Veiled threat

Over at Elder of Ziyon, there’s an image of Donald Trump and Mahmoud Abbas standing side-by-side in front of twin lecterns.

The gist of the article, titled:  “Trump's jab to Abbas too subtle after Abbas' veiled threats and demands in Bethlehem”  amounted to Trump telling Abbas to “stop funding terrorists and their families”.

“President Trump, in his statement following his meeting with PLO leader Mahmoud Abbas in Bethlehem, said a very important thing that the Arab media ignored: 

Peace can never take root in an environment where violence is tolerated, funded or rewarded.  We must be resolute in condemning such acts in a single, unified voice.  

Unfortunately, Trump extemporized a comment about the Manchester bombing immediately beforehand, so the Palestinians can pretend that this statement was not directed towards them and their policy of tolerating, funding and rewarding terror.”

Perhaps that was why Mahmoud Abbas looked like a toad. He was pretending not to get the message. 

If you thought that was wishful thinking and that EoZ was projecting his own feelings onto Trump’s words, think again. Your actual BBC has also picked up the hint.

"Peace can never take root in an environment where violence is tolerated, funded and even rewarded," he added, apparently referring to payments made by the PA to the families of Palestinian prisoners and those killed in the conflict with Israel.”

That particular online article includes an analysis from The BBC’s Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen. It’s headed:  ”No simple deal"

Jeremy Bowen sees the Israel Palestine scenario entirely from the Palestinian point of view. This is fair enough, or it would be if the BBC took pains to offer the other side of the story too, so the audience could get a truer picture. For balance you know.

Here’s just one example of how Bowen sees the world.

“The reality is that the Israelis and Palestinians are way apart on the main issues - the future of east Jerusalem, the fate of Palestinian refugees and the borders of an independent Palestine.”

Jeremy Bowen’s main issues are not Israel’s main issues. They’re not even the Palestinians’ main issues. They are window-dressing ‘obstacles’, selected by the Palestinian leadership purely to to appeal to to the outside world and appear reasonable to those who don’t know the history. 

The Palestinians say they want east Jerusalem for their future capital, but how many people are aware that when Jordan was in control no-one but Muslims were allowed to visit the holy sites?

I’ve lifted the following from a comment by Charlie in NY on BBC Watch: 

“during its 19 year illegal occupation, Jordan directly violated its obligations under the 1949 Armistice Agreement and barred Jews (not just Israelis which would have been violation enough) from the Western Wall, destroyed historic synagogues in the Jewish Quarter, desecrated the Mount of Olives cemetery and sought to eradicate evidence of Jewish inhabitation in the Old City.”

Only under Israeli control has Jerusalem been open to all religious groups. These are things you need to know before you judge.

Bowen’s other main issues have been an integral part of peace negotiations for years, always scuppered by the Palestinians just as things seemed to be getting somewhere.

The real issue is more fundamental.  Arab hatred of Jews. That’s it. Once that is confronted and dissipated, problem solved. Only then could there be 'two states side-by-side'.

A couple of paragraphs later Bowen turns the situation topsy turvy by portraying the Israelis as the religious fanatics, “Some of the most influential members of the Israeli government believe the land is a Jewish possession, given by God.” 

He does manage to describe Hamas as ‘Islamists’ but casts doubt on whether they really deserve to be deemed terrorists: “Hamas, who have been condemned by President Trump in the last few days as terrorists” as if it’s only Trump who says so, and then only in the last few days.

Episode 6 ‘Crossing the Divide’. Jeremy Bowen’s early afternoon “Our man in the Middle East” slot on Radio 4, threw up a number of questionable Bowenisms. I hope BBC Watch picks them up soon. Watch this space.

P.S. I didn’t watch much of the BBC’s coverage of Manchester. I chose Sky. Anything rather than watching Victoria Derbyshire pitched 300 yards away from the Manchester Arena desperately trying to find something interesting to say. 

Double Standards all round

The other day I expressed disappointment at the fact that MPs debating foreign affairs seemed woefully ignorant about the topic under discussion.   Few of them appear to know much (or anything at all) about the Palestinian Authority’s routine practice of glorifying indiscriminate acts of  terror against Israeli civilians.

 The Palestinian leadership officially honours terrorism. Palestinian Media Watch documents examples of the PA inciting  individuals to take up kitchen knives to stab Jews or mow Israeli  pedestrians down with vehicles. This, and various street-naming activities in honour of terrorists ‘martyred’ while perpetrating violence against unarmed civilians, goes on with the official approval of Fatah/ Mahmoud Abbas, Israel’s ‘peace partner’.

Then I read this: "PMW findings used to confront PA officials"

“A delegation of Australian and British politicians visiting Israel and the Palestinian Authority used Palestinian Media Watch's findings to challenge and question PA officials”

A quick search shows that the UK delegation included: Rt. Hon. Sir Eric Pickles MP, Rt. Hon. Lord Trimble of Lisnagarvey, Guto Bebb MP, Andrew Percy MP, Jack Lopresti MP., British ambassador to Israel David Quarrey, Joan Ryan, chairwoman of the British Labor Friends of Israel and John Spellar.

I have to say that I hadn’t heard of some of these characters, and judging by their Twitter timelines, they didn’t seem to have been particularly affected by what they saw and heard. They barely mention the visit as far as I can tell.  

“PRIOR TO the dinner on Sunday, following a presentation by Itamar Marcus from Palestinian Media Watch, Dialogue participants went to Ramallah to meet with Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah and the PA education minister, who were asked about the naming of a girls high school after a terrorist, Dalal Mughrabi; sporting events named after terrorists; branding anyone who supported peace initiatives through sport as traitors; and the preaching of hatred through the education system.” 

Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah and the PA education minister Dr Sabri Saidam didn’t take too kindly to being questioned. 

“The Palestinian Education Minister Dr Sabri Saidam told SBS News he had expected the discussions to focus on education, but was surprised by the group's "explosive, blunt and rude" questions about Palestine's education system.He said both Australian and British MPs asked the offensive questions."There was a lot of incitement I would say on behalf of the delegation meaning or implying that the Palestinians are the ones terrorising Israel when we have been subjected to the longest occupation, as I said, of modern times," he said.

That is a little bit hilarious. The men who were accused of incitement threw the exact same accusation back at the accusers! How unimaginative and how typical.

You’d think that unpleasantness would have made some impression on the delegation, but if it did, I found no indication of it on Twitter. 

Oh well. Next time there’s a debate on the Middle East maybe one of these gallivanting MPs will speak up on Israel’s behalf. This might be awkward if any of them needs the “Asian” vote to stay in office.

With the exception of Eric Pickles, who does occasionally come out with some positive pro-Israel remarks, I doubt if they will risk airing such unfashionable views in front of the children constituents.

Meanwhile the BBC is going overboard with stories like this , and the Telegraph chooses a rather alarming headline for this story, which the Times of Israel  also tackles using the somewhat sensational headline: "Head of Extremist Jewish Group calls Christians "Blood-sucking Vampires"  
but puts into context with the following strap line: 

“Religious rights group calls on police and attorney general to investigate Lehava leader Bentzi Gopstein for incitement to violence in recent op-ed”

and further explanation:

“In response to Gopstein’s remarks, the Israel Religious Action Center called on Israeli legal authorities to launch a criminal investigation into what it deemed to be the Lehava leader’s incitement to violence against another religious group. 

“Bentzi Gopstein is capable of doing anything in order to incite against anyone not like him — Arab Muslims, Christians and others, while using blunt language and calling to violence,” Orly Erez-Likhovski said in a statement posted on the group’s Facebook page. 

“Unfortunately, against this blatant incitement, accompanied by unruly violence, there’s deafening silence by law enforcement,” she said, calling on Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein to put Lehava leaders and others who incite to violence in the dock”

The media, in other words, are keen to amplify atypical (Israeli extremist) views in order to cast Israelis as villains, but are suddenly overcome with crippling shyness over blatant incitement, glorification and celebrations of acts of violence when it emanates from mainstream Palestinians, officials, ministers of education and religious leaders. 
If delegations of MPs can go there and see for themselves what’s happening but maintain a deathly silence when they get home, it’s more than pathetic.