I would define a moment of double respect as being when, say, the Pope addresses both Houses of Congress, or - as happened again last week - when that great institution the BBC quotes an expert from that even greater institution, the United Nations. The “official” in question was also the Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University, Richard Falk, and his chosen subject was Israel, so I bowed slightly, turned the tap off and put down my razor to hear what he had been saying.
The gist of it was this: whereas Professor Falk's outgoing predecessor as investigator into Israeli conduct, on behalf of the UN Human Rights Council, had only compared Israel to apartheid South Africa, the new man had gone one better, and compared it to Nazi Germany. Actually he'd done this some time ago, before being appointed, but now, of course, his view mattered more. “UN expert stands by Nazi comments” was the headline on the BBC News website.
For various reasons Israelis take badly to being compared to the people who attempted to eradicate Jewish life in Europe, and I understood Falk's remarks to have been provocative, as he himself admitted. He had made them, he explained, to wake America “from its torpor”. Speaking about Gaza, Falk said that only the sensitivity of Jewish people prevented the parallel being observed more widely.
“If this kind of situation had existed for instance in the manner in which China was dealing with Tibet or the Sudanese Government was dealing with Darfur,” he said, “I think there would be no reluctance to make that comparison.”
In international terms, this is odd. The body for whom Falk will soon begin work (work that is hardly necessary since he already knows exactly what he thinks before undertaking a moment's UN-authorised monitoring) is famous for its excoriation of Israel and its comparative silence over Tibet and Darfur. Kofi Annan criticised them for it before his departure, Ban Ki Moon criticised them for it on his arrival. All to no avail. The council's website begins with a page entitled “Highlights”, on which only one country's “human rights violations” are mentioned by name. And it isn't Andorra.
So, what did the 40-plus members of the Council see in the professor? As far as I can tell his attraction lies in the following. He is American; he is Jewish; and more deliciously in light of the first two, he blames Israel for just about everything - as opposed to those who (rightly, in my opinion) blame it for quite a lot. This, for example, is Falk in 2002, on the second intifada: “Palestinian resistance gradually ran out of military options, and suicide bombers appeared as the only means still available by which to inflict sufficient harm on Israel so that the struggle could go on.”
There are three problems with this analysis. The first is that suicide bombing began in Israel in 1994, when Hamas saw the Oslo peace process as threatening to succeed. Secondly, the suicide bombs were obviously utterly counterproductive in terms of procuring peace, and indeed helped to destroy the Israeli peace movement. And thirdly, other “resistances” (Tibet, Darfur?) seem to have avoided the “only means” of suicide bombing aimed at civilians - family restaurants, buses, schools, discos, and groups of teenagers, to be more specific.
For Falk “Israel was mainly responsible”. It was transparently this political position that led to him being appointed to his job, not his expertise, nor his open-mindedness. Nor, we now know, was it his common sense. In my library of conspiriana are several books by the American theologian David Ray Griffin, intellectual guru of the “Bush blew up the twin towers” movement. Griffin believes that no plane hit the Pentagon (despite hundreds of people seeing it) and that the World Trade Centre was brought down by a controlled demolition. There isn't a single point of alleged fact upon which Griffin's barking theory hasn't itself been demolished. And there isn't a single volume of Griffin that doesn't carry Falk's endorsement.
This journey reaches its depressing climax in a chapter written by Falk for Griffin's 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out. Following on from the pseudo- scientific blah about the heat at which steel bends (all of which stuff Falk describes as possessing “high credibility”) the UN expert-official opines that part of the evidence that there was conspiracy is the very fact that so many people say there wasn't. Or, in intellectualese: “Momentous suspicious events bearing on the legitimacy of the process of governance in the US have been consistently shielded from mainstream inquiry by being reinscribed as the wild fantasies of ‘conspiracy theorists'... The management of suspicion is itself suspicious.” As you can see, because I believe that Falk, like Griffin, has taken leave of what remained of his senses, this column is now itself part of the sinister plot.
Well, we'll have to cope, because there is something bigger at stake. It's this: let's say, for one moment, that the objective of the Human Rights Council was actually to improve human rights in, let's further say, the occupied territories. Would you employ someone who has made utterances that ensure that all of Israeli public opinion - including that part critical of its Government - would unite 100 per cent to resist him? Of course you wouldn't.
The implication of this logic is simple. The UN Human Rights Council doesn't give a toss about the human rights of the Palestinians in the sense of wanting them upheld. Its majority is far more interested in using Israel as a stick to beat the US with, or - in the case of Islamic states - as a bogeyman to dampen down domestic discontent.
But what is even more amazing is that some Western countries agree to play this game. Three weeks ago the Swiss, using a glossy brochure, persuaded the Council by 40 votes to 7 to elect a Jean Ziegler to its advisory committee. Professor Ziegler is an apologist for Fidel Castro and Colonel Gadaffi, a former associate of the Ethiopian dictator General Mengistu, a defender of Robert Mugabe (who, he said, had “history and morality with him”), a visitor to Saddam Hussein and Kim Il Jong, and an admirer of the French Holocaust denier, Roger Garaudy.
Do I need to add that he is also an outspoken critic of American imperialism and of Israel? I invite - and would enjoy reading - the Swiss Ambassador's defence of his country's nomination, but it's time to draw a conclusion.
I believe in the UN, but we all must stop regarding it as though it was some kind of moral arbiter, doing right in a world of wrong. Because, unfortunately, the term “UN expert” means neither good nor expert. It can mean warped and stupid.
Actually 9/11 tragedy looked on TV like the stunning result of a dastardly combination of a plane strike and a controlled explosion. When reviewing Tibet and Darfur let us not forget there ia also another region and country ina similar plight, like for instance, the north and east of Sri Lanka.
Saravanamuttu, London, UK
Interesting article.
The institutionalised hatred for Jews, inculcated into their children from the very earliest age, is one of the primary causes of the struggles in the region. The parents of these children should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
The other primary cause is shallow, black-and-white thinking, demonstrated so clearly on here by those who should know better. This kind of thinking is gullible and completely susceptible and to the highly simplistic “victim-abuser†psychology that so misrepresents the real and far more complex struggle going on in the region.
Although there are clearly issues to be resolved, the struggle, I hate to tell you, is not territorial either.
What is so completely obscene, however, is how young Palestinian children as young 10 or 12 years old are turned into suicide bombers by their own families. This has to be the biggest human rights abuse of all.
And what is so disturbing is how many people around the world think they are right to do
Ed Bone, Leeds,
To Simon Diable,
You said "On that basis the celts have a good claim to come back and have England".
Wake up chum, they have. Unless you haven’t noticed, we are ruled by Scots who only manage to maintain themselves in power through the disingenuous manipulation of constituency boundaries in the Celtic fringe (Scotland and Wales) and the votes of their NuLab supporting populations.
Milo
Milo, London, UK
Thank god someone's saying the truth about Israel.
Hannah, Washington , DC
to Constance...what are you talking about?
do you really think that the problens in the middle east are caused by too many young men (which incidentally is not the same as Hamas)?
Do you not think that the Palestinians are a bit miffed at having their lands taken from them on the back of such a feeble excuse as "we lived here 2000 years ago"? On that basis the celts have a good claim to come back and have england.
Do you think that Zionism ever really envisaged a country where Palestinians and Jews lived together? Or a solely Jewish country?
Do you not think that years of living as refugees has politicised young Palestinians and not just that they have too much testosterone?
Simon Diable, London,
Palestine has a very high birth rate. It has more warrior aged young men than women. They will never be able to negotiate until the young men (Hamans) die, move , or grow old. Why is it that the Arab States won't offer any help or resettlement of a few even ? It isn't because the Palestinan "cause" is so righteous. It is because they don't want the violent extreme young men of Hamas either. Rationality
has less to do with it than Testosterone which is increased when the group is only young men as is the case is sexually segregated societies. More Testosterone more violence, more war.
Constance, Rochdale, UK
If Israel is a democracy, then so is Zimbabwe.
Gamini de Silva, Reading, UK
To Ben of York,
Would we tolerate the French invading the UK, claiming it all for themselves and depriving the Anglo Saxons of their rights. I thought not!
Ian Jones, Reading, UK
Excellent article.
When the rockets and bombs stop, maybe Israel will consider peace. Until then, they have no option but to fight back. Would we seriously tolerate missiles being fied across from Ireland to mainland Britain? I think not.
Ben, York,
If I were a UN human rights expert I would be trying very hard to find the best ways to communicate important information about how things appear at the global level, to those of us at the ground level and vice versa. Hence this message;
In my humble opinion as a citizen the world might be managed a lot better generally if only we could lose what appears to be a systemic and very blinkered tendency to believe that the best form of defence is to attack people. We can see this doesn’t work even where walls have been built. eg In Palestine it seems people can be targeted and attacked even if they wander too close to whichever side of the regulatory line they are supposed to be on. Local people need a new direction and governments should provide safe democratic ways for local people to deal their way out of bad situations like the Israeli Palestine affair. An element of peaceful contestibility and competition is the best way to put those who normally deal in violence out of business.
Mrs.Josephine Hyde-Hartley, Bacup,UK,
Jason you suggest "What Israel is doing is in defence of its citizens". How can continued illegal settlements and continued expansion into Palestinian land be in the defense of its citizens? Are the Palestinians not allowed to defend themselves against Israeli expansion and aggression. Why? Israel has proven over and over again that it is the real aggressor as the numbers continually show. The UN and International Law is undermined by Israel continually ignoring resolutions and the US allowing them to do so with impunity. I have made up my mind and no amount of propaganda will make me change it until I see a change in Israeli policy and attitudes. If Israel is truly a democracy why not have a one state solution where all citizens have a vote. That includes all Palestinians. It wont happen and we all know why. Peace will come when Israel really desires it and not until then.
Ronan, Dub, Ireland
Two genetically similar populations who hate each other because of an imaginary god. The problem is that this is a very small land mass with little water and populations on both sides attempting to out breed each other. They will still be fighting each other in 100 years time.
H Horse, Jersey,
Ronan,
The UN is neutered by its own utopian uselessness. The resolutions are ignored because of the political expediency of its members and the understandable, ruthless promotion of their own national self-interest.
What Israel is doing is in defence of its citizens which any country would get away with simply because that is what people living in a democracy would expect its leaders to do when under continual terrorist attack. There is nothing righteous about revenge or murder and there is no such thing as international law so justice here is entirely in the eye of the beholder. Any even handed look at the conflict would inevitably look at the role of the Arab states in this whole sorry affair but I suspect that you’re too far gone to be able to do anything that requires genuine objectivity.
You should be working for the UN.
Jason Mead, Bristol, England
Congratulations David Aaronovitch on your article which tells it how it is - quick, simple and true. The UN brand is supposed to stand for trust and dependability in a dangerous world - sadly the facts tell a different story!
Gary Edwards, London,
Israel was set up by the cloinal powers as a tool to keep the arabs and the middle east busy so that they could grab the oil from the region.
What surprises me is that Mr Aaronavitch feels compeled to support Israel even though he was borne and bred in the UK.
I wonder if people like him would pass the Norman Tebbit Cricket test, i.e would they cheer for England or Israel?
Having looked the writer's CV I do not see any qualifications that would make an expert on anything specially anything scientific or humanatarian.
His article seems to advocate that only people representing one viewpoint should be appointed.
All human beings deserve the same respect and rights, and until we contain our greed and selfishness these injustices will continue.
MJ, London,
we are not opposing jew and Israeil. UN resolution has decided the border of Israeil and Palestenian. East Jurusalem belongs to Palestenian. Israeil does against it. What US has done? Saddam does against UN resolution. What US has done?
Razak, Malaysia,
i'd agree with those who say that what the u.s is conducting is a war of terror rather than a war on terror. And In my view the biggest terrorist organisation today is the CIA.
simon lomax, warrington, uk
Hi,
The German author Johann Wolfgang von Goethe put something into words that may take reference to your article
Now I have studied philosophy,
medicine and the law,
and unfortunately, theology,
wearily sweating, yet I stand now,
poor fool, no wiser than I was before;
Regards
Dr. Terence Hale, zandvoort, Holland
Osher, completely agree with you. Why won't the media report the truth about this? It's outrageous. If HAMAS laid down their weapons, there would be peace. If Israel laid down her weapons, there would be no Israel.
Matt, Rughin,
Mr Aaronovitch really does need to wake up to the facist regime that is rising in america and who are these 100's of witnesses he speaks of who witnessed the plane that hit the pentagon?
the evidence thats suggests that 9/11 was an inside job is overwhelming. has mr aaronovitch read the document penned by the neo cons called the project for the new american century? has he even heard of northwood? has he heard of yukihisa fujitsa? if he hasnt then we should ask how a journalist of his stature hasnt come across what i have mention.
hitesh, london,
If you think that this article is going to change the way gentiles view you (Shailok etc.) you are dead wrong. Even Palestinians have to live in the real world or they will perish from the earth like you.
Joshua Salik, Tempe/Phoenix, USA/AZ
Let's clear up a few errors here:1, Israel never stopped supplying Gaza with electricity (78% of Gaza's power is from outside). The power cuts were caused by Hamas switching off the grid, as a PR stunt. 2, Hamas claimed that Gaza had no food. However, John Dungan of the UN later admitted that they had the food locked away all along, it was, again, a PR stunt. The truth is, Israel supplies unlimited medicine, food, and water, and sufficient fuel and electricity. In addition, Gazans have access to some of the world's best health care, in Israel. Last year 14,000 people received free top-class health care, for pure humanitarian reasons. Not even Britain does this.
No one would claim that life in Gaza is easy. Israelis find themselves in a difficult position, as, on one hand they wish to live in peace and security, but, on the other hand, have compassion for the Palestinians. Yet, the Palestinians voted in Hamas. Or, to use a phrase, they are reaping what they sowed, namely war.
Osher, London, England
When some lunatic came up with the idea of putting the Arabs most hated enemy ( the Israelis' ) slap , bang in their back yard . They must have been thinking this is something that could run and run , probably to a third world war . When this was realised in 1947 the potential combatants' interests were never even thought of and 61 years later everyone still suffers . Would someone care to educate me as to who thought of this madness and who's signature was on the bottom of the page.
Nick Dixon, Sutton Coldfield, England
Izzie, Oxford, I am in total agreement with your sentiments.
G. Portsmouth - a couple of comments:
Regarding terrorists as being cowards, I don't think people who risk their lives are cowards.
What is your definition of a coward. Someone who gives their lives up to fight against occupation.
The Zionists were terrorists when Palestine was under control of the British Empire when their were bombing and assassinating in order to try to remove the British from Palestine. The IRA were also labelled as terrorists. But this is a merely a label.
When the founders of this little democracy rebelled on Easter Monday in 1916, some of the unlucky or lucky ones who survived were spat on and assaulted as they were led to prison. These freedom fighters who took on the might of the British empire would have been labelled terrorists had they rebelled this year. As soon as they were executed, they were labelled as freedom fighters.
Jonathan, the real crime is the continued brutal occupation
Mark G, Dublin, Ireland
I know David Griffin personally. Speaking for myself, David Griffin is a far better theologian than he is a political activist. Christian fundamentalism in the States is a big, and growing, political movement. The party that can get that vote out wins the election. Worth thinking about for a second, in the light of the presidential race, and on the eve of the Pope’s visit there… Setting that aside, the real message from Griffin’s work is badly mixed up in his political concerns as an American citizen about the Bush Government. This is unfortunate. As a theologian, Griffin knows that the only route to peace is through dialogue of liberal-minded, fair-minded thinkers from all religious perspectives, putting the weapons away, taking a middle road and working in concert for peace. As a theologian, he knows that the similarities between the religions are far greater than the differences. Griffin’s quasi-political concern with the Bush Government is that it is intentionally fighting Islamic fundamentalism with an institutionalised version of a Christian fundamentalism. Result: the ‘saving’ voice of liberal, pluralist theology is being lost, indeed purposefully ignored. At least in the States, which is by and large the only country he is concerned with. Griffin may demonstrate a thorough lack of understanding of Al Qaeda, and at the same time adopt a purely US-centric view. Time will tell whether any one of Griffin’s political concerns over the Bush Government’s role or otherwise in 9/11 are correct or not; come January it will be history anyway. Regardless, this aspect of his writing has unwittingly done far more harm than good. But Griffin’s central concern as a theologian, namely that the liberal voice is increasingly going unheard, on both sides and to the detriment of us all, is one I certainly share.
Mark, Melbourne, Australia
Continuing my earlier response, how does Phil suggest we protect our citizens. We have had to suffer 8 thousand rockets over the past eight years. What should we do? Lie down and die?
Or should we just give up everything and go back to the Arab lands many of us were expelled from and be persecuted and have to fight for our lives there too?
Everyone seems to conveniently forget that in fact "Palestine" was also geographically in what is now Jordan and I don't see that they are attacked. Not that I would wish it.
But stand back and look at all sides of the argument before condemning.
Carole, Jerusalem, Israel
The UN is neutered by the US when it comes to actions against Israel. We have heard all the excuses. All the lies, all the propaganda. We have seen all the resolutions ignored. Put simply what Israel is doing, no other country in the World would get away with. Why is that? One thing on Palestinain terrorism. If you deny people justice they will (rightly) seek revenge. Why does the West not clamour to denounce Israeli terror ? Any even handed look at the conflict would tell you who has suffered most and who the real agressor is. Just look at the numbers!
Ronan, Dub, Ireland
Phil,
Citing John Pilger is hardly persuasive. The only worse choice you could have made was Robert Fisk. Neither have a reputation for objective analysis of events in the Middle East.
Mark, Berkhamsted,
The Palestinian problem won't be settled until the excess
number of warrior aged young men age. There aren't even girls for them to marry. Alternatively the extra young men could
be re settled. Chechnya is short of young men since Russia killed so many. I'm sure Anatoly would be most welcoming. Unlike the Arab States nearby who want nothing to do with them.
Constance, Rochdale, UK
There is a persistent myth about Gaza - the terrible Israelis-controlled refugee camp.
I was astonished to read the following:
Apr 9, 2008 21:53
Murder at the border JPost
Our enemies in Gaza expect Israelis to feel compassion, and the international community to feel outrage, over the deprivations suffered by Gazans - lack of fuel, for instance - even as they try to kill us at every opportunity. That's the bitter reality underlined by the latest terrorist attack, on Wednesday afternoon at the Nahal Oz fuel depot on the border between Gaza and Israel...
Palestinian terrorists... infiltrated the crossing just after Israeli tankers had delivered the latest consignment of fuel for Gaza, financed by the European Union. The apparent aim was to kidnap more Israeli soldiers. (they killed two Israelis working at the depot)...
Petras Vilson, Ottawa, Canada
I do find it amusing how defenders of the official story about 9/11 mainly use the "these people are just wacked" approach.
How many skyscrapers on Sept. 11th fell at free-fall speed? Two you say? Wrong. Why is World Trade Center Bldg No. 7 NEVER mentioned?
How does a 47 story building, (not hit by a plane) fall in 7 seconds? Maybe I'm just wacked but I'm curious about this.
Daniel Patrick Schamle, Lawrence , Kansas, USA
David Aaronovitch: Now would that be an Irish name?
Andrew Milner, Yokohama, Japan
I'm sure some of you can clear up a little misunderstanding of mine.... Israel is repeatedly referred to as democratic, yet I also believe that I've heard that the arab Israeli's can't vote in their own countries elections?
Is this true?
Dale, Australia,
In fact it is not such a bad comparison. The Nazis, it is easy to forget, were socialists with ideas much like the Israelis, but it was the war that was thrust upon them which gave rise to all sorts of emergency and contingency measures which proved controversial. Israel has been forced similarly to react in a manner which is open to criticism but hasn t had the same focus or distortion. Undoubtedly, the underlying problem is American foreign policy. I am sure Professor Falk would change it if he could, but he doesn’t have the means to do so, so arousing attention in America is probably the best thing he can do.
Henry Percy, London, UK
To Billy Barnett, what conspiracy theory am I talking about? Israel practising apartheid or their hypocrisy and double standards re democracy. Please explain as I don't go in for conspiracy theories or fairy stories, only facts.
A Thomas, Lanchester,
To C Bozner. Please read what I wrote... 'trying to starve women and children to death' not doing it. Thankfully the Egyptians stood by so they could go and get food.
A Thomas, Lanchester,
Tim Tam - how much humanitarian aid did we send to Argentina during the Falklands war? Or to Germany during WW2? The Palestinians are suffering from self-inflicted problems. Their problems could bee solved at a stroke - abandon their policy of destruction of Israel (part of the Hamas 'manifesto,' which gained a majority vote) and stop attacks on Israel. Peace would follow quickly. Until then, the Israelis are right to seal them in and abandon them to their chosen destiny, and to defend Israeli citizens from the attacks. The very idea that Israel has an obligation to help alleviate the suffering of its enemies is absurd.
Nick, Rotherham, UK
Mr. Aaronovitch: You asked and answered your own question, a professor at Princeton, enough said.
Mary, Atlanta, USA
Any country that systematically denies another people their right to life and liberty, as part of a sustained campaign of terror to seize land for settlement, is in the same category as Nazi Germany. Israel is not alone. It is not the only villain, though it did sign the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a document born of the Holocaust, only a year or so after its first bout of ethnic cleansing in 1948.
There is very little to distinguish Israeli genocidal tendencies towards the Palestinians from those of the US which wiped out four million indigenous North Americans, nor the Australians who exterminated the Aborigines. All three countries tout manifest destiny as the excuse for their crimes. In contrast, what is happening in Tibet is a picnic.
Nick Ferriman, Bangkok, Thailand
By chance space was found in yesterday’s paper edition on p 28 for a report from Ramallah:' ARAB EXPULSION REMEMBERED.
Events are being planned to mark the 60th anniversary next month of the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Arabs from what is now Israel.'
This commemorates the fallout from UN General Assembly Resolution 181(ii), passed on 20 November 1947.
It delineated a territory to be known as' Israe'l, largely occupied at the time by indigenous Arabs, and gave access to it to Jews from all over the world.
Even today, anyone wishing to offer serious, informed and impartial comment on the Palestinian situation needs to be well acquainted with the events which led up to and followed the passing of that Resolution.
RoyC, Newent, UK
ed hummer, why should it be anti-semitic to conflate the two? Or are you just trying, but failing miserably, to be smart? And A Thomas reveals only his prejudice in his setting out his conspiracy theory. And if MA Arshard would ever get off his namesake and take the trouble to examine Israel's internal affairs he'd find that it is a functioning democracy within which non-Jews actually do have rights and a voice and that it has a press that is freer and more vocal than any western democracy. And even if it were not a democracy, would the analogy with Nazi Germany be anything more than vindictive, moronic hyperbole? I don't think so.
Billy Barnett, HK,
Sir
I think your views are skewed.
Having an array of views present at the UN (and everwhere else) can only be healthy.
Just because you don't agree with him that doesn't mean he shouldn't be their.....its called a difference of opinion.
B, glas, Scotland
Aaronovitch is right! Except, I personally would add that I cannot even pretend that "I believe in the U.N." Granted that it has had quite a few genuinely admirable personalities among its staff - as one would expect to be the case for an institution with such a noble-sounding mandate. But its internal dynamics is so thoroughly disfunctional that its primary functions seem to be burning through monstrous sums of money as fast as it can, while occasionally mounting a successful defence of a dictator or a group of terrorists - just to prove that it is still capable of delivering some results for all those resources it uses up. It's organizational culture has been defined by decades of foreign-policy successes of Soviet imperialism, and the mere fact that the U.S. now occasionally get to abuse the U.N. process for its own purposes hardly seems like a consolation. The world desperately needs a "U.N." of some sort, but this particular one, sadly, just seems to be beyond redemption...
Daniel, Manchester,
I'm sure men like Falk are watching too many films like 'Improbable Collapse' and ignoring expert advice!
maccer, krybalis, greece
Mike Bibby
You ask a complicated question. One element is easy: Gaza does not have an open border to the sea. The Israeli Naval Force enforces a (from memory) six mile limit.
The question of the border with Egypt is much more difficult. It is not really a simple bilateral border between Gaza and Sinai. There is a very thin strip of land (the Philadelphi Corridor) which is still occasionally patrolled (but no longer occupied) by the IDF. In an ideal world the Israelis would love the Egyptians to take responsibility for Gaza provided they could guarantee security there. The Egyptians have enough troubles with the Brotherhood without taking on Hamas. The Palestinians don't want their state to be further broken in two: as they will tell the '67 borders only constitute 22 per cent of Mandate Palestine. And the legacy of 40 years of occupation (now ended) is that Israel still has responsibility under international law for the provision of basic services to Gaza.
John, Bognor Regis , Alabama
My goodness - don't the comments made to this article prove Aaronovitch's point? Decades of UN-sponsored Israel-bashing, backed by the majority of the chattering classes that run the media in this country and others has led to a pavlovian reflex amongst the uninformed, who trot out the same tired, thin, empirically absurd "factoids" about Israeli "apartheid" (arab Israelis are not legally any different from Jewish Israelis) and the like.
As for the number of UN resolutions "ignored" by Israel - well, that is the point, isn't it? If Israel "complied" with all the specious rants against it, it would no longer exist and hundreds of thousands more Jews would be slaughtered. If that's your aim, say so. Otherwise, try to explain the lack of UN resolutions condemning Sudan, China, Zimbabwe, Iran, even Saddam's Iraq?
Finally - Ed Hummer: At what point does Aaronovitch say or imply he is Israeli?
Elliot, London, UK
Good point C Bozner "UN resolutions mainly emerge from a bloc of Muslim-led countries and are General Assembly, not Security Council resolutions. Therefore, they have no impact on International Law. "
The Secuirty Council permanent member s are compiled of 5 states that all have nuclear weapons, are the largest weapon manufacturers (exporters) in the world and 4 of 5 are "Christian". So these members only have an impact on international law - totally undemocratic!
T. Andre, London,
"using Israel as a stick to beat the US". How true. In all practicality, Israel IS an extension of the US in the Middle East. Whether you look at funding, supplying sensitive cutting edge military technology or sharing intelligence, it's hard to wedge cigarette paper between the US and Israel. If the US were a dog, Israel would its tail. Indeed, it seems sometimes to outside observers that the tail is wagging the dog...
No Israel is not a nazi state, but they do appear to indulge in ehtnic cleansing. Poor poor Palestinians, powerless and abandoned by all ans sundry.
John, London, UK
It must be clear by now that the UN is the whipping boy of every cause in town. The US tried to co-opt it to legalize its invasion of Iraq and when that failed mounted the most petulant campaign of vilification. Israel is quick to invoke it to gain support for incursions into Lebanon while studiously ignoring its obligations to cease settlement building. It goes with the territory and that is the UN which for all its faults is the only international forum we have.
Surely there is a simple solution to Israel's problem. If bothered by uncivil neighbours it should build a wall on its side of the border and just ignore them. There would be more sympathy with Israel's position if this is what it had done rather than requisitioning the neighbour’s land, building on it and enclosing that development with a defensive wall - a recipe for trouble.
alanadale, London ,
In reply to some poorly thought out postings:
Phil, London: there is no holocaust in Gaza -- no mass murder, no slavery, no concentration camp - only an unfortunate state where Israel is damned if it supplies the Pals and damned if it doesn't.
Klee, Kansas: there is no genocide in Gaza -- only hundreds have died, and that is (mostly) from combat not mass murder or mass starvation. How many have starved to death? At this point... none.
Rachell, Toulose: UN resolutions mainly emerge from a bloc of Muslim-led countries and are General Assembly, not Security Council resolutions. Therefore, they have no impact on International Law.
A Thomas, Lanc.: Israel is not starving women and children to death. Check your facts: no one has starved in Gaza at all. They actually receive food aid from many countries including Israel despite the "blockade".
All of you above are either gullible, naive, or biased or a combo of the above. I am against occupation, but I stick with truth.
C Bozner, London,
Er, Phil, the Holocaust left 6 milllion dead, whilst I don't agree with their policies towards the Palestinians Israel have not killed that many yet.....and why don't we hear any condemnation for the Arab nations such as Syria, Iran and Egypt? Rather than providing their "brother" Palestinians with schools, land, education and medicine they give them arms so that they can fight a proxy wear on their behalf....they are at least as much to blame as Israel, if not more so.
Doug Bates, St. Albans,
"For Falk “Israel was mainly responsible....†Well, you have to admit that he has at least something of a point! Regardless of who started this trouble or when, [like three thousand years plus ago or in 1946!] It seems strange for one side, occupying territory taken militarily and illegally, to constantly claim that 'they have to protect themselves against aggression'. That they do so with American tanks, helicopter gunships and using a permanent conscription army, against 'aggressors' defending their orchards, houses and even refugee camps with what, slingshots and flat stones? I seem to remember 'The Stern Gang' and their shenanigans, or are we all supposed to forget all history except that which Israelis pump out at us? By the way, I have not one drop of Arab blood in my veins, but as our national game used to be cricket, I do like to see a little 'fair play'!
S. Barraclough, Huddersfield, W. Yorkshire
I find it interesting that all of these comments bang on about the suffering of the Palestinians and mention nothing of the suffering of Israeli civilians.
Of course the Palestinians suffer, but they don't have the monopoly on it. Sderot is bombed daily by rocket attacks from Gaza...why is no one mentioning that. And I hardly think the UK can criticise a country for Human Rights abuses considering our previous and current record.
As for the UN, they are an bloated bureaucratic institution which has done little, if anything to secure peace in any part of the world. In an organisation of idiots what is one more?
Perhaps as well it would be useful for the people to read Britain's role in the creation of Israel...perhaps we could have prevented the situation in Israel today if we hadn't been so concerned about gaining access to Arab oil.
Claire , London, UK
Can we name one Arab state where civil government and some pretence at liberal democracy exists to the same extent as Israel? When Arabs are persecuted in their own country for their beliefs of their social behaviour one of the countries they flee to is Israel.
I have no brief for Israel but has anyone here happened to review the human rights record of Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and so on. If the Israeli Army 'misbehaves' at least there is some prospect of a public enquiry and punishment of those responsible, some chance of review by an independent judiciary. Could one seriously expect the same in, say, Syria?
By all means criticise Israel's conduct in Gaza. But to draw analogies with Nazi Germany in a region where human rights are ignored and political tyranny is the accepted norm is positively perverse.
Mark, Berkhamsted,
Could any of your resident 'experts' explain the following.
The Israelis have removed their troops and left Gaza to become self governing, it has three borders - Israel, Egypt and the open sea. Whey then is it supposedly incumbent on Israel to provide fuel and food? Oddly enough Egypt doesn't want to open their borders, but if the Palestinians had any initiative they could always use their Mediterranean coastline.
Having achieved their wish to be self governing the Palestinians continue to attack Israeli citizens. I would be interested to hear an honest (i.e. non - political) explanation of why the Arabs are fully entitled to attack Israelis, but it becomes an 'international crime' if the Israeli respond.
Mike Bibby, St Albans, England -not EU
i read the article with interest. In his report, Falk give a few arguments on why Israel can be compared to Nazi Germany. he emntions Gaza, the wall, the famine, the deportation, the collective punishements, killing presumed activists wihout a fair trial, thousands of political prisoners, new colonies, etc.
i did not understand the arguments against all these facts in Aaronovitch's article. not even the 9/11 story.
rahil, france, france
Phil of London:
It is written in Israel's consitution that they will retaliate against aggressors.
Therefore, all the Palestinians need to do to stop the blood shed is stop sending rockets et al over into Israel.
Whether the Palestinians have anything is really irrelevant. Sections of their population believe it is acceptable to send rockets into Israel knowing full well that Israel will retaliate and therefore people like you will accuse Israel of fascism.
If someone sat behind you and repeatedly flicked your ear I'm sure it wouldn't take long for you to not care whether they had anything or not and take action.
G., Portsmouth,
Abiding by UN resolutions when the other side won´t, or when resolutions are only passed against you but mysteriously disregard what the other side does, is just plain stupid.
Mentioning UN resolutions when you see (and sometimes enjoy) the UN´s blatant neglect of true victims and bias in favor of fake ones is hypocrisy.
Alleging that a democratically elected regime has a right to bomb its neighbor and expect no retaliation (because, well, it is the will of the people) is ridiculous.
Equating Jews to Nazis is an old propaganda trick. We must only pray that Hamas will remain as incompetent in war as it is skilled in manipulation.
Alberto Dwek, Sao Paulo, Brazil
From the other comments, I deduce the following. Whether or not the UN is corrupt / ineffective does not detract from the fact that the Palestinians are suffering. Should their suffering be ignored? Obviously not. Does it justify attacks on Israel - debatable. Should Israel adopt military tactics of an eye for an eye (or worse)? Morally unjustifiable if understandable. Does history change any of the above? I submit not. Where does that leave us? With a difficult and complex but ultimately solvable problem. However, too much blood has been spilled and emotions are too raw for there to be any kind of trust builiding to facilitate a solution. As long as both sides engage in a downward spiral of blood letting I see no solution in the near term. What is clear however is that the Article does not help either party find a solution.
Tim Tam, London,
How can anyone who has seen what goes on in Gaza defend Israel. Their position is indefensible. Israel is the only one in a position to stop the bloodshed and they continue to oppress. I'm tired of people saying that what Israel is doing in Gaza cannot be compared to the Holocaust, because whilst there are no similarities of scale, there are certainly some parallels.
I suggest you see Pilger's "Palestine is still the issue" (youtube etc)
The Palestinians have nothing.
Phil, London,
the u.n. is full of representatives of the sort of vile dictatorships that the u.n. should be bringing into line. and those turkeys ain't voting for any non-denominational holiday festival.
there should be objective standards on human rights which a nation must meet before it is given a voice in the debate.
there is no question that the finger of condemnation can be pointed at israel for many reasons. but the surrounding (extremely wealthy) arab / moslem nations have done almost nothing themselves to help the palestinians, choosing instead to let the situation fester when not actively stoking things up. if there were any genuine local commitment to solving the problems, they would be solved overnight.
israel, of course, would find more friends in the u.n. if it were to heavily subsidise a few african dictators. but there is no "right" side here. and the u.n. is tainted, so there is no objective panel actually to protect human rights. that is a stain on all of us.
jem, london, uk
"the new man had gone one better, and compared it to Nazi Germany"
The man was being honest.
And accurate.
When hurling abuse at China for the deaths of a couple of dozen Tibetans, consider the genocide being perpetrated in Palestine by Israel. Pot, kettle, black.
Klee Owen, Kansas, US
Israel has every right to defend itself. All Israelis want is to live in peace within safe and secure borders. I live here in Israel and I know that as a fact.
Put yourself in the positon of those living in Sderot and other border villages and towns. What would you do if rockets were lobbed indiscriminately at you and your children? Just turn the other cheek and walk away? I don't think so.
Yes, Israelis regret that innocent Palesitinans are suffering.We value likfe above everthing else. Killing is not what we want. But until the firing stops and until the incessant barrage of our citizens ceases there is no other option left to us in order to try and teach the Palestinians that every shot fired at us will receive a response. Our rights are infringed on a daily basis and our security threatened.
We cannot allow this situation to continue.
Carole, Jerusalem, Israel
I remember the last war and the indignities and death of the jewish people and I can not understand why the same tactics are used against the Palestinians?
Gaza appears to be one very large concentration camp which is occasionally razed by mechanised punishment squads to which the democratically elected government have no defence!
Theft of land and building of illegal jewish settlements seems to continue unabated.
There are terrorists on both sides and religious lunatics but what about the ordinary people?
And in case you are wondering I have been to the area and subsequently worked with both arab and jew but not at the same time.
Jim Golightly, Prudhoe, England
Israel has systematicaly refused to abide by the UN resolutions. with time, the public opinion is less tolerant, and the israelis are running out of arguments.
hey have invented a new strategy: the UN is not credible.
rachelle, toulouse, france
It is time for the world's liberal democracies to form a new international organisation. Sure, maintain a skeletal presence at the UN but transfer, say, 90% of their UN-funding to the new organisation. The new organisation offer better opportunities for the productive debate of critical transnational issues - and the UN would suddenly find itself having to rationalise (in every sense of the word) its operations.
Calev, London,
You can compare anything to anything. You could, for instance, say "Israel is nothing like Nazi Germany because it makes distinctions based on nationality rather than race" - that is a comparison.
Frank Upton, Solihull,
To Andrew in Los Angeles, yes I do think the Palestinians are well within their rights to fight back against their oppressors. As you live in America you should know that good old George Bush is happy for the Iraqis and Afghanis to do this when they wanted to overthrow Saddam and the Taliban respectively.
I recognise Israel and its right to a peaceful existence. What I can't stand is the Zionist view that its fine to starve women and children to death because of the fact that the Palestinians voted en masse for Hamas.
I thought Israel was a democracy and would recognise and be glad that the Palestinians were following their path. However Israel's view of democracy is about as warped and hypocritical as that of America.
A Thomas, Lanchester,
Of course Israel is in the wrong in many ways in Gaza and the Occupied Terrotories but it is hardly "the biggest threat to world peace." And quite why Israel should provide food and power to people who spend their days trying to kill Israelis is a mystery to most of us.
Tim, London,
Tim, you are wrong on this one, one of the fallacies of theories like yours is that Gaza is sovereign. Well the fact is that it is not. It limited to what kind of taxes it can collect and what projects it can embark on. Remember Israel collects a lot of duties and excise on behalf of the palestinians, not because the palestinians cannot do it but because they are not allowed to. I do not see how a non functioning gov can meet the needs of its people. If you want to portray palestine as a non viable state, then start with Israel, takes away the massive US aid and see where they stand.
Muhammad, Cambridgeshire,
very strange! a person of the establishment stating the
truth! how very odd.
peter, brisbane, australia
Of course Israel is in the wrong in many ways in Gaza and the Occupied Terrotories but it is hardly "the biggest threat to world peace." And quite why Israel should provide food and power to people who spend their days trying to kill Israelis is a mystery to most of us. Trying to solve the problem by demonising one side is ludicrous and counter-productive. In any case, David's point is about the UN, and his conclsuion that the Left should stop holding it up as an impartial, just and moral organisation rather than a colection of self-serving nations and individuals is correct.
Tim, London,
I sympathise with Mr Aaronovitch’s stand on Israel. Unfortunately, I suspect that the Jewish people have seriously deceived themselves; they need to go back into history, and work out for themselves how the Rothschild banking family made such a financial killing out of the Battle of Waterloo in 1815. I think they will find that money really is the root of all evil; as we are often warned.
Howard, Sussex, UK
For what is is worth (and I am fully aware that the opinions of people like me are worth less than nothing to the apparatchiks of corrupt organisations like the UN, EU or the UK Parliament) I completely agree with your sentiments but I fear that nothing will change and that Israel will just have to soldier on in the face of prejudiced and unfair treatment by the self serving kleptos who control this doomed world.
Tam Earl-Aine, Cheltenham,
MA Arshad,
"Israel is touted as the only Westernm democracy in a dark region".
Incorrect. Israel IS the only real democracy in a dark region and is surrounded by various dictatorships and Islamist regimes that, on a daily basis, disregard and trash the human rights of their citizens in a way far worse than Israel ever would and yet get a free pass from the UN and assorted loony supporters. In fact, anyone who so much criticizes sharia law in a human rights context is now, according to a recent UN resolution, a racist 'Islamophobe'...
The UN is part of the world's problems, not solutions...the sooner is disappears the better - wat is it doing to end the suffering in Zimbabwe and Darfur? No doubt both the fault of Israel / the US / European imperialism...(delete as appropriate).
David C, Brussels , Belgium
MA Arshad: Your point seems to be that since Israel is a democracy, its human rights abuses should be criticised, but since other countries in the ME are not democracies, they should not be held to the same standard.
Unfortunately, that's not how human rights work. Every person, regardless of the political system under which they live, has the same human rights, virtue of the fact that they are human. Therefore, every country that violates human rights is equally at fault and should be censored and punished, no matter whether they are a democracy or a fascist dictatorship.
Muslim countries in the ME have systematically violated and abused the human rights of their own people. So have many other countries. Every single one of them is in the wrong.
Izzie, Oxford,
Any country under repeared attack (regardless of scale) will seek to secure itself.
Britain did throughout the IRA terrorist threat (now down scaled to freedom struggle by the BBC) and Israel has done so with the Hamas threat.
It may not be the best course of action but it is entirely understandable.
Terrorists are cowards by definition and any country under attack from terrorists should do all they can to minimise their effect.
As for the UN, I have some stories about the dithering and simple absence of reason in Kosovo and Bosnia.
The UN is a good idea never realised.
G., Portsmouth,
When criticism descends to propaganda we can't distinguish between our real crime (the settlements) and our (legitimate) need to defend ourselves from some, and only some, of our enemies who would deny us rights of self determination (nationhood) that they claim for themselves.
The beauty of David Aaronovitch's article is that it highlights this distinction.
It's easier for most people to read propaganda than boring descriptions of the gradual 'land clearances' policies of our successive governments - somehow the death of a baby in the heat of a firefight carries more emotional weight than the death of a village over a decade. By believing propaganda you welcome the substitution of one crime for another. .. and David Aaronovitch is right - you undermine the Israeli opposition .
Jonathan Sivan, Haifa, Israel
Aaron,
You still believe in the UN. Why?
The UN is failed organisation and, worse, has been used as form of social oppression. Note for example, the various United Nations Conventions on narcotics that actually prevent individual countries from being able to take their own action to deal with narcotic abuse.
Recently, the United Nations Human Rights Council has been accused by some Western nations on the body and also by non-governmental groups of being used as an instrument by some Islamic nations to seek to restrict freedom of speech. Islamic countries were turning a resolution that was intended to renew the mandate of the UN's special rapporteur on freedom of expression into an order to report on defamation of religion.
If democracy means devolution of power to the people then it is time to abandon this failed body, it’s unrepresentative appointees, the myth of international law and the ambition of a global government into the dustbin of history.
Jason Mead, Bristol, Egland
Anatoly from Moscow, you are covered with shame. And you have no sense of history. Israel was established as a result of irresistilke historical force, in the teeth of massive Arab opposition. Even Britain abstained from the vote. But it was inevitable, and a happy event, in the historical perspective. Since that time it has been under constant, but happily dwindling, military attack. That is why it is heavily defended. Your argument about targets is obscene. Secondly, if all you can fall back on is 'it should never have been founded', you are left behind. It is people like you who are creating the problem, because you allow the Palestinian Arabs to continue to deny that they have lost.
Tom, London,
At last, the UN has found a man who calls a spade, a spade.
Gamini de Silva, Reading, , England
"For various reasons Israelis take badly to being compared to the people who attempted to eradicate Jewish life in Europe, "
I wasn't under the impression that you were an Israeli, Mr Aaronovitch. I thought it was anti-semitic to conflate Israeli-ness with jewish-ness
ed hummer, London,
What about the really interesting issues, David - has the Bishop of Durham come back at you yet to list the secular and atheist organisations he claims want to rid us of "surplus old people"?
Alistair, Edinburgh, Scotland
Given that most adult Israelis are called to arms on an annual basis, and in fact keep their Army-issued weapons at home, they may be viewed as legitimate military targets, and their homes as arms caches. If one were to estimate collateral damage percentage with this in mind, the record of 'indiscriminate' rocket fire by Palestinians would hardly differ from 'surgical' strikes by what is known as IDF.
As to the UN, it should have never appeased the well-documented Zionist terror, including terrorist crimes against UK interests, by sanctioning the establishment of the state of Israel in the first place.
Anatoly, Moscow,
When I hear mention of the UN I not only think of Sudan
but also the Congo, then Burundi and Rwanda and
Bosnia.
The UN have not only allowed genocide to take place
they have actually played a part in it.
People have described the UN as being ' a joke' ; that
they certainly are not
J Mckay, Wellington,
In response to A Thomas's assertion that "As many are aware Israel is as big a threat to world peace as America and Iran."
So, it would appear that you condone firing rockets daily into Israel, suicide bombings, daily rocket attacks, and numerous other atrocities against them. Also, I'd hazard a guess that you think that Israel should just shut up and die quietly.
On the threat to world peace thing, can you describe in any sense of reality what Israel is doing to destabilize the world? Other than fighting for its existence.
Andrew W., Los Angeles, USA
and the EU are a 'joke' ?
http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/news/patten/art281002.htm
Tim, Shanghai,
I agree the"UN" are a joke.
We in the west should stop funding this corrupt organisation.
n.coleman, carlisle, united kingdom
What is your point Mr Aranovitch? As many are aware Israel is as big a threat to world peace as America and Iran. Trying to brush Israel's disgusting misdemeanours under the carpet does you no favours. Ok so Mr Falk is obviously Jewish but seems to be an anti zionist and that can only be a good thing. what's your point of view? To me you seem to be using the whitewash almost as much as Melanie Phillips does when it comes to Israel.
Why not take your blinkers off and see that Israel is at least like the old South Africa in that it too practises its own home grown version of apartheid. The only difference is Israel seems to like to try and strave people and cut off their power.
A Thomas, Lanchester,
'I belive in the UN'.
I can not think why; I never have and your column gives yet more reasons not to do so. Why a bunch of dictators, despots and socialists should have any say at all in world affairs, I have no idea.
Free trade and the end to all international aid is the only way to progress for all countries, rich and poor. We should leave the UN and its corrupt regime to its own devices and use our money for trading honestly with all countries to our mutual benefit.
George Ball, Diss,
The United Nations is a joke. It served some purpose in the cold war as a means for the United States and the Soviet Union to express their respective views to the world but what has it done since then? It can't even stop genocides. Since there are over 40 Muslim nations in the U.N. of course this organisation will support anti-Israeli sentiment, rather than worry about the actions of a fellow Muslim country, Sudan, when it commits genocide. Thankfully the Israelis know this and just ignore the U.N. It is about time other western, democratic nations did the same. After all why should we pay heed to an organisation which includes nation members governed by communists, dictatorial tyrants and medieval monarchs.
David Lea-Smith, Edinburgh, U.K.
Myopic analysis from the author and he sidesteps one important aspect pervasive in overtones of Western discourse on China and Sudan. The same aspect is implicit in the authors own "analysis".
Israel is touted as the only Western democracy in a dark region. So should a democracy act like other tyrannies? A colonial enterprise is going to lead to indigenous majority resisting the colonisers.
MA Arshad, London, UK