According to the Council of Europe's European Court of Human Rights
1. It is illegal and a case of discrimination to boycott Israeli products, 2. The very act of making it illegal to call for a boycott of Israeli goods in no way constitute a violation of one's freedom of expression.
On Thursday the court ruled by a vote of 6-1 that the French court did not violate the freedom of expression of the Communist mayor of the small French town of Seclin, Jean-Claude Fernand Willem, who in October 2002 announced at a town hall meeting that he intended to call on the municipality to boycott Israeli products.
Jews in the region filed a complaint with the public prosecutor, who decided to prosecute Willem for "provoking discrimination on national, racial and religious grounds." Willem was first acquitted by the Lille Criminal Court, but that decision was overturned on appeal in September 2003 and he was fined €1,000.
His appeal to a higher French court was unsuccessful, and as a result he petitioned the European Court of Human rights in March 2005, saying his call for a boycott of Israeli products was part of a legitimate political debate, and that his freedom of expression had been violated.
The court, made up of judges from Denmark, France, Germany, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Macedonia and the Czech Republic ruled that interference with the former mayor's freedom of expression was needed to protect the rights of Israeli producers. [emphasis added]
The idea that the rights of Israeli producers trumps an individual's freedom of expression seems to be a major breakthrough--the kind of decision that you are unlikely to find in the US, for example, though the way the court explained its reasoning made the conclusion obvious:
According to a statement issued by the court on Thursday, the court held the view that Willem was not convicted for his political opinions, "but for inciting the commission of a discriminatory, and therefore punishable, act. The Court further noted that, under French law, the applicant was not entitled to take the place of the governmental authorities by declaring an embargo on products from a foreign country, and moreover that the penalty imposed on him had been relatively moderate. [emphasis added]
Maybe this court could start addressing other 'discriminatory' acts--you know, like terrorism?
UPDATE:Harry's Place notes another case where this ruling would be applicable, in Scotland, and a commenter points out that a similar instance of boycotting occurred in Norway--though it is not clear what, if any, legal action was taken in response.
Of course, at issue is also faith in Great Britain's own Prime Minister:
The British are losing faith in the Afghan war. If Barack Obama wants a continued British effort in Afghanistan, he must offer them clear signs of success within six months—and a realistic hope of a pullout.
In Britain’s latest opinion poll, nearly 60 percent of respondents wanted an early British exit from Afghanistan, against 36 percent who wanted the troops to stay. There are some special British factors behind those numbers—especially the low esteem of Gordon Brown’s government—but also some lessons for Obama, on the risks of fighting a war without a clear purpose or measurable success.
The benefit of an alliance with a country is what can be gained both in concrete as well as psychological terms. The latter played a part in the British-US alliance.
No more:
The British people are losing faith not just in the Afghan war but in the underlying assumptions that led them into it, and the war in Iraq—particularly the idea that Britain is a great power because of its “special relationship” with the United States.
If there is any such relationship, the British people have seen no reward from it—only subordination and sacrifice. Only a few days ago, in a little-noticed parliamentary answer, Brown was unable to name a single benefit to Britain from joining the Iraq war and occupation.
In addition, there is the issue of the implied subservience of Great Britain to the US:
If Obama wants a guide to the present British mood, he should study the campaign for the British computer hacker Gary McKinnon, who faces extradition to the United States for the crime of embarrassing the Pentagon. Very significantly, this has been taken up by the Daily Mail, the newspaper of mainstream Middle England. The newspaper condemned the one-sided extradition treaty which Tony Blair agreed with the Bush administration (which essentially forces Britain on demand to yield up anybody for trial in the United States), and the treaty has become a symbol of British subjection.
Bottom line, the people of Great Britain are wondering whether the sacrifices they are being asked to make, the lack of concrete benefits, and the implied subservience to the US are all worth the intangible plus of being allied with the US:
A growing number of British voters no longer care about being on any top table [of nations], and they are certainly not prepared to spend taxes to prove it or ask their soldiers to die for the sake of prestige. They have seen no evidence of special British influence over the United States, or any other country. “Little Englander” parties made important gains in Britain’s recent European elections.
The British people hated fighting George W. Bush’s wars. They still love Barack Obama, but they do not like fighting his wars, either. American voters may make the same discovery, if they too see indefinite sacrifice without reward.
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, responding to the reports that Washington had asked Israel not to build 20 apartments in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood in east Jerusalem, near Mount Scopus and the National Police headquarters, said, "I would like to reemphasize that united Jerusalem is the capital of the Jewish people and of the State of Israel. Our sovereignty over it cannot be challenged; this means - inter alia - that residents of Jerusalem may purchase apartments in all parts of the city.
"This has been the policy of all Israeli governments and I would like to say that it is indeed being implemented because in recent years hundreds of apartments in Jewish neighborhoods and in the western part of the city have been purchased by - or rented to - Arab residents and we did not interfere," he said.
"This says that there is no ban on Arabs buying apartments in the western part of the city and there is no ban on Jews buying or building apartments in the eastern part of the city."
Netanyahu said Jerusalem was an open, undivided city "that has no separation according to religion or national affiliation. We cannot accept the idea that Jews will not have the right to live and purchase in all parts of Jerusalem."
In attempting to apply his ban on settlement growth to Jerusalem, Obama--who sees the Jewish tie to the land defined by the Holocaust instead of the long history of Jewish ties to the land--continues to show a lack of understanding of history.
look at what the Obama administration has done to its friends in Ramallah as well. Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas and his negotiator Saeb Erekat are on record demanding a total freeze — including in Jerusalem, without a time limit, all over the West Bank, every settlement, all sorts of buildings. No exceptions for construction now under way, for kindergartens, not even (or, perhaps, especially?) for synagogues. Where do they stand when the United States government announces its deal — allowing several thousand units to be completed and remaining silent on Jerusalem? Compared with the current situation — daily denunciations of settlements by Washington, while Palestinians are asked to do nothing — all of a sudden the U.S. will seem to have switched sides. All of a sudden the actual construction work you see before you is okay, Washington blesses it; and as to Jerusalem there will be no stated limits at all. “There are no middle-ground solutions for the settlement issue: Either settlement activity stops or it doesn’t stop,” Erekat told Voice of Palestine radio last week. Under all the possible compromises, it doesn’t stop — or so it will seem to Erekat and his boss Abbas, and to any Palestinian listening to Hamas’s radio and TV denunciations of such a deal.
Which is why the actual Palestinian position is to pray for Mitchell to fail.
So, this Obama settlement mania will end up damaging not only Netanyahu but Abbas as well. What a triumph of American diplomacy.
After making a point during his election campaign that the US would once again be respected around the world--by not throwing its weight around, Obama seems to be as intrusive on the world stage as he is domestically on the economic one.
It comes as no surprise that the resentment overseas--and at home--is growing.
The settlements are a known issue of contention between Israel and the United States; although America has not supported their construction, it has, on some occasions, recognized the realities that have developed over 40 years.
Sharon reached understandings with the U.S. administration regarding the growth and building of settlements, as part of the road map. The understandings included that:
-- No new settlements would be constructed.
-- No new land would be allocated or confiscated for settlement construction.
-- Any construction in the settlements would be within current building lines.
-- There would be no provision of economic incentives promoting settlement growth.
-- The unauthorized outposts built after March 2001 would be dismantled (a commitment that Israel, regrettably, has not yet fulfilled).
These understandings provided a working platform and, in my opinion, a proper balance to allow essential elements of stability and normality for Israelis living in settlements until their future would be determined in a permanent-status agreement. I adopted these understandings and followed them in close coordination with the Bush administration.
Moreover, during the run-up to Annapolis and in meetings there, I elaborated to the U.S. administration and the Palestinian leadership that Israel would continue to build in the settlements in accordance with the above criteria.
Let me be clear: Without those understandings, the Annapolis process would not have taken on any form. Therefore, the focus on settlement construction now is not useful.
The insistence now on a complete freeze on settlement construction -- impossible to completely enforce -- will not promote Palestinian efforts to enhance security measures; the institution building that is so crucial for the development of a Palestinian state; better movement and access to the Palestinians; nor an improved economy in the West Bank. Nor will it weaken the Hamas government in Gaza. It will not bring greater security to Israel, help improve Israel's relations with the Arab world, strengthen a coalition of moderate Arab states or shift the strategic balance in the Middle East.
Jennifer Rubin writes that Olmerts column adds to the growing perception that the White House position on the US-Israel agreements on the settlements is not only inaccurate, but not completely honest either:
Olmert has in essence called out the Obama administration for reneging on U.S. commitments and misrepresenting recent history in order to pursue its misguided and wholly unproductive focus on the settlements. We now have both sides of the relevant history corroborating the applicable understandings and making clear that were it not for the U.S. assurances, Israel would not have proceeded with discussions (however unproductive) at Annapolis. And by bringing up the latest instance of Israeli peace gestures, Olmert strikes at the heart of Obama’s fractured history — the false premise that settlements, rather than Palestinian violence and rejectionism, are the main impediment to lasting peace.
The Obama administration took a gamble — banking that they could recast history to suit their ends. But now their version of history, one-sided and false, has been revealed. They have sacrificed credibility and the trust of our one true ally. And for what? They have simply encouraged the very same rejectionism that is at the root of the stalemate.
Obama has been criticized for being less than honest about his own personal campaign promises. The issue has now expanded to include international agreements that the US has in place with foreign countries, and the reaction of the Obama administration denying that promises and agreements were made in the first place is not going to be reassuring to our allies.
Obama should keep in mind that the foundation of any peace agreement is the trust between the parties--and that has to include trust in the peace broker, who is likely to end up making promises that will be intended to assuage doubts between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs.
Could it be that Great Britain is the new...Satan?
It seems that as much as Obama may want to apologize to Iran for past US transgressions, there is another country that has even more to answer more. The US may be the Great Satan, but Great Britain is the Greater Satan:
Since Iranians took to the streets to protest the official vote results, the government has expelled two British diplomats, kicked out the longtime British Broadcasting Corp. bureau chief, and arrested British Embassy staff members, accusing them of fomenting the unrest. Last week, an adviser to the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called Britain "worse than America" for its alleged interference in Iran's post-election affairs.
Although complaints about British meddling are enjoying a resurgence, they are hardly new. For many Iranians, especially those whose memories go back several decades, the British reach is long and deep.
"To the older generation of Iranians, it's as if the sun has never gone down on the British Empire," said Mehrzad Boroujerdi, director of Middle Eastern studies at Syracuse University. "They are considered the masters of political intrigue, and players such as the U.S. are considered to be novices, new kids on the block."
It is not clear whether this is enough to inspire British Prime Minister Brown to do 'an Obama' and start apologizing for misdeeds past and present.
Not surprisingly, Iran's negative view towards Great Britain seems to mirror Israel's view not only of undo British interference in its countries affairs, but also Israel's suspicions of a well known British product:
In every Iranian crisis, the BBC has come in for blame, perhaps in part because of its history in Iran. "BBC Persian service has a very specific position in Iran -- it was created in 1941 to help with the overthrow of Reza Shah," Ansari said. By the late 1970s, however, "it played a role that was at odds with the British government. . . . It gave Khomeini a lot more airtime than they thought was useful or helpful," he said, referring to the late ayatollah and leader of the revolution.
Still, many in Iran find it hard to separate the BBC from the British government. The station's popularity there has stoked suspicion, as has its recent introduction of Farsi-language satellite television service.
"Because the BBC is seen as having been so important during the revolution, with the fact that the BBC is opening a new channel of communication, there's a feeling that perhaps the BBC is gearing up for a new revolution," said Dick Davis, a professor of Persian at Ohio State University.
The article makes clear that nothing is set in stone, and Iranian sentiment could again focus on the US as the main enemy--now let's see if Obama can make use of that.
Earlier this month, talk about Netanyahu's Economic Peace Plan--the idea that upgrading the Palestinian economy takes precedence over talk of a second Palestinian state--was decidedly negative:
Prior to the elections, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu presented his program for "economic peace," which he said would improved the quality of life for Palestinians in the West Bank. However, 100 days after having formed his coalition government, there is no practical progress on economic projects.
The main reason for this is the refusal of senior Palestinian Authority officials to cooperate with Netanyahu and Vice Premier Silvan Shalom, who has been assigned the task of promoting the "economic peace" initiative.
“You don’t appreciate the value of law and order until you lose it,” Rashid al-Sakhel, the owner of a carpet store, said as he stood in his doorway surveying the small wonder of bustling streets on a sunny morning. “For the past eight years, a 10-year-old boy could order a strike and we would all close. Now nobody can threaten us.”
For the first time since the second Palestinian uprising broke out in late 2000, leading to terrorist bombings and fierce Israeli countermeasures, a sense of personal security and economic potential is spreading across the West Bank as the Palestinian Authority’s security forces enter their second year of consolidating order.
The International Monetary Fund is about to issue its first upbeat report in years for the West Bank, forecasting a 7 percent growth rate for 2009. Car sales in 2008 were double those of 2007. Construction on the first new Palestinian town in decades, for 40,000, will begin early next year north of Ramallah. In Jenin, a seven-story store called Herbawi Home Furnishings has opened, containing the latest espresso machines. Two weeks ago, the Israeli military shut its obtrusive nine-year-old checkpoint at the entrance to this city, part of a series of reductions in security measures.
This is something that was already evident last year, and has clearly been progressing this year. And the best part of the economic turnaround is that it is leading to a political turnaround as well:
Whether all this can last and lead to the consolidation of political power for the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority based in Ramallah, as the Obama administration hopes, remains unclear. But a recent opinion poll in the West Bank and Gaza by the Jerusalem Media and Communications Center, a Palestinian news agency, found that Fatah was seen as far more trustworthy than Hamas — 35 percent versus 19 percent — a significant shift from the organization’s poll in January, when Hamas appeared to be at least as trustworthy.
“Two years ago I couldn’t have even gone to Nablus,” said Tony Blair, the former British prime minister who serves as international envoy to the Palestinians, after a smooth visit this week. “Security is greatly improved, and the economy is doing much better. Now we need to move to the next stage: politics.”
The aim of American and European policy is to stitch Palestinian politics back together by strengthening the Palestinian Authority under the presidency of Mahmoud Abbas, which favors a two-state solution with Israel, while weakening the Islamists of Hamas, who rule in Gaza. Fatah says it will hold its first general congress in 20 years in early August to build on its successes, but it remains unclear if the meeting will take place.
The reason for the entire turnaround goes back to the basics in dealing with Palestinian terrorism:
Asked to explain why the West Bank’s fortunes were shifting, a top Israeli general began his narrative with a chart showing 410 Israelis killed by Palestinians in 2002, and 4 in 2008.
“We destroyed the terrorist groups through three things — intelligence, the barrier and freedom of action by our men,” he said, speaking on condition of anonymity in keeping with military rules. “We sent our troops into every marketplace and every house, staying tightly focused on getting the bad guys.”
of course, negotiations far, far better, not (ph) infinitely better, than military action.
As far as Northern Ireland is concerned, we welcome hugely the progress has been made following the Good Friday Agreement.
It also has to be said that, before that happened, there had to be a change of approach by those who saw terrorism at the answer. And that approach partly changed because of the firmness of the military and police response to that terrorism. And if there had not been that firm response by successive British governments and others to the terrorist threat that was posed on both sides, we would not have been able to get some of those people into negotiation, and we'd not be marking what is a satisfactory day in the history of Northern Ireland today.
If the West Bank really does experience an economic and cultural revival, it will be because Israel defeated the Intifada and suicide bombers and the thinking that went along with it--because the West surely hasn't.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Michael Dickson, Director, SWU Israel Office Cell: (+972) 52 409 9957 or mdickson@standwithus.com
July 16th 2009
SOLDIERS SPEAK OUT AGAINST NEW IDF ALLEGATIONS
IN RESPONSE TO ‘BREAKING THE SILENCE’ REPORT, NEW TESTIMONIALS HAVE BEEN ADDED TO SOLDIERSSPEAKOUT, A WEBSITE THAT FEATURES EYE WITNESS ACCOUNTS FROM IDF SOLDIERS
SOLDIERS REQUESTED THAT STANDWITHUS LAUNCH WWW.SOLDIERSSPEAKOUT.COM TO SHARE THEIR PERSONAL AND POSITIVE COMBAT EXPERIENCES WITH THE WORLD
“Breaking the Silence are breaking the rules for any kind of serious reporting”
JERUSALEM (July 15, 2009) – A wave of IDF soldiers have come forward to video their positive, eye-witness testimony to www.soldiersspeakout.com, outraged by a report recently released by ‘Breaking the Silence’, which alleges misconduct by IDF soldiers during Operation cast lead towards Palestinian civilians.
StandWithUs, an international education organization, created the website at the request of IDF members in its student programs who felt compelled to speak out. www.soldierspeakout.comcontains testimonials from soldiers who share their personal, positive and humanitarian experiences of serving in the IDF. (This independent initiative is not coordinated with either the IDF or the Israeli Government.)
“Breaking the Silence is breaking the rules for any kind of serious reporting”, said Michael Dickson, Israel director of StandWithUs, “They are a fringe group with a political agenda who have collected anonymous ‘testimony,’ the majority of which is based on hearsay and rumor. One account is from a soldier not even present at the time ofthe alleged grievance. In contrast, the soldiers featured on soldiersspeakout.com give testimony on camera without their face blurred and from their own personal experience.”
Explains Roz Rothstein, international director of StandWithUs, “we created this website because a few isolated allegations from ‘anti-war’ Israeli soldiers are being used to defame the IDF. Yet the IDF has over 700,000 citizen soldiers and reservists - thousands of whom served in Gaza - who try to live up to its high ethical standards. To slander an IDF campaign on the basis of the anonymous reports of around 0.2% of those serving at the time is ridiculous.”
The soldiers talk both about the challenges of facing a terrorist enemy that embedded itself with civilians for protection and about their determination to keep to the army’s moral code of conduct in this situation. Idan, who served in an elite Givati unit, talks about his ordering of his soldiers to clean up a Palestinian home after they were in it and how they collected items from their own food parcels from home and left it for the family. Lior, a combat soldier in the Gaza campaign, recounts instances of seeing individuals who they suspected were terrorists, but they were not sure so they did not shoot. Another soldier, Yaron, concurs, telling of the order he and his comrades were given to avoid civilian casualties.
Noam, an officer in the Givati unit discusses how many booby-trapped houses they faced and how the bombs would have killed both IDF soldiers and Palestinian civilians had they not been disarmed.
The new footage on www.soldiersspeakout.com joins other testimony in which soldiers share experiences rarely told by the international media. Nina, a 25 year-old IDF medic who served in Gaza, recounts how she and other IDF soldiers treated wounded Palestinian men, women and children and arranged for them to be flown to Israeli hospitals for medical care. She explains that IDF medics are taught not to see nationality, but rather to treat the wounded with the severest injuries first, even if they are terrorists.
Amir, a military reserve paramedic in the Givati unit in Gaza, confirms Nina’s account. “I was present when injured Palestinians were flown out by IDF chopper to Israeli hospitals. Imagine the cost of that helicopter, but we believe that human life is of the highest value – their identity doesn’t matter.” Amir’s video relates how he helped a pregnant Palestinian woman in labor while he was searching for terrorists in Gaza.
“Breaking the Silence are misleading in their name and their aim,” remarks Dickson, “There is no silence to break. Israel is an open and democratic society that regularly investigates its own actions, but this one-sided and shoddy report fails to stress the context of the war – a battle against Hamas terrorists hiding behind civilians and it omits names, ranks and facts about soldiers and their stories. That this one-sided group receive funding from both the EU and the British Embassy in Tel Aviv deserves to be investigated.”
• The soldiers are prepared to conduct interviews by request – please email mdickson@standwithus.com or call +972 (0)52 409 9957.
StandWithUs, an international, non-profit Israel education organization, hosts speakers and conferences, offers website resources and creates brochures and materials about Israel that are distributed globally. Based in Los Angeles, the organization has offices across the U.S. and in Israel and the UK. SWU was founded in 2001 in response to the public’s need and desire for mainstream information about the Arab-Israeli conflict. StandWithUsCampus helps college students challenge anti-Israel bias. http://www.standwithus.com and http://www.standwithuscampus.com and http://www.standwithus.co.il
# # #
-- Avi Posnick Outreach Coordinator StandWithUs East Coast Office: (212) 398-2524 Fax: (212) 842 0161 Cell: (516) 698 3449
When I blogged about the story, there were already indications that there was less to the story than met the eye--with anonymous sources and accounts based on hearsay and people who were not even there where the alleged issues took place.
Now, the issue of alleged war crimes by the IDF has resurfaced and like clockwork, the media again has jumped on the story--thanks to the NGO Breaking The Silence, which claims to have testimony by IDF soldiers that support the accusation.
It promised the exclusive to Haaretz, because it knows the report would have gotten prominence there. What it didn’t count on was Haaretz learning its lesson from its huge mistake last time it was given a report into alleged Israel Defense Forces human rights violations in Gaza. Last time Haaretz didn’t do its journalistic job and published unsubstantiated hearsay. This time Haaretz military reporter Amos Harel had the presence of mind to send the Breaking The Silence report to the IDF for response.
My military reporter, Yaakov Katz, was in the right place at the right time, and got hold of most of the report himself. Breaking The Silence tried to get Yaakov off the story because it didn’t fit into their strategy to have The Jerusalem Post take a critical look at their report. They promised Yaakov they would give him other stories in the future if he dropped this one for now. Katz refused, rightly so, and we published.
Several days before all this, Breaking The Silence gave out their report to a wide array of foreign media, and not to the IDF to probe into itself, with the caveat that they observe the embargo until after Haaretz published the report first. All of which shows their original intent was to get as much uncritical worldwide publicity for their report. Legitimate, sure. Fair? Not so sure.
A brief consideration of the report's flawed methodology exposes the absence of any reasonable research standards. By Breaking the Silence's own admission, the allegations are comprised of "the testimony of around 30 combatants" – a fraction of the thousands of Israeli combat troops deployed during the Gaza conflict. This extremely narrow and presumably hand-picked sample is an absurd basis on which to pass judgment, and even these limited testimonies were entirely unverifiable.
All statements are anonymous, and so-called "evidence" is further compromised by the absence of any details of where and when alleged incidents occurred. Consequently, were the report intended to prompt the IDF to investigate individual allegations, Breaking the Silence has made this impossible.
As for the allegations themselves, they frequently rely upon secondhand evidence and hearsay. Media reports have claimed that the study reveals the use of "permissive" rules of engagement in Gaza. Yet a soldier admits that "I wasn't witness to such cases but I heard people talking, that soldiers shot at people here and there." A chain of whispers is hardly a concrete foundation to condemn an army's response to incessant rocket fire on its civilians.
Breaking The Silence has been successful and their story is being reported--as fact--throughout the media. Now there remains just one more thing to do:
A wave of IDF soldiers have come forward to video their positive, eye-witness testimony to www.soldiersspeakout.com, outraged by a report recently released by ‘Breaking the Silence’, which alleges misconduct by IDF soldiers during Operation cast lead towards Palestinian civilians.
StandWithUs, an international education organization, created the website at the request of IDF members in its student programs who felt compelled to speak out. www.soldierspeakout.comcontains testimonials from soldiers who share their personal, positive and humanitarian experiences of serving in the IDF. (This independent initiative is not coordinated with either the IDF or the Israeli Government.)
In the meeting, according to participants, Obama expressed strong support for Israel and acknowledged a 'misperception' that the US was disproportionately pressuring Israel, indicating that the US would be doing more to prod the Palestinians and Arab countries forward.
The Orthodox Union subscribes to the serious concern, expressed by several participants in the meeting, that the Administration has allowed a perception to develop that the onus for progress toward peace between Israel and Arabs lies with Israel, and also that the U.S. is pressuring Israel to undertake various steps while demanding little of the Palestinians or other Arab governments. We welcome the President’s recognition that this perception gap is problematic and his stated intention to recalibrate his Administration’s actions in the coming weeks to make clear that the U.S. insists that concrete steps – with regard to incitement and other anti-Israel activities – must be taken by the Palestinians and others.
And we know that progress toward peace cannot be the responsibility of the United States – or Israel – alone. Ending the conflict requires action on all sides. The Palestinians have the responsibility to improve and extend the positive actions already taken on security; to act forcefully against incitement; and to refrain from any action that would make meaningful negotiations less likely.
And Arab states have a responsibility to support the Palestinian Authority with words and deeds, to take steps to improve relations with Israel, and to prepare their publics to embrace peace and accept Israel’s place in the region. The Saudi peace proposal, supported by more than twenty nations, was a positive step. But we believe that more is needed. So we are asking those who embrace the proposal to take meaningful steps now. Anwar Sadat and King Hussein crossed important thresholds, and their boldness and vision mobilized peace constituencies in Israel and paved the way for lasting agreements. By providing support to the Palestinians and offering an opening, however modest, to the Israelis, the Arab states could have the same impact. So I say to all sides: Sending messages of peace is not enough. You must also act against the cultures of hate, intolerance and disrespect that perpetuate conflict. [emphasis added]
In any case, the sudden US interest in Abbas and the Palestinian Authority actually taking an active role in the peace process might come as a bit of a surprise to Palestinian Arabs--or it might just be put down as a sop by Obama after his meeting with Jewish leaders on Monday.
After all, after Obama's Cairo speech, where he praised Muslims and Islam--it is only Secretary of State Clinton who is claiming that more than just Israeli concessions are required. While the US is demanding a concrete step from Israel to freeze the settlements, there is no specific demand made of the Palestinian Arabs, and Clinton praises the PA for taking actions on security. Imagine if the Secretary of State praised the sacrifice Israel made in executing the Disengagement--thereby emphasizing the lack of action taken by the Palestinians.
Clinton warns the Palestinian Arabs to "refrain from any action that would make meaningful negotiations less likely"--an odd circumlocution--instead of pushing for something meaningful, such as requiring Abbas to stop naming things after Palestinian terrorists.
Secretary of State Clinton's speech only serves to emphasize the very tangible lack of balance between the demands being made of Israel and the passing reference to the Palestinian Arabs.
This is a framing which friends of Israel should particularly welcome. It is the Palestinian/Arab side which continues to foster anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial and more in their schools and media, and continues to deny the basic legitimacy of Israel to exist (in contrast to Israel which has said and acted time and again to recognize and potentially realize the rights of Palestinians).
It remains to be seen whether the US will demand action on any of these issues with anything near the persistence and forcefulness with which it addresses Israeli settlements.
UPDATE: Greg Sargent, who had an advanced copy of Clinton's speech, predicted:
In a major foreign policy speech this afternoon, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will take direct aim at Arab states for not doing their part towards securing Mideast peace, demanding that “all sides” do more to crack down on the “cultures of hate, intolerance and disrespect that perpetuate conflict,” according to an advance excerpt I’ve obtained.
Clinton’s muscular tone towards Arab states could blunt criticism from conservatives who say that the Obama administration has disproportionately pressured Israel by demanding a complete halt to settlement activity...
Clinton will criticize Arab states for sitting on their hands while awaiting a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the wake of the 2002 Saudi peace proposal...
Clinton’s insistence on action from “all sides,” Israel included, will likely spark more criticism from the right. [emphasis added]
With respect to settlements, the President was very clear when Prime Minister Netanyahu was here. He wants to see a stop to settlements – not some settlements, not outposts, not natural growth exceptions. We think it is in the best interests of the effort that we are engaged in that settlement expansion cease. That is our position. That is what we have communicated very clearly, not only to the Israelis but to the Palestinians and others. And we intend to press that point.
I look forward to the kind of evenhanded pressure on both sides that Obama claims to be applying--but let's be honest: we are nowhere near that point.
At the very least, Clinton had better be more 'muscular in tone' than demanding from the Palestinians that they "refrain from any action that would make meaningful negotiations less likely."
She starts out by defending the indefensible settlement red herring, goes on to praise the Palestinians for improving security conditions, and calls on “all sides” to act against cultures of hate and intolerance. Did someone on her staff go through the speech beforehand and make sure to take out anything that referenced the world as it really is?
What about the perpetual reality that is Palestinian terrorism? The continued rocket attacks? The non-stop campaign of dehumanizing propaganda? The overarching fact that Palestinian leadership wants neither peace nor two states?
...So what’s left? Surreal rhetoric about cruel settlements and positive Palestinian security steps. On Israel, the administration, Hillary included, is a bust.
HRW presented a documentary and spoke on the report they compiled on Israel violating human rights and international law during its war on Gaza earlier this year.
"Human Rights Watch provided the international community with evidence of Israel using white phosphorus and launching systematic destructive attacks on civilian targets. Pro-Israel pressure groups in the US, the European Union and the United Nations have strongly resisted the report and tried to discredit it," said Sarah Leah Whitson, director of HRW's Middle East and North Africa Division.
Whitson pointed out that the group managed to testify about Israeli abuses to the US Congress on three occasions. "US President Barack Obama and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called on Israel and the Hamas authorities in Gaza to cooperate with the United Nations fact-finding mission to investigate the allegations of serious Israeli violations during the war on Gaza. The mission will be headed by the reputable Justice Richard Goldstone."
At the dinner, Hassan Elmasry, a member of HRW's International Board of Directors, requested funding for the group.
A delegation from Human Rights Watch was recently in Saudi Arabia. To investigate the mistreatment of women under Saudi Law? To campaign for the rights of homosexuals, subject to the death penalty in Saudi Arabia? To protest the lack of religious freedom in the Saudi Kingdom? To issue a report on Saudi political prisoners?
No, no, no, and no. The delegation arrived to raise money from wealthy Saudis by highlighting HRW's demonization of Israel. An HRW spokesperson, Sarah Leah Whitson, highlighted HRW's battles with "pro-Israel pressure groups in the US, the European Union and the United Nations."[emphasis added]
Jeffrey Goldberg picked up on the story in the Atlantic and notes that Whitson wrote a letter to The Wall Street Journal rebutting Berstein's claim that while in Saudi Arabia, HRW said "not a word during the trip about the status of human rights in that country." What Whitson does not address, however, is the accusation that she tried "to extract money from potential Saudi donors by bragging about the group's 'battles' with the 'pro-Israel pressure groups'?"
Goldberg wrote to Ken Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch to find out if that particular claim was true. After exchanging numerous messages with Roth in search of a straight answer, Roth finally responded:
That's certainly part of the story. We report on Israel. Its supporters fight back with lies and deception. It wasn't a pitch against the Israel lobby per se. Our standard spiel is to describe our work in the region. Telling the Israel story--part of that pitch--is in part telling about the lies and obfuscation that are inevitably thrown our way.
Goldberg, who also writes that "I'm not one of the people who believes that Human Rights Watch is reflexively anti-Israel," concludes:
In other words, yes, the director of Human Rights Watch's Middle East division is attempting to raise funds from Saudis, including a member of the Shura Council (which oversees, on behalf of the Saudi monarchy, the imposition in the Kingdom of the strict Wahhabi interpretation of Islamic law) in part by highlighting her organization's investigations of Israel, and its war with Israel's "supporters," who are liars and deceivers. It appears as if Human Rights Watch, in the pursuit of dollars, has compromised its integrity. [emphasis added]
Back at The Volokh Conspiracy, where David Bernstein has blogged about reaction to his Wall Street Journal article--which started out as a post on the blog--Bernstein takes a slightly softer approach:
I'd put it differently then Goldberg. There's no evidence that HRW's pursuit of dollars has compromised its integrity, at least not yet. Rather, HRW's pursuit of dollars has starkly revealed the underlying biases that it previously has denied having. But really, anyone who has been paying attention shouldn't be surprised that HRW's credibility on Israel-related issues approaches zero. [emphasis added]
One thing seems certain, HRW seems incapable of rational discourse on the topic of Israel when they should be doing their utmost to present an image of neutrality.
Garlasco is not prepared to accept without question the Israeli claim that Hamas hides behind civilians and makes use of civilians. "Israelis are very quick to say they are doing it, but very short on proof. By keeping the independent people out, they leave doubt in people's minds." Furthermore, he believes, Israel has a record of not telling the truth: "They said in Lebanon they did not use cluster bombs. We found 4 million. They evade answering that they use phosphorus, and we stand there every day watching. They claim to have bombed a truck full of Grad missiles, and according to witnesses who spoke with Haaretz, it turned out to be a truck with oxygen tanks. Not everything that is long is a missile. How can anyone trust the Israeli military?'"
Garlasco's inability to maintain a modicum of neutrality and integrity, replaced by bitter cynicism is understandable--after all, it's not as if Hamas goes around bragging about using human shields!
Oh, wait:
Which leaves of course the obvious question: How can anyone trust Human Rights Watch?
Lately he [Garlasco] has been peddling the Haditha massacre myth... which has been seriously questioned. He has said, " "What happened at Haditha appears to be outright murder. The Haditha massacre will go down as "Iraq's My Lai" in his view.
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH is a notoriously anti—Israel advocacy group funded by George Soros—who, he proudly admits, is anti—Israel. According to NGO Monitor and well—respected Professor Anna Bayefsky, Human Rights Watch "has a lot of explaining to do when it comes to anti—Semitism and anti—Israel bias."
The Israeli Prime Minister reiterated his readiness to recognise a Palestinian state and to make "painful concessions" in return for "real peace". But he hedged on whether he would evacuate Jewish settlements. That reluctance prompted the Palestinians and the Israeli left to question his sincerity.
The victory of Anglo-American forces in Iraq, Mr Sharon said in an interview with the Haaretz newspaper, had created an opportunity that did not exist before. "The Arab world in general and the Palestinians in particular have been shaken. There is therefore a chance to reach an agreement faster than people think." He added: "I am 75. I feel that my goal and my purpose are to bring this nation to peace and security. I think that this is something that I have to leave behind me."
"Painful concessions" became the catchphrase that would be repeated over and over by both Sharon and then by Olmert, just as evacuating the Israeli settlements has become the concession de jure for Israel to make (the Disengagement having been a mere appetizer).
Then, Israelis were told by their leaders what would have to be done to proceed further on the evasive road to peace.
Now we have gone from evasive to invasive as Israel now finds itself lectured by the US not only that it simply has not done enough, but that it needs a political time-out, while it sits in the corner and considers what it really should be doing--under the tutelage of Obama.
Mr. Ben-Ami (of J Street) said in an interview that the president ‘’did a masterful job of pushing while hugging.’’ Mr. Obama spoke of a ‘’rock-solid strategic alliance with Israel,’’ he said, but also strongly defended his call for Israel to stop building Jewish settlements in Palestinian territories. He said Mr. Obama argued that he is the right man, at the right time, to press for a lasting Middle East peace agreement.
“He was very humble about it, not bragging, not talking himself up, but just being clear that there’s a set of assets that he brings,’’ Mr. Ben-Ami said. “That somebody with his ability to speak to the Muslim world, the political capital that he brings internationally as well as domestically – that isn’t going to come around all that often, and we have a narrow window before time runs out. He was very clear that this is a moment that has to be seized and he intends to seize it.’’
It is, after all, they whose country is the target of an armed and ideological cyclone that Obama has done precious little to ease. He brought nothing back from Riyadh and Cairo, absolutely nothing except the conviction of the Arab leaders that they need do nothing but sit and wait until the president squeezes one concession after another out of Jerusalem.
“Serious self-reflection!” It’s really good that Barack Obama is reminding the leaders and people of Israel to engage in that. I hope they’re up to it. After all, what do Israelis know about reflecting on, and living with, the life and death consequences of political decisions? What do Bibi Netanyahu and Ehud Barak and Moshe Ya’alon -- either as individuals or as leaders -- know about war and peace? These are guys -- and the Israelis are a people -- who just coast along, taking an easy path, never debating, never thinking, never questioning, never second-guessing...and never making or asking their fellow citizens to make sacrifices.
This comes from the new leader of the US [leader of the Free World? (gulp)] whose inexperience becomes more apparent as his approval numbers sink.
Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel, and David Axelrod, on the other hand -- they’re seriously self-reflective individuals. Look at their wide experiences at peace and in war. Look how they’ve had to grapple with life and death decisions for decades. For them, it’s not just talk and spin and positioning. The American president and his advisors -- they’ve made personal sacrifices, they’ve come to grips with the tough choices over their decades of accomplishment in public life. They’ve got the standing to lecture the people and leaders of Israel on the need for self-reflection.
What it boils down to is that while Obama may be the president of the United States--a position that he earned politically--that does not mean that Obama has earned the right to lecture another country about its very survival, an issue that both the leaders and people have struggled with for decades.
Obama's amateurish remarks will gain him no points on the international stage.
After the Palestinians rejected an offer of a state at Camp David in 2000, rejected the Clinton Parameters in 2001, and conducted a terror war against Israeli civilians from September 2000-2002, Israel nevertheless agreed in 2003 to the “Performance-Based Roadmap” for the creation of a Palestinian state, despite reservations about the manner in which that plan would actually be implemented.
In 2003 and thereafter, Israel ceased all settlement activity — as it understood that Phase I Roadmap obligation (no new settlements; no building outside settlement boundaries; no financial incentives for Israelis to move to settlements) — and believed American officials agreed with its interpretation of that obligation.
In 2004, after the Palestinian Authority failed to meet its own Phase I Roadmap obligation (sustained efforts to dismantle terrorist groups and infrastructure), Israel nevertheless proposed to dismantle every existing settlement in Gaza (not just “outposts”), remove every Israeli soldier, and turn over the entire area to the Palestinian Authority — in exchange for a written American commitment to defensible borders and retention of the major settlement blocs necessary to insure them.
In 2005, after receiving the American commitment, Israel proceeded to carry out the Gaza disengagement, despite the political and social upheaval within Israel it caused, including the break-up of the ruling party and nationwide demonstrations, and - at State Department insistence - further dismantled four settlements (not just “outposts”) in the West Bank as well, to demonstrate the disengagement would be “Gaza First,” not “Gaza Last.”
In 2006, after the Palestinians elected their premier terrorist group to control their government, Israelis nevertheless re-elected Kadima on a platform of “convergence” (the new name for withdrawal from the West Bank), and would have carried it out but for the attacks by Hamas from Gaza and Hezbollah from Lebanon that caused two wars and finally convinced Israelis further withdrawals were insane.
In 2007, despite the Palestinian failure to carry out its Phase I dismantlement obligation, and its categorical rejection of Phase II (a state with provisional sovereignty before Phase III final status negotiations), Israel agreed to proceed immediately to final status negotiations once again under the “Annapolis Process.”
Throughout 2008, Israel negotiated with its “peace partner” under the accelerated process, and offered 100 percent of the West Bank (after land swaps) for a state, with concessions on other major issues, all of which were rejected.
During this eight-year period, the Palestinian concessions (aka reciprocal “progress”) can be enumerated more briefly: zero.
