CHERRY PICKING

I’m ‘cherry picking’ again, this time from an op-ed written for the Jerusalem Post by Dan Perry and Steven Graubart. Commenting on the government’s judicial reform plans, the authors made the following cost estimate: -

“A survey of how much Israel stands to lose is genuinely breathtaking. The country of barely 10 million has more unicorns (private companies valued at $1 billion,) than Europe and in 2021, the money its tech firms attracted from venture capital and IPOs was half the figure of the European Union, which has 40 times its population.

Moreover, the innovators who are responsible for the miracle of Start-Up Nation, in fields from biotech to ad tech to fintech to cyber, are overwhelmingly modern people who are mobile and will not remain in such a country.

The government’s plans to turn Israel into a Jewish version of Turkey will ultimately leave it with a tech sector at the level of Turkey and a currency that is as distressed as the Turkish lira, which lost 44% of its value in 2021 alone.

The lack of investor confidence in Turkey was driven in part by the Turkish president’s impractical introduction of Islamic principles into monetary policy. There is a striking parallel with Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich’s belief that religion should anchor economic strategy.”

Despite this dismal forecast, the coalition government is forging ahead with legislation to effect the judicial reform.

Let’s move on, or rather backwards to the ‘much too promised land’ I wrote about last week.

Avi Shlaim is one the “New Historians”, a group of Israeli scholars who put forward critical interpretations of the history of Zionism and Israel. In his essay “The Balfour Declaration And its Consequences.” Shlaim wrote-

“British imperialism in the Middle East in World War I was intricate, to use a British understatement. In 1915 Britain promised Hussein, the Sharif of Mecca, that they would support an independent Arab kingdom under his rule in return for his mounting an Arab revolt against the Ottoman Empire, Germany’s ally in the war. The promise was contained in a letter dated October 24, 1915 from Sir Henry McMahon, the British High Commissioner in Egypt, to the Sharif of Mecca in what later became known as the McMahon-Hussein correspondence. The Sharif of Mecca assumed that the promise included Palestine.”

Margin note: Reading through the McMahon-Hussein correspondence it’s difficult to understand why Hussein didn’t state unequivocally “Palestine is included!!”. Arguably, the fact that the letters were written with Arabic and English translations, could have caused a misunderstanding that led Hussein to assume that McMahon had promised to include Palestine in the agreement.

Back to the main text;-

“In 1916 Britain reached a secret agreement with France to divide the Middle East into spheres of influence in the event of an allied victory. Under the terms of the Sykes-Picot agreement, Palestine was to be placed under international control. 

In 1917 Britain issued the Balfour Declaration, promising to support the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine.

Thus, by a stroke of the imperial pen, the Promised Land became twice-promised. Even by the standards of Perfidious Albion, this was an extraordinary tale of double-dealing and betrayal, a tale that continued to haunt Britain throughout the thirty years of its rule in Palestine. Of the three wartime pledges, the most curious, and certainly the most controversial was the Balfour Declaration. Here, wrote Arthur Koestler, was one nation promising another nation the land of a third nation. * Koestler dismissed the Declaration as an impossible notion, an unnatural graft, a “white Negro.”

C. P. Scott, the ardently pro-Zionist editor of the Manchester Guardian, played a significant part in persuading the British government to issue the Declaration. In an editorial article, Scott hailed the Declaration as an act of imaginative generosity. “It is at once the fulfilment of aspiration, the signpost of destiny.” Elizabeth Monroe in “Britain’s Moment in the Middle East” conceded that to the Jews who went to Palestine, the Declaration signified fulfilment and salvation. But she also notes that to the British the Declaration brought much ill will, and complications that sapped their strength. “Measured by British interests alone,” argued Monroe, “it is one of the greatest mistakes in our imperial history.”

*The preamble I quoted from last week included the following passage: - “Understandings and plans were drawn up long before there was a significant Jewish presence in Palestine (the region known later as Mandatory Palestine) and before the indigenous Arabs in that region realised that they constituted a separate national entity.”

Admittedly, earlier, before WW1 a few Arab intellectuals in the Holy Land/Palestine defined themselves as a separate national group, but the majority of the Arabs in Palestine held no more than village and small-town affiliations.

Well, some historians will no doubt continue to lambast the Balfour Declaration. Nonetheless, Israel is an irrefutable fact. The IDF is a force to be reckoned with, and until recently this startup nation was one of a kind. It is also the ‘proverbial comeback kid.’ So, don’t give up on it yet. 

I’ll conclude with some more cherry picking, this time from an article written by Martin Wolf, chief economics commentator of The Financial Times. Wolf is one of the world's most influential journalists, notably regarding economic matters,

“Israeli politics is in crisis. A large number of people have demonstrated on the streets against the rightwing coalition’s extensively criticised “judicial reforms”. The president, Isaac Herzog, has even declared that “We are no longer in a political debate but on the brink of constitutional and social collapse.” The programme of this government is of evident importance for the future of the country. But it is also of wider significance. This is partly because of Israel’s role in the region. It is also because what is happening raises questions about how a democracy can turn into an autocracy via unbridled majoritarianism. Larry Diamond of Stanford University argues that liberal democracy has four individually necessary and collectively sufficient elements: free and fair elections; active participation in civic life of the citizenry; protection of the civil and human rights of all citizens; and a rule of law that binds and protects all citizens, including the most powerful. Those who have won elections are not entitled to threaten any of those essential elements of liberal democracy. If they seek to create such a state, they are subverting democracy. Democracy then is a system of majority rule, constrained by institutional checks and balances. Of those constraints, none is more important than the rule of law. This is why the EU has such difficulty with the “illiberal democracies” of Hungary and Poland. It is also why the Israeli government’s proposed legal “reforms” are so controversial. To opponents, the reforms will rip up protections against arbitrary action by the government, threatening individual freedom and legal predictability in a country dependent on foreign investment and a dynamic market economy. This is, needless to say, not how the government sees it. It believes the Supreme Court has undermined its ability to govern by assessing even the “reasonableness” of its actions. This also puts government legal advisers in an objectionably powerful position in the development of policy. In addition, the court has opened the floodgates to litigation by allowing anybody the right to sue the government, thus paralysing necessary economic activities. In brief, the Supreme Court has vastly over-reached, threatening prosperity and democracy. This is what I learned from talking with a senior member of the government. To find out whether it makes sense I talked to Netta Barak-Corren, a professor of constitutional law at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Barak-Corren agrees that the Supreme Court has indeed lowered the thresholds for filing a suit against the government. It has also overruled it, not frequently, but consequentially. This has created ripple effects on the role of the government’s legal advisers, which affect the government’s ability to function. Yet, she explained, this activism was largely a response to the inadequacy of the democratic structure, which consists of just one house of parliament, in which a simple majority is sufficient to pass any law, including one of constitutional import. Potentially, this structure would give a majority unchecked powers unmatched in other democracies. Thus far, these powers have been constrained more by political culture and circumstances than by law. Barak-Corren’s big point, however, is that the coalition’s proposals — namely, to politicise judicial appointments, including to lower-level courts, and make it extremely difficult for the court to over-rule the government, while enabling the Knesset to overturn its rulings — are neither necessary nor sufficient to rectify the problems with the structure of Israeli democracy and the behaviour of the judiciary. This account persuades me that the reforms are mainly a power grab. They would allow the executive to operate with little judicial accountability and fill the judiciary with (possibly incompetent) loyalists, even in areas that have little to do with policy. These changes also have potentially important economic implications, including to the highly successful high-tech sector, which has been an important contributor to the growth of the Israeli economy. Remarkably, Israel’s real gross domestic product per head is now much the same as in the UK or France. The great economic danger created by illiberal democracy, one we can see in many other countries, is of “crony capitalism”. It becomes too easy in such systems for the corrupt to succeed in politics, government, the judiciary and in business. That in turn discourages the entry of honest new competitors into the economy, because it is they who are always most reliant on an independent judiciary and bureaucracy. Insiders have power on their side. Outsiders depend on the rule of law. Needless to say, the arrival of this new government has created many other concerns, not least for the future of the occupied territories. The idea of annexation of the West Bank, for example, is potentially lethal to a democratic Israel unless full citizenship is granted to Palestinians, which would turn Israel into a binational state. But in the narrower area of legal reform the issue is whether the government is prepared to limit what it seeks to change in order to deal with the real problems, or whether it is determined to obtain political control over the legal system, thereby undermining the rule of law. It is worth noting in this context that Israel’s economic history demonstrates that the legal system about which the government now complains so bitterly did not prevent its past success. That also suggests that these dramatic reforms are unneeded. Benjamin Netanyahu must think again before he does irreparable damage."

Well, I intended to pick a few cherries and ended up picking almost the whole crop.

 

Have a good weekend

 

 

Beni,                           23^rd of February, 2023

 

IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

“I doubt if any conflict over a disputed territory has generated as many proposals, drafts, plans, accords and agreements as the Arab –Israeli Conflict.

Viewed in historical perspective it appears Jews and Arabs met to forestall a conflict of interests at a time when it was far from clear who they were representing and who could ratify and implement the agreements they reached.

It has been argued that peace plans were being discussed more than ninety years before the present intractable "Conflict." Understandings and plans were drawn up long before there was a significant Jewish presence in Palestine (the region known later as Mandatory Palestine) and before the indigenous Arabs in that region realised that they constituted a separate national entity.”

I quoted this text in a preamble to an assessment/observation of the Arab-Israel Conflict in a post I wrote 13 years ago.

It relates to an early accord reached between Feisal bin al-Hussein bin Ali al-Hashemi, and Dr. Chaim Weizmann. However, viewed in retrospect, “The Feisal - Weizmann Agreement signed in January 1919 is no more than an historical footnote.

 "The two main branches of the Semitic family, Arabs and Jews, understand one another, and I hope that as a result of interchange of ideas at the Peace Conference, which will be guided by ideals of self-determination and nationality, each nation will make definite progress towards the realisation of its aspirations."

Feisal bin al-Hussein bin Ali al-Hashemi made this observation in 1919 shortly before the Paris Peace Conference. Feisal had concluded a series of meetings with Chaim Weizmann and was seeking international support to set up a Pan-Arab nation.

Feisal's seemingly pro-Zionist sentiments were expressed in another remark he made about the same time. "The Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement."

However, a letter in the British Foreign Office archives, declassified at a later date, reveals that Feisal was "coached."

British diplomat Mark Sykes had written to Feisal about the Jewish people "...this race, despised and weak, is universal and all powerful and cannot be put down." Under such circumstances, the secret British communication contended, Feisal would be well advised to cultivate the Zionist movement as a powerful ally rather than to oppose it. In the event, Weizmann and Feisal established an informal agreement under which Feisal would support dense Jewish settlement in Palestine while the Zionist movement would assist in the development of the vast Arab nation that Feisal hoped to establish.

Weizmann first met Feisal in June 1918, during the British advance from the South against the Ottoman Empire in World War I. As leader of an impromptu "Zionist Commission", Weizmann travelled to southern Transjordan for the meeting. The intended purpose was to forge an agreement between Feisal and the Zionist Movement to support an Arab Kingdom and Jewish settlement in Palestine, respectively. The wishes of the Palestinian Arabs were to be ignored, and, indeed, both men seem to have held the Palestinian Arabs in considerable disdain. Weizmann had called them "treacherous", "arrogant", "uneducated", and "greedy" and had complained to the British that the system in Palestine did "not take into account the fact that there is a fundamental qualitative difference between Jew and Arab". After the meeting Weizmann reported that Feisal was "contemptuous of the Palestinian Arabs whom he doesn't even regard as Arabs".

However, a secret British-French agreement (the Sykes-Picot Agreement) concluded earlier, left no room for Feisal's pan-Arab ambitions.

After the Paris Conference Feisal returned to Damascus and led a rebellion. against the French. He had himself crowned King of Greater Syria in March 1920. A few weeks later the French deposed him. In an effort to compensate Feisal for his loss the British offered him the Kingdom of Iraq, which he reluctantly accepted.

In July 1933, a few weeks before his death, Feisal went to London where he expressed concern regarding the situation in Palestine. In particular the Arab-Jewish conflict, increased Jewish immigration to Palestine as well as the declining Arab political, social, and economic situation. He asked the British to limit Jewish immigration and land sales, for fear that “otherwise in the near future the Arabs would either be squeezed out of Palestine or reduced to economic and social servitude.”

It seems Feisal's Zionist sympathies were short lived.

Viewed in historical perspective once again, it seems we are no closer to understanding how our neighbours think.

In a recent analysis of public opinion polls in Arab countries conducted by the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University (INSS) the authors endeavoured to comprehend public opinion in Arab countries, while trying to avoid reaching all-inclusive conclusions. They asked: How much is the public in the Arab world worried about the economic situation? the security situation? What percentage would like to emigrate? What are the attitudes toward Israel – and have these attitudes shifted in light of the Abraham Accords.   

An analysis of public opinion polls conducted recently in 14 Arab countries shows that overall, the Arab public is primarily concerned with economic challenges, and regards the Israeli-Palestinian question with marginal interest. Nevertheless, despite normalisation with Israel in many fields, the refusal to recognise the Jewish state and forge relations with it is widespread. and creates potential barriers for regimes regarding formal ties with Israel. It’s important to add that most of the polls were conducted prior to the inauguration of Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition government.

Identifying the mood on what is often referred to as the “Arab street” allows a glimpse, even if it is not free of distortions, into individuals’ opinions regarding their personal situations and their perceptions of their governments’ economic and foreign policies. Some scepticism is in order as to the validity of polls conducted in societies governed by oppressive authoritarian regimes, but in spite of this conundrum or perhaps because of it, polls are almost the only means of assessing public sentiment.

 Now, although the findings of the INSS analysis are important in order to understand the Arab mindset/mindsets, understanding the Palestinian mindset is arguably more important for Israelis.

There’s no dearth of Israeli Arab affairs analysts, both academics and many less qualified “experts.” Take your pick from a range that includes renowned scholars and your next-door neighbour.

Ohad Hemo TV channel 12 reporter on Arab affairs is closely attentive to the Palestinian street. For almost twenty years he has built a broad network of Palestinian ‘contacts’ willing to share their opinions with him. He has met and spoken with Palestinians from all walks of life. His contacts range from the most extreme unrepentant terrorists to pragmatic realists. He has interviewed Palestinians incarcerated in Israeli security prisons and ‘retired’ members of the various Palestinian terrorist organisations both, in Gaza and the West Bank.

Hemo is a recipient of the prestigious Sokolov prize for journalism. After reading his account of the Palestinians, a view from within I believe I am better informed about close neighbours. The book’s title is awkwardly translated as ’Different Territories.’   “On the surface,” would have been a better choice. So far, the book isn’t available in English.

Hemo’s interviews conducted inside Israeli security prisons are particularly enlightening. He writes about security prisoners acquiring a fluent knowledge of Hebrew. Some are avid readers of Hebrew literature including biographies and autobiographies of Zionist political leaders ranging from Ben Gurion to Jabotinsky. 

He doesn’t claim that higher education and library facilities have caused them to moderate their views regarding the Zionist enterprise. Furthermore, some of the ‘retirees’ he talked to said that Israel is too strong to defeat in the foreseeable future. 

I doubt if that admission is reason enough for us to rest on our laurels.

 

Have a good weekend.

 

Beni,              16th of February, 2023.

 Tu Bishvat and other topics.

I can safely assume that you are well informed about the catastrophic earthquake in Turkey. So, I’ll only add an item or two that you might have missed.

The epicentre of the earthquake along the East Anatolian fault line in the south of Turkey is 1,000km from Istanbul, but only 800km from Jerusalem. As a result, some people in Israel felt mild tremors emanating from Turkey, while people living in Istanbul, along Turkey’s Mediterranean coast and other places, hardly felt anything at all.

Rescue teams from the IDF Home Front Command have been working round the clock in Turkey searching for survivors of the earthquake. An emergency aid mission made up of units from the IDF’s Medical Corps, its Technology and Logistics Division and other special Israeli aid units has set up a field hospital adjacent to the Israeli teams working in the earthquake-stricken region. The hospital is expected to operate for about ten days. In addition, the delegation will assist the Home Front Command teams locating survivors and rescuing them. However, it’s not clear yet if medical aid offered by Israel to Syria will be accepted by the Assad regime.

 On Saturday thousands of Israelis gathered in the main urban centres throughout Israel for the fifth consecutive week to demonstrate against controversial legal reforms about to be enacted by our new rightwing government.

Eliav Lieblich and Adam Shinar writing for Foreign Policy Magazine questioned whether the reforms will bring about the end of Israeli democracy. Lieblich and Shinar are well known legal experts who teach at law schools in Israel and the US.

“The coalition government’s ultranationalist and ultra-Orthodox members don’t agree on everything, but they are united on one objective, namely weakening Israel’s judiciary and strengthening government control over both the courts and the civil service.” They said…….

“For now, the reforms seem likely to pass. Netanyahu enjoys a stable majority in the Knesset, and his coalition has fast-tracked its assault on the judiciary in a blizzard of legislation that the opposition has criticised for flouting accepted procedures. There is a chance the Supreme Court could invalidate the reforms once they are approved, which would plunge the country into a full-fledged constitutional crisis. But either way, Netanyahu’s government will have deepened Israel’s divisions and weakened its democracy.”.....       

“Eliminating restraints on government power will appease religious fundamentalists and enable Netanyahu to keep his promises to his governing partners. In his coalition agreements he pledged to amend the country’s anti-discrimination laws, allowing business owners to refuse service based on religious beliefs, which will affect the LGBTQ community and other minorities.

Netanyahu’s government has also announced plans to reform the media. Shlomo Karhi, the minister of communications, has declared his intention to privatise Israeli state-funded television and radio stations. The move is seen by most observers as an attempt to clamp down on critical press coverage and independent reporting. Indeed, Galit Distel-Atbaryan, the minister of public diplomacy, wants to go further. Distel-Atbaryan has expressed support for shutting down state-funded media altogether instead of privatising. “Whenever you privatise, the left seeps in.” She said.

Meanwhile, Culture Minister Miki Zohar has announced his own plans to limit government spending on the arts, denying funding for works that “harm the image of the state.” This two-stage programme of policy changes has a clear purpose: stifling expression by removing critical content from the public sphere and strengthening the government’s grip on power.”

Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara issued an official opinion against the judicial reforms last week. The A.G warned that each of the provisions itemised in the proposed judicial reforms would damage Israel’s system of checks and balances on its own and more so cumulatively. “There are no checks in the proposed system to ensure the protection of human rights and proper administration.

     Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara 

Acceptance of the proposed arrangement will lead to a regime structure in which the executive and legislative authorities have broad and practically unlimited authority, which has no built-in response to possible fear of misuse of legislation or Basic Laws for the purpose of circumventing judicial review, or of harming the core characteristics of the state as a Jewish and democratic state,”

Instead of the proposed reforms, Baharav-Miara suggested that Justice Minister Yariv Levin work together with relevant parties to pursue the formulation of the Basic Law. This Basic Law would establish the relationship and boundaries of the Knesset and the judiciary and is considered a missing piece of vital constitutional legislation.

 If you recall, last week I noted that various Israeli elite security units operate in the Jenin area almost every night in an ongoing effort to thwart Palestinian terrorist activity.

These routine pre-dawn raids usually warrant no more than a brief mention. Moreover, they are not restricted to Jenin and its environs.

The Guardian quoted a statement issued by an IDF spokesman relating to an incursion in the   Aqabat Jaber refugee camp near Jericho on Monday. “A number of armed assailants were killed after firing at IDF soldiers who were operating in the area,” The spokesman added that there were no Israeli casualties in the incursion.

The Palestinian health ministry confirmed that five men aged between 21 and 28 had been killed and another man was severely wounded.  A Hamas spokesman said that its fighters were among the dead.

The IDF said the targets of Monday’s raid were suspected of an attempted attack on a restaurant in Vered Yeriho (The Rose of Jericho) a nearby Israeli settlement, last week. Two armed Palestinians with suspected links to Hamas tried to shoot diners in the restaurant, but fled after one of their weapons malfunctioned.

Rereading this text, I find most of it quite depressing.

Wיhat better can I do to compensate for this cheerless post than recycle something about Tu Bishvat, celebrated at the beginning of the week.

On Tu Bishvat in 1890, Rabbi Zeev Yavetz, one of the founders of the Mizrachi movement, took his students to plant trees near Zichron Yaakov. In1908 the custom was adopted by the Jewish Teachers Union and later by the Jewish National Fund.

Since the founding of the JNF in 1901 it has planted over 250 million trees, created and built over 240 reservoirs and dams, developed over 250,000 acres of land, and established more than 2,000 parks.   

Rightly so the festival has become our renewed arbour day.

Tu Bishvat is a relatively late addition to the Jewish calendar. Although it was probably observed earlier, the final date of its celebration was fixed in the Talmudic period.

It seems that like the start of our fiscal year the festival originated for tax collecting purposes. Fruit tithes sent by farmers to the Temple were fixed on this day. Today two thousand years after the destruction of the Temple the tithe system has no significance. Nevertheless, like most people in Israel, farmers pay income tax.

In mediaeval times Tu Bishvat served as a tangible link to the Land of Israel. Jews in many communities in the Diaspora celebrated the festival with a feast of fruits in keeping with the description in the Mishna defining the holiday as a "New Year." Nuts and dried fruits, especially figs, dates, raisins and carob pods were brought from the Holy Land or somewhere in the Middle East to be eaten during the Tu Bishvat celebration.

In the 17th century, the cabbalist Rabbi Yitzchak Luria of Safed (Tsfat) and his disciples instituted a Tu Bishvat Seder similar to the format of the Passover Seder. According to one source, at least ten types of nuts and fruits were eaten at the Seder. Other authorities claim that as many as fifteen and even thirty different varieties of nuts and fruits were served on the Tu Bishvat table. In addition, four cups of wine were drunk. Both white and red wine were on the table. White wine was drunk first, and then the second glass was filled mostly with white wine together with some red wine. The third glass contained mostly red wine with a little red wine. Finally, the last glass was filled with red wine only.

The cabbalists of Tsfat were in harmony with nature. The four cups of wine symbolised the changing colours of the seasons, especially the wild flowers. Over the winter months the light-coloured crocuses blossom, then the pink cyclamens and the brightly coloured anemones, buttercups and poppies appear in the spring.

Other countries in the Middle East celebrate a local arbour day.

The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the Arab Republic of Egypt and the Republic of Malta, celebrate Arbour Day on the 15th of January every year.

 

Have a good weekend.

 

Beni,            9th of January,2023.

 

 

THE TRUTH WILL OUT 

The Guardian’s foreign news sector has an ‘Explainer” column written for the benefit of readers less familiar with the Middle East.

Reporting for the column, Oliver Holmes explained what has caused the recent outburst of violence in our region.

“Deadly attacks in recent days raise fear of spiralling bloodshed…. “Israel launched one of its deadliest operations in years in the occupied West Bank, sending soldiers on an unusually fierce raid to kill militants stationed in the Jenin refugee camp. Ten Palestinians, mostly gunmen, but also two civilians, including a 61-year-old woman, were killed.

The attack sparked back-and-forth violence, including the exchange of rocket fire between the Hamas-run Gaza Strip and Israel. On Friday evening, January 27 a Palestinian gunman killed seven Israelis outside a synagogue in East Jerusalem. It was the deadliest Palestinian attack in the city in years.”

Oliver Holmes clearly intimates a connection between the IDF raid in the Jenin refugee camp and the East Jerusalem synagogue massacre.

Other foreign news outlets also linked the two attacks.

Further to that, Reuters quoted remarks made by Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov that appeared to draw an equivalence between the to two events.

“Sources in Israel's foreign ministry said the language from Russia's top diplomat failed to reflect the difference between a raid in Jenin that targeted Islamic Jihad terrorists and a terrorist attack on civilians outside a synagogue in Jerusalem. 

It’s not a cycle, it’s a one-way conflict in which the Iran-backed Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) stockpiles weapons and threatens Israel from places like Jenin. There’s no cycle, it’s Israelis trying to pre-empt the group from expanding and carrying out attacks.

Furthermore, the attack in Jerusalem, carried out by one perpetrator who targeted Jewish civilians, is not part of a cycle.

The “cycle” cliché is problematic because it is trotted out almost every day regardless of the facts. The UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process condemned a “cycle of violence” on January 26 and back on January 18 France’s mission to the UN also said the “cycle of violence” should end. January 18 was even before the Jenin raid and the Jerusalem attack.

Foreign news outlets frequently use “laundered language” when referring to Palestinian terrorists. They are described as militants, gunmen or forces, rarely are they called terrorists.

It’s important to clarify that various Israeli elite security units operate in the Jenin area almost every night in an ongoing effort to thwart Palestinian terrorist activity.

These routine pre-dawn raids usually warrant no more than a brief mention. “The unusually fierce raid” that Oliver Holmes referred to, differed from other raids in that it took place after sunrise when more people where up and about. I don’t know why this particular raid was carried out ‘so late.’ I doubt if it was a mishap or a command error.

Jenin is no more than 7-8 km as the crow flies, from Ein Harod. Whenever the border crossing is open to commuters, our Arab neighbours in the villages nearby shop in Jenin where everything is much cheaper.

However, the refugee camp adjacent to Jenin is definitely not a bargain shopping venue. It’s a dense urban complex of narrow winding alleys where Palestinian terrorists are liable to lurk around every bend in the road, on every rooftop and behind every open window.

The various Israeli elite security units carry out their nightly raids with pinpoint accuracy homing in on a targeted building or even on one of its rooms.

I have mentioned Jenin many times in the past. In May last year I wrote. “The conflicting accounts of the shooting of Al-Jazeera reporter Shireen Abu Akleh during an IDF incursion in Jenin on May 11 brought to mind another Jenin-related incident that occurred 20 years ago. I mention it because I played a minor part in the incident’s public relations (PR) aspect.

The film “Jenin-Jenin” directed by Mohammed Bakri a well-known Israeli Arab actor was screened long after ‘the dust had settled’ in the Jenin refugee camp. Bakri made the film in order to tell what he called “the Palestinian truth” about the "Battle of Jenin”, a clash between the IDF and Palestinians in April 2002. Often translated as “The Massacre in Jenin”

     Mohammed Bakri

A month after 18 Israelis were killed in two separate attacks, and a few days after a suicide bombing in Netanya killed 30 people and injured 140 others, the  IDF launched “Operation Defensive Shield.” a large-scale incursion by IDF units in the West Bank. It was particularly intense in the Jenin refugee camp where Palestinian terrorist groups operated from.  

The IDF refused to allow journalists and human rights organisations into the camp for "safety reasons" during the fighting. The closure led to a rapid cycle of rumours that a massacre had occurred. Jenin remained sealed for days after the raid. Stories of civilians being buried alive in their homes as they were demolished, and of smouldering buildings covering crushed bodies, spread throughout the Arab world. Various casualty figures circulated; a senior Palestinian official accused Israel of massacring more than 500 people in the camp. The closure remained in force and knowing that its findings were a foregone conclusion, Israel wouldn't allow a UN fact-finding mission into the refugee camp.

Notwithstanding the closure, Mohammed Bakri managed to slip past the barrier after the fighting and film interviews with residents of the Jenin refugee camp. The result was the film Jenin, Jenin featuring a range of testimonies that suggested a massacre had indeed occurred. Bakri gave voice to the perspective of Palestinians which would not reach the media due to the sealing of the city; as a result, he chose not to interview Israeli officials for the film.

Later, Human Rights Watch investigations found "no evidence to sustain claims of massacres or large-scale extrajudicial executions by the IDF in the Jenin refugee camp."

Nevertheless, various spokesmen, human rights organisations, and foreign journalists accused Israel of conducting a civilian massacre.

After a few screenings, the film was banned by the Israeli Film Ratings Board on the premise that it was libellous and might offend the public. The Tel Aviv and Jerusalem Cinematheques in Israel showed Bakri's film despite the ban.

Bakri took the ban to court and the Supreme Court of Israel overturned the decision. According to Supreme Court Judge Dalia Dorner: "The fact that the film includes lies is not enough to justify a ban," she implied that it is up to viewers to interpret what they see,

While Mohammed Bakri was filming Jenin, Jenin, BBC TV and radio crews waiting for permission to enter the Jenin refugee camp were staying at Ein Harod’s “Country Guest House.” (About 8km as the crow flies from Jenin). Frustrated by the press lockout and reluctant to go home empty-handed, they tried to interview the manager of the guesthouse, who in turn called me to help him. By the time I arrived at the guesthouse the TV camera crew had left, but the radio crew greeted me warmly, set up their recording equipment and began the interview which was broadcasted the following day on BBC radio’s morning news slot.

Scrolling up, almost to the present day, a news item published by Middle East Eye (MEE) dated 24 November caught my eye despite the fact the London based news website and its editor David Hearst are decidedly unfriendly toward Israel: - “Israel's Supreme Court rejected an appeal made by Palestinian actor and director Mohammad Bakri in a defamation and libel case filed against him by an Israeli soldier.

The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Lod District Court, which in January 2021 ordered Bakri to pay $55,000 for defamation and $15,000 for legal expenses to Nissim Magnagi, an Israeli officer who appears in the documentary film Jenin,Jenin,.

The court has also seized copies of the film, which was banned last year from screening in all Israeli cinemas.

The 11-day Israeli incursion resulted in the death of 52 Palestinians and the destruction of almost 300 homes. In the same incursion  23 IDF  soldiers were killed.

Magnagi appears in four seconds of the documentary Jenin, Jenin standing next to a military jeep with two other soldiers during the IDF incursion

In 2017, Magnagi sued Bakri for libel and defamation of character His case was the second one filed against Bakri for defamation, after the first case was dismissed in 2003.

Bakri told Arab48 news website that he does not regret making the film.

"If I could go back in time, I would reshoot the film to expose the inhumane crimes committed by the Israeli army in its invasion of the heroic Jenin camp," Bakri said.

He added that the Supreme Court's decision, which is final and could not be contested legally, attempted to accuse the film of fabricating eyewitness stories of the invasion.

"As an artist, I did not interfere in the content of the testimonies or guide them, and this is the truth that the occupation does not want to hear because it exposes its crimes. Jenin, Jenin does not feature commentary or voice-over but leaves Palestinians to tell their story of the 11 days of carnage.” Bakri said.

Palestinian claims that 500 people were killed during the 2002 Israeli incursion were dismissed by a UN report, which supported accounts that stated 52 Palestinians and 23 Israeli soldiers were killed. Israeli authorities rejected claims that the Israeli Army had committed a massacre in the camp, although they did prevent relief workers and reporters from entering, on the grounds that booby traps rigged by Palestinians were a serious concern. Palestinians later acknowledged that explosives were indeed placed throughout the camp.

Well, after all the truth will out.

 

Have a good weekend.

 

Beni,               2^nd of February, 2023.