Analysis

Post Woolwich, we must stand together

Mohammed Amin — Fri, 14 Jun 2013 14:00:17 +0100

The horror of May 22 is seared into my brain. How can I forget watching a murderer spouting on about “an eye for an eye” while his hands dripped with the blood of a young serviceman hacked to death on the peaceful streets of Woolwich?

Sadly, far-right elements have used the murder to justify attacks on Muslim individuals and institutions.

The Board of Deputies and other Jewish organisations have been outspoken in condemning this, and in standing beside their Muslim fellow citizens.

These statements of support have been shared widely among Muslims via social media. They are evidence of solidarity from a Jewish community that has a long memory of seeing its religious institutions attacked.

At a national level, there is little contact between the Board and the Muslim Council of Britain. Before I left the MCB in 2010, I tried to promote dialogue but with limited success.

However, I believe changes are happening below the level of these umbrella organisations. The activities of smaller organisations operating nationally (such as the Three Faiths Forum and the Joseph Interfaith Foundation) and locally, along with the activities of individuals, show Muslims and Jews coming together more and more often.

This is because they recognise that an increasingly secular society presents major challenges which are better tackled together.

The Israel-Palestine question need not be a barrier to co-operation. We must learn to compartmentalise — people can disagree about Middle East policy while still coming together to pursue mutual interests in the UK.

Through the EU, you fund boycotting groups

Robin Shepherd — Fri, 14 Jun 2013 12:30:17 +0100

A report from watchdog group NGO Monitor makes for more grim reading about the European Union’s seriousness in promoting fairness and peaceful outcomes in the Israel-Palestine conflict.

The report, presented this month to the European Parliament, accuses Brussels of, at best, failing to perform due diligence and, at worst, turning a blind eye over grants made to groups that seek to boycott the Jewish state.

“Many of the grantees are involved in promoting the Durban strategy of political warfare and demonisation of Israel,” the report stated. The ‘Durban Strategy’ is the campaign led by global NGOs to delegitimise Israel, launched at the 2001 “World Conference Against Racism” in Durban, South Africa. NGO Monitor gave prominence to a group named the Coalition of Women for Peace (CWP) which, along with partners, has been awarded over £500k for the 2011-2014 period.

CWP does not make a secret of what it stands for: it gives prominence to its BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) activities on its website.

While CWP is not hiding anything, the NGO Monitor report indicated that Brussels was anything but forthcoming in responding to requests for explanations about the grant-making process and especially how and to what extent monitoring takes place after monies have been disbursed.

Prof Gerald Steinberg, president of NGO Monitor, said: “The facts clearly demonstrate that either the officials involved were unaware of the groups chosen to receive taxpayer funds, or that they chose to promote NGOs that fuel the conflict.”

This is a disgrace on several levels. European institutions are funded by European taxpayers, which means that readers of this article are paying for the practices just described. The case for contacting one’s MP would seem self-evident.

Equally disturbing is the fact that the EU, after years of criticism on this score, continues to deploy funds and manpower in the cause of harming peace.

Israeli chief rabbi election could yet make history

Nathan Jeffay — Fri, 14 Jun 2013 12:00:17 +0100

Israel moved a step closer to a non-Charedi chief rabbi earlier this month, when the Knesset’s religious-Zionist party threw its weight behind a moderate candidate.

The modern-Orthodox iconoclast David Stav has built his rabbinic career on making Judaism more welcoming for the non-religious, and he is now determined to break the strictly-Orthodox control over the Chief Rabbinate.

He says that if elected Ashkenazi chief rabbi, he will end discrimination in the rabbinate against converts, make visits to rabbinate offices for marriage licenses and the like less intimidating for secular Israelis, and remodel the Israeli face of Judaism in general.

His outlook not only contrasts with that of the Charedi candidates, but also with the views of the other modern-Orthodox candidate, Eliezer Igra, who believes the rabbinate system, broadly speaking, functions well.

When it first emerged late last year that Rabbi Stav was planning to run this summer — the date is still to be set — he appeared to be long shot in race that generally favours Charedim. But since then, things have gone his way.

The new government turned out to be free of Charedi parties — which, given that the selection process is intensely political, gave an unexpected boost to his chances. Then, last week, another candidate who is modern-Orthodox but more traditionalist, dropped out. Yaakov Ariel, city rabbi of Ramat Gan, was disqualified because he was too old to run.

In addition, Rabbi Stav now has four of the five coalition parties behind him — Jewish Home, Yesh Atid, Yisrael Beiteinu and Hatnuah.

Rabbi Stav, 53, is the municipal rabbi for the town of Shoham, in central Israel. In the mid-90s, he set up the Tzohar, an organisation to provide an alternative to what he saw as the overly hardline rabbinate.

It provided practical solutions. For example, secular Israelis complained about negative experiences at compulsory pre-wedding bridal classes, so it launched its own user-friendly classes. To help people who were told by stringent marriage registrars that they had to bring obscure documents to prove they are Jewish, it set up a research unit.

He wants to now make progressive changes from inside the rabbinate. However, while he looks ever more likely to get the job, it us unclear what real impact he will be able to make. His proposed fix to intransigent marriage registrars who refuse to trust the Jewishness of people converted by the state’s Conversion Authority hints at what he is up against.

Israel losing support by ignoring hostile UN human rights body

Fri, 14 Jun 2013 11:45:17 +0100

Israel once again found itself criticised and condemned at the United Nations Human Rights Council this week at that body’s 23rd session in Geneva. And Israel was not there to rebut it, having stuck to its decision in January to disengage from the Council. This is a stance that undermines Israel in the eyes of the many states unconcerned with the conflict in the Occupied Territories.

It is beyond dispute that Israel commits human-rights violations. It is also clear that the Council’s excessive and disproportionate focus on Israel undermines the credibility of its decisions. When Richard Falk, the special rapporteur on the Territories, stood before the Council, he found himself preaching to the converted — and the disinterested.

Falk’s report was delivered under Agenda Item 7, the only standing item to single out one country. During the Council’s creation, many states, including from the EU, hoped that allowing the Organisation of Islamic Co-operation to place Israel on the Council’s permanent agenda would confine discussions of that country to one day per session.

How wrong they were.

Commentators, practitioners, countries, and even high-level UN staff have publicly criticised the Council’s gross politicisation and selectivity regarding Israel. And, for a year or so, the Arab Spring uprisings meant that Israel was no longer the primary focus within the Organisation of Islamic Co-operation. The Council was able to focus on human-rights situations elsewhere in the Middle East. Action was taken on Libya and Syria, and discussions highlighted violations in Bahrain, Tunisia and Iran.

The honeymoon did not last long. In January, Israel failed to attend its own Universal Periodic Review session. That step has been a turning point, not for Israel’s allies or its enemies but rather for the many countries that have little interest in the ongoing conflict.

Universal Periodic Review, in which all states submit to exactly the same process, is a crucial tool for monitoring human rights across the world. All countries participate, from Sweden to Somalia, Norway to North Korea. All countries, that is, except Israel.

Israel believes it has strong reasons for withdrawal. The review session had become another place for politicised and excessive scrutiny. Moreover, as the only country not afforded membership of any UN regional group, Israel cannot stand for election to the very body that disproportionately condemns its actions. Those are valid concerns, but by disengaging from the Council and refusing to attend its review session, Israel has become a pariah among countries disinterested in the conflict. Such states often criticised those countries who seek to discuss Israel during unrelated Council sessions. These are states that were prepared to abstain or vote against resolutions on Israel. Yet those same states now are likely to have a negative view of Israel for undermining the universality of the Universal Periodic Review.

Israel needs to re-engage with the Council in order to put forward its point of view. By continuing to absent itself, it will find increasing numbers of countries on its enemies’ side of the fence.

‘All is desolation and destruction’

Rabbi Alexandra Wright — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 19:30:17 +0100

Last week, the British Friends of Rabbis for Human Rights (BFRHR) sent letters to Prime Minister Netanyahu and Ministers Lapid, Livni and Meir Cohen, protesting against the Knesset’s proposed Bill on the Arrangement of Bedouin Settlement in the Negev.

If the Bill is passed, it will result in the forcible eviction of thousands of Bedouin from their villages into existing townships.

Mohammed Aziz is one of those at risk. A visit to his Negev village of Al Araqib testifies to the reasons why the BFRHR has launched its campaign.

The very morning we arrived, his home had been demolished for the 50th time since July 2010.

All that is left is a pile of stones. He stands barefoot in a tent, barely able to contain his distress, yet apologising for the lack of hospitality.

A cemetery, dating back to 1913, is all that remains in the village. Mohammed swings his arms across the wasteland beyond the tent. “It’s all desolation and destruction,” he says.

There are more than 40 Bedouin villages in the Negev, unrecognised by the Israeli government. They occupy less than five per cent of the entire land of the region.

The families who live in them have no infrastructure: no sewage, water, electricity, roads, education or health services. The poverty and destitution is shocking.

The BFRHR is calling on the government of Israel to stop the Bill and settle the land claims of the Bedouin in a fair and just way, in the name of democracy and Judaism.

When we cease to protect the most vulnerable and weakest members of society, we are betraying the central tenets of Jewish ethics. If we care deeply about the Jewish state, we should be part of a vocal campaign to encourage the government to consult with the Bedouin over their long-term future. They are, after all, Israeli citizens.

Is US envoy to UN a lady leopard with new spots?

Thu, 13 Jun 2013 16:00:17 +0100

The recent announcement by the Obama administration of the appointment of Samantha Power as United States Ambassador to the United Nations has aroused consternation among many in the Jewish community.

In 2002, she supported a “mammoth protection force” delivering “external intervention”, essentially to invade Israel and protect the Palestinians, which would require “alienating a constituency of tremendous political and financial impact.” In 2008, she called Hillary Clinton a “monster” off camera during the election campaign.

Yet, numerous Jewish and non-Jewish friends of Israel have praised Mrs Power’s appointment. Alan Dershowitz, ADL leader Abe Foxman and former Senator Joseph Lieberman have been joined by Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, in effusive support. Israel’s Ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, has declared that, “Samantha Power and I have worked closely over the last four years on issues vital to the security of Israel. She thoroughly understands these issues and cares deeply about them.”

What has brought about this apparent transformation? We can only speculate as Mrs Power herself has not publicly discussed the issue.

During her time at college and law school, anti-Israel sentiment was pervasive. And her work in running a human-rights centre at the Kennedy School and teaching human rights at Harvard may have shaped her views.

Her metamorphosis evidently came in 2008, when she was forced to resign from the Obama campaign after the “monster” remark about Hillary Clinton.

That year, she redefined her position on Israel in an interview with Haaretz. In 2009, she strongly opposed American participation in the Israel bashing Durban II conference. Her four years working in the National Security Council as a special assistant to the President on human-rights issues could have shown her the dire consequences of isolating Israel at the United Nations. Working closely with Hillary Clinton and Michael Oren may have promoted her work in fighting the demonisation of Israel. Her study of genocide may have made her sympathetic to the argument that another Holocaust was not impossible.

So, today, it seems we should welcome the appointment of Samantha Power, something that would have seemed amazing only five years ago. Perhaps she will now denounce Richard Falk, the special rapporteur of the UN Human Rights Council, who once compared the Israelis in Gaza to Nazis in occupied Europe. Falk has been condemned by the European Union, United States and UN General Secretary Ban Ki-moon. Will Samantha Power add her voice to the chorus?

New Palestinian PM is walking into a bear pit

Anshel Pfeffer — Fri, 07 Jun 2013 13:24:31 +0100

Professor Rami Hamdallah, the man appointed this week as the Palestinian Authority's new prime minister, is virtually unknown outside Palestinian circles.

That does not necessarily matter. He is a respected linguist, a skilled administrator and a successful fundraiser who, over the past 15 years, has been at the helm of the largest university in the West Bank. Under his management, A-Najah University in Nablus has been transformed into a thriving establishment.

His considerable skills, however, may not be enough for him to deal with the challenging legacy left to him by Salam Fayyad.

It took Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas nearly two months to select a successor to Mr Fayyad who, while nearly universally popular outside Palestinian circles, continuously fought internal rivals and finally resigned when he felt that he had lost Mr Abbas's confidence.

During his years as prime minister, Mr Fayyad was credited with putting the PA's finances in order and helping create, with significant American support, a stable security apparatus that co-operated with Israel in establishing relative calm and stability in the West Bank.

Prof Hamdallah will find him a difficult act to follow, especially since, officially, he will head a temporary government, one that is supposed to last until Fatah and Hamas finally agree on a formula for Palestinian unity.

That unity seemed further away than ever on Sunday when Hamas declared his appointment "illegal".

While trying to manoeuvre between his unreliable boss, a fractious Fatah and a hostile Hamas, the professor's main task will be to continue paying salaries to civil servants and security personnel and keep the fragile Palestinian economy afloat.

The US has put together a $4bn economic development package but it will take months, perhaps years, before it benefits the Palestinians. Meanwhile, the new prime minister will also have to decide whether to back Mr Abbas in his stance on potential peace talks. Whatever he decides will be unpopular with some of the parties.

While the Americans, the Europeans and at least part of the Israeli government are praying for him to succeed, many at home are waiting for him to fail.

Hate cleric Al-Qaradawi's tirade 'favours' Israel

John R Bradley — Fri, 07 Jun 2013 12:00:31 +0100

In Qatar last week, the Muslim Brotherhood's spiritual guide, Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, thanked Washington for arming the Syrian opposition, urged every able-bodied Sunni Muslim to join the "jihad" there, gave reassurances to Israel and called for the extermination of every Shia and Allawite - tens of millions of people. His rationale? That they are "even more infidel" than the Jews.

With friends like this, do Israel and the US really need enemies? Small wonder that those who continue to support this non-existent popular uprising in Syria were shamed into silence by the outburst. Now they bizarrely stand shoulder-to-shoulder with a man so deranged that even the British political elite was obliged to ban him from entering the country.

His vile call for genocide will come to haunt him and his mentor, the Emir of Qatar, darling of the West and the chief backer of the Muslim Brotherhood. For the Arab masses have not bought into the anti-Shia hysteria. Even Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood promised to continue allowing in Iranian tourists.

Sadly, when it comes to the propaganda war in the Arab world, it all now boils down to who ordinary Sunnis hate more: Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah and his Shia Hizbollah group, or Israel and the Jews.

The answer is certainly the latter.It is opposition to Israel that still unites the Arabs. Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad understands that. Just days before Mr Al-Qaradawi's rant, he had said that, once the jihadis were beaten, he would try to retake the Golan Heights.

Every poll has shown overwhelming opposition throughout the region to foreign intervention in Syria. Nasrallah, meanwhile, is hugely popular on the Arab street. Mr Al-Qaradawi merely gave ammunition to Hizbollah's argument that the fight to topple Mr Assad is all just one big Zionist conspiracy.

Shia leaders sensibly chose not to rise to the bait but one can imagine how incensed they must be. Indeed, in preparation for a response to potential air strikes, Iran is likely to be making a radical reassessment of its own: to first target Qatar, rather than Israel. While this is nothing to celebrate, Mr Al-Qaradawi may have done Israel an unintended favour.

For now, Iran protests are utterly futile

Meir Javedanfar — Thu, 06 Jun 2013 20:17:03 +0100

Anti-regime Chants at the recent funeral procession in Iran of the reformist Ayatollah Jalaluddin Taheri have grabbed the international media's attention.

Ayatollah Taheri was a critic of the regime who, in 2002, resigned in protest from his post of Friday prayer leader in Esfahan. This was a bold move as Friday prayer leaders are usually direct appointees of the supreme leader.

The question that many are asking is: what impact could these protests, which are the first to take place in a long time, have on the elections?

The answer: on their own, none.

Only bigger and more frequent demonstrations could make a difference. And if that happened, the result would be a severe crackdown, followed by Ayatollah Khamenei and the Revolutionary Guards ensuring that a hardline candidate wins the elections. In times of confrontation, this group of decision-makers refuse compromise, as that could be interpreted as weakness.

Meanwhile, it is safe to say that moderate candidate Hassan Rowhani has no chance of success. There is little doubt that Mr Rowhani and the Stanford educated reformist Mohammad Reza Aref are far more popular than the conservative candidates. However, the supreme leader would not allow votes in their favour to be counted.

Both Mr Rowhani and Mr Aref want better relations with the West and a more open economy. In the eyes of the supreme leader, the West would use this openness to demand more human rights for Iranians, which is seen as a cover for regime change.

When it comes to protecting its interests, Khamenei is unforgiving - take his recent decision to stop funding Hamas because of the terror group's support for the opposition in Syria. Khamenei's regime is increasingly insecure at home and abroad. Both Hamas and Iranian reformists were once allies of the revolution. Look at them now.

Hizbollah risking Lebanon to keep Assad

Anshel Pfeffer — Thu, 30 May 2013 18:00:55 +0100

Hassan Nasrallah was once considered the most credible leader in the
Middle East.

Supporters and enemies of Hizbollah’s secretary-general knew that his threats were credible, his denials accurate and that, by contrast with the high-blown rhetoric of the region, he usually meant what he said.

For the past two years, this credibility has been greatly eroded as Nasrallah and other Hizbollah spokesmen have sought to deny what has become general knowledge: that the Lebanese movement has been deeply involved in the fighting in Syria, on the side of the Assad regime.

In recent weeks, the denials have become almost farcical, not only as the reports of Hizbollah fighters in Syria intensified daily, but as the number mounted of “martyrs” coming back in coffins for burial in Beirut and Shia villages across Lebanon.

On Saturday night, in a televised speech, Nasrallah finally came clean. He announced that Hizbollah fighters were indeed in Syria and that, if the need arose, the movement would send thousands more to Assad’s aid.

This was not a simple admission for Nasrallah to make. In Lebanon, Hizbollah calls itself “the resistance” and it justifies maintaining a large military force by claiming to be Lebanon’s main line of defence against a Zionist invasion.

For that reason, Nasrallah put the fighting in Syria in a regional context, saying: “If Syria falls, so will Palestine, the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem.” He called the jihadists now fighting against Assad “takfiris” — a derogatory term used by Muslims to describe Salafists — and accused them of serving Israel’s agenda.

Nasrallah’s speech was answered almost immediately with two Grad rockets, launched towards the Dahiye neighbourhood in Beirut, the movement’s main stronghold. There could be no clearer proof that Lebanon is now deeply embroiled in the Syrian conflict. At the same time, fighting between Shia and Allawite supporters of Assad and their Sunni opponents has engulfed Lebanon’s second-largest city, Tripoli.

Since the Lebanese civil war officially ended in 1990, there have been numerous outbreaks of violence that have threatened to plunge that fragile country back into chaos. Now that its neighbour to the east — which always sought to control Lebanon — is tearing itself to pieces, the entire balance of power is changing. Hizbollah and other pro-Assad factions in Lebanon are afraid of losing their main source of power. As long as they believe there is still a chance of preserving Assad, they will risk Lebanon’s stability and prosperity to do so.