FresnoZionism.org — ציונות פרסנו

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — and of course the UK, UN, EU etc. — sharply criticized Israel after several Arab families were evicted from homes in the Sheik Jarrah neighborhood of East Jerusalem after the Israeli Supreme Court ruled against them in a dispute over ownership of the homes.

The details of the dispute are very Middle Eastern, with claims on both sides going back to the Ottoman period. Simply, some Palestinians claim they own the homes while some Jews claim the Palestinians are squatting on their property. There is no way that I — or any other blogger or journalist — could possibly say anything intelligent about the facts or the law of this case, which is quite complicated.

What I can say is that given the makeup and the record of Israel’s Supreme Court, it is unthinkable that they did not bend over backward to be fair — or more — to the Palestinians.

The Court is the bête noir of right-wing and religious Israelis, who have strongly objected to its decisions in such matters as the security barrier, punishment of soldiers accused of mistreating Arabs, the participation of Arab parties and candidates opposed to the existence of Israel in Israeli elections, the right of Arabs to sue the IDF for damages resulting from actions in the territories, etc.

In short, if the Supreme Court saw fit to rule in favor of  ‘settlers’ and against  Palestinians, it’s a safe bet that the Jews had a damn good case.

But Mrs. Clinton didn’t go into facts or law. She said,

I think these actions are deeply regrettable … The eviction of families and demolition of homes in east Jerusalem is not in keeping with Israeli obligations and I urge the government of Israel and municipal officials to refrain from such provocative actions.

And the British Consulate issued a statement, which included the following:

We are appalled by the eviction in East Jerusalem this morning … These actions are incompatible with the Israeli professed desire for peace. We urge Israel not to allow the extremists to set the agenda.

Clinton, the British Consulate, the EU spokesperson and the UN “Special Envoy” did not need to take lessons in Israeli real estate law, which has elements from the Ottoman and British legal codes, nor did they need to look at the Turkish documents that both sides placed into evidence.

No, everyone seems to be in agreement that the real issue is that Israel has no right to decide anything in East Jerusalem (if you ask the US State Department, they would include West Jerusalem, too).

Although one wonders what they would have said if the Court had decided in favor of the Palestinians.

Like the insistence on a settlement freeze in which East Jerusalem neighborhoods that were populated by Jews before 1948 are “just settlements”, this incident exposes the desire on the part of the US and others to wrest control of part — maybe all — of Israel’s capital city away from her.

Technorati Tags: Jerusalem, Israel, evictions

I’ve mentioned the interference in Israel’s affairs by European governments before, but the extent to which this occurs is shocking.

Bar-Ilan University political scientist Gerald M. Steinberg is the Executive director of NGO Monitor, an organization which keeps tabs on the multiplicity of non-governmental organizations which seem to exist primarily to delegitimize Israel, collect information for ‘lawfare‘ against her — and apparently also to influence its internal politics.

Such groups, for example, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Oxfam, Save the Children Fund, etc. are based all over the world, but — in an unfortunately typical example of Jewish Zionophobia — a large number are actually Israeli organizations.

Prof. Steinberg is calling for full  transparent disclosure of funding by Israeli NGOs. Follow the money. It is absolutely astonishing:

Tens of millions of euros, British pounds, Norwegian krona and Swiss francs are provided by European governments every year to dozens of political NGOs, but most of this is hidden. These governments treat their funding for groups like Yesh Din, ICAHD, PHR-I, Breaking the Silence, Bimkom, Peace Now, etc. [left-wing Israeli groups, some of them extremist — ed.] as “top secret,” reflecting the realization that such activities lack legitimacy.

This obsessive secrecy is reflected in the fact that the Dutch ambassador to Israel and the Spanish deputy chief of mission acknowledged that they were not informed of their own governments’ support for Israeli NGOs.

Indeed, much of this funding comes from outside the foreign ministries, and is funneled through separate aid groups, such as the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency and the British Department for International Development. The officials in these agencies often have close relations with the officials in the NGOs that they fund, and share their ideological biases, or know how to prey on their weaknesses.

Similarly, the European Commission (EC) sends tens of millions of euros every year (the total is classified) under numerous programs, and there is no central listing or accounting for the funds. When NGO Monitor officially requested the details under the EU’s own “freedom of information” of regulations, the first response was an attempt to invoke security claims.

Following an appeal, and six months later, the EC sent a CD with some documents, from which almost all of the information was deleted – again demonstrating that this massive manipulation is a highly guarded secret.

A law requiring full disclosure of foreign government transfers of funds to any Israeli non-governmental organization 60 days in advance would lift the cover from this illicit and anti-democratic practice. Israel is the only democratic country in the world where other democracies use massive funding for political groups to influence policies and public opinion.

Israeli NGO recipients would be also be required to disclose funding information involving foreign governments whenever they place an advertisement in a newspaper, organize a demonstration, or initiate one of the flood of cases in the High Court. How many Israelis knew that the EC had allocated money to the Four Mothers movement that pressed for the 2000 unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon, and all of the consequences that resulted? [my emphasis]

Technorati Tags: Israel, NGO Monitor, Gerald M. Steinberg

Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal

In a press conference with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton yesterday, the Saudi FM made it 100% clear that the racist, apartheid, hereditary, absolute monarchy that he represents will not change in any detail its interpretation of the ‘Arab (or Saudi) Initiative’. He said,

Incrementalism and a step-by-step approach has not and — we believe — will not achieve peace. Temporary security, confidence-building measures will also not bring peace. What is required is a comprehensive approach that defines the final outcome at the outset and launches into negotiations over final status issues: borders, Jerusalem, water, refugees and security…

Today, Israel is trying to distract by shifting attention from the core issue — an end to the occupation that began in ’67 and the establishment of a Palestinian state to — incidental issues such as academic conferences and civil aviation matters.

Prince Charming here reiterates the Saudi insistence on a complete Israeli surrender to all Arab demands before the they will move one inch in the direction of peace or any form of normalization (see my post “The Saudi Initiative“).

He clearly rejects the idea — expressed by Secretary Clinton, President Obama, and envoy George Mitchell — that insofar as Israel has made concessions to the Palestinians and is being asked to make more, there should be some reciprocity from the Arab world.

The understanding of the Arab Initiative as a starting point for negotiation rather than a diktat to be imposed on Israel has been a centerpiece of the Obama Administration’s Israel-Arab policy and really the only part of it that appears to take Israeli concerns into account.

Now the Saudis are firmly saying “No” to the US point of view.

But Mrs. Clinton managed yet again to ignore the cognitive dissonance and claim that there is no real disagreement:

QUESTION: Thank you. Judging by what – judging by what we just heard, it seems that the differences between the United States and Saudi Arabia are fundamental on this issue, and it seems to me that the talks between President Obama and King Abdullah and the talks now are not narrowing the divide between the two — two divergent approaches. I mean, you talk about incremental measures, confidence-building measures, and the prince is talking about comprehensive approach in one fell swoop…

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don’t see it that way, and that’s what I just said. There is no substitute for a comprehensive resolution. That is our ultimate objective. In order to get to the negotiating table, we have to persuade both sides that they can trust the other side enough to reach that comprehensive agreement.

We also know that there are a series of issues that have to be resolved. As His Royal Highness said and as I have just repeated, you have to take those issues by issues, but within the negotiation for the comprehensive peace agreement. That’s not a contradiction.

Had I been present, I would have pointed out to His Royal Highness that  the US went to war for him in 1991 and was rewarded by having about 3,000 of its people massacred by Saudis ten years later; and I would add that if anyone is going to protect his corrupt, backward, feudal Kingdom from the Iranians, it will be the US — or Israel!

Wouldn’t it be ironic if the only thing preventing Iranian control of the Gulf were the Israeli Air Force?

Technorati Tags: Saudi Arabia, Israel, Hillary Clinton, Prince Saud Al-Faisal

Recently, criticism has fallen on the New Israel Fund (NIF), a US-based Jewish organization that has funded such groups as Breaking the Silence [BTS], the Mossawa Centre, Adalah, etc.

Everyone knows how BTS has made unverifiable claims that Israel committed war crimes in Gaza and broadcast them to the media. But the Israeli Arab (or as they now prefer to be called, ‘Palestinian Arab in Israel’) organizations that the NIF funds are perhaps not so familiar.

NIF President Larry Garber says

We are also proud of the support we provide to Israeli Arab groups that advance civil rights in the courts and in the Knesset, and through grass-roots action. These groups, working with partner civil rights organizations that have emerged within Israel’s Jewish majority, continually advance the cause of equality on behalf of a minority that the Israeli government itself admits faces serious discrimination.

If in fact these groups actually were concerned with civil rights as we understand them — voting rights, allocation of public funds, discrimination in housing and employment, etc. — then there would be no basis for criticism.

But in fact the ‘Palestinian Israeli’ interpretation of ‘civil rights’ goes far beyond this.  Mossawa articulated it clearly in “The Future Vision of the Palestinian Arabs in Israel” (2006) in which it called for the replacement of the Jewish state with a ‘state of its citizens’, elimination of the Law of Return for Jews and addition of one for Palestinian Arabs, the creation of a ‘consensual system’ of government in which the Jewish majority and Arab minority would have equal power, the assumption of full responsibility by the state for the ‘nakba’ [catastrophe of 1948] and compensation of Arab victims thereof, changing the flag and the national anthem, recognition of Arabs as an ‘indigenous cultural group’ with full rights of citizenship but also ‘international care, protection, and support’, etc.

In simple terms, Mossawa calls for the replacement of the Jewish state of Israel with — something else, something that would shortly become yet another Arab state in the Mideast. Should Jews support this?

Another group supported by NIF is Adalah, The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel. In 2007, Adalah presented its version of a “Democratic Constitution” for Israel. In the intoduction, Adalah begins by demanding that

The state of Israel must recognize, therefore, its responsibility for the injustices of the Nakba and the Occupation; recognize the right of return of the Palestinian refugees based on UN Resolution 194 [understood by Arabs as return of any ‘refugees’ who choose to do so — ed]; recognize the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination; and withdraw from all of the territories occupied in 1967.

They also present several options for providing the Arab minority with a veto over all decisions of the Knesset. There is lots more, but the adoption of this constitution would clearly mean the end of the Jewish state.

I previously wrote about the youth organization “Baladna” [our land!]  which teaches Palestinian nationalism to young Arab citizens of Israel.  They too are supported by NIF.

I can’t end this piece without mentioning another Jewish organization that the NIF funds, Machsom Watch. Here is some of what NGO Monitor said about this group:

The Israel-based Machsom Watch monitors and disseminates reports on Israeli soldiers at checkpoints, with the ultimate aim of “ending the occupation.” Machsom Watch publications regularly omit the context of terror and employ human rights terminology, “apartheid” rhetoric and emotive and politically charged language that contribute to the demonization of Israel.  In many cases, their allegations are either inaccurate or unverifiable….

Machsom Watch reports often deviate away from describing events at the checkpoints. Through omission of context, use of pseudo-legal terminology and emotive language, many reports become a platform for the author’s radical political views…

Machsom Watch reports regularly omit the context of terror and claim that the presence of checkpoints is arbitrary, unrelated to the security situation and created solely to disrupt the Palestinians’ daily lives, hinder their business and humiliate them.

I’ve only touched on a few examples. There are more. Although not all of NIF’s grants are to groups and projects which are inimical to the Jewish state, enough of them are that this agency must be considered hostile to it.

Technorati Tags: New Israel Fund, Breaking the Silence, Mossawa Centre, Adalah, Baladna, Machsom Watch