BY GIL HOFFMAN, THE JERUSALEM POST
November 11, 2011
Ahead of 26th anniversary of Jonathan Pollard's arrest, an exclusive
look at year-old clemency request reveals how his case was mishandled.
Following the release of Gilad Schalit from the clutches of Hamas in the
Gaza Strip, one of the questions most often asked to spokesmen for
Israel who address audiences in the United States is why Israeli agent
Jonathan Pollard remains in an American federal prison.
Pollard will enter his 27th year in captivity on November 21, even
though the median sentence for those convicted of passing classified
information to an ally is just two to four years.
No one else in American history has ever received a life sentence for
this offense.
Successive Democratic and Republican regimes in Washington can be blamed
for not commuting Pollard's sentence. Some hold American Jewish leaders
responsible for not taking a public stand on Pollard until recently and
still not taking enough action.
The last seven prime ministers of Israel undoubtedly could have each
made Pollard a higher priority.
But an exclusive look at Pollard's request for clemency from US
President Barack Obama, which he submitted a year ago, tells a deeper
story of intrigue, legal misconduct and the interference of an American
defense secretary known for being anti-Israel.
Pollard filed his request for clemency last October and over the past
year added seven supplemental filings with letters to Obama calling for
his release from many current and former senior American and Israeli
officials. After a plea from Pollard's wife Esther, Prime Minister
Binyamin Netanyahu followed up with his own formal request three months
later.
A White House spokesman confirmed in May that such requests tend to be
answered within six weeks. He has not said why Obama has been dragging
his feet.
Clemency requests were also filed in 1992 to thenpresident George Bush,
in 1993 to then-president Bill Clinton, and in 2008 to then-president
George W. Bush. The first two announced that they had denied the request
to commute Pollard's sentence.
George W. Bush left office without responding to the request at all.
While the US Board of Prisons web site lists a "presumptive parole date"
in 2015, following 30 years of Pollard's sentence, the US Justice
Department is expected to oppose parole, so Pollard is unlikely to
apply. If he did apply and was rejected, it could bar him from
requesting parole for another 15 years and harm chances of persuading a
president to grant clemency.
Those close to Pollard warn that due to his poor health, he may not
survive four more years in prison. His clemency request reveals for the
first time his long list of ailments: Diabetes, nausea, dizziness,
blackouts and ongoing issues with his gall bladder, kidneys, sinuses,
eyes and feet. He also suffers from Meniere's disease, which causes him
to lose consciousness and fall without warning.
Despite an exemplary prison record, applying for parole is also not an
option for Pollard because of a severe impediment unilaterally imposed
by the US Justice Department preventing his pro bono attorneys, Eliot
Lauer and Jacques Semmelman, from seeing key documents that were
submitted to the judge before he was sentenced in 1987.
Requests for the lawyers to have access to Pollard's file have been
rejected even though both lawyers obtained the appropriate "top secret"
security clearances.
Since the lawyers have not seen their client's entire court file, those
opposed to parole have free reign to say anything about Pollard without
the risk of being contradicted by the documents.
Explaining that their client was not seeking to exonerate himself via a
pardon, Pollard's lawyers wrote in the clemency request that "while
there are serious and substantial issues surrounding the sentencing
process, Mr. Pollard has exhausted his remedies in the US court system.
His sole remaining avenue of relief from his life sentence is executive
clemency."
The request lists Pollard's offense as "conspiracy to deliver national
defense information to a foreign government," but Pollard stressed in
his own words: "I was never charged with, nor did I plead guilty to
harming the United States or aiding a foreign government that is an
enemy of the US."
Pollard has expressed his remorse for his crime on multiple occasions
and also made a point of reiterating his remorse in the document. The
loyalty that he expresses to the US sounds surprising from a man who
hasn't exactly been treated well by American institutions.
"I have never, to this day, lost my love, respect, and gratitude for
everything this country has given me," Pollard wrote. "I deeply regret
what I did.
While my intention at the time I committed this offense was only to help
protect Israel and never to cause damage to the US, I have long since
come to understand that what I did was wrong and that I should have
acted on my concerns in a more appropriate, legal manner."
Pollard received a life sentence on March 4, 1987, despite a plea
agreement he signed a year earlier in which he committed to plead guilty
and cooperate fully with the investigation against him in return for a
commitment by the American government not to seek a life sentence.
Prior to the sentencing, the Department of Justice which revealed that
no concrete harm had been done to the US as a result of Pollard's
espionage.
But then-American defense secretary Caspar Weinberger submitted a
46-page classified declaration two months before the sentencing that
apparently claimed the opposite. Just one day before the sentencing he
submitted another, shorter letter to the judge in which he falsely
accused Pollard of causing at least as much harm to American national
security as had spies for the Soviet Union who were given life
sentences.
Portions of the Weinberger declaration that are in the public record
indicate that it consisted largely of projections of possible future
harm.
Pollard's lawyer at the time, who had full access to the document,
responded to it by saying that "Secretary Weinberger nowhere alleges
that the US has lost the lives or utility of any agents, that it has
been obligated to replace or relocate intelligence equipment, that it
had to alter communication signals, or that it has lost other sources of
information, or that our technology has been compromised.
Indeed the memorandum only discusses the possibility that sources may be
compromised in the future."
Years after other agents were convicted of revealing information that
Pollard was accused of leaking, his current lawyers wrote in the
clemency request that it is likely that many of Weinberger's projections
never came to pass and that scrutinizing his declaration would confirm
that.
"The passage of nearly a quarter century has demonstrated that the
anticipated harm to the US has not materialized and never will," the
lawyers wrote. "Inasmuch as Mr. Pollard's life sentence was premised, in
substantial measure on these projections, commuting of the sentence
would be just and appropriate."
Weinberger's downplaying of Pollard's case in a 2002 interview with
journalist Edwin Black substantiated the lawyers' belief that the harm
Weinberger projected did not materialize.
"The Pollard matter was comparatively minor," Weinberger told Black.
"It was made far bigger than its actual importance."
Weinberger's deputy at the time of the Pollard affair, Lawrence Korb,
who is currently one of the most outspoken advocates for Pollard's
release, recently said that "Weinberger had an almost visceral dislike
of Israel."
If Weinberger's declarations were so damaging, why didn't Pollard object
to the last-minute submissions, rebut them or request a hearing at which
the government would have had to prove Weinberger's charges or withdraw
them? The apparent answer is that Richard Hibey, the lawyer of Lebanese
descent whom Israel paid to represent Pollard, did not tell him that he
was entitled to any of those approaches.
Pollard's clemency request includes a lengthy opinion written by former
federal judge George Leighton of Chicago in which he blamed Hibey for
not preventing the life sentence Pollard received.
"The evidence shows that the government engaged in serious misconduct
that went unchecked by an ineffective defense counsel, Richard Hibey,
and that these constitutional violations severely prejudiced Mr.
Pollard and resulted in his life sentence," Leighton wrote. "He was
deprived of effective assistance of counsel as a result of his counsel's
failure to deal competently with unproven, highly damaging eleventh hour
factual assertions made by the government in a supplemental declaration
of secretary of defense Caspar Weinberger submitted the day before
sentencing."
The most problematic mistake by Hibey, who later represented the
Palestinian Authority in American courts, was that after the sentencing,
he did not file a onepage request for an appeal within the required 10
days. This barred Pollard from ever appealing his life sentence, and as
a result, there has never been any direct appellate review of the
sentencing.
Lauer and Semmelman, who became Pollard's lawyers in 2000, have
attempted unsuccessfully to bring the case back to courts, but their
efforts have been rejected on procedural grounds, leaving clemency by an
American president as the only way Pollard can leave prison alive.
"After nearly 25 years, we respectfully suggest that further
incarceration of Mr Pollard would serve no purpose," Lauer and Semmelman
wrote Obama. "Any deterrent effect on others based on the sentence's
severity has been accomplished."
www.jpost.com/Features/FrontLines/Article
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Thursday, November 10, 2011
ARTICLE BY SIR MARTIN GILBERT TO COMMEMORATE THE 94TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE BALFOUR DECLARATION WHICH WAS GIVEN TO THE ZF IN 1917
In the autumn if 1917, the British War Cabinet, desperate to persuade the Jews of Russia to urge their government to renew Russia’s flagging war effort, saw a future Jewish Palestine as an inducement and stimulus to the patriotic zeal of Russia’s Jews. To this end, Britain, encouraged the possibility of an eventual Jewish majority in Palestine, even if – with the population then being some 600,000 Arabs and 60,000 Jews – such a majority might take many years to emerge.
On 24 October 1917, the Foreign Secretary, A.J. Balfour told the War Cabinet: ‘The vast majority of Jews in Russia and America, as, indeed, all over the world, now appeared to be favourable to Zionism. If we could make a declaration favourable to such an ideal, we should be able to carry on extremely useful propaganda both in Russia and America.’ On November 1, a senior Foreign Office official noted that the Zionist leaders then in Britain were prepared to send ‘agents’ to Russia and America ‘to work up a pro-ally and especially pro-British campaign of propaganda among the Jews.’
The Balfour Declaration was issued the next day, November 2. To secure the results hoped for by the Foreign Office, Vladimir Jabotinsky agreed to go at once to Russia, to stimulate Russian Jews to urge their government not to pull out of the war, and leave Britain and France in danger of defeat at the unfettered hands of Germany. Weizmann agreed to go first to the United States and then to Russia, to rouse pro-war sentiment among the Jewish masses in both countries. But on November 7, before Jabotinsky or Weizmann could set off, the Bolsheviks seized power in Petrograd and withdrew Russia from the war.
Publication of the Balfour Declaration had been delayed a week so that it could first be published in the weekly Jewish Chronicle on November 9. It was thus issued too late to affect the Bolshevik triumph. It did, however, encourage American Jews, especially those born in Russia, to volunteer to fight in Palestine against the Turks as part of the British Army. Yitzhak Rabin’s father was among those volunteers.
The Balfour Declaration had nothing in it about Jewish statehood. On 31 October 1917, Balfour told the War Cabinet that while the words ‘national home … did not necessarily involve the early establishment of an independent Jewish State’, such a State ‘was a matter for gradual development in accordance with the ordinary laws of political evolution’.
On 3 January 1919 agreement was reached between Weizmann and the Arab leader Emir Feisal, stating that that all ‘necessary measures’ should be taken ‘to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale, and as quickly as possible to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land through closer settlement and intensive cultivation of the soil’. In taking such measures, the agreement went on, ‘the Arab peasant and tenant farmers shall be protected in their rights, and shall be assisted in forwarding their economic development.’
On February 27, in Paris, Weizmann presented the Weizmann-Feisal Agreement to the Allied Supreme Council of the victorious powers, which wanted to know if a Jewish ‘nationality’ would involve eventual statehood? Weizmann told them: ‘Later on, when the Jews formed the large majority, they would be ripe to establish such a Government as would answer to the state of the development of the country and to their ideals.’ On July 5, Balfour informed the British general then in charge of Palestine that land purchase could continue ‘provided that, as far as possible, preferential treatment is given to Zionist interests’.
When Winston Churchill was asked, in 1937 by the Royal Commission on Palestine, whether a Jewish majority had been intended by those who, like himself while Colonial Secretary in 1922, had been responsible for the evolution of the Mandate, he replied: ‘Certainly we committed ourselves to the idea that some day, somehow, far off in the future, subject to justice and economic convenience, there might well be a great Jewish State there, numbered by millions, far exceeding the present inhabitants of the country and to cut them [the Jews] off from that would be a wrong.’
On 24 October 1917, the Foreign Secretary, A.J. Balfour told the War Cabinet: ‘The vast majority of Jews in Russia and America, as, indeed, all over the world, now appeared to be favourable to Zionism. If we could make a declaration favourable to such an ideal, we should be able to carry on extremely useful propaganda both in Russia and America.’ On November 1, a senior Foreign Office official noted that the Zionist leaders then in Britain were prepared to send ‘agents’ to Russia and America ‘to work up a pro-ally and especially pro-British campaign of propaganda among the Jews.’
The Balfour Declaration was issued the next day, November 2. To secure the results hoped for by the Foreign Office, Vladimir Jabotinsky agreed to go at once to Russia, to stimulate Russian Jews to urge their government not to pull out of the war, and leave Britain and France in danger of defeat at the unfettered hands of Germany. Weizmann agreed to go first to the United States and then to Russia, to rouse pro-war sentiment among the Jewish masses in both countries. But on November 7, before Jabotinsky or Weizmann could set off, the Bolsheviks seized power in Petrograd and withdrew Russia from the war.
Publication of the Balfour Declaration had been delayed a week so that it could first be published in the weekly Jewish Chronicle on November 9. It was thus issued too late to affect the Bolshevik triumph. It did, however, encourage American Jews, especially those born in Russia, to volunteer to fight in Palestine against the Turks as part of the British Army. Yitzhak Rabin’s father was among those volunteers.
The Balfour Declaration had nothing in it about Jewish statehood. On 31 October 1917, Balfour told the War Cabinet that while the words ‘national home … did not necessarily involve the early establishment of an independent Jewish State’, such a State ‘was a matter for gradual development in accordance with the ordinary laws of political evolution’.
On 3 January 1919 agreement was reached between Weizmann and the Arab leader Emir Feisal, stating that that all ‘necessary measures’ should be taken ‘to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale, and as quickly as possible to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land through closer settlement and intensive cultivation of the soil’. In taking such measures, the agreement went on, ‘the Arab peasant and tenant farmers shall be protected in their rights, and shall be assisted in forwarding their economic development.’
On February 27, in Paris, Weizmann presented the Weizmann-Feisal Agreement to the Allied Supreme Council of the victorious powers, which wanted to know if a Jewish ‘nationality’ would involve eventual statehood? Weizmann told them: ‘Later on, when the Jews formed the large majority, they would be ripe to establish such a Government as would answer to the state of the development of the country and to their ideals.’ On July 5, Balfour informed the British general then in charge of Palestine that land purchase could continue ‘provided that, as far as possible, preferential treatment is given to Zionist interests’.
When Winston Churchill was asked, in 1937 by the Royal Commission on Palestine, whether a Jewish majority had been intended by those who, like himself while Colonial Secretary in 1922, had been responsible for the evolution of the Mandate, he replied: ‘Certainly we committed ourselves to the idea that some day, somehow, far off in the future, subject to justice and economic convenience, there might well be a great Jewish State there, numbered by millions, far exceeding the present inhabitants of the country and to cut them [the Jews] off from that would be a wrong.’
Thursday, October 20, 2011
UK RALLY FOR GILAD SHALIT
The Jewish Community turned Hendon’s Brent Street into a little bit of Israel tonight as they celebrated the release of Gilad Shalit from 5 years of captivity at the hands of Hamas.
Singing and dancing were interspersed with speeches from a variety of people, all of whom represented different parts of the community who have campaigned for all these years for the safe return of Gilad.
The Zionist Federation of the United Kingdom, who organised the event introduced Hemda Garelick who is a close family member of Gilad Shalit and who told the cheering crowd how Aviva Shalit, Gilad’s mother, had told her just a short while earlier how they had just enjoyed their first proper family meal together in more than 5 years.
Michael Brodsky, the Director of Public Affairs at the Embassy of Israel, spoke of the emotions that the entire State of Israel was feeling and the high price that had been paid to bring Gilad Shalit home.
Oliver Mayemba, representing the Christian Friends of Israel, expressed his joy at Gilad’s release and told of how his prayers and those of so many Christians throughout the UK and Israel had finally been answered.
Alan Aziz, the Zionist Federation’s Executive Director said’ “This was a wonderful way to end an emotional day. Israel has paid a heavy price but has brought home one of its children. Our message is clear, we celebrate the return of an innocent citizen while Hamas celebrate the return of murderers and terrorists.”
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
COMMENT ON GILAD SHALIT’S IMMINENT RELEASE
The Zionist Federation of the United Kingdom welcomes the release of kidnapped Israeli Gilad Shalit.
Gilad Shalit was kidnapped and held illegally for over 5 years with no access to his family and even the International Red Cross have failed to make contact. Israel values all life as precious and has shown this with the news that it has agreed to the release of a thousand convicted Palestinians for the safe return of Gilad Shalit.
Gilad’s captivity has been in the hearts and minds of every Israeli citizen and supporter around the world; and we await his release and return to freedom. We also hold this as a further symbol of Israel’s willingness to make painful concessions in order to achieve its dream of peace.
The Zionist Federation hopes that this news is confirmed and is the start of a period of renewed hope that will bring a peaceful solution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict.
Gilad Shalit was kidnapped and held illegally for over 5 years with no access to his family and even the International Red Cross have failed to make contact. Israel values all life as precious and has shown this with the news that it has agreed to the release of a thousand convicted Palestinians for the safe return of Gilad Shalit.
Gilad’s captivity has been in the hearts and minds of every Israeli citizen and supporter around the world; and we await his release and return to freedom. We also hold this as a further symbol of Israel’s willingness to make painful concessions in order to achieve its dream of peace.
The Zionist Federation hopes that this news is confirmed and is the start of a period of renewed hope that will bring a peaceful solution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict.
RALLY TO CELEBRATE THE RELEASE OF GILAD SHALIT
With the news that kidnapped Israeli Soldier, Gilad Shalit, is due to be released from captivity after more than 5 years, the Zionist Federation UK are holding a rally to celebrate this news. Although we recognise the very high price that Israel has had to pay to ensure his release, Israel has once again shown the value it places on each and every one of its citizens. We look forward to seeing Gilad safely in the arms of his loving family.
ZF supporters will be gathering on the corner on Brent Street and Bell Lane in Hendon from 6.00pm tomorrow, Tuesday 18th October.
The Zionist Federation hopes that this is the start of a period of renewed hope that will bring a peaceful solution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict and that positive news will be forthcoming regarding the additional six Israeli MIA's - Zecharya Baumel, Zvi Feldman, Yehuda Katz, Ron Arad, Guy Hever and Majdy Halabi.
ZF supporters will be gathering on the corner on Brent Street and Bell Lane in Hendon from 6.00pm tomorrow, Tuesday 18th October.
The Zionist Federation hopes that this is the start of a period of renewed hope that will bring a peaceful solution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict and that positive news will be forthcoming regarding the additional six Israeli MIA's - Zecharya Baumel, Zvi Feldman, Yehuda Katz, Ron Arad, Guy Hever and Majdy Halabi.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
GILAD SHALIT PRESS RELEASE
The Zionist Federation of the United Kingdom welcomes the news that a deal for the release of Israeli Gilad Shalit has been agreed between Israel and Hamas.
Gilad Shalit was kidnapped and held illegally for over 5 years and had no access to his family. Even the International Red Cross have failed to make contact. Israel values all life as precious and has shown this with the news that it has agreed to the release of a thousand convicted Palestinians for the safe return of Gilad Shalit.
Gilad’s captivity has been in the hearts and minds of every Israeli citizen and we join them in calling for his swift release and return to freedom. We also hold this as a further symbol of Israel’s willingness to make painful concessions in order to achieve its dream of peace.
The Zionist Federation hopes that this news is confirmed and is the start of a period of renewed hope that will bring a peaceful solution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict.
The Zionist Federation has spokespeople available for comment at your disposal both in the UK and in Israel. During office hours please email Stefan@zfuk.org or call 020 8202 0202.
Gilad Shalit was kidnapped and held illegally for over 5 years and had no access to his family. Even the International Red Cross have failed to make contact. Israel values all life as precious and has shown this with the news that it has agreed to the release of a thousand convicted Palestinians for the safe return of Gilad Shalit.
Gilad’s captivity has been in the hearts and minds of every Israeli citizen and we join them in calling for his swift release and return to freedom. We also hold this as a further symbol of Israel’s willingness to make painful concessions in order to achieve its dream of peace.
The Zionist Federation hopes that this news is confirmed and is the start of a period of renewed hope that will bring a peaceful solution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict.
The Zionist Federation has spokespeople available for comment at your disposal both in the UK and in Israel. During office hours please email Stefan@zfuk.org or call 020 8202 0202.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
PALESTINE SOLIDARITY CAMPAIGN - WEST LONDON GROUP
Meeting at Hammersmith Thursday 6th October
Observer Feedback
The event, held in a Methodist Church of God in which a Palestinian flag was draped across the preachers lectern, was sadly misleading. Much was made of Israel’s destruction of Palestinian homes and schools, the Apartheid Wall and buses, the Palestinians paying taxes to live in East Jerusalem and only benefitting from 8% of investment, but no context given. The constant referral to the Apartheid Wall was left without any reference as to why it had to go up in the first place. The endless loaded descriptions of Israel’s military occupation of the territories was presented without referencing how it came to be. And in a final admission by one white British woman: she stated Israel has no right to exist and that the concept that Jews had lived in Israel for 4000 years was, “a load of twot.”
There was a historic presentation to begin with in which facts were misrepresented and inaccurate. Dates given were wrong, events were incorrectly expressed and misleading. Words such as force, control, and creeping expansionism, were frequently used. No-one would discuss the fact there was no such place as Palestine until 70AD when the Romans attempted to wipe out all evidence of the Jewish homeland of 2000. No mention was made that a remnant of Jews has always lived in the land.
An interesting comment was, “it doesn’t matter about Israel’s religious beliefs but only international law.” This statement epitomised for me, the man with a plank in his own eye trying to remove the speck from another. No mention was made of the Arab claim to Jerusalem as their religious site, or that the thousands of Grad rockets launched into Israel were a violation of international law. No mention was made of the Palestinian people embracing militant Islam with its desire to drive Israel into the sea. No recognition given to Israel’s existential threats and addressing them - to work together to find peace.
A British civil servant stood up and talked about law, used phrases like illegal possession, he stated that Palestinians were treated as second class citizens, had to have Jerusalem residency permits, experienced discrimination in receiving access to public services, that their rights to residency could be revoked if they left Jerusalem and that this was why they build illegally to accommodate their expanding families. He stated discrimination was demonstrated by the delivery of poor roads, lack of sewage and water, disparity in building laws and that the residents of West Jerusalem get away with more than those in the East when it comes to building permits.
He went on to say that any Israeli who marries a Palestinian cannot have their spouse live with them in Israel, or their children. He stated the annexation was illegal under international law - yet failed to address any of Israel’s concerns about security and the restraining of militant groups operating within the territories.
No mention was made that Israel had always accepted a two state conceptually, but that the Palestinians had refused it.
A Church leader, Stephen Sizer, spoke of the misinterpretation of the Bible and how Zionism had become a new mission for many Christians. He said they were wrong. He stated Israel had become a Christian theme park and that the set itinerary for most groups was to see only what Israeli authorities want them to see. That the wall, they called Haffrodah (!) was in Dutch, the Afrikaans equivalent for segregation based on race, hence the Apartheid theme.
He made no mention of the 1.2 million Arabs who want to live in Israel, nor the jobs, medical benefits and aid given to thousands of Palestinians.
He used an interesting analogy of Israel being like a child who puts his hand in a cookie jar and wants to take out three biscuits at once – but cant. The three biscuits are called Israel, Democracy and Occupied Territories. He stated Israel cannot take all three, only two.
He used quotes from various international figures about South Africa as a comparison and the removal of apartheid, but failed to point out that since then, South Africa now has a major crime epidemic with many leaving the country. He talked of East and West Jerusalem being autonomous, but didn’t explore the problems as for example seen in East and West Berlin, where it failed and those left in the East had a torrid existence.
Finally, a lady stood and talked about the systematic destruction of Palestinian homes and schools, which was an effective speech. I could not respond because I do not know what is happening there – but would like to.
Overall it was disappointing and misleading. All the good that Israel does was never mentioned of course. They exploit emotive words such as apartheid, evictions, ethnic cleansing, segregation, colonisation and war crimes (Gaza). Never do they talk about the militants that operate from schools and community centres in Gaza, the butchering of a Jewish family a few months ago, and the thousands of Grad rockets that land on Israeli soil - and the rest.
They complain that the borders of Gaza are unfair, discriminatory and restrictive, yet what do they expect to happen if they gain independence? The phrase wanting to have ones cake and eat it springs to mind.
My overall view was that they talk a good talk and have certainly mastered the exploitation of emotive language and narrative. Israel has much catching up to do in the PR game and needs to do so soon.
Howard Stern is a Christian Zionist Federation Spokesman for Israel and works as a professional negotiator and mediator. Howard is also organising a conference on12th November 2011 entitled ‘Israel’s Future and Ours’ on the challenges facing Israel today. If you wish to attend please contact go to www.hagoshrim.org,uk.
Observer Feedback
The event, held in a Methodist Church of God in which a Palestinian flag was draped across the preachers lectern, was sadly misleading. Much was made of Israel’s destruction of Palestinian homes and schools, the Apartheid Wall and buses, the Palestinians paying taxes to live in East Jerusalem and only benefitting from 8% of investment, but no context given. The constant referral to the Apartheid Wall was left without any reference as to why it had to go up in the first place. The endless loaded descriptions of Israel’s military occupation of the territories was presented without referencing how it came to be. And in a final admission by one white British woman: she stated Israel has no right to exist and that the concept that Jews had lived in Israel for 4000 years was, “a load of twot.”
There was a historic presentation to begin with in which facts were misrepresented and inaccurate. Dates given were wrong, events were incorrectly expressed and misleading. Words such as force, control, and creeping expansionism, were frequently used. No-one would discuss the fact there was no such place as Palestine until 70AD when the Romans attempted to wipe out all evidence of the Jewish homeland of 2000. No mention was made that a remnant of Jews has always lived in the land.
An interesting comment was, “it doesn’t matter about Israel’s religious beliefs but only international law.” This statement epitomised for me, the man with a plank in his own eye trying to remove the speck from another. No mention was made of the Arab claim to Jerusalem as their religious site, or that the thousands of Grad rockets launched into Israel were a violation of international law. No mention was made of the Palestinian people embracing militant Islam with its desire to drive Israel into the sea. No recognition given to Israel’s existential threats and addressing them - to work together to find peace.
A British civil servant stood up and talked about law, used phrases like illegal possession, he stated that Palestinians were treated as second class citizens, had to have Jerusalem residency permits, experienced discrimination in receiving access to public services, that their rights to residency could be revoked if they left Jerusalem and that this was why they build illegally to accommodate their expanding families. He stated discrimination was demonstrated by the delivery of poor roads, lack of sewage and water, disparity in building laws and that the residents of West Jerusalem get away with more than those in the East when it comes to building permits.
He went on to say that any Israeli who marries a Palestinian cannot have their spouse live with them in Israel, or their children. He stated the annexation was illegal under international law - yet failed to address any of Israel’s concerns about security and the restraining of militant groups operating within the territories.
No mention was made that Israel had always accepted a two state conceptually, but that the Palestinians had refused it.
A Church leader, Stephen Sizer, spoke of the misinterpretation of the Bible and how Zionism had become a new mission for many Christians. He said they were wrong. He stated Israel had become a Christian theme park and that the set itinerary for most groups was to see only what Israeli authorities want them to see. That the wall, they called Haffrodah (!) was in Dutch, the Afrikaans equivalent for segregation based on race, hence the Apartheid theme.
He made no mention of the 1.2 million Arabs who want to live in Israel, nor the jobs, medical benefits and aid given to thousands of Palestinians.
He used an interesting analogy of Israel being like a child who puts his hand in a cookie jar and wants to take out three biscuits at once – but cant. The three biscuits are called Israel, Democracy and Occupied Territories. He stated Israel cannot take all three, only two.
He used quotes from various international figures about South Africa as a comparison and the removal of apartheid, but failed to point out that since then, South Africa now has a major crime epidemic with many leaving the country. He talked of East and West Jerusalem being autonomous, but didn’t explore the problems as for example seen in East and West Berlin, where it failed and those left in the East had a torrid existence.
Finally, a lady stood and talked about the systematic destruction of Palestinian homes and schools, which was an effective speech. I could not respond because I do not know what is happening there – but would like to.
Overall it was disappointing and misleading. All the good that Israel does was never mentioned of course. They exploit emotive words such as apartheid, evictions, ethnic cleansing, segregation, colonisation and war crimes (Gaza). Never do they talk about the militants that operate from schools and community centres in Gaza, the butchering of a Jewish family a few months ago, and the thousands of Grad rockets that land on Israeli soil - and the rest.
They complain that the borders of Gaza are unfair, discriminatory and restrictive, yet what do they expect to happen if they gain independence? The phrase wanting to have ones cake and eat it springs to mind.
My overall view was that they talk a good talk and have certainly mastered the exploitation of emotive language and narrative. Israel has much catching up to do in the PR game and needs to do so soon.
Howard Stern is a Christian Zionist Federation Spokesman for Israel and works as a professional negotiator and mediator. Howard is also organising a conference on12th November 2011 entitled ‘Israel’s Future and Ours’ on the challenges facing Israel today. If you wish to attend please contact go to www.hagoshrim.org,uk.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
