This is a cross-post from falsedichotomies.com

Everyone knows that the Jews control Hollywood. Everyone also knows that Jews are ‘Israel-firsters’. Which means that those who are not ‘Israel-firsters’ are going to have a tough time making it in the movie industry. Take Tilda Swinton. Even falsedi’s resident film critic, the Highbury Gaon, said that We Need to Talk About Kevin was brilliant. Never mind that the ‘Hollywood Reporter’ has a perfectly reasonable explanation for why she hasn’t been nominated for the Oscars (as George Orwell might have put it, just because it’s nominated for the Oscars it doesn’t mean that it’s good, and vice-versa). The reason she wasn’t nominated for the Oscars was because she once wore a Palestine scarf in ‘British Vogue’. Because the Jews control Hollywood. And the Jews are Israel-firsters. And because Israel-firsters are so committed to the cause that they won’t let a brilliant and deserving actress be nominated for the Oscars. And of course wearing a Palestine scarf means that Swinton must be the most deserving of the ‘Best Actress’ gong.

No  more evidence required. You can count on less than one hand the number of times I’ve called out anti-Zionists for anti-Semitism on this site, but if the allegation insinuated by Phil Weiss isn’t anti-Semitic, then nothing is. Unless, of course, he has more evidence that he’d like to share.

PS I am Love came out before the appearance in Vogue, and she wasn’t nominated for that either.

PPS Steven Spielberg wasn’t nominated for War Horse. Any keffiyehs in his closet?

Harry’s Place readers need no introduction to MEMO; the organisation’s activities have been the subject of many a post from its Director’s signing of the Istanbul Declaration and leading of the MCB boycott of Holocaust Memorial Day to its promotion of Raed Salah and collaboration with Amnesty International UK.

The latest screed from MEMO’s Press Officer Dr. Hanan Chehata will therefore probably come as no surprise either, despite its outlandish claims of ‘ethnic cleansing by four wheel drive’.

[T]here is some sort of sick trend spreading throughout the settler colonies whereby it has become fashionable or somehow commendable to target and run over Palestinian civilians. The reality is worse than simply suggesting that settlers do not value Palestinian lives, that goes without saying or the settlers would not be volunteering to be a part of the Israeli occupation machinery in the first place, but it seems to be more ominous than that. It seems that some Israeli citizens are actively taking it upon themselves to enact the Israeli government’s policy of ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people by taking part in a concerted campaign to wipe them out themselves, picking them off one at a time. [emphasis added]

The sort of mentality one needs to have in order to become a settler is a clear lack of human empathy, a sense of moral superiority over all others; a willingness to steal the home and property of another family and to show, not only no remorse, but palpable arrogant glee over your ill-gotten acquisition. And now, it seems, the most recent trait you acquire as a settler is an uncanny ability to knock down Palestinians who are on their way to school or work – presumably accumulating points and kudos among other settlers as you do it.

Like anywhere else in the world, Israel has its fair share of road accidents, but to interpret that unexceptional fact as a deliberate attempt to ‘wipe out’ the Palestinians as part of an official policy of ethnic cleansing requires seriously malicious intent, fueled by unsubstantiated reports from such dubious sources as Sameh Habeeb’s Palestine Telegraph. Interestingly, the picture used to illustrate Chehata’s article is of a well-known 2010 incident in Shiloach/Silwan – later shown to be a photo-op set-up gone wrong.

Obviously blessed with a very fertile imagination, employee of Hamas- and Hizbollah-supporting MEMO and former ‘Viva Palestina’ convoy participant Chehata does, however, seem to lack a sense of irony as she states that:

If this racist phenomenon was to happen in any other part of the world, especially in an area with such heightened racial tensions as the OPTs, whereby one group of people were seen to be actively targeting another by virtue of their race or religion, there would be an international outcry.

Naturally, Chehata’s narrative does not include incidents such as this, this or this.

There is, of course, every reason to denounce Chehata’s demonization of an entire group of people based purely upon a figment of her imagination mixed with obviously deeply held racist stereotypes and some dodgy political views, but there is also reason to do more.

Some weeks ago John Mann MP wrote an excellent post on these pages concerning the work of the All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism in which he stated that the group’s work had:

… secured a culture in Parliament whereby intra-party conversations were had and action taken in the event that an MP stepped out of line.

Unfortunately, two of MEMO’s ‘honorary advisors’ sit in the House of Lords – Lord Nazir Ahmed and Baroness Jenny Tonge. They, as representatives of Britain’s highest institution, must surely be held to account for their involvement with an organization which knowingly fosters racial hatred and demonization based on fictions of its employees’ imagination.

MEMO does not promote measured discussion or criticism of Israeli policies; it engages in defamation, demonization and witch-hunting. The fact that it (and too many similar organisations) is graced by the patronage and support of a number of British lawmakers is not lost upon those of us observing the United Kingdom from afar.

In a speech in part aimed at drumming up business (including lucrative foreign students) for the UK economy, Middle East Minister Alistair Burt last week attempted to persuade students at Bar Ilan University that “negative reports about the UK’s attitude towards Israel” are unjust, claiming that such impressions are based on the actions of “a small, marginal and yes very noisy group”.

The sad reality of members of the House of Lords (hardly what one would describe as a ‘marginal group’) being involved with terrorist and racial-hatred promoting organisations such as MEMO, the PSC and the ECESG indicates that Burt is at best in denial regarding the extent of the cult-like hostility towards Israel even under his own nose. His sweeping under the carpet of such a serious issue does nothing to advance his country’s image as a place to study, visit or do business.

Writing about the Middle East at Harry’s Place can feel like putting your hand in a pool full of flesh-stripping piranhas – and I mean that as a compliment. One of the milder criticisms I’ve received is that I may be unduly influenced by authors with a pro-Palestinian bias. Insofar as moderate Palestinians (like Sari Nusseibeh and Raja Shehadeh) and liberal Zionists (like Tom Segev and David Grossman predominate on my bookshelves, it’s true they display something of a leftward tilt.

I’m the kind of person who likes to stay home on Friday night and read (yes, I’m as exciting as I sound), but I still buy books faster than I can finish them. My bedroom looks a bit like a warehouse in a pulping plant. I half expect to end up like Leonard Bast from Howards End, killed by an exemplary avalanche of books.

So I’m planning to use an upcoming spell in Israel as a kind of study break. Fond as I am of my second home, Nazareth, it  offers relatively few distractions, barring a sudden outbreak of war (not, mind you, an altogether trivial caveat, as I discovered in July 2006). A few titles, as they say of footballers vying for a World Cup call-up, have already booked their seat on the plane. I’d be grateful if Harry’s Place readers could help me choose the rest by suggesting some of their favourites.

I have just two criteria as a reader: hedonism and promiscuity. My first loves were fiction and poetry, and while I no longer spend whole nights tangled in the bedsheets with Philip Roth, my undergraduate passion has ripened into long-term dependency. Meanwhile it’s usually history, polemic and biography that raise my pulse nowadays. Nonfiction may be less sexy and glamorous than its rival, but it has a worldly quality, a frisson of the real, that’s hard to beat.

So I’m looking for good writing of all kinds, especially history and political argument. My focus is on Israel-Palestine, but I’d like to read more about the wider Middle East too. I’m particularly interested in the ‘peace process’ up to the present day, and the status of Israel’s Palestinian citizens. And it’s axiomatic to me that some of the best books are those you can have a profitable argument with: there’s no point seeking out your own opinions repackaged between two covers. The only blacklisted books should be those that are hateful, or boring.

So, with those wide parameters in mind, what would you recommend I take to Israel? Which books on the subject do you consider indispensable; have changed the way you see the conflict; or have simply given you the most pleasure?  Feel free to explain why, in as much or as little detail as you like.

I’ll get the ball rolling with some titles that have already claimed a coveted place in the squad. Any views on the following?

Tom Segev,  The Seventh Million: The Israelis and the Holocaust

Gershom Gorenberg, The Unmaking of Israel

Edward Said, Out of Place: A Memoir

Robin Wright, Rock the Casbah: Rage and Rebellion Across the Arab World

George Packer, The Assassin’s Gate: America in Iraq

In tribute to Christopher Hitchens. Incomparable secularist, humanist, polemicist. April 13, 1949 – December 15, 2011.

As this morning brought news of  the death of a great secularist and humanist, it seems apt to recall a day in September 1928, when a bloody religious dispute broke out in Jerusalem’s Old City. History does not lack incidents which could illustrate the point equally well, but the one in question is distinguished by the particular triviality of its cause: a piece of cloth.

It was Yom Kippur, and the cloth was being used as a screen to separate male and female worshippers gathering for the service marking the start of the fast at the Western Wall. The Waqf, the Muslim religious trust which ran the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount, had banned any alterations to the site, and so demanded the screen be removed. Jewish leaders refused. The British authorities struck a seemingly reasonable compromise: it would stay up until after the evening service, and be removed in the night.

When a British officer found it in place at 7am the next day, he sent a ten-strong, fully armed police force to destroy it. Predictably, mayhem ensued. In the months that followed, protests and counter-protests broke out, leading to a wave of violence, strikes, and a diplomatic rumpus that involved telegrams to the League of Nations and letters to the king of England. Far be it from me to question the solemn importance of such ritual appurtenances; but I venture to wonder if the piece of cloth was quite worth the hundreds of Arab and Jewish lives lost in the affair – which, moreover, played its part in edging Palestine towards civil war and enduring tragedy.

Fast-forward to July 2000: the dying days of the Camp David talks, aimed at resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict once and for all. The negotiations are stuck on one main issue: the status of the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif. Bill Clinton begs Yasser Arafat to accept Ehud Barak’s latest offer: Israel will retain sovereignty over half of Jerusalem’s Old City; the Palestinians will rule over the Muslim and Christian quarters. But there’s a problem: Israel will not, under any circumstances, give up sovereignty over the holy compound. Clinton offers Arafat several sweeteners: the Dome of the Rock will have official embassy status. Arafat will receive a ’sovereign presidential compound’ adjacent to the site. But Arafat is insistent: If anyone imagines that I might sign away Jerusalem, he is mistaken. I am not only the leader of the Palestinian people; I am also the vice president of the Islamic Conference. I also defend the rights of Christians. I will not sell Jerusalem.

It’s become almost a cliche: everyone knows, roughly, the likely shape of a future peace deal between the Israelis and Palestinians. And it’s true that on issues like borders, settlements, even refugees, the chasm separating the two sides in 2000  has narrowed - even amid all the violence and overheated rhetoric. But then there’s Jerusalem. Its eastern half was annexed from Jordan after the 1967 war – illegally according to a unanimous ruling of the International Court of Justice – and proclaimed Israel’s ‘eternal, undivided capital’. Even if a rococo plan for divvying up the city’s Arab and Jewish neighbourhoods can be imagined, on one issue the experts scratch their heads. If an Israeli prime minister agreed to hand back the Temple Mount, he’d probably wake up a few days later an ex-prime minister. If a Palestinian leader agreed to surrender his people’s claim to the Haram al-Sharif, he’d wake up a few days later with a fatwa on his head. Peace seems destined to run ashore and splinter on thirty acres of holy stones. Meanwhile ordinary Israelis and Palestinians increasingly succumb to differing fundamentalisms to provide certainty in a baffling, violent world.

Hamas roughnecks detain young women for the crime of socialising with members of the opposite sex, while ultra-Orthodox Jerusalemites are ignorant of the grotesque associations of forcing women to the back of segregated buses. Both Jews and Muslims vandalise billboards and attempt to ban depictions of the female body – which, in both its real and imagined form, is inevitably the first target of the kind of sordid bigots who harbour a poisonous loathing of everything human.

I don’t claim moral equivalence: it’s true modern Judaism has nothing quite comparable to the depraved sado-masochistic cult of crypto-fascist necromania espoused by the most hard-line Palestinian Islamists. But the antics of Jewish mosque-torchers, price taggers, and hyper-Orthodox cowards determined to bully the less devout with their autistic scriptural literalism are almost as frightening, if only because they are partially shielded by a sophisticated modern state that seems reluctant to confront them.

Moderates on both sides will protest that such extremists are unrepresentative of their people and perversions of their faith. Perhaps so. But we should not underestimate how deep and tangled the roots of superstition are in these disputed lands. Fundamentalist parties have long enjoyed disproportionate power in the supposedly secular Israeli state, abetted by an electoral system that frequently makes its parties coalition power brokers. And the Palestinian leadership – likewise avowedly secular – may be close to losing its authority to an Islamic movement that it increasingly tries to outflank through mimicry. Religious fanatics – albeit of drastically different stripes – increasingly represent the id in the Palestinian and Israeli national psyche, cajoling the less devout into matching the intransigence they call faith.

One of the lessons of secularism is that the separation of church and state protects not just the state, but the church (or mosque, or synagogue) too. God and politics is an adulterous union that rarely ends happily ever after: what’s depressing is that it should be necessary to say so, urgently, in Israel in 2011. How the far-too-Holy Land could profit from the wisdom of Christopher Hitchens now – as both sides retreat into their bunkers of stubbornness and certainty, no longer able to hear the other across the abyss of no-man’s-land, all dialogue drowned out by the hymns of war.

———

Abstract:

This paper examines a sample of fifty news-oriented articles related to the Middle East conflict published on the Reuters proprietary websites across a three month study window. A combination of Ethnographic Content Analysis and primary survey data are employed to identify, code and validate reporting/ethical failures in the articles, i.e., propaganda, logical fallacies, and violations of the Reuters Handbook.

Tests are run to measure for

1) shifts in audience attitudes and support for the primary belligerent parties in the Middle East conflict following readings of the sample and,

2) associations between the reporting/ethical failures and audience attitudes/support.

Over 1,100 occurrences of reporting/ethical failures across forty-one subcategories are identified and a significant shift in audience attitudes and support following article readings is observed.

Significant associations are found between

1) the use of atrocity propaganda and audience favorability/sympathy toward the Arabs/Palestinians;

2) the use of the appeal to pity fallacy and audience favorability/sympathy toward the Arabs/Palestinians; and

3) the use of atrocity propaganda, appeal to pity and appeal to poverty fallacies, and audience motivation to take supportive action on behalf of the Arabs/Palestinians.

It is inferred from the evidence that Reuters engages in systematically biased storytelling in favor of the Arabs/Palestinians and is able to influence audience affective behavior and motivate direct action along the same trajectory.

This reflects a fundamental failure to uphold the Reuters corporate governance charter and ethical guiding principles.

———

ASA Adjudication on Israeli Government Tourist Office

Ad

A press ad, for holidays in Israel, stated “YOU CAN TRAVEL THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF ISRAEL IN 6 HOURS Imagine what you can experience in 4 days … DAY 1 TEL AVIV & JAFFA DAY 2 JERUSALEM … VISIT … NOW FOR MORE ITINERARIES IN ISRAEL”. Each day of the itinerary featured an image of the destination.

Issue

The complainant, who said the photograph featured for Jerusalem was of East Jerusalem, challenged whether the ad misleadingly implied that East Jerusalem was part of the state of Israel. …

Assessment

Upheld The ASA noted the itinerary image of Jerusalem used in the ad featured the Western Wall of the Temple Mount and the Dome of the Rock, which were both in East Jerusalem, a part of the occupied territories of the West Bank. We noted the ad stated “YOU CAN TRAVEL THE ENTIRE LENGH OF ISRAEL IN 6 HOURS Imagine what you can experience in 4 days” and “VISIT … NOW FOR MORE ITINERARIES IN ISRAEL” and considered that readers were likely to understand that the places featured in the itinerary were all within the state of Israel. We understood, however, that the status of the occupied territory of the West Bank was the subject of much international dispute, and because we considered that the ad implied that the part of East Jerusalem featured in the image was part of the state of Israel, we concluded that the ad was likely to mislead.

Well, a very similar complaint has been made and adjudicated on – this time involving The Palestinian Mission UK. This is what prompted the complaint.

Ad

A website for the Palestinian Diplomatic Mission to the UK featured an interactive map under the heading “Discover Palestine”. The map was coloured red at the top, green in the middle and black at the bottom and represented the whole of Israel, in addition to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Clicking on certain parts of the map identified various cities and linked to tourist information about these cities.

Here are the specifics of the complaint:

Issue

1. Six complainants objected that the map misleadingly implied that the entire area represented by the map was Palestine and that the state of Israel did not exist.

2. One complainant objected that the website misleadingly implied that Haifa was part of Palestine.

3. Three complainants objected that the website misleadingly implied that Jaffa was part of Palestine because they asserted that it was wholly inside Israel and run by its own civilian government.

4. Two complainants objected that the website misleadingly implied that Jerusalem was part of Palestine because they asserted that the status of the city was disputed.

5. Two complainants objected that the website misleadingly implied that Hebron was in Palestine because they asserted that the status of the city was disputed and that a significant part of it was under full Israeli control and not readily accessible to tourists from areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority.

6. Two complainants objected that the website misleadingly implied that Bethlehem was part of Palestine because they asserted that it was under full Israeli control and that its status was disputed.

And here is the adjudication:

Assessment

The ASA noted the response received from The Palestinian Embassy UK. We noted the amended map that they submitted. However, we investigated whether the marketing, as it appeared when accessed by the complainants, breached the Code.

1. Upheld

The ASA noted that the website featured a map that included all of Israel, in addition to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. We noted that the map was coloured red, green and black, the colours of the Palestinian flag. We noted that clicking on particular areas of the map linked to tourist information. We noted that these links provided historical, cultural and commercial information aimed at tourists. We also noted that neither the information provided via these links nor the information surrounding the map itself referred to the State of Israel. We considered that the average consumer would infer from the map and the linked information that the total area represented by the map was the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Because this was not the case we concluded that the website was misleading.

On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising).

2. & 3. Upheld

We noted that information about Jaffa and Haifa was provided in sections of the website aimed at promoting tourism. We noted that, according to the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), Jaffa and Haifa were in Israel. We considered that the website implied that the cities were in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Because we understood that they were not, we concluded that the website was misleading.

On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising).

4. Upheld

We noted that the website also provided information on Jerusalem and the various historical and cultural sites in Jerusalem likely to be of interest to tourists. We noted that the status of Jerusalem was in dispute. We noted that this section of the website made no reference to East or West Jerusalem or the fact that the status of the city was the subject of much international dispute. We considered that the website implied that the entire city was part of the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Because we understood that that was not the case, we concluded that the website was misleading.

On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising).

5. Upheld

We noted that Hebron was one of the cities referred to on the website through the tourism links. We noted that the website stated “The old town of Hebron is one of the oldest towns in Palestine”. We noted that Hebron was in the West Bank and that the FCO considered it part of the Occupied Palestinian Territories. We also noted that, under certain agreements between the Palestinian Authority and Israel, part of the city was under full Israeli control and movement around parts of the city was restricted and subject to checkpoints.

We noted that rule 3.3 of the Code stated that “Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information” and “Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product”. We considered that the particular nature of the security arrangements in Hebron and the restrictions on travelling into and within the city was material information likely to affect the decision of a consumer to visit the area as a tourist. Although we considered that implying that Hebron was part of the Occupied Palestinian Territories was accurate and not misleading, because the website omitted material information regarding the promotion of Hebron as a tourist destination, we concluded that it had breached the Code in this regard.

On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising).

6. Upheld

We noted that Bethlehem was one of the cities referred to on the website through the tourism links. We noted that Bethlehem was in the West Bank and was considered a part of the Occupied Palestinian Territories by the FCO. We noted that entry and exit of Bethlehem from the rest of the West Bank was subject to Israeli checkpoints. We noted that Palestinians were prevented from entering some sites, such as Rachel’s Tomb without a permit, and Israeli citizens could not enter Bethlehem without a permit. We also noted that although the website provided information on Rachel’s Tomb, this site was only directly accessible from Jerusalem. We noted that the website made no reference to these facts.

We noted that rule 3.3 of the Code stated that “Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information” and “Material information is information that the consumer needs to make informed decisions in relation to a product”. We considered that the movement restrictions in Bethlehem were material information likely to affect the decision of a consumer to visit the area as a tourist. Although we considered implying that Bethlehem was part of the Occupied Palestinian Territories was accurate and not misleading, because the website omitted material information regarding the promotion of Bethlehem as a tourist destination, we concluded that it had breached the Code in this regard.

On this point the ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising).

I have to say, I think that the ASA would be better not engaging in these sorts of point scoring political battles with supporters of Israel and Palestine. It seems very far removed from the sort of thing that an advertising regulator should be doing. I cannot believe that anybody who visits Israel or Palestine is so far removed from the news, and so disinterested in the region, that they’re actually mislead by maps.

In any case, the Palestinian Mission has already taken action:

The Palestinian Embassy UK said that they had changed the website. They said that they titled the map “Palestine in 1948″ and stated that it therefore depicted historical Palestine. In addition they said that the colour coding had been changed to clearly demarcate Israel from the Palestinian territories.

What is to follow now?

A further ASA battle over whether there really was a Palestine in 1948 (as opposed to a portion of the British Mandate of Transjordan and Palestine)?  Is the ASA really going to adjudicate on the question of the hypothetical borders of Palestine, at a notional point in history?

I mean, what about West Bank – should that really be described as part of Palestine? In 1948, Jordan annexed it and called it “Cisjordan”. The ASA judgement appears to turn on what the Foreign and Commonwealth Office thinks a territory is. Well, in 1948, Britain recognised Jordan’s annexation of “Cisjordan”. Moreover, the original Palestine National Charter of 1964 stated:

Article 24: This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area.

So, what would the ASA say, if somebody made a fuss about the current description of the map as depicting “Palestine in 1948″?

This silliness should stop.

Should British trade unions build on their links to Israeli unions or break them? Which course of action would be best for the Palestinians?

That question has been posed by the decision of the 2011 TUC conference to:

“Call on all unions… to review their bi-lateral relations with all Israeli organisations, including [the Israeli trade union federation] Histadrut.”

…..
The Fire Brigades Union runs a humanitarian project, ‘FBU Dundee to Nablus Project’ and in October the project team delivered humanitarian aid to the Nablus Municipality Fire Department.

Leaving Dundee, the firefighters travelled from Scotland to Palestine, passing through Holland, Germany, Austria, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia Herzegovina, Montenegro, Albania, Greece and Israel. Along the way they strengthened links with firefighters in Austria, Greece, Israel and Palestine.

The project team met with the Israeli Histadrut in Tel Aviv on October 11th.

Jim Malone, FBU regional organiser for Scotland, speaking at the House of Commons this week, picks up the story:

“The meeting was hosted by the Histadrut and lasted for a very interesting four hours. [There took place] a robust exchange of opinions as to the understanding the FBU and the Histadrut had as to the human and trade union rights afforded Palestinian workers and the Palestinian people.”

When the Histadrut discovered the Israeli authorities were delaying the progress of the humanitarian aid from Haifa to Nablus, it offered its full support. Avital Shapira, head of Histadrut international relations, mobilised the union’s resources and liaised directly with the port authorities. And this week the humanitarian equipment was released.

The FBUs Jim Malone was ecstatic. But he also understood what had made the difference.

Today’s news is fantastic, we were faced by many challenges in delivering the project, however with the help of the Israeli Histadrut, the PGFTU and the Nablus Municipality Fire Department we have achieved our goal in delivering this vital equipment.

This is what solidarity could look like if we would only dump the talk of ‘derecognition’ and boycott. What is good for the Palestinian workers is the critical but constructive use of the historic links between the Israeli and UK unions, not their destruction for the sake of making a gesture.

In the maelstrom of blame and doomsday rhetoric that’s Israeli-Palestinian politics, dispassionate enquiries into the prospects of peace are all too rare. So I’d like to draw your attention to an excellent report from the The Atlantic called ‘Is Peace Possible’. It explores four main issues – borders, security, refugees and Jerusalem – and lucidly explains what peace might look like in each case. And while it avoids firm conclusions, the report has only strengthened my view that peace is there for the taking.

Such optimism may seem eccentric ten years after Camp David, in which we’ve seen a bloody intifada, Operation Cast Lead, and a drift towards pessimism and extremism amongst both peoples. It’s true neither leadership has anything like the imagination or courage necessary to seal an agreement just now. But at the last serious talks, in 2007, substantive progress was made in all areas. Despite the fraying of the two-state consensus in recent years, I believe it’s still the only way out of the Israel-Palestine mess.

When you try and imagine a Middle East peace deal, you can do so in one of two main ways. You can try and come up with the best solution in the best of all possible worlds. Or you can try and imagine an optimal compromise between the reasonable hopes and fears of both sides: the least-bad scenario that has a chance of enduring. That’s what I’ve done in the following paragraphs, drawing on The Atlantic’s special report for supporting detail. This plan doesn’t embody some Platonic ideal of justice; it won’t put right every historical wrong; and it won’t produce two perfect societies. But it has one great advantage: it is, give or take some modifications, the only plan that could work.

…

Refugees
For Israel to retain its Jewish majority, it is impossible for the Palestinian refugees of 1948 (and their millions of descendants) to return to their former homes. The return of millions of poor, hostile refugees would tear apart the fabric of everyday life for the vast majority of Israelis. It would make Israel’s current citizens responsible for crimes committed before most of them were born. A peace treaty that recognised the right of return would have, as one of its provisions, the dissolution of the state of Israel. No doubt that’s what some supporters of the Palestinians ultimately want, but they cannot hope Israel will agree to it.

A fair outcome must include a solution to the refugee crisis without destroying the foundations of the Israeli state. And, whatever its public rhetoric, the Palestinian leadership understands this. As a result, it seems likely that a peace treaty will provide for the resettlement of the refugees in the state of Palestine rather than Israel; an international fund of up to $85 billion to compensate them; and the return of up to 50,000 Palestinians to Israel proper, to symbolise Israel’s partial responsibility for their tragedy.

I’m aware that, by failing to pay lip service to the idea of the ‘right of return’, I’m placing myself outside the boundaries of the pro-Palestinian movement for many. But if membership of that movement necessitates playing politics with the hopes of millions of unfortunate people, I have no interest in joining it.

You can read the rest of Matt’s post here

Last week’s LabourStart Global Solidarity Conference in Istanbul was meant to be an extraordinary event. Activists from the newly-independent unions of the “Arab Spring” countries were due to meet with colleagues from established unions from both developed and developing countries.

As Canadian union activist Derek Blackadder put it, “100 unions, 30 countries, one class”.

And there were high points, such as the visit by conference delegates to a picket line outside a factory owned by the German company GEA. The Turkish workers, locked out for weeks, were clearly moved by the presence of so many people from so many different countries.

But there was also an attempt by anti-Israel activists to break up the conference and undermine the solidarity being built.

It was decided to hold the conference in Istanbul despite the risks of this sort of thing happening. All the major Turkish unions were supportive and formed a broad-based organising committee. The oil workers union Petrol-Is donated their facilities, in part to thank LabourStart for the online campaigns it has waged over the years in support of the union’s struggles.

The conference agenda was packed with workshops and plenaries on subjects like precarious work, the role of women in the trade union movement, organising migrant workers, and global campaigning.

The first indication that things might go terribly wrong came when several North African delegates walked out during the opening plenary when I mentioned Israel (among many other countries) in my keynote address.

My remarks were followed by a video address from Sharan Burrow, the general secretary of the International Trade Union Confederation, who spoke directly about the Israel-Palestinian conflict, reaffirming the ITUC’s commitment to a two-state solution.

The conference broke up into workshops the first of which was entitled “what is LabourStart?” The first intervention from the floor came from a Palestinian trade unionist who wanted to discuss a 2006 article of mine supporting Israel’s right to self-defence when attacked by Iran through its proxy, Hizbollah. Others rose to repeat similar “charges” — that LabourStart was somehow a “Zionist” project, and was tainted by this.

At the end of the session, at my suggestion, an emergency meeting was held between myself and the North African delegates in an attempt to clear the air. I told them it was essential that we be open and transparent, and that I would honestly answer any questions. It was an initially tense but ultimately productive meeting as one by one I dealt with idiotic rumors that had been spreading for years — such as that LabourStart suppresses Palestinian labour news. (Something easily disproved by simply looking at the LabourStart website.)

Meanwhile, the local anti-Israel activists, led by an English expat (and member of the pro-Hamas Socialist Workers Party), were gearing up for a full assault on the conference. They began circulating a “resolution” opposing the presence of representatives of the “racist Zionist” Histadrut at the conference.

Their campaign was an odd one for at least two reasons. There were five Israeli citizens (one a Palestinian Arab woman) but none of them came to represent the Histadrut.

Second, LabourStart conferences are not decision-making bodies, so no resolutions are ever debated or adopted.

Around this time, rumours began flying that someone had uncovered photos of myself, in military uniform, participating in the occupation of the West Bank.

While this was going on, the conference continued peacefully with very productive sessions. One featured Palestinian trade unionists from two rival organisations at which neither one mentioned the campaign for boycotts, divestments and sanctions — BDS — targetting the Jewish state.

Another very interesting workshop featured two Israelis (one Arab, one Jewish) from the Workers’ Advice Center, a left-wing alternative union.

The Israelis were mingling with people they would never have been allowed to talk to before — including delegates who came from the illegal independent unions in Iran.

One of the most interesting workshops was entitled “Echoes of the Arab Spring” and featured speakers from the USA, Israel and Iraqi Kurdistan to discuss uprisings that have taken place outside the Arab world, but which were inspired by Tunisia and Egypt.

The little room was packed with delegates from more than a dozen countries, including several from Arab countries. But as soon as the session began, a handful of Turkish pro-BDS campaigners demanded to know if the Israeli speaker was a member of the Histadrut. I moderated the session, and intervened to prevent the disruption — I told them that I had been a member of Histadrut when I lived in Israel, and that Histadrut members were certainly welcome here.

The disruptors shouted abuse, and eventually stormed out, slamming the door behind them. Not a single Arab left the room and a very fruitful discussion was held.

While we discussed the Occupy Wall Street movement, the social protests in Israel and the 62-day long uprising in Iraqi Kurdistan, the Israel-haters were busily posting hand-written signs all over the building saying that the “racist Zionist Histadrut” was not welcome — and specifically naming not only the Israeli activists, but myself. There was a tense moment as one of the handful of Jewish participants tried to take down one of the signs, but violence was averted.

During the final plenary session, there was an attempted disruption as a pro-Hamas activist rushed the stage claiming to be representing the conference organising committee. Following a long rant about Zionism, one of the North African delegates demanded the floor — and spoke out against the anti-Israel disruptors.

On the day after the conference closed, the Arab delegates from Palestine, Jordan, Iraq, Bahrain and North Africa stayed behind for a very fruitful session with LabourStart and the AFL-CIO’s Solidarity Center.

In the end, the conference was a success. A real contribution was being made to the creation of a new global solidarity network for trade unionists.

The anti-Israel activists couldn’t have cared less. Their only goal was to get out their message of hatred — that Israelis were not welcome there.

But in the end, they failed in their effort to destroy this historic attempt to bring together trade unionists from many countries. Their attempt to do so showed up the BDS campaigners as people with no interest in social justice or global solidarity, but simply as Jew-haters.

I was worried my last piece at this site – ‘We need to have a serious talk about Israel-Palestine’ - was too blandly agreeable to provoke much comment. I needn’t have worried: my appeal for a reasonable debate about the subject led to a gratifying deluge of criticism.

A few posters found my words overly saccharine, perhaps even cynical (Discredited Andrew: ‘I hate to read this stuff more than anything else’). I can sympathise with that: claiming the middle ground can be a useful rhetorical means of portraying your opponents as extreme. I hope I was clear that I don’t value neutrality in and of itself. On controversial topics, such as whether the Holocaust actually happened I try to steer a middle course (following Bill Hicks)  – between those who consider Holocaust deniers annoying idiots and those who consider them evil fucks.

Indeed, more than a few posters doubted my claims of moderation (Peter: ‘Hill as an honest broker? What a joke.’). That’s fair enough too: what’s moderate from one point of view may seem extreme from another, and I’ve made no secret of my sympathies for pro-Palestinians (while holding several opinions they would consider anathema). But while I have all kinds of strong views, a few of which I mentioned in the article, I hope I have enough common ground with most Harry’s Place readers occasionally to play the role of, as it were, an emissary from planet Palestine.

 A few posters even seemed to like what I wrote. But the vast majority of dissent was summed up by Ohad: ‘Palestinian intransigence is what makes the conflict unresolvable for now’. I admit I was surprised by the vehemence and uniformity of those who disputed my claim that the Palestinians are eager for peace. I hope to have the chance to address that issue soon – after I’ve done some homework.

At times it felt, rather dauntingly, like I was being asked to defend every single claim made by supporters of the Palestinians. For now I want to answer just one criticism that appeared several times beneath my piece. Nick (in South Africa) drew attention – with a rather felicitous turn of phrase – to the ‘gimlet-eyed obsession’ the issue commands in the Muslim world. Lamia complained that too many ‘British liberals’ feel they have a right to ‘weigh in’ on either side of an issue that has little to do with them. These, and other comments like them, are versions of the common complaint that Israel is singled out for special criticism compared with other nations. The argument often comes with the implicit or explicit suggestion that this is due obsessive prejudice against Israel – or outright anti-semitism.

First, let’s acknowledge one obvious fact: Israel is singled out for special criticism, way out of proportion to its misdeeds. Take, for instance, the monstrous regime that hijacked the Iranian Revolution of 1979. If its campaign of Cromwellian joylessness is sometimes darkly humorous (for many years its chief cinema censor was – true story – blind), its frequent bouts of murder, torture and persecution of women are anything but. Compared to Iran, Israel is an oasis of democracy, freedom and culture. Let’s agree it’s a different story beyond the 1967 lines, even if we won’t agree whether that’s due to security needs or senseless oppression. We can also agree there are far worse countries in the Middle East that aren’t subjected to a fraction of Israel’s scrutiny. Neither is Israel’s situation unique: Kashmir has been fought over  since 1947; Turkey has occupied northern Cyprus since 1974; the  1982 Hama massacre in Syria claimed more victims than Deir Yassin, Qibya, Sabra and Shatila and Operation Cast Lead combined. But how many western liberals know much about any of these facts?

 Some anti-semites undoubtedly use criticism of Israel as an outlet for their racism, and many supporters of the Palestinians let their anger at Israel blur into hatred of Jews. I wish more pro-Palestinians would make it clear such views have no place in their movement. But I can’t convince myself that anti-semitism is one of the main reasons Israel is singled out for special criticism. Here are some reasons why.

First, Israel singles itself out for special evaluation. It is the ‘only democracy in the Middle East’, with the ‘most moral army in the world’. Its idealistic founders hoped it would be, not just superior to its neighbours, but a ‘light unto the nations’. It claims to be at the front line of the ‘clash of civilisations’, a western outpost in a sea of barbarism and tyranny. If you claim to belong to the world’s respectable states, you must expect to be judged by their standards.

Second, precisely because Israel is a democracy that’s concerned about its global image, there’s a sense it’s susceptible to world opinion. We can argue all day about the despicable treatment of women in Saudi Arabia, but until we give up our addiction to their oil, they won’t take the blindest notice. Criticism of Israel, meanwhile, might just have an effect.

Third, many observers in the west – especially in the UK and US – have special reasons to take an interest in Israel. Both countries have many citizens with links to the region (my parents live in Israel, for instance). The British mandatory government played a special part in fomenting the Israel-Palestine conflict. And the US provides more financial, strategic and diplomatic support to Israel than any other country (Egypt, following close behind, is largely paid to play nice with Israel). It’s similar elsewhere: a high percentage of French citizens are Muslims, making Palestine an electoral issue in that country; and Germany’s reasons for taking an interest in the conflict are obvious.

Third, Israel controls some of the world’s most famous religious sites – from the Temple Mount or Haram-al-Sharif in Jerusalem to the remains at Qumran - and believers all over the world have a passionate interest in what happens to them. (There are also a depressingly large number of people, primarily in the US, who believe supporting Israel is somehow a way of ushering in the battle of Armageddon – supposedly a good thing. The less said about them, the better.)

Fourth, by its very nature Israel will always have some of the most eloquent and effective critics in the world: I mean, of course, dissenting Jewish intellectuals. If there is a Kashmiri Noam Chomsky, or a Cypriot Avi Shlaim or David Grossman, I’m afraid I don’t know of them.

Indeed, there are several ways in which Israel’s special treatment proves beneficial. It is the only country in the world the US allows to keep nuclear weapons without pressure to sign up to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.  The US almost automatically vetoes any resolutions against it at the UN Security Council. It is the only country, so far as I know, that refuses to define its own borders (a sine qua non, normally, for statehood).

Ultimately, if I believed that, when people complained about Israel’s special treatment, they meant that they wished people cared as much about other oppressed peoples as they do about the Palestinians, I’d sympathise. But I can’t help thinking that some of them mean: if only people cared as little about the Palestinians as they do about the Cypriots or Kashmiris.