“The problem is, of course, Jewish settlements on Palestinian land.”
No. The problem is not, of course, Jewish settlements on Palestinian land.
Define “Palestinian land”, Wyre, please. What’s the history, BBC? Do tell.
I have a sneaking suspicion you want us to think that there is a racial group called “Palestinians” who have had “their” land stolen and violated by Jews!
It does seem that this “International Community” that you’re so fond of, you know, the ones who deem everything Israel does, or thinks of doing, “Illegal”
– it does seem as though it has some funny ideas.
For example:
“In most parts of the world it is not considered a disaster if someone new comes to town and buys a farm or a dwelling. Only in Arab parts of the Middle East is it an unacceptable affront for a Jew to arrive with plans to stay. And “world opinion” only accepts this sort of behaviour when it is the Jew who is being rejected. If a black person is denied the right to buy a house in the community of his choice, it is considered racial discrimination. If a Catholic can’t move into a Protestant neighborhood it is religious discrimination. And Americans, including Jews, are very careful to avoid any appearance of discrimination against Muslims. But if a Jew wants to buy a place to live in the West Bank, it is considered a brutal Israeli invasion.”
“By violently rejecting Jewish settlement, the Palestinian Arabs are exhibiting behaviour which is unacceptable, even despised in the civilized world. In this they echo most other Muslim countries that have a prohibition on Jews living there, where land transfers to a Jew can carry the death penalty. These practices should be universally condemned and rejected. Arabs insist it is unacceptable for a few hundred thousand Jews to live among millions of Arabs while Israel’s Arab citizens are almost 20% of Israel’s population.”
Isn’t it odd that the most vociferous complaints made against Jews by Arabs are those of which they themselves are particularly guilty? As the saying goes, “it takes one to know one” Or to suspect one.
However, this is not my point. Why, when there is much information to the contrary, does the BBC and therefore much of the public, insist on ignoring anything that sets out the other side of the story?
In any case, even if one were to just accept that the “International Community” was right all along, and there is a Zionist plot to take over the whole world, and everyone must stop this at all costs, has anyone on the BBC considered that not all of their precious Palestinians are sorry the freeze has friz.
Those of us old enough to remember the Soviet Empire can also remember just how unconcerned the BBC was about its occupation of half of Europe for 40 years.
Now they harp on endlessly about a supposed occupation of a land area which is tiny in comparison. No wonder they are accused of anti-semitism so often.
Add to the BBC ignored list the Turkish occupation and ethnic cleansing of Northern Cyprus complete with continuing efforts to remove any memory of Greek occupancy.
That the question of Northern Cyprus is completely ignored by the media and indeed the pro-Palestinian “flotillaistas” proves the depth of anti-Israel feeling.
‘Organizers of Gaza-bound catamaran have double standards’
An Italian academic has accused the organizers of the Gaza-bound catamaran that the Israel Navy intercepted on Tuesday of maintaining double standards, noting the irony of the boat setting sail from Northern Cyprus.
Writing in the US monthly Commentary this week, Dr. Emanuele Ottolenghi, a senior fellow at the Washingtonbased think tank Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, noted that the Mavi Marmara– led flotilla had also used Northern Cyprus as a staging ground.
“Here’s the irony – Northern Cyprus is an illegally occupied territory that belongs to the EU as part of its member state, Cyprus. It was seized by force in 1974 by the Turkish army; its legal status as a fictionally independent state is only recognized by Turkey – the occupying power,” he said.
Ottolenghi added that Turkey forcibly removed hundreds of thousands of ethnic Greeks from that territory and settled its own population to permanently alter the ethnic balance of the area, “and, in the process, encouraged the building of what one could characterize as settlements.”
The Brussels-based academic, who taught at Oxford University and is the author of the book Under a Mushroom Cloud: Europe, Iran and the Bomb, said: “Now doesn’t this sound awfully familiar – the kind of accusations that organizations such as the Jews for Justice for Palestinians would routinely level at Israel’s presence in the West Bank and, until 2005, in Gaza? “These are the kind of things that get such enlightened Jews agitated enough that they need to spring into action – if the alleged perpetrator is Israel,” he said.
“If it is a country that bombs neighbors with impunity, uses heavy-handed tactics to fight what it brands as terrorists, while denying basic cultural rights to the ethnic minority that constitutes 20 percent of its population while it practices statesanctioned genocide denial, well then, its government is Islamist and its actively helps Hamas, so there’s no problem relying on their services and glossing on their blatant and continuing violations of international law to bash Israel,” Ottolenghi said.
Northern Cyprus is/was only important to the BBC as a means of brining up Asil Nadir and thus Tory sleaze.
Another excellent post Sue.
The moratorium on building in existing settlements was yet another unilateral move by Israel, a sign of good faith, a “confidence building measure” designed to encourage the Palestinians to come to the negotiating table.
Instead, during the whole ten months of the building freeze the Palestinians have refused categorically to sit down for talks until the very last minute, at which point they have done nothing other than demand a permanent freeze.
That is the real obstacle, and it’s time that the world understands that any concession made towards the Arabs is seen by them as a weakness and only leads to more demands being made of Israel.
Israel, of course, did itself no favours (with the BBC) by winning the Six-Day War and (eventually) the Yom Kippur War 6 years later. Legality aside (and I don’t dismiss legality lightly, it’s just that the concept of “legality” in international affairs is, with one or two exceptions, complete crap) Israel was, IMHO, foolish to allow the building of settlements on the West Bank (the problem of Jerusalem – although conflated by the BBC/Guardian/Indy missionaries to confuse with the West Bank – is a separate issue).
Why foolish? First, because the building of settlements on the WB was always going to be a contentious issue. Israel’s apparent policy of “creating facts” created facts alright but, unfortunately – rightly or wrongly – Jordan in its occupation of the West Bank and the British before them (and possibly the Turks before them) had created another fact to the effect that the inhabitants of the West Bank (and after 1948 none of these inhabitants were Jews for reasons the BBC does not wish to mention) had property rights in the land they lived on. Second: the settlers are by and large the Jewish equivalent of the fundamentalist Moslem nutters we know and love in our own dear country. Presumably there are some exceptions among the settlers but “reasonable settlers” are, I think, as mythical as the “reasonable British Moslems” we keep being told about.
Anecdotal I know, but the (very) few Israeli settlers I have met, their vociferous supporters in the UK (of which I’ve met quite a few) and the settlers I have seen interviewed on TV (not on the BBC which, as we know, is not an impartial chronicler of anything) have no interest in coming to any genuine accommodation with the previous inhabitants of the territory: the land is “promised” by their god and that’s it! This criticism – of having no interest in an acommodation – is one I would level at the Palestinians as well but for a different reason: peace with Israel spells the end of the “external enemy” and, since there are effectively no Jews left under Moslem rule in the Middle East, the internicine feuds in the region now barely suppressed will explode sweeping away many of the existing regimes and, certainly, the Fatah administration. Also, it would be difficult to exercise the ancient Moslem tradition of conquest, murder, rapine and plunder if war between Israel and the Arabs really ended.
Supporters of Israel – of which I am one – should not fool themselves that just because Israel is a mature and Western-style democracy, that the influence of the “settler” vote and the fundamentalist ultra-orthodox vote is not only huge but is almost wholly invidious. The secular Jews in Israel would love to come to a deal with Abbas (if they could trust him). It’s worse than that though. Although a majority in Israel, the secular and non-loony believers in Judaism have never been able to roll back the influence of the lunatic fringe and this is an influence that is growing rather than diminishing.
As biodegradable notes the Palestinians demonstrate their usual bad faith by coming to the negotiating table shouting about the end of the “freeze” when they have had almost a year to negotiate while the freeze was operative. The Israelis, who could call the Palestinian bluff by extending the freeze, are prevented from doing so by the settler/orthodox supporters of the government.
I have no solution – who has? Well, actually the BBC has but a solution which comprises “let Hamas/Iran kill the Jews!” will not go down well in Tel Aviv although I could imagine the Labour candidate for the next mayoral election in London would not lose much of his core support by adopting such a line. The situation is complex to say the least. However, the BBC, rather than reporting on and, through its reports, illustrating the complexity, prefers to persevere with news of “persecuted” Palestinians, to treat Moslem gangsters as if they were the equivalent of the French Resistance and to dismiss – or ignore – Israel’s interests as wholly illegitimate. It’s the usual bias but it’s also the BBC’s usual low quality knee-jerk reportage (largely undertaken from the safety of Israeli territory) combined with ill-informed and spurious analysis which ill serve the British public which might even be capable of making its own judgement without nudges from the BBC: but we wouldn’t want that would we – it might come to the “wrong” conclusion.
The issue of property rights in Palestine is complicated and normally ignored in the discussion. Under the Turks there was a system of land registration, that was accepted by the British and the Israelis (the issue of abandoned property is a complicated side issue).
It included:
* Private ownership,
* A form of semi feudalism where the village head (Muhktar) held the deed to the entire village land in his own name and could and did sell land when he wished with the Arab residents in what could be described as protected tenancy,
* Extensive state or Crown land,
* Overseas holdings, particularly of Christian churches and absentee Arab landholders.
In addition the Hashemite government made property grants of land and buildings held by Jewish owners under Turkish and British law.
The point is that under laws in place for hundreds of years before the State of Israel many Palestinian claims would have been rejected by the Turkish courts. If an and when a ‘peace’ agreement is reached we can expect the descendants of landholders to pop out from everywhere with their properly certified Turkish and British era deeds in hand.
Umbongo, thank you for your post, and the main thing is that we agree on the BBC’s bias. But when you say:
“the settlers are by and large the Jewish equivalent of the fundamentalist Moslem nutters we know and love in our own dear country. Presumably there are some exceptions among the settlers but “reasonable settlers” are, I think, as mythical as the “reasonable British Moslems” we keep being told about.”
If it IS the case that one fundamentalist is equal to any other, then why is the BBC always so careful to show us examples of Israeli religious extremists saying “We are God’s chosen people and he has given Israel to us” but not so much of the many, greater in both number and malevolence, of hate-filled Islamic extremists vowing to exterminate the Jewish people? There are plenty of examples available on MEMRI.
But that aside, I wonder whether you’re right about the settlers’ reasonableness.
For instance, I’m not religious at all, and tend to think of religion as mildly unreasonable per se, but many others may not. In fact most others. However, does the religiosity of the settlers seem to outdo the religiosity of the Islamic extremists? I think not.
Apart from that, all of which is debatable and arguable, there are issue of legality and morality which are never given a fair hearing. For example, this article by Fred Barnes:
”Obstacles or not, they’ve become “the most stereotyped and demonized people in the world,” says Dani Dayyan, the leader of the Yesha settler council for the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and Gaza. Yet the settlers have a case. It’s neither incoherent nor unreasonable, but it’s politically unacceptable and thus off the table in the new talks.”
I always check out Elder of Ziyon, and I find it very informative. I saw this series of videos which I thought was interesting, and probably more representative of settlers than what is normally presented to us on the BBC.
I don’t necessarily count myself a vociferous supporter of settlers. But I am motivated by an unshakeable sense of injustice, and I think the way the BBC has turned generations of people against Israel and Jews is the biggest most far-reaching case of injustice I know of.
I don’t necessarily count myself a vociferous supporter of settlers. But I am motivated by an unshakeable sense of injustice, and I think the way the BBC has turned generations of people against Israel and Jews is the biggest most far-reaching case of injustice I know of.
100% sue. This is precisely why I expose their insidious agenda wherever and whenever I can on the Internet and any where else..
If Umbongo can analyze the situation in such detail then why is it beyond the wit of a billion pound news empire to do likewise and present the viewer with anything other than a lazy ignorant slapdash product taken from partisan websites and put together with the insight and intelligence of a stunned mullet or a teenage media studies student(whichever is brighter)?
The presentation by the BBC is much like a light morning mist, it evaporates at the first tough of sunlight. It would help the situation no end if the real actual facts wre known and the hidden intentions of those involved.
What are the motivating factors and what is the real history and what do the parties involved really want out of the negotiations, its perhaps because the truth is so damaging to the BBC/islamist narrative that the BBC never dig beyond the most superficial and well worn talking points.
The myth of Religious settlers.
It is simply untrue that the majority of ‘settlers’ are religious extremists although in BBC-Speak anyone who believes in any god but Allah must by BBC definition be extreme.
The Arabs regard all of the State of Israel as an illegal settlement and the majority of Israelis describe themselves as secular (Hiloni 20%) or somewhat religious but not dogmatic (Masorati 47%).
The BBC, official Fatah statements in English and Obama regard East Jerusalem and the new suburbs created after 1967 as a settlements. This area contains the overwhelming majority of settlers. That population is decidedly mixed.
I’ll admit – as I wrote – that my perception of the settlers is anecdotal. The few I’ve met and the out and out supporters of the settlers I’ve met were all smugly satisfied that the word of God was sufficient to hand them both legal and moral right to settle anywhere they wished in the West Bank or, as some asserted, anywhere in biblical Judea or Samaria.
I may have been unlucky in the representatives of settler opinion that I have met but, setting that aside, the point of my comment was that settling the West Bank for whatever reason and then expecting a deal (with who exactly?) was naive or stupid. The settlements are not just a complicating factor: IMHO they are the complicating factor. Without their existence the refusal of the Palestinians and their sponsors to come to a deal (if you could trust them to adhere to such a deal which is another question altogether) would look even more threadbare than it does already. I grant you that, in the absence of settlements, another cause celebre preventing a deal (eg the Al Aqsa mosque remaining under Jewish control) would be found but, in reality (and I hate saying this) the anti-semitic cabal at the BBC is not entirely wrong to assert that the issue of the settlements is primary: “broken clocks” and all that.
Of course, quite why the settlements might be the obstacle – in the context of other obstacles (including Palestinian/Arab ones) – is never explained or even examined by the BBC “experts”. By concentrating on the settlements, and ignoring everything else (particularly the obduracy and bad faith of the Palestinian leadership together with their criminal gangsterism) the BBC paints a deliberately distorted picture of the Middle East. I agree with the final paragraph of sue‘s comment of 17:23 yesterday but, in this case, and even accepting deegee‘s point that the extremism of the settlers is a myth, the West Bank settlement policy of Israel is a grievous error.
Umbongo,
Not so very long ago I would have agreed that building settlements was morally indefensible, and that continuing with that policy was only making it harder for people like myself to make the case for Israel. However, looking more closely I discovered that, much like everything else we’re told, it’s not clear cut at all.
The BBC refers to the West Bank as illegally occupied. Technically, though, ownership of the territory is in dispute. True impartiality would require the BBC to at least acknowledge this, and not take up a position which strengthens one side and weakens another.
You suggest that without settlements Israel would occupy the moral high ground, thus making the Palestinians look more unreasonable, and weakening their case. But they’ve shown themselves to be unreasonable enough already, for one thing, using Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza as an opportunity to wage war more aggressively, not less.
When Israel behaves ‘honourably’, crediting the Palestinians with the good grace to behave honourably in response, it ends in tears for Israel. They get no Brownie points from the rest of the world for self sacrificial deeds, and there are numerous examples of the futility of attempting to please others.
“settling the West Bank for whatever reason and then expecting a deal (with who exactly?) was naive or stupid.”
Any peace deal necessitates the Arabs being genuinely willing to live in peace next door to their detested enemy. If anyone is naive or stupid it’s the international community who persistently ignore the Arabs’ self proclaimed goal of removing Israel by hook or by crook; the Hamas by force, the PA by stealth, and the rest of the world by lawfare and delegitimisation.
Israel has been carved up slice by slice, becoming more and more and vulnerable. Yet a general perception has grown that it is Israel that is expansionist; the same old trick of accusing your enemy of your own evil doings. The new building, which is considered such a provocation, is primarily on land not designated as part of any future Palestinian state, and it is understood that any settlements that have to be, will be relinquished if necessary.
The stolen land theme is an emotive psychological tool to elicit outrage. Because of Israel’s vulnerability, and projections of the future based on the past, many analysts have concluded that the status quo might be the best option.
If the settlements were not there, another obstacle would surface immediately. The Right of Return is waiting in the wings. Would you say not agreeing to that was a grievous error? The Elephants in the Room 2010 edition.
sue
I don’t disagree with you and, as I commented, the Palestinians and their sponsors will always find an insuperable object to a deal. All I’m saying is that, as an act of realpolitik, allowing the building of settlements was a mistake. Just because you can – and might have a legal and moral right to do so – doesn’t mean you should. However, this is all, in a sense, by the way.
The reason I commented was to illustrate the point that, whatever Israel’s practical, legal or moral position, it is damned by the BBC which refuses to cover the subject with a modicum of impartiality. My criticism of Israel is practical and points out what I perceive as the inordinate influence of Israel’s own nutters. My criticism of the BBC – and this is what B-BBC is all about – is that the BBC’s reports and analysis always press on the nerve that it’s all Israel’s fault (whatever “it” is). Furthermore, the underlying theme of the BBC’s reportage is that Israel has no legitimacy (ie it has stolen the land of the Palestinians both in Israel proper and the “conquered” lands) and thus no act of Israel to defend itself is legitimate.
FWIW I consider that the Israelis should have retained the weapon of West Bank settlement in negotiations with the Palestinians rather than create something – which I wrote in my first comment – was bound to be a show-stopper (although the Oslo Accords were signed after the establishment of settlements). But I don’t really want this thread and this site to be side-tracked into an argument about what Israel should or shouldn’t do. Israel might be right or wrong but the BBC does not allow it that luxury. In the BBC narrative, Israel is always wrong because Israel should not exist. The BBC narrative treats Israel and its supporters in the West in the same unpleasant way – and this is not, I believe, accidental – as Hitler and Stalin (socialists both) viewed the Jews. To the BBC, Israel is a malignant virus and its supporters in Europe and the US are condemned similarly.
Umbongo,
We don’t disagree – and thanks for the discussion. The BBC’s treatment of Israel and the Jews puts me in the position of looking like a fanatic, which I hope I’m not.
This site sensitises one into being in a state of high alert the whole time. Once you notice what’s happening, there’s no going back.
People are subjected to a number of influences on party politics and general domestic issues, whereas the BBC will be their primary source of information on Israel. That’s why the bias against Israel strikes me as the most dangerous of all. I can’t help comparing the current situation to the 1930s.
Sue.
The BBC don’t do fair play because they don’t have to.
They have plenty of pseudo cub reporters relishing in anti-semite coverage thus influencing like minded line managers to give them space for their tacit reporting.
And where did the cubs learn this ? – Well obviously at one of the many useless Universities that pass as seats of learning in the UK.
So, here is a suggestion, BBC cub reporters, get a real job in the REAL world.
Whoops ! Sorry, I’m on a flight of fantasy, please go back to Broadcasting House and CARRY ON REGARDLESS !
Who knows, in years to come you might listen to a real person, fair play of course if you try to report it, but how could you possibly get it passed your BBC line manager to sanction it as news if it isn’t ANTI-ISRAEL ?
All I want to see on the BBC is an uncensored discussion with a couple of their favorite supporters of the Palestinian cause about whether or not Jews should – or would – be allowed to live in any territory controlled by the hypothetical Palestinian State.
Fascinating thread. It is fair to say that there is an increase in radicalism on the part of the settlers but I think they would be less than human not to display increasing aggression given the pressures they are under – not ony from the antagonism, rock-throwing and constant threat of murder and indeed actual murder by Arabs, but from their own government, which periodically turns its back on them when it appears there might be a political advantage to be gained in so doing.
Let’s not forget what happened after the disengagement from Gaza. The fact that the disengagement gave Hamas the green light to turn Gaza into an Iranian-supported terrorist-training camp aside, many of those settlers dispossessed five years ago have still not been adequately compensated, despite government assurances at the time, and are still struggling to resume their lives.
Judea and Samaria is, of course, a very different situation and here is where I think Umbongo makes a vital point:
peace with Israel spells the end of the “external enemy” and, since there are effectively no Jews left under Moslem rule in the Middle East, the internicine feuds in the region now barely suppressed will explode sweeping away many of the existing regimes and, certainly, the Fatah administration. Also, it would be difficult to exercise the ancient Moslem tradition of conquest, murder, rapine and plunder if war between Israel and the Arabs really ended.
It is arguably self-evident that if Abbas makes peace with Israel he will be a dead man walking. But his personal fate aside, it will drastically change the balance in the Middle East as the radicals of the Arab and broader Muslim world will have a far greater impetus than they have had thus far to rise up against any of their leaders who are an impediment to the resumption of war with the Jewish state. So, paradoxically, peace will mean the creation of fresh conditions for war. Abbas cannot make peace with Israel without strengthening Hamas, and along with Hamas, its Muslim Brotherhood fellows in both Egypt and Syria. Egypt is especially vulnerable since Mubarak’s reign is ending and the Brotherhood there has been quickly growing in strength. Hezbollah will of course also be strengthened – though Lebanon has practically already fallen to Hezbollah.
Of course, it is all speculation but it is probably as valid as any other scenario. Absurd as it may seem, it is probably in both Israel’s and the Palestinian’s interest that they stall this “peace process” for as long as humany possible.
And when (if ever) will the Balen Report be published?
Here’s something else you will never see reported in the BBC:
“JERUSALEM ARABS PREFER ISRAELI SOVEREIGNTY”
Amongst the gems here:
“The Arab residents of Jerusalem have seen what happened in the West Bank and Gaza Strip over the past 16 years and are not keen to live under a corrupt authority or a radical Islamist entity,” he says pointedly.
Many, he says, ran away from Judea and Samaria because they did not want to live in areas controlled by “militiamen, armed gangs and corrupt leaders and institutions.”
http://womenagainstshariah.blogspot.com/2010/10/muslim-journalist-jerusalem-arabs.html
Hmmmm….wonder what Al Beeb has to say about all that?