of example, creates interesting scenarios – thus in a Hungarian-speaking area, the firemen are very likely to be all Hungarian-speakers, but when putting out a fire, they must speak Slovak to each other and also, of course, to the owner of the house where the fire is.

Violating the Slovak Language Law is punishable by a fine of EUR 5,000 (equivalent to 5-6 months’ average wages in Slovakia).

But let’s go back to Israel’s newly adopted Nation State Law:

2a. The name of the state is ‘Israel.’

2b. The state flag is white with two blue stripes near the edges and a blue Star of David in the center.

2c. The state emblem is a seven-branched menorah with olive leaves on both sides and the word “Israel” beneath it.

2d. The state anthem is “Hatikvah.”

Details regarding state symbols will be determined by the law.

Jonathan Freedland might see these provisions as less controversial.  He would be wrong again, however.  It’s in the eye of the beholder, apparently.

Adalah is a foreign-funded Israeli Arab organisation which set as its mission

to promote human rights in Israel in general and the rights of the Palestinian minority, citizens of Israel, in particular.

Among other projects, Adalah compiled a database of Israeli ‘racist laws’ – laws that, in the organisation’s view, discriminate against the Arab minority.  This includes, for instance, the Flag and Emblem Law (adopted by the Knesset in 1949).  Adalah explains that the law

Adopts the flag of the First Zionist Congress and the Zionist Movement [which Adalah considers a colonial enterprise], a combination of a prayer shawl and the Shield of David, as the official flag of Israel.  The emblem of the State of Israel is a candelabrum, one of the symbols of the Temple era in Jewish history.

The Constitution of (EU member) Malta proclaims in Chapter 2: “The religion of Malta is the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion. […] Religious teaching of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Faith shall be provided in all State schools as part of compulsory education.”

 Back to the Nation State Law:

5. Ingathering of the exiles: The state will be open for Jewish immigration and the ingathering of exiles

6. Connection to the Jewish people

6a. The state will strive to ensure the safety of the members of the Jewish people in trouble or in captivity due to the fact of their Jewishness or their citizenship.

6b. The state shall act within the Diaspora to strengthen the affinity between the state and members of the Jewish people.

6c. The state shall act to preserve the cultural, historical and religious heritage of the Jewish people among Jews in the Diaspora.

Jonathan Freedland appears to object less to these provisions.  Frankly, I can’t understand why.  If Israel is the embodiment of the Jewish right of self-determination, then they are easy to understand as expressions of that right; but if Israel embodies the right of self-determination of its Arab (or Palestinian Arab) citizens, then how does Freedland justify them?  Surely, that position should imply that Israel is obligated to rise to the defence of Palestinian besieged in the Yarmouk refugee camp – just as it would do if Yarmouk’s inhabitants were Jewish?  And why should the state “be open for Jewish immigration”, but not for Palestinian Arab immigration (or indeed for the ‘return’ of Palestinian refugees and their descendants)?  Freedland’s (unstated, but implied) views necessarily lead to the position of Adalah, which postulates that Israel’s preferential immigration law is discriminatory and racist.

7. Jewish settlement: The state views the development of Jewish settlement as a national value and will act to encourage and promote its establishment and consolidation.

Here, a tedious linguistic explanation is necessary: the English word 'settlement' is likely to be misinterpreted, because it’s been intensively used (and abused) in relation to Israeli towns and villages beyond the Green Line.  But that would be a mistranslation.  The Hebrew word for ‘settling beyond the Green Line’ is ‘hitnahalut’.  But the law talks about “hityiashvut” – which is the word used for Jewish settlement before the establishment of the State (the term Yishuv – used to refer to the Jewish community in the British Mandate of Palestine – comes from the same root).  So no – this has nothing to do with the ‘illegal settlements’.

In fact, this paragraph of the law mimics the language of the League of Nations mandate, which called on the Administration of Palestine to “encourage […] close settlement by Jews on the land”.

Back to the Nation Law again:

8. Official calendar: The Hebrew calendar is the official calendar of the state and alongside it the Gregorian calendar will be used as an official calendar. Use of the Hebrew calendar and the Gregorian calendar will be determined by law.

9. Independence Day and memorial days

9a. Independence Day is the official national holiday of the state.

9b. Memorial Day for the Fallen in Israel’s Wars and Holocaust and Heroism Remembrance Day are official memorial days of the State.

10. Days of rest and Sabbath: The Sabbath and the festivals of Israel are the established days of rest in the state; Non-Jews have a right to maintain days of rest on their Sabbaths and festivals; Details of this issue will be determined by law.

These paragraphs sketch the Jewish character of the state.  Once more, they might look less controversial to Jonathan Freedland – but these aspects are listed in Adalah’s database of ‘discriminatory laws in Israel’.

The national anthem of Cyprus praises the “Greeks of old”. Which might not impress the country’s ethnic Turkish citizens. 

Finally:

11. Immutability: This Basic Law shall not be amended, unless by another Basic Law passed by a majority of Knesset members.

Which says that the Nation State Law can only be amended by another Basic Law – and not by ‘just any old law’.

***

When all is said and done, the crux of the matter remains paragraph 1c, which makes “national self-determination in the State of Israel” a unique prerogative of the Jewish people.

Jonathan Freedland believes that this is inherently undemocratic and racist; that it turns Arab Israelis into ‘second-class citizens’.

As I’ve shown, if this is true of Arab Israelis, it is also true of Slovak Magyars and other minorities.  But is it?  Well, it depends on the ideology one chooses to subscribe to.  More precisely, it depends on where one chooses to position oneself on the universalism-vs.-particularism scale (I’ve touched briefly on this subject here).

For extreme universalists, states (viewed at best as a temporary and necessary evil) exist as artificial constructs, aimed at placing barriers between people.  For extreme particularists, they are exclusive ethnic fortresses, to be fiercely defended against any foreign trespassers.  In-between, however, there is a wide range of legitimate opinions.

Sadly, in Jonathan Freedland’s world, there is but one ‘good’ opinion (indeed, just one legitimate world view) – the one he subscribes to.  Anyone who dares disagree is automatically placed outside what David Hirsch calls ‘the community of the Good’; s/he is racist, undemocratic, etc.  Well, I’m afraid, Jonny dear, that this in itself smacks of intolerance and bigotry.

I resent ethnic exclusivism and despise ethnic supremacism; but I also view the state as repository of a people’s historical and cultural heritage, a ‘safe space’ for a particular flavour of humanity to develop and grow.  Complemented and enriched by others – yes; overwhelmed by others – no.

In its most profound sense, ‘national self-determination’ means the right of a people to impart to their state its distinct, unique, ‘national’ character.  It’s about flavour and texture Jonny – not power and subjugation.

I strongly believe that Arab Israelis should have equal political, civil, economic and social rights, as well as personal and collective freedoms.  They should be free to use their own language, to develop, enjoy and pass on to future generations their own culture.  Israel is their home – in every sense but one.  Physically, politically, legally, economically and socially Arab Israelis fully ‘belong’ in the State of Israel – just like Slovak Magyars ‘belong’ in Slovakia.  But we also need to understand that Arab Israelis will always look to the Arab world (and – one day if they so desire – to a Palestinian Arab state) as their cultural and ‘national’ home.  Just like Slovak Magyars will look to Hungary; just like Swedish Finns look to Finland; and – dare I say – just like British Jews look to Israel.  There is nothing wrong with that; nothing untoward or illegitimate.  That makes them neither a ‘fifth column’, nor ‘second class citizens’.

These are my views.  Jonathan Freeland is, of course, welcome to his opinions – as long as they are logical and consistent.  But there is a huge internal contradiction in his world view: even while railing against Israel’s Nation Law, Mr. Freedland is asking the UK Labour Party to adopt in full the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism.  Jonathan objects to the fact that Labour has excluded from their Code of Conduct some of the examples of antisemitism – including

Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavo[u]r.

But if Jonathan claims that the right of self-determination of Palestinian citizens of Israel should be satisfied in Israel, then it follows that the right of self-determination of British Jews should be satisfied in Britain (and that of Russian Jews in Russia, etc.)  How, then, does Jonathan Freedland justify his other claim, that the right of self-determination of Jews is embodied by the State of Israel and that denying that right (i.e. denying Israel’s right to exist as the State of the Jews) is an antisemitic prejudice?  And how does he justify his demand for a separate Palestinian state?

Ideology is like alcohol: it affects people’s ability to think straight and constrains their peripheral vision.  One should neither drive a car, nor write a political article while ‘under the influence’!