PCHR smeared for being soft on Zionists

June 27th, 2011

Yesterday I wrote about a declaration issued by 12 “human rights” groups condemning the treatment of Gilad Shalit, but pointedly not calling for his release.

One of them, the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR), has issued a furious communiqué denouncing its defamation by some local media outlets, which incorrectly accused it of — imagine  — demanding Shalit’s release. PCHR writes,

On Monday morning, 27 June 2011, a number of local websites published a news item entitled “The Palestinian Center for Human Rights Demands Releasing Shalit.” In the article they claimed that a Palestinian human rights organization joined Zionist human rights organizations in their demand to release the Zionist solider, Gilad Shait, with total disregard both for the suffering of Palestinian prisoners and war crimes committed by the [Israeli] occupation against them.”

This assault followed PCHR’s signature on a joint statement by international and Israeli human rights organizations on 24 June 2011. The statement demanded that the Israeli soldier, Gilad Shait, who has been held by Palestinian resistance groups for five years, be treated as a prisoner of war according to international law.

The press release lists 10 points that PCHR wishes to emphasize. Here are a few of them:

1. What has been published in the media is an explicit and intentional fallacy, whose purpose is to defame PCHR and its status.

2. The above statement does not demand the release of Shalit, but it stresses that Shalit has the right to be visited by the International Committee of the Red Cross, and to be treated humanely according to international standards.

In other words, PCHR thinks that to ask that a young man who has spent the last five years of his life (if indeed he remains alive) in an underground cell be released would blacken its reputation as a fighter for the Palestinian Cause.

5. PCHR has always emphasized that Shalit was captured on his tank inside the Gaza Strip during an armed clash with Palestinian resistance activists, who practiced their legitimate right to resist the occupation. However, this does not deny the necessity to treat him, and all Palestinian resistance activists, humanely.

Almost every word of this statement is false. Gilad Shalit was kidnapped by a group of Palestinian terrorists five years and one day ago, after they crossed into Israel through a tunnel dug underneath the border fence near the Kerem Shalom crossing and attacked an army installation there. In the ensuing fight two Israeli soldiers were killed and four wounded, including Shalit, who was dragged back into Gaza through the tunnel.

Gaza was not occupied by Israel, which had evacuated every single Israeli soldier and civilian, including the dead that were buried there, in 2005.

This is particularly relevant because PCHR, as NGO Monitor reports, was a major contributor to the UN’s viciously false Goldstone Report: PCHR “provided 75 minutes of testimony to the mission, and was quoted 50 times in the document.” Do you think the ‘testimony’ was true or objective? I don’t.

10. The suffering of the captured soldier’s mother is the same of thousands of Palestinian mothers who wish freedom for their sons.

The more than a thousand Palestinian prisoners in Israel demanded by Hamas in return for Shalit have been convicted of crimes including multiple murders and terrorism. There is no equivalence between these terrorists and Shalit, who is best described as a hostage.

These prisoners have been granted far more privileges than required by international law. Recently, after Hamas refused to allow the Red Cross to visit Shalit or even to provide proof that he is alive,  PM Netanyahu announced that Palestinian prisoners would no longer be allowed to study for college degrees by correspondence while incarcerated — although those who had already matriculated would be allowed to continue!

PCHR gets financial support from the following (per NGO Monitor):

…the European Union and the governments of Ireland, Denmark, Netherlands, Switzerland, and Norway. NGO Development Center (NDC – governments of Switzerland, Sweden, Netherlands, Denmark) allocated $425,000 to PCHR in 2010-2012.Private organizations providing funding include: Ford Foundation (USA), International Commission of Jurists (Sweden), Open Society Foundations (OSI – US), Christian Aid (UK), Grassroots International (US), Kvina Till Kvina (Sweden), Al-Quds Association Malaga (Spain), Oxfam Novib (Netherlands), Trocaire (Ireland), CARE (West Bank/Gaza), ACSUR (Spain), DanChurchAid (Denmark), and the Welfare Association.

I am happy to help publicize PCHR’s outrage at being smeared as showing inadequate support for the Cause, which of course is the destruction of the state of Israel and the death or dispersion of its Jewish inhabitants.

And might I add that every dollar donated to PCHR by the donors listed above enables them to continue to work alongside Hamas to accomplish this.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Moty & Udi and human rights

June 26th, 2011

It’s true. They want Hamas to treat its hostage better. But they pointedly do not ask for his release.

I am going to reproduce this incredible document and the list of signatories in full:

Hamas: Human Beings are not Bargaining Chips
End Inhumane and Illegal Treatment of Gilad Shalit
June 24, 2011

Marking five years since the capture of Gilad Shalit, Israeli, Palestinian and international human rights organizations state:

Hamas must immediately end inhumane and illegal treatment of Gilad Shalit.

Staff Sergeant Gilad Shalit has been in captivity for five years. Those holding him have refused to allow him to communicate with his family, nor have they provided information on his well-being and the conditions in which he is being held. The organizations stress that this conduct is inhumane and a violation of international humanitarian law.

Hamas authorities in Gaza must immediately end the cruel and inhuman treatment of Gilad Shalit. Until he is released, they must enable him to communicate with his family and should grant him access to the International Committee of the Red Cross.

Amnesty International
B’Tselem – The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories
Bimkom: Planners for Planning Rights
Gisha – Legal Center for Freedom of Movement
Human Rights Watch [HRW]
International Federation for Human Rights
Palestinian Center for Human Rights, Gaza
Physicians for Human Rights – Israel
Public Committee Against Torture in Israel
Rabbis for Human Rights
The Association for Civil Rights in Israel
Yesh Din – Volunteers for Human Rights

On Friday, these so-called “human rights” advocates opened their minds, stunted by greed and egotism, and let the world see their unspeakable contents. Here a few obvious items on display:

  • The practical effect of their position is to support Hamas’ demands for a hugely unbalanced ‘prisoner exchange’ in which more than a thousand prisoners, including murderers, will be released. A demand for Shalit’s immediate release would work against Hamas’ plan to extract a ransom too high for Israel to safely pay.
  • By calling for this young man to be treated ‘humanely’ but not calling for his release, they affirm that by their lights it is an acceptable policy to take a hostage and keep him in a hole for five years (so far) as long as he is allowed to correspond with his parents and meet with a Red Cross representative.
  • They rightly call for an end to his ‘torture’. But isn’t it torture enough to imprison an innocent man for an indeterminate time and keep him from his family, torture for both the prisoner and his family? And isn’t that, too, a “violation of international humanitarian law?”
  • They most likely rationalize their acquiescence to his captivity by finding equivalences — between Gilad Shalit the hostage and Arab prisoners in Israeli jails, and between Israeli authorities and Hamas leaders. Only their enormous contempt for Israel — and the rewards it brings them — makes these absurd comparisons possible.

Israel is a legitimate, democratic nation and Hamas is a terrorist gang whose primary goal is to commit genocide. Sometimes there aren’t any shades of gray. One man’s terrorist may still be a terrorist even if someone finds it profitable to call him a freedom fighter.

These are the same organizations who, funded to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars by the European Union, the New Israel Fund, the Ford Foundation, and private donors (including some in Saudi Arabia), collected the ‘evidence’ used in the dishonest Goldstone Report (for example, see here) to accuse the IDF of war crimes. They are leaders in the campaign to demonize Israel in order to make it harder for her to exercise her right of self-defense.

The “Human Rights” industry is now a big business, and some of its biggest ‘customers’ are those who are dedicated to ending the phenomenon of Jewish self-determination — Zionism — for various reasons. Some are naive, some have fallen under the spell of postmodern left-wing politics, some have a financial interest — and some are the old-fashioned enemies of Israel and the Jewish people.

This has distorted the human rights movement’s focus and disconnected it from the initial idealism that animated its founders (like HRW’s Robert Bernstein). Bernstein said this about HRW and Israel:

Human Rights Watch has lost critical perspective on a conflict in which Israel has been repeatedly attacked by Hamas and Hezbollah, organizations that go after Israeli citizens and use their own people as human shields. These groups are supported by the government of Iran, which has openly declared its intention not just to destroy Israel but to murder Jews everywhere. This incitement to genocide is a violation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

Leaders of Human Rights Watch know that Hamas and Hezbollah chose to wage war from densely populated areas, deliberately transforming neighborhoods into battlefields. They know that more and better arms are flowing into both Gaza and Lebanon and are poised to strike again. And they know that this militancy continues to deprive Palestinians of any chance for the peaceful and productive life they deserve. Yet Israel, the repeated victim of aggression, faces the brunt of Human Rights Watch’s criticism.

All of these organizations demonstrated this week that they have no special status as apolitical observers interested only in human rights. They are political tools, bought and paid for by Israel’s enemies.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

More dangerous than an Iranian bomb

June 24th, 2011

Some Jewish students protested that the national anthem, Hatikvah, was not sung at the recent graduation ceremony of the Faculty of Law at Haifa University, as is customary (a Hebrew news item is here).

“Even at kindergarten graduations they sing Hatikvah,” a student said. “We were asked to stand to release balloons, but not to sing the national anthem,” he added.

The University has only said they are investigating the matter, but students suggest that the increased enrollment of Arab students is the reason. Many Arab citizens of Israel find the national anthem, the flag, and indeed the idea that Israel is a “Jewish state” objectionable.

These attitudes are reflected in the statements and actions of Arab members of the Knesset. Some, like Haneen Zouabi, are simply anti-state. In other countries, their actions might result in prosecution for treason. We could call Zouabi an ‘extremist’, but unfortunately her extremism is shared by a majority of Israeli Arabs (most prefer to call themselves ‘Palestinian citizens of Israel’ today):

According to a new survey by Haifa University, nearly two thirds of the Arab citizens of Israel believe Jews are a foreign imprint on the Middle East and are destined to be replaced by Palestinians. A similar number believes that Israel has no right to exist as a Jewish state. The 2010 Arab Jewish Relations Survey, compiled by Professor Sami Smoocha in collaboration with the Jewish-Arab Center at the University of Haifa, presents what its authors describe as a worrying decline in relations between Jews and Arabs in Israel over the past decade…

Among Arabs, 71 percent said they blamed Jews for the hardships suffered by Palestinians during and after the ‘Nakba’ in 1948. The survey also found that the percentage of Arabs taking part in ‘Nakba Day’ commemorations rose from 13 percent in 2003 to 36 percent in 2010. In addition, 38 percent of Arabs polled in the survey said they did not believe that millions of Jews had been victims in the Holocaust.

Arabs constitute about 20% of Israeli citizens. Note that this does not include residents of Judea, Samaria, eastern Jerusalem and the Golan (residents of the latter two had the option to accept Israeli citizenship but most declined).

Advocates for Israeli Arabs often claim that they do not have full civil rights. Although there are some benefits that they do not receive (for example, veterans’ benefits, since most do not serve in the army), they have full rights to vote and elect people like Zouabi to the Knesset, to employment and government-supported education, etc. It’s often pointed out that there is massive tax evasion in the Arab community, as well as mismanagement and corruption by local officials in Arab towns.

The question, however, is not one of civil rights. Even if every bit of ‘discrimination’ were removed from Israeli society — and I hate to use this word, reminiscent as it is of the civil rights movement in America which in no way resembles the situation in Israel — there would still be the ‘problem’ that Israel is a Jewish state with a Jewish flag and national anthem, as well as a Law of Return for Jews and not for Arabs.

There is simply no solution for Palestinian Arab nationalism within a Jewish state. And since nationalist feelings are growing, the conflict will get worse, not better.

There are those who are prepared to give up the idea of a Jewish state in favor of some kind of ‘democratic’ or binational state. There is no such successful state in the Middle East. The only officially multinational state in the region, Lebanon, has been a disaster — in my opinion because of Arab culture and Muslim ideology.

These options are even less practical for Israel, and I believe that their proponents are either disingenuous or incredibly naive. Such a state would be unstable, resulting either in another Arab state or a bloody civil war (or both). Even if it could be viable, it would be a tragedy, signifying the end of Zionism, and probably the end of the Jews as a distinct people.

Israel’s Jews need to face this issue head on. In the long run, this issue is potentially more dangerous to Jewish survival than an Iranian bomb.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Nakba, shmakba

June 23rd, 2011

We keep hearing that the Palestinians ‘yearn for a state’, they ‘deserve’ a state, their ‘plight’ is ‘unsustainable’, and so on. President Obama even went so far as to compare it to the Holocaust in his 2009 Cairo speech:

Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust…

On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people – Muslims and Christians – have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations – large and small – that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable.

What is implicit here is the nakba myth: that a flowering Palestinian civilization was invaded by European Jews who forcibly dispossessed them from their homes and made refugees of them. Ever since then, they yearn for ‘justice’ in the form of return.

The nakba myth is what gives legitimacy to those like the President who argue that Israel must be pressured to imperil its own security to create a Palestinian state, because ‘it’s the right thing to do’ for the Palestinian Arabs.

It is called upon to ‘explain’ or even justify Arab ‘resistance’, from ‘nonviolent’ attempts to vandalize the security fence to launching rockets at random into civilian areas, to firing antitank missiles at yellow school buses, to slitting the throats of 3-month old babies.

The nakba myth is what underlies the Palestinian refusal to recognize a Jewish state — they believe that it belongs to them. The national identity of the ‘Palestinian people’ is as closely connected to the nakba myth as that of Americans is to our Revolutionary War.

But the myth is false in very significant ways:

  1. The Zionists did not dispossess the local Arabs, forcibly or otherwise, before 1948
  2. Zionist development of the land of Israel actually caused an increase in the number and prosperity of local Arabs
  3. The exodus of Arabs from what would become Israel in 1947-48 was forcible in only in a few cases — and overall due to the decisions of their leaders and Arab neighbors

It’s also true that the Arabs practiced ethnic cleansing of Jews in eastern Jerusalem and Judea/Samaria before and during the War of Independence, and that more Jews fled Arab countries during and after the war than Arabs left Israel, but we can leave this aside for now and concentrate on the nakba.

The area that is now Israel was home to less than 200,000 Arabs and somewhat fewer Jews (who lived in places like Jerusalem, Tzfat and Hebron) when Zionist immigration began in the 1880’s.  Did the Zionists forcibly dispossess the Arabs? In an article entitled “Not Stealing Palestine but Purchasing Israel,” Daniel Pipes writes,

In Jerusalem Besieged: From Ancient Canaan to Modern Israel, Eric H. Cline writes of Jerusalem: “No other city has been more bitterly fought over throughout its history” … The PA fantasizes that today’s Palestinians are descended from a tribe of ancient Canaan, the Jebusites; in fact, but they are overwhelmingly the off-spring of invaders and immigrants seeking economic opportunities. Against this tableau of unceasing conquest, violence, and overthrow, Zionist efforts to build a presence in the Holy Land until 1948 stand out as astonishingly mild, as mercantile rather than military. Two great empires, the Ottomans and the British, ruled Eretz Yisrael; in contrast, Zionists lacked military power. They could not possibly achieve statehood through conquest.

Instead, they purchased land. Acquiring property dunam by dunam, farm by farm, house by house, lay at the heart of the Zionist enterprise until 1948. The Jewish National Fund, founded in 1901 to buy land in Palestine “to assist in the foundation of a new community of free Jews engaged in active and peaceable industry,” was the key institution – and not the Haganah, the clandestine defense organization founded in 1920…

Only when the British mandatory power gave up on Palestine in 1948, followed immediately by an all-out attempt by Arab states to crush and expel the Zionists, did the latter take up the sword in self defense and go on to win land through military conquest. Even then, as the historian Efraim Karsh demonstrates in Palestine Betrayed, most Arabs fled their lands; exceedingly few were forced off.

This history contradicts the Palestinian account that “Zionist gangs stole Palestine and expelled its people” which led to a catastrophe “unprecedented in history” (according to a PA 12th-grade textbook) or that Zionists “plundered the Palestinian land and national interests, and established their state upon the ruins of the Palestinian Arab people” (writes a columnist in the PA’s daily). International organizations, newspaper editorials, and faculty petitions reiterate this falsehood worldwide.

The population of Native Americans declined drastically with European immigration into the New World, but what happened to the Arabs of Palestine as a result of the Zionist ‘invasion’? From about 200,000 in 1890, the Arab population of what would become Israel rose to almost 1.3 million in 1947 (see “MidEast Web: Population of Ottoman and Mandate Palestine“)! This fact alone refutes claims of violent dispossession.

Indeed, it was the opposite. George Gilder explains what happened (Gilder: The Economics of Settlement):

In ancient times, as [Walter Lowdermilk, an American soil expert] knew, Palestine was largely self-sufficient, with a population of millions. Replete with forests, teeming with sheep and goats, full of farms and wineries, the landscape evoked a European plenitude. By 1939, however, when Lowdermilk arrived in the area, it was largely an environmental disaster. As he recounted in his 1944 book, Palestine, Land of Promise, “when Jewish colonists first began their work in 1882…the soils were eroded off the uplands to bedrock over fully one half the hills; streams across the coastal plain were choked with erosional debris from the hills to form pestilential marshes infested with dreaded malaria; the fair cities and elaborate works of ancient times were left in doleful ruins.” In the late 19th century around the current Tel Aviv, Lowdermilk was told, “no more than 100 miserable families lived in huts.” Jericho, once luxuriantly shaded by balsams, was treeless.

What amazed Lowdermilk, though — and changed his life — was not the 1,000 years of deterioration but the some 50 years of reclamation of both the highlands and the lowlands by relatively small groups of Jewish settlers. As one of many examples of valley reclamation, he tells the story of the settlement of Petah Tikva, established by Jews from Jerusalem in 1878, in defiance of warnings from physicians who saw the area outside what is now Tel Aviv as hopelessly infested with malarial mosquitoes. After initial failures and retreats, Petah Tikva became “the first settlement to conquer the deadly foe of malaria,” by “planting Eucalyptus [locally known as ‘Jew trees’] in the swamps to absorb the moisture,” draining other swamps, importing large quantities of quinine, and developing rich agriculture and citriculture …

In draining swamps, leaching saline soils, redeeming dunes into orchards and poultry farms, in planting millions of trees on rocky hills, in constructing elaborate water works and terraces on the hills, in digging 548 wells and supporting canals in little more than a decade and irrigating thousands of acres of land, establishing industries, hospitals, clinics, and schools, the 500,000 Jewish settlers who arrived before the creation of Israel massively expanded the very absorptive dimensions and capacity of the country. It was these advances that made possible the fivefold 20th-century surge of the Arab population by 1940.

There’s one more chapter to this story. In 1948, Israel became independent, and somewhere between 600,000 and 650,000 Arabs fled, to become the ancestors of the 4.5 million who today claim refugee status (Palestinian refugee status is the only such status recognized by the UN as hereditary) and who are slavering at the gates of Israel demanding to ‘return’ and take what is ‘theirs’.

But in fact only residents of a few Arab villages, mostly those on the Tel-Aviv — Jerusalem Road, from which attacks were launched against convoys supplying besieged Jerusalem, were removed by force. Most left in fear that they would be caught up in fighting or massacred (although actual massacres of civilians by Jews were almost nonexistent — another story), and in many cases were encouraged to leave by their own leadership. Here is how Efraim Karsh describes it (Karsh: Reclaiming a Historical Truth):

While most Palestinian Arabs needed little encouragement to take to the road, large numbers of them were driven from their homes by their own leaders and/or the “Arab Liberation Army” that had entered Palestine prior to the end of the Mandate, whether out of military considerations or in order to prevent them from becoming citizens of the prospective Jewish state. Of this there is an overwhelming and incontrovertible body of contemporary evidence – intelligence briefs, captured Arab documents, press reports, personal testimonies and memoirs, and so on and so forth.

In the largest and best-known example of Arab-instigated exodus, tens of thousands of Arabs were ordered or bullied into leaving the city of Haifa (on April 21-22 ) on the instructions of the Arab Higher Committee, the effective “government” of the Palestinian Arabs. Only days earlier, Tiberias’ 6,000-strong Arab community had been similarly forced out by its own leaders, against local Jewish wishes (a fortnight after the exodus, Sir Alan Cunningham, the last British high commissioner of Palestine, reported that the Tiberias Jews “would welcome [the] Arabs back” ). In Jaffa, Palestine’s largest Arab city, the municipality organized the transfer of thousands of residents by land and sea; in Jerusalem, the AHC ordered the transfer of women and children, and local gang leaders pushed out residents of several neighborhoods, while in Beisan the women and children were ordered out as Transjordan’s Arab Legion dug in.

[Shlomo] Avineri mentions the strenuous Jewish efforts to persuade the Haifa Arabs to stay but not the AHC’s order to leave – which was passed on to the local leadership by phone and secretly recorded by the Haganah. Nor does he note the well-documented efforts of Haifa’s Arab leadership to scaremonger their hapless constituents, reluctant in the extreme to leave, into fleeing. Some Arab residents received written threats that, unless they left town, they would be branded as traitors deserving of death. Others were told they could expect no mercy from the Jews…

Nor was this phenomenon confined to Palestinian cities. The deliberate depopulation of Arab villages too, and their transformation into military strongholds was a hallmark of the Arab campaign from the onset of hostilities…

War is Hell, as much or more so for civilians as soldiers, but a great deal of the Hell that characterized the experience of the Arabs of Palestine was of their own making or that of their Arab neighbors. Very little was the responsibility  of the Jews, who ought not to be asked to pay the price for it.

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

Apple and the Intifada

June 22nd, 2011
"Third Intifada" iPhone app -- Apple approved!

"Third Intifada" iPhone app -- Apple approved!

I just got off the phone with a sweet and understanding customer-relations person at Apple, and there is still no response to the request from the Government of Israel to pull an iPhone app which calls for a third intifada against Israel:

The country’s Minister for Public Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs, Yuli Edelstein, wrote a letter to the computer giant Tuesday voicing concern about the content of the application.

“Upon review of the stories, articles and photos published by means of the application, one can easily see that this is in fact anti-Israel and anti-Zionist. Furthermore, as is implied by its name, the application calls for an uprising against the State of Israel,” he wrote.

The letter asked Apple to yank the Arabic-language application, which allows users to comment and post photos and stories about protests opposing Israel and Israeli policies.

According to Reuters, the app offers a stream of news stories and editorials in Arabic, announces upcoming protests, and includes links to nationalistic Palestinian videos and songs.

I understand that Edelstein’s letter was sent by email to Steve Jobs and various other Apple officials.

The Wiesenthal Center also objected, saying in part that the application, which links to Intifada pages on Facebbook and Twitter, “updates its users on further incitements to protest and violence” and violates Apple’s guidelines against “applications containing references or commentary about a religious, cultural or ethnic group that are defamatory, offensive, mean-spirited or likely to expose the targeted group to harm or violence…”

You can find instructions on how to file a complaint with Apple here.

I am almost certain that the application was carefully developed to skirt Apple’s guidelines. For example, if the content inciting violence actually resides on a Facebook page or Twitter account and the app only facilitates linking to these places — especially if it is configurable — then is the app itself inciting? If the app makes it possible to play ‘patriotic’ Palestinian music, can that violate guidelines?

But apart from the legal issues, there is the moral one. The Palestinian cause is the overthrow of a state and the murder of its inhabitants. Apple’s executives may disagree, but I am right and they are wrong — and I know more about this than they do. If it is their choice to distribute this app, then it is my choice to never buy or recommend another Apple product. And believe me, I won’t.

Here’s a link to another well-known story about a computer company on the dark side: IBM and the Holocaust. Will books be written about Apple and the Intifada as well?

Coincidentally, my wife just left on her way to purchase a smartphone. She had been planning to buy an iPhone, but she will be buying something else.

Updated [1739 PDT]: Apple has removed the app from its App Store on the grounds that it violated their guidelines. Not a moment too soon!

Technorati Tags: , ,