Small flames: a response

Jonny Steinberg wrote a one-sided and misleading article in Business Day 17 July headed "Small flames of empathy in a wind of subjugation" (http://www.monitoringsa.com/PDFS/2008_07_17_326926.pdf). David Saks responded with an effective letter on 18 July and I have just submitted a letter of my own, reproduced below. It only scratches the surface of the issues raised in Steinberg's article but it is the best one can do under the circumstances.

"Jonny Steinberg’s verbal brilliance obscures the intellectual and ethical poverty of his piece in Business Day, 17 July (Small flames of empathy in a wind of subjugation). Does he imagine that only his small band of self-styled progressives and activists are capable of feeling empathy or that the ordinary Israeli kid, compelled to police the West Bank, enjoys the dirty work of survival?

Steinberg assures us that he was “moderately well informed” before leaving on his deliberately selective tour of the West Bank/Israel but where is that is revealed in his writing. Where, for instance, does he ask why it was necessary for the Israelis to go to the extraordinary expense and trouble of creating a “vein-like network of roads” for the exclusive use of the settlers, whereas Israeli Arabs are free to travel where they like within Israel?

If he had enquired, he would have discovered that it was because the young Palestinian boys with “bullet belts slung over their shoulders” had murdered over a 1000 Israelis in the early years of the Intifada, and that Jewish settlers in the West Bank would suffer a similar fate without the roads, checkpoints and barriers.

Ah, says Steinberg (and his clones) at this point: “if the Israelis simply vacated the West Bank this “subjugation” would not be necessary. The hate, systematically incalcated into the minds of Palestinian and many Arab and Muslim children of the region, would dissipate and peace would descend on the Middle East”.

Would that were true. The Israelis tried to leave in 1999/2000 when the West Bank had been prospering economically, growing by leaps and bounds demographically and with its health and mortality figures showing the benefits of cooperation and relative peace. The answer was the Intifada and its consequences.

They cannot leave because Hamas, Hizbollah, Iran, and others less overtly, have made it clear that any “retreat” on the part of Israel is but a step on the road to total “liberation”. Or does Steinberg’s information conveniently end before he reaches this point in the narrative?

Steinberg’s perspective is revealed in his last paragraph where Israelis are implicitly enjoined to nurture the “little bridges being built”, not simply out of a common humanity, but because when American dominance happily ends they may need the supposed goodwill of their enemies.

Jews have suffered the tenderness of strangers for more than 2000 years of statelessness, which is precisely the reason why Israel was created. Steinberg may wish to reflect further on this while he enjoys the hospitality of the City University of New York."

Mike Berger

The Islamic Agenda?

I reprint below a piece entitled "Islamic Imperialism" written by Willie Paterson, an ardent Christian supporter of Israel. We owe a great deal to the courageous and steadfast support of our Christian friends and I am delighted to welcome them to SOLAR PLEXUS.

There have been critics from within the Jewish community claiming that progressive Zionists should shun the support derived from Christian groups. The reasons they advance include the purported "rightwing" political stance of such groups or alleged religious agendas underlying such support. Sometimes, I suspect it is simply a visceral dislike of the religiosity displayed by some of the more vocal of the Christian evangelical churches.

I don't find any of this convincing. I disagree mildly and sometimes profoundly with the views of many Jewish Zionists, but recognise that were I to insist that every supporter of Israel share my world-view I would find myself confined to a small and ineffectual coalition of fellow conformists. Thus we should welcome every supporter except where their actions or words are so ethical dubious or dangerous to clearly disqualify them. I certainly don't find this amongst the Christians I have been in contact with.

That does not mean that I necessarily agree with everything that our ally and friend, Willie Paterson, has written. I am not sure, for instance, that every more towards improving ecumenical relationships is a covert strategy for undermining the West, though we should not be naive about such matters. The main issue is how to differentiate and combat political Islam while not lapsing into irrational Islamophobia.

While readers ponder this, they may also consider the "Quote du Jour" representing leftwing thought within Israel and outside. This position was discussed more fully in my previous post "Liberal heart, neocon brain" and seems considerably more naive and dangerous than most writings coming from the Christian Zionist camp.

These are issues we should discuss further on this blog. But in the meantime, here is Willie Paterson's article after very minor editing:

Islamic Imperialism.

“The United States and the West cannot win the war against radical Islam merely with the most sophisticated military strategies. Winning requires understanding the role of shari'a and the Muslim Brotherhood in developing a global ideological and political movement supported by a parallel "Islamic" financial system to exploit and undermine Western economies and markets. This movement is the foundation and the major funding source for the political, economic, and military initiatives of the global Islamic movement.” (FrontPage Magazine.com, 14 June 2008).

The Western world underestimates the power of radical Islam. In the political arena Islam are either over-represented demographically or use it as a platform to foster radicalism. A case in point is the Israeli Parliament which because of its democratic nature has Arab representatives in the Knesset, some of whom abuse those democratic privilegies to advance their radical ideas. Pressure is building up on the South African Parliament to abolish certain religious holidays which are dear to the Christian Community.

In the financial market the Islamic demand is for segregated services. Most mainstream banks in the Western World have an Islamic Banking department. Does that mean that any religion has the right to their own brand of banking. If not, for what reason does a minority group have that right or is it just another instrument towards the dream to establish a caliphate.

On the religious front ecumenical relations are fostered in the name of peace. This is contrary to the Koran which only acknowledges Islam as a religion. Religious leaders should study these covert agendas more closely.

The SA human rights delegation to Israel should also be monitored carefully. Consisting of strong Muslim influence, this delegation could be hijacked to portray their particular views. It is so that every peaceful avenue must be exhausted to solve political issues, but we must be aware of hidden agendas.

And this is not cynicism, we have to see the world as it is. We are caught in the crossfire of a fierce ideological war.

It is time for the Western world to take note of the often perceived small, but highly successful steps towards Sharia law or a world of Dar al Islaam.

Willie Paterson

Liberal heart, Neocon brain

Gershom Gorenberg, a liberal modern orthodox Israeli, and Haim Watzman have an excellent blog entitled SouthJerusalem. They sound like the kind of intelligent, sympathetic people one would like to know and they have put their money where their mouth is by emigrating from the USA to Israel. Gershom is the author of a challenging article (see here) in Prospect UK, a general middle-of-the-road intellectual UK magazine.

In it he argues for a stronger liberal-dovish Israel-Jewish lobby in the USA, reflecting the position of the majority of American Jews according to Gershom, to counter AIPAC which he labels rightwing. He claims, possibly correctly, that they would reflect an Israeli reality which seeks dialogue with Israel's enemies on the basis of a two-state solution and the usual set of compromises advocated by moderate peaceniks.

He sounds plausible and I much prefer the tone of his writing to the xenophobic and paranoidal ring which afflicts so many rightwing (mainly, but not exclusively, religious) commentators. Despite this, I suspect he is guilty of a great deal of wishful thinking with potentially catastrophic consequences for Jews and Israelis specifically. In a comment (accessible here) I said the following:

"Gershom confuses his desire for a kinder, juster world (which most of us share) for analysis. He believes labelling people as left/right or neocon/liberal is helpful in itself; it isn’t. He contrasts “shortterm security needs” with “longterm peace”. But if you don’t have the essential shorterm security the longterm is irrelevant. And who says, that “concessions”, justice, kindness will contribute to peace against opponents (Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran for instance) who are interested in your destruction, not your friendship? Of course justice, kindness and magnanimity can be pursued for their own sakes and not for the political dividends they bring - but that is another matter. What does Gorem say to the argument that the political situation demands a decisive Israeli (Western) military victory, the end of 2-state hopes, the extension of Israel to more defensible borders, expulsion of all those not willing to live in peace in a Jewish Israel and hopefully a raprochement and even cooperation with neighbours who understand Israel is there to stay and that it would be more rational to get along. This would require USA (and Western) longterm commitment of course, and that may be the biggest stumbling block. As much as my heart is liberal my head is a neocon - with some imagination I hope."

This deserves a couple more qualifications. It is entirely possible, indeed desirable, to combine a fairly hardline (realistic) political stance with a liberal, non-racist personal orientation. The political and personal are two different realms. It is not too difficult to understand that the Arab-Muslim threat to Israel arises out of political, cultural and other contextual historical and current realities and does not reflect some intrinsic evil in either the people or in the Islamic religion.

That does not make the threat any less real, and thus my political stance is extremely realistic.

Shlomo Aveneri (in Haaretz) points to the multiple dimensions and incredible complexity of the so-called Israel-Palestine conflict which makes any prospect for a comprehensive resolution highly improbable. But, drawing on examples from the ethnic conflicts in Cyprus, Kosovo, Bosnia and Kashmir, he argues that there is a role for conflict management.

By that he refers to the mix of diplomatic, economic, scientific and other initiatives aimed at reducing the intensity and likelihood of violence while allowing slower processes of cooperation, improved security and political advance to move the parties closer to a viable peace.

Whether this is any more realistic than the hope that empathy and concessions will make dialogue possible is, in my view, dubious. I suspect that at some time it will become apparent both to Israel and the USA (and the West in general) that a decisive military victory (however that is defined) must precede any political resolution. But that recognition cannot be indefinitely delayed without rendering success more difficult or even impossible.

But to reiterate: a realistic political posture does not require uncalled for brutality or racist and xenophobic attitudes. That demeans us and certainly does not advance our interests.

Mike Berger

The Darkling Plain

I've been off-air for a while but not dormant (from "dormir" to sleep (French) see also dormitory etc). The title of this post is taken, as many of you will know, from Matthew Arnold's famous poem "Dover Beach" written in 1867. The final stanza is reproduced in the Quotes du Jour alongside.
They are amongst the most intense and moving lines of poetry that I know and perhaps the most painful part is that in considerable measure they are as true today as they were nearly century and a half ago. Of course, they have been widely used by others and readers may find the following Wiki link interesting - click here.

Before I go further click here for a short but excellent summary of some of the implications of the Hamas-Israel truce and related negotiations. At the end of this blog I list further sites where good information and analysis can be found.

Part of the last week I've spent dealing with one of the issues raised by the poem; namely, the relationship between personal and political truth. This question has always resided in my semiconscious and was sparked into activity by the book entitled “The Vocabulary of Peace: Life, Culture and Politics in the Middle East” by Shulamith Hareven written way back in 1995. The author was both a Zionist and a universalist but, above all, a powerful and poetic writer widely recognised in Israel and abroad. She died in 2004 aged 73 years. Her voice is that of the Israeli liberal left but is much more grounded in experienced realities than the more ideological and fanatic members of the Peace Now movement and other similar organisations.

Nevertheless, despite my respect and admiration for her book I felt it failed to recognise the gap between the personal and political and thus failed to do justice to the multi-dimensionality of the Middle East reality. I have written an article entitled "The darkling plain" to explore further my thoughts on these issues and have submitted it to Ferial Haffejee of the Mail and Guardian. Her response has been positive and without an absolute commitment at this stage, the paper is seriously considering publication. I won't post it on this blog before I have a clear answer but in time it will appear.

As an "activist writer" in defense of Israel in the the local media I am the recipient (sought and unsought) of numerous items relating broadly to the Israel-Palestinian conflict and related political questions. I find much - certainly not all - on both sides of the fence to be shrill, selective, and often just banal. Some of it is counterproductive (at least as far as I am concerned). Excessive negative rhetoric prompts me to question the motives and judgement of the writer.

The "big issue" for many supporters of Israel is: how does one retain one's humanity while at the same time acknowledging political realities and remaining commited to a cause? I

I cannot give a formulaic answer to the question but believe that Israel will be better served by honesty and even criticism (especially if informed and thoughtful) than blind idolatry. I would be interested in the views of others.

Nevertheless, we simply cannot turn a blind eye to the hatred that is being disseminated by the Islamist camp - to see a recent article by Matthias Kuntzel on the phenomenon click here. Is this part of Islam in general? I don't know the answer but do accept that elements within Islam can be used by extremist groups to justify hatred. However, I see little to be gained by making the whole of Islam (with its 1.5 billion adherents) our inevitable enemies. Rather focus on the extremists, isolate them from the body of Islam and encourage the religion to move toward greater enlightenment and tolerance.

For the more scholarly readers I recommend the following items

The New Post-Zionist Historians by Yoav Gelber published by the AJC in 2007. It is a substantial (36 pages), critical but scholarly look at the writings and assumptions of a number of post-Zionist (anti-Zionist would be more accurate) historians. Those interested can write to me directly and I will send them the pdf file. I suggest you have broadband.

An interview with RS Wistrich on Antisemitism Embedded in British Culture published by the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs in July 2008. For the internet version click here.

In addition, I strongly recommend the following sites to keep yourself informed on Jewish-Israeli-Palestinian affairs on an on-going basis:

Daily Alert

British Israel Communications and Research Centre (BICOM)

Jewish Israel News Service (JTA)

In addition to these sites one can directly log into the Israeli media which generally have good on-line publications. I would also draw your attention to a new UK publication with a conservative bent, Standpoint. It would be interesting to compare this with Commentary (USA mainly Jewish in orientation), The New Republic (USA, general) and Prospect (UK, general).

Finally, I would be interested in reviews or suggestions regarding other material (books, articles etc) that move beyond propaganda to deal in a non-academic but intelligent way with Israel and the Middle East. Please send in your contributions.

Mike Berger

Intractible Conflict

Intractable conflict is a subspecies of “cultural persistence”, that is, cultural patterns that recreate themselves across time over extraordinarily long periods.

Intractable conflict is especially interesting since there are real costs to the protagonists. Nevertheless, certain conflicts seem to go and on despite the obvious disadvantages and pain that they cause those closely involved. The Israeli-Palestinian stand-off is a current example. It has been going strong for a century or so and resolution seems elusive.

There are a number of obvious factors contributing to the longevity of this particular conflict. For instance, despite a number of military losses, the Palestinians have not been decisively defeated in the full sense of the term. They have not been dispersed and incorporated into the populations of other nations but exist in substantial numbers on the borders of Israel or as enclaves (refugees) within the boundaries of a few host nations like Syria and Lebanon. Their numbers have substantially increased rather than diminished. Thus the two protagonists still stand eyeball to eyeball, and elements within both camps still hope for the decisive victory for which they have striven.

Then, of course, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been incorporated into the agendas of various regional and global groups. For some regional players the conflict has strategic value of various kinds by mobilising public opinion behind a specific party or individual or by deflecting popular criticism or serving as a bargaining chip in dealings with other powers and rivals. In the web of regional interpersonal, intergroup and interstate rivalries the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has instrumental value over-and-above its direct emotional significance for their neighbours.

As much as this is true regionally, it also holds at a global level. Israel plays a significant part in the American presidential election for instance, and the candidates take great care in establishing their support for the Jewish state. This deeply riles those, like Mearsheimer and Walt, who resent the concern for Israel displayed by mainstream politicians and their supporters. They attribute this to the devious machinations of the “Jewish-Israeli Lobby” and, while this lobby has certainly been effective, their success is based upon many shared values as well as strategic concerns between the USA and Israel.

There is little doubt that the conflict has also played a role in shading the relationship between America and her allies. This is difficult to quantify since it is but one strand in a host of differences between the Old World and the New as well as between the Third World and the West. The conflict is certainly outweighed by other more direct strategic interests and differences, but can play a complicating role.

Besides these obvious factors which make the Israeli-Palestinian conflict so convoluted, I would argue that a significant part of the problem is that it has become widely institutionalised and woven into the very fabric of institutional and individual lives, both at the local and global level.

Locally it is obvious. The IDF exists primarily to defend itself from the threat posed by the Palestinians and their backers. The IDF is a major and constant factor in Israeli life. Quite apart from its military function it serves to integrate and unite the very diverse elements which go to make up Israeli society. Similarily in Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon, as well as elsewhere in the region, specific organisations (eg. Hamas, Hizbollah and may other lesser groups) receive their justification and validation through the role they play in the so-called “resistance” to Israeli aggression. This provides a cover for self-advancement and enrichment through a host of borderline or outrightly criminal activities.

Similarily, at a global level, many leftwing (and a few rightwing) groups justify and define themselves through their stance in relation to the Israeli-Palestinian question. Personal advancement and self-publicity can be achieved through an activist posture relative to the conflict. Such groups become part of a de facto network of pro-Palestinian organisations and in this way become self-perpetuating. They also block resolution by polarising debate and by encouraging extremist postures.

Besides opportunities for status, prestige and even material advancement (and I have not even mentioned the importance of economic activity associated with what may be broadly termed the “military-industrial complex” according to Eisenhower) offered to protagonists on both sides of the conflict, the dispute also serves various psychological needs. These include the need for meaning and purpose, for self-validation and for venting personal frustration and anger into acceptable channels of social activity. This probably plays an important role in creating recruits for terror groups and for motivating both the vociferous leftwing opponents and, to a lesser extent, even the defenders of the American-Israeli axis.

This brief survey both understates and overstates the nature of the “institutionalisation” of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It would be possible to advance many more examples of its influence and involvement in economic, political, social and personal spheres than I have offered here. But at the same time it is often just one, sometimes a small, component of many other causal factors and does not always play a determining role in deciding the course of events. It may also be argued that the same analysis could be applied to any conflict or political issue of some magnitude. I would not dispute this- see for example, Tibet, China, the Sudan and so forth.

But it would be hard to argue that the intertwining of the Middle East conflict with the existence and fates of individuals and collectivities of various kinds, both regional and global, does not add to the difficulty of resolution. Thomas Friedman (in the Sunday Times this week) and others also point to the fact that the whole Israeli-Palestinian situation has acquired a kind of emotional inertia and is in danger of simply perpetuating itself unless sufficient energy is devoted to its resolution, notably by the USA. Be that as it may, I believe it is more than simple inertia - that the conflict suits the agendas of many people and groups on both sides of the divide and also that resolution is feared for the unexpected and anticipated problems which could follow in its wake.

In the long run intractability cannot be good. The conflict is a potential longterm existential threat to Israel, it is a recruiting tool for extremists and terrorists, it creates misery and hatred amongst millions of Palestinians, it distorts Israel’s foreign and domestic policies and is a polarising force in global politics. We should not give up on Peace.

Mike Berger

Posttravel Reflections

Travel they say “broadens the mind”. That may well be true but it also empties the wallet and exhausts the body.

These reflections are prompted by our return from a family trip to the USA, including a visit to Arizona and the Grand Canyon and, on the way back, a two day stopover in that bizarre and fascinating desert experiment – Dubai.

In our relatively brief absence major natural disasters befell China and Myanmar, the xenophobic pogroms in South Africa gained high-profile treatment in major world news, Hiliary Clinton put her foot in it with a reference to the Robert Kennedy assassination, Bush visited Israel, talks between Israel and Syria (and even Hezbollah) were pursued further and pressure on Olmert continued to mount from all sides.

I missed the past 3 weeks of the debate within South Africa surrounding Israel’s 60^th anniversary, but just before I left Johann Hari’s poisonous piece of political pornography (originally published in the UK Independent) was published in The Star. In response to a request by Bev Goldman, I hurriedly wrote an article in response which apparently never saw the light of day. Nevertheless, it can be found on my blog (Solar Plexus) and can be distributed to all who are interested.

Postmodern conflict is as much psychological as economic or military. Lies, distortions and selective simplifications are the tools of this devious craft whose objective to is weaken the enemy and gain popular support. Ugly though it is it must be fought. In so doing it poses its own ethical dilemmas similar to those confronted by conventional military conflict.

We all know the world seldom divides itself neatly into the categories depicted in political propaganda. Even those with right on their side make mistakes and commit sins. How do we defend ourselves against those without scruples or who are so caught up in the fervour of their cause that such considerations never cross their minds?

For myself I try to stick to the truth as far as I can perceive it at a given moment while bearing in mind the deeper and often unstated ramifications of the “debate”. One point which arises again and again are the “settlements” in the West Bank and continued construction therein. Seldom does one see reasoned debate around this issue which is assiduously exploited by those opposed to Israel’s existence and, to a more limited extent, those opposed to Israeli strategy and tactics.

In the best of all worlds, one would hope to see Israel as an inclusive “Jewish State” with a contented Arab minority enjoying all the rights and dignities of full citizenship alongside a Palestinian-Jordanian entity which is the mirror image of the Israeli situation. In this imagined world, the precise boundaries would not assume great significance, since the minorities in the two neighbouring states would enjoy all the rights and privileges of citizenship, including ease of travel and communication.

In reality, hostility, mistrust and hidden agendas make such a solution extremely difficult to attain. Neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis have any overwhelming moral right to some clearly defined portion of the Middle East. Thus any solution is a pragmatic-moral balance between two claimants with some, but not definitive, arguments to support them, though I believe that Israel has the stronger arguments on its side.

But, under current political conditions, no resolution will satisfy everyone. Every group on both sides will calculate where the line between advantage and loss is drawn and will try to achieve the best possible outcome for itself. All this is caught up in greater battles both regional and global. Neither we nor the experts can find any simple solutions to these intertwined conflicts. The best we can be do is to remain on guard against those seeking maximal advantage for their side and, simultaneously, open to opportunity for peaceful resolution – a tricky balancing act.

Yet this is the uncertain and precarious path whereby we humans eventually reach resolution of seemingly intractable conflicts.

Mike Berger

To see Dubai Images as slideshow click here

Political Pornography Updated

I have written here before about anti-Zionist propaganda. A recent article by Johann Hari, an award-winning, celebrity journalist for the Independent in the UK, goes beyond propaganda to pornography (click here for article). This piece caters for the obsessive anti-Zionist anti-Semitism which has become a feature of the so-called progressive press.

Despite denials, this campaign - which closely resembles the vicious European anti-Semitism of the pre-Nazi era - caters for the semi-psychotic addicted crazies which infect every strata of society and need only some form of legitimation to give expression to their fantasies. The following quote from comments in response to the article(one example amongst many on the 'net) gives some idea of the thought processes underlying these obsessions:

“The next Anti-Christ will be jew..... Take a LOOK at a youtube video called The Esoteric Agenda....a real eye opener Explains how these jew bastards like Rockefellers, Rothchilds, Morgans etc. need to rule the planet by famine and disease....”

Hari knows about this trend. Previously he wrote

“And, yes, the debate about Israel is being infected with anti-Semitism. I passionately support the creation of a Palestinian state…But why the constant rhetorical inflation of Israel's crimes to put them on a par with Nazi Germany?” He went on to say, “more people died in one afternoon in Bergen-Belsen than have been killed in twenty years of conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.” He could equally have said “or killed in one night’s British bombing of German cities”.

But that did not stop Hari from writing his latest vicious piece of pornography. We must answer this campaign of defamation but we must also seek ways of carrying the fight to our enemies. I was told that Hari's article has been or is going to be published in The Star. I am unable to locate it on the Internet and have not been sent a hard copy, but was asked by Bev Goldman, Media Team leader for the SAJBOD, to write an op-ed piece in response.

Despite this uncertainty, I drafted a reply published below in full. It may yet appear in The Star, but you have it here in unexpurgated and unedited form. (Has Hari's original piece been blocked by objections to its publication of the Internet??)

I will be away for 3 weeks so don't expect anything from me for the next month. All the best and lets keep the responses coming.

Political Pornography

Everyone knows it is easier to throw mud than to wipe it off, and Johann Hari in the Star (…) comes armed with something much more smelly than mud. He builds his article, to use his words, around Jewish filth being flung at a “cowering Palestinian population”.

Now Mr Hari is himself a shit-thrower of considerable note; he is the 2008 winner of the Orwell Prize for Journalism amongst other awards. His descriptions are thus suitably vivid: “long stinking rivers of waste” and “…one of them burst drowning a nine-month-old baby and his elderly grandmother in a tsunami of human waste”. Being a celebrity journalist, apparently excuses Hari from the boring stuff like verifying the accuracy of his claims or contextualising them.

It seems almost petty to ask whether the Intifada launched in 2000, when Palestinian economic and population growth were at a peak and Arafat had been offered 95% of the West Bank and the opportunity to build a Palestinian state, may have dented the rehabilitation of the sewerage system in the West Bank and Gaza. Or whether the sewer pipes are blocked because they are used for Quassam rockets or because Hamas is targeting the Israel-Gaza crossings to prevent material getting through so as to increase political pressure on Israel.

Perhaps Hari could have mentioned that significant Israeli-Palestinian cooperation is on-going to address the complex, emotive and longterm issues around water and waste as evidenced by a recent publication entitled “Water Resources in the Middle East: Israel-Palestinian Water Issues From Conflict to Cooperation” edited by Hillel Shuval and Hassan Dweik.

But none of this is pertinent to Hari’s true mission which is not to critique Israel’s attitude towards Palestinian welfare but to delegitimise the Israeli state. Excrement is really just the hors d’oevres.

Using Ilan Pappe as his historical witness, Hari quotes Ben Gurion as saying “The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war”. (Ben Gurion was that dumb?) This was accomplished by Plan Dalit. “In 1948, before the Arab armies invaded,…some 800 000 people were ethnically cleansed and Israel was built on the ruins”.

All this, along with the “cowering Palestinians” is simply propaganda. The cowering Palestinians, aided by Iran and Syria, have launched thousands of rockets and mortars at southern Israel, have murdered and kidnapped Israeli soldiers and civilians and openly declare their intention to “liberate” the whole of Palestine from the Jordan to the Mediterranean with the help of arms smuggled through Egypt.

Pappe, Hari’s source and apparent inspiration and a member of the Israeli Communist Party before emigrating in 2007, regards facts as irrelevant. A few direct quotes provides the flavour: “My bias is apparent despite the desire of my peers that I stick to facts and the "truth" when reconstructing past realities. I view any such construction as vain and presumptuous”. “Indeed the struggle is about ideology, not about facts. Who knows what facts are?”

So it is hardly surprising that the “facts” used by Hari to support his case against Israel are nothing but fiction. The quote attributed to Ben Gurion has been dismissed by genuine historians (that is, those who believe that facts matter) as “pure invention”. Similarly, rather than Jews driving out helpless Palestinians, local Arab attacks starting in 1947 killed over 1000 Jews by March 1948 before the invasion of six Arab armies.

Now Hari is more than a crusading celebrity journalist: for instance he obtained a double first at Cambridge. So when he compares Israel in the Middle East with 30 million Kurds taking over most of Britain, he knows its bullshit. In case some of our readers have to be be told why, here goes:

Because Jews became a nation for the first time in “Palestine” about 3000 years ago and have had a presence there ever since. Because a pitiful couple of hundred thousand not 30 million Jews “invaded” the Middle East, many the remnants of slaughtered European communities. Because there was no Palestinian state for the Jews to invade, only a relatively minor province of the huge and failing Ottoman Empire occupied by about 30 000 Jews and 600 000 Arabs, many scattered as impoverished tenant farmers subject to the depredations of Bedouin raiders, plus a much smaller Arab middle and wealthy class. Jerusalem was already mainly Jewish. And, finally, because Israel does not occupy most of Arab land but less than one five hundredth. Palestinian Arabs share ethnicity, history, language and religion with around 300 million near neighbours.

It is easy enough to discredit Hari’s accusations since he hardly gets a single fact right. But that doesn’t get to the root of the issue. After all, no-one is claiming that Israel is a country of saints or that its creation was a kind of immaculate conception. For yardsticks of comparison just look at the history of the USA, Mexico, Britain, and so on down the list.

In reality Hari’s article goes beyond ordinary propaganda, it is anti-Zionist pornography; the kosher version of Holocaust denial. It arises from and caters to obsessive anti-Zionist, anti-Semitism, the bastard offspring of pre-Nazi anti-Semitism which has been resurrected globally by a sytematic media campaign over decades.

I exaggerate? Well here’s one comment following on Hari’s original article in the UK Independent from Laurie Smith: “The next Anti-Christ will be jew..... Take a LOOK at a youtube video called The Esoteric Agenda....a real eye opener Explains how these jew bastards like Rockefellers, Rothchilds, Morgans etc. need to rule the planet by famine and disease....” There are many more like that in the crevices of the Internet.

Hari knows of this psychotic underworld. In 2006 he wrote “And, yes, the debate about Israel is being infected with anti-Semitism. I passionately support the creation of a Palestinian state…But why the constant rhetorical inflation of Israel's crimes to put them on a par with Nazi Germany?” He went on to say, “more people died in one afternoon in Bergen-Belsen than have been killed in twenty years of conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.” He could equally have said “or killed in one night’s British bombing of German cities”.

We have laws against gross sexual pornography in our media. Perhaps we need to apply some of the same standards to political pornography. It seems a much greater threat to a sane and decent society than the former kind.

Mike Berger