How pro-Palestinians manipulate facts

In order to better understand the systematic neglect of such crime, it helps to divide these pro-Palestinians into a number of categories.

By
August 8, 2019 22:10
4 minute read.
MARGOT WALLSTROM

MARGOT WALLSTROM. (photo credit: REUTERS)

The two dominant Palestinian parties are institutionally criminal. Hamas, which rules Gaza, aims for the genocide of Israelis, even though from time to time its leaders try to hide it. Fatah, the leading party in the Palestinian Authority, glorifies the murderers of Israeli civilians. The PA also rewards them or their families financially.

A few decades ago, most decent Westerners – not national-socialists, fascists or communists – would still have considered this abhorrent or one or more of its synonyms – detestable, repugnant, disgusting, repulsive, hateful, heinous or scandalous.

Many Western pro-Palestinians, politicians and others, in their verbal attacks on Israel – a democracy that fights against its terrorist enemies with one hand tied behind its back because of international law – do not give Palestinian crime much, if any, attention. Doing so would undermine their anti-Israelism.

In order to better understand the systematic neglect of such crime, it helps to divide these pro-Palestinians into a number of categories.

The most extreme are supporters of the genocidal terrorist movements. Yet it is rare that they say so. One exception is British Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, who has called Hamas and Hezbollah his “brothers” and “friends.”

A second category is protectors of murderers. One finds them in various parts of the Left. One person in this category is the socialist foreign minister of Sweden, Margot Wallstrom. She asked for an international investigation into the killing of terrorists by Israel during murderous attacks. As she did not do so for any other country that killed terrorists in such attacks, this was a typical act of antisemitism according to the definition of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. Sweden’s vote in favor of this definition as part of the board of that organization enabled its acceptance.

A third category can be called “the concealers” of Palestinian crime. They verbally attack Israel and remain silent about the huge criminality of the Palestinians. The UK has become an easy place to identify senior people in this category. One is former Labour minister Clare Short. In a letter to the Financial Times, she wrote that the root of the antisemitism problem in Labour is the “growing awareness of the injustice and suffering inflicted by Israel on the Palestinians.” There was not a word in the letter about the institutional criminality and murder support of the leading Palestinian parties which has permeated their society. In the past, Short has also invited then-Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal to address British parliamentarians. Only a technical glitch prevented it.

A fourth category of pro-Palestinians is the minimizers of institutional Palestinian crime. Labour is again a good source of examples. Former minister Peter Hain, together with Daniel Levy, wrote an article in openDemocracy in which they mention the “abhorrent treatment of Palestinians by successive Israeli governments.” They gave some attention not only to the rights of the Palestinians, but also to the rights of Israel. The word “abhorrent” or any of its synonyms did not appear in the lengthy article concerning the Palestinians. To be fair, one should mention that there are also socialists who explicitly say that rewarding murder of Israeli civilians is horrible.

Quite a few people in these four categories make false claims that they are in favor of human rights, freedom, justice and morality. They are mainly in favor of a double moral standard.

The attitudes of these different categories of manipulators of facts should cause an important debate that is rarely if ever held: To what extent are these four categories of pro-Palestinians de facto allies, supporters or collaborators in crime? Some sessions should specifically be devoted to progressives.

THE ESTABLISHMENT of these categories of pro-Palestinians also provides the tools to assess where specific individuals stand.

Organizations where one can easily find a number of people who fit one of the above four categories are European left-wing parties, including socialist ones. This is far from limited to the Nordic countries. It is the case even in Germany, where leading politicians should have learned from its abhorrent past. In 2012, for instance, then-general secretary of the socialist SPD, Andrea Nahles, confirmed that Fatah and the SPD have much in common.

Yet another place where the above categorization is important is the Democratic Party in the United States.

Bernie Sanders claims that one should “treat the Palestinian people with a kind of respect and dignity they deserve.” He has not explained how that fits with institutional Palestinian criminality. Sanders has probably never mentioned the latter.

Elizabeth Warren is another presidential candidate who merits attention during her primaries campaign. Also part-time antisemitic Congress members Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib and more recently Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez should be followed and categorized.

Media can also be analyzed according to these tools. It is not difficult to expose, for instance, The New York Times or a leading German national daily, the Suddeutsche Zeitung.

There remains one big question. Why does this categorization have to be done here in an op-ed? Where are the Israeli prime minister, the government and ministries? Why have they not long ago adopted this approach to expose the false morality of many pro-Palestinians? Doing so would supply Israeli embassies abroad with an easy tool to uncover these manipulators.


Related Content

Jammu and kashmir 248.88
August 19, 2019
South Asia, Kashmir and importance of its resolution

By REHMAN BUTT

Cookie Settings