|
NZ
Newspaper and Media Responses
TVNZ
Sunday Program (Sunday, 1 November 2009): ACROSS THE
DIVIDE
Thank you for raising awareness of the controversy over land
ownership disputes as well as the perceived bias against Palestinians
in obtaining building permit approvals in Jerusalem.
The resolution of land and property disputes in Jerusalem
is clearly distressing. Unfortunately perception, even the
perception held by the UN, and reality may not coincide with
the anecdotes of those interviewed for the program.
According to the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, the
numbers of building permits applied for and approval rates
are similar for both Arabs and Jews. The 4-6 week waiting
time for approvals is also similar for both Jews and Arabs.
Both Jews and Arabs pay an identical processing fee.
If ethnic cleansing is being attempted by Jews in Jerusalem
then why, according to Wikipedia, has the proportion of Arabs
increased from 27% to 32% since 1967?
The
Press (Tuesday, 13 January 2009): HAMAS THE AGGRESSOR
In
2008, 2900 missiles were fired from Gaza on Israel.
What other nation would put up with such terrorism for so
long without responding?
The
Palestinians wanted Gaza for part of their state and got it.
Israel pulled out completely but the rockets kept coming.
This makes Hamas the aggressor.
The
Press (Friday, 9 January 2009): SEE THROUGH HAMAS
What
kind of leadership does Hamas show when it advocates a campaign
of violence against citizens of Israel, and when that state
acts to protect its citizens, they hide within civilian hospitals,
mosques, schools, and even use ambulances for transporting
their armed men?
When
we are aware of these tactics, why do we wonder about high
numbers of civilian casualties?
Why
did we not criticise this leadership for firing 329 rockets
at civilian populations during a six-month ceasefire, yet
we are aroused to strident protest when our inaction leads
to armed conflict?
What
viable options are available to Israel to stop these attacks
when non-violent measures such as land concessions, self-governance,
settler removals, and economic sanctions have been ineffective?
Who
thinks that a decison to send troops into a highly built up
urban area is lightly made?
Hamas
is using its casualties to manipulate opinions.
The
world can be compassionate, but to the extent that we cannot
see through Hamas?
The
Press (Thursday, 8 January 2009): CAN'T COMPARE GAZA
TO THE WARSAW GHETTO
John
Minto's assertion that Israel has orchestrated the equivalent
of the Warsaw Ghetto in Gaza just doesn't stand up to simple
scrutiny (Jan 6).
Gazans
have huge amounts of humanitarian aid, no threat of gas chambers,
the right to self-determination, an unending supply of arms
(via tunnels and Iranian imports), means to build a vibrant
economy, high international visibility - thanks to the media.
The
Jewish population in Poland had none of these. The Warsaw
Ghetto uprising was a fight for immediate survival.
As
for Israel being an apartheid state, Gaza and the other Arab
nations fit that description more aptly.
Consider
the regions allowing Jews to be a part of their communities.
The Arab states have either run off their Jewish citizens
or keep them in abject poverty through persecution.
If
Gaza put down its weapons there would be peace. If Israel
put down its weapons, Gaza, Iran and company would seize the
opportunity to wipe out the Jewish state.
The
Press (Monday, 25 June 2007): CLINGING TO VIOLENCE
Your
cartoon of June 18 is misleading. it implies that Israel
has caused the latest conflict by playing Fatah off against
Hamas. Even worse, it also implied that it hoped such
violence would last for ever.
In
fact, Hamas's determination to cling to violence as a means
of furthering its political ends has caused this latest conflict.
This is a struggle between moderate Muslims trying to build
a democratic and peaceful state and those who envision an
oppressive police state based on fear and repression.
Who
wants to live in a society where one can be threatened with
beheading for not wearing a veil?
Prime
Minister Helen Clark is right when she says to the United
Nations that conflict in the Middle East persists because
the root causes have not been addressed. The trick is
to discern them correctly.
The
Press (Monday, 26 March 2007): SELF INFLICTED SUFFERING
Richard Harman says "most of the Middle East's problems
arise from the (Zionist) regime's humiliation of Palestinians
since 1948 and its land grab in 1967 (Feb 16).
Before 1948, the United Nations determined that the Muslim
Arabs and the Jews had deep and ancient claims to the same
territory. Barring either people from the land would be an
injustice. Both groups were invited to build a new nation
together. The Muslim Arabs rejected that.
Seeking an alternative solution, the UN proposed partitioning
the land into two states, locating borders so that potential
conflict and displacement would be minimised, but there was
too much prejudice to allow this plan to be accepted.
Notwithstanding their disagreement, Israel was established
by UN resolution. The Muslim Arabs in neighbouring countries
declared war and lost. Subsequent wars added to their humiliation.
Over the years, nearly all Israeli peace offers have been
met with rejection or violence. It has been Palestinian prejudice
against Jews that has resulted in their suffering.
The
Press (Friday, 21 July 2006) Israel: a just cause
New Zealanders should become better informed before jumping
to conclusions about the Middle East conflict, writes BARRY
THOMPSON.
Jews: a name that draws sharp reaction, from respect and honour,
to paranoia and hatred.
Yet Jews have contributed some of the greatest advances in
art, music, literature, legislation, philosophy, science,
technology and religion. The world has been greatly enriched
because of their existence.
Nevertheless, controversy has never strayed far from their
door. Few groups evoke such high feelings and consequently
it is difficult to sort fact from fiction.
New Zealand is a long way from the Middle Eastern conflict
and together with the complexities surrounding the dispute
between Israel, the Palestinians and its neighbours, it is
easy to get the wrong impression.
The NZ Friends of Israel Association was formed over 30 years
ago to build friendship and goodwill between New Zealanders,
Jews and Israelis through contact, education and discussion.
Being friends does not mean that we agree with everything
that Israel says or does; and when the occasion requires it,
we do not hesitate to directly express our disagreement.
However, we have noticed several recurring false beliefs regarding
the Middle Eastern situation. For example, that Israel is
an illegal state or Israel does not want a negotiated peace.
So we have decided to enter the debate by raising awareness
of the facts that reveal a different context and perspective
to the news we see.
For example, each time Israel has made significant concessions
as a result of peace negotiations, the Palestinians have met
the Israelis with renewed violence. Why?
Hamas is first and foremost a religious organisation. Its
name is an acronym for the Arabic phrase that means Islamic
Resistance Movement. Its charter states categorically that
it is an Islamic organisation first.
It also states that all Jews must be hunted down and even
creation will assist in their doom. They quote the Koran to
justify this belief.
A land that is no longer under Sharia Law is an affront to
many Muslims. Some will not rest until its jurisdiction is
restored.
Realising that Israel cannot be taken in one step, the Palestine
Liberation Organisation, a predecessor of Hamas, developed
a plan in 1974 to take Israel gradually, piece by piece. Each
new piece gained would become a new base from which the war
can be waged.
We see this unfolding before our eyes. It explains the unrelenting
violence despite the Gaza pullout.
A final negotiated peace would mean giving up Hamas's religious
vision. This dynamic provides the foundational context for
the entire conflict.
Jews are disproportionately represented amongst Nobel
Prize winners. The world is a better and richer place for
having them in it. Who will stand by them?
Some believe that taking Israel is but one step in
making the ideal of Islamic law being the paramount authority
in every land and they are prepared to make it happen by force.
Thus we see the philosophical mechanism by which the Western
world is also threatened.
One of the terrorists who were planning to bomb the New York
subway admitted that he was trained in a Palestinian camp
located in Lebanon. The problem Israel is facing is spreading.
Some New Zealanders hope that if we leave them alone then
they will leave us alone. History suggests that this is not
a realistic hope.
Many New Zealanders love to hate the United States. Whatever
we may say about the US, its financial aid and political backing
has certainly assisted Israel from being carved up by its
neighbouring countries long ago.
New Zealanders love to favour the underdog and the pictures
we see often reinforce this perception that the Palestinians
and their allies need all the support they can get. We have
seen that this is a flawed but nevertheless powerful view.
Thus debates often become a one-sided criticism of Israel,
and Palestinian terrorism is even compared favourably with
the efforts of the French Resistance. This dishonours the
French heroic efforts because they never indiscriminately
targeted civilians.
The urge to favour the underdog also fuels the accusation
that Israel's response to the recent kidnappings is disproportionate.
Israel is not just fighting its terrorist enemies. They are
but proxies for its old nation state foes: Syria and Iran.
As New Zealanders we need to read widely, try to think independently
and dispassionately and address the facts.
Develop a questioning mind. Do not jump to conclusions quickly.
Seek out other inquirers. Learn about Middle Eastern culture.
Then, speak up for justice. Talk to your friends. Contact
your local MP. Write to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Write
to your paper.
The Jews have given us Moses, Jesus Christ, Albert Einstein,
Chagall, Johan Strauss, George Gershwin, and Bob Dylan, to
name but a few.
More recently, Jewish technologists have contributed to the
development of Microsoft Windows and Intel chips.
Jews are disproportionately represented amongst Nobel Prize
winners. The world is a better and richer place for having
them in it. Who will stand by them?
* Barry Thompson is the president of NZ Friends of Israel,
www.nzfoi.org.nz. This article was written by him and the
Friends of Israel committee.
The Press (13/7/2006, Page A8) Supporting Underdogs
John
Minto (July 10) is right in saying that we need to understand
more about this conflict. However, his synopsis of the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict omits key facts.
The
UN declared that both ethnic groups had long and deep historical
and cultural claims to the area, which were inseparable. This
is why a two-state solution was proposed. He is right in claiming
that a Palestinian state has still not been established after
58 years. But he is wrong when he implies that this is Israel's
fault.
In
fact, this came about because the Palestinians chose to fight
an all or nothing conflict rather than build a state. In making
analogies with past apartheid states, he neglects to mention
that many ethnic Palestinians are Israeli citizens, others
sit in the Israeli Parliament and many serve in the Israeli
Army. He also omits that the neighbouring countries deported
all the Jewish citizens.
He
says New Zealanders like to stand alongside underdogs, we
agree, but only when they are in the right.
The
Press (11/7/2006) Answer These
Your
editorial (July 4) is unbalanced. It analyses and criticises
Israel's actions and reactions without making equal analysis
of the Palestinians. Here are some of the questions you should
have asked.
Why
have the Palestinians indiscriminantly fired over 1000 Qassam
rockets in 10 months into Israel, ever since the Israeli total
withdrawal from Gaza last year?
Having
got all the territory conquered by Israel in 1967 free of
Jews, as they say they have so long desired, and with their
own elected government in place, why do they not begin state
building - providing homes, schools, health services and infrastructure
- with the millions of dollars of external aid flowing in
mostly from the West?
The
answers to these questions will go a long way toward explaining
why the Israeli efforts to rescue Corporal Gilad Shalit are
not overkill.
The
Press (4/7/2006, Page A8) Deaths Minimised
While
writing about the recent deaths of Palestinian civilians,
John Gower (June 26) says that committing the attack "in
an area where civilians were located... shows a disregard
for life and respect for the Palestinians that is fuelling
the situation in part".
Recently,
the UN reported that over three weeks 176 Palestinian rockets
were launched toward Israel without any regard as to whether
their targets were military or civilian. Understandably, the
Israeli citizens have called on their defence forces to protect
them.
Unfortunately,
the Palestinians regularly conduct their rocket launchings
amongst civilians. They have even shot Palestinian farmers
who have tried to prevent them from launching rocket attacks.
Furthermore,
using women and children as shields in battles is common.
Under these circumstances although terrorists are being targeted
by Israel, civilian casualties can be minimised but not wholly
eliminated.
Dominion
Post (15/5/2006, Page B6) Israeli Friend Replies
“J
C Ross (Letters, April 27) says “the killings of Palestinians
have gone on as if their lives count for nothing”. Untrue.
The Israeli military police launch criminal investigations
against its soldiers if they are suspected of killing non-combatants
in military operations. Since last November, such units have
had to submit their battle diaries and photos within 48 hours.
An
investigation is launched based on military reports from the
field, complaints from the public, human rights organisations
and media reports. Interestingly, I don’t hear of any court
martials being held by Palestinians against their own combatants.
D
J Robinson (Letters, same day) states that “the Palestinians...
can... like any living creature trapped by oppressors, resist
by any and every means possible”, implying that their terrorist
attacks are justified and they have few other viable alternatives.
But
there is another, more constructive alternative: peaceful
negotiations. In the past, Israel has shown that making significant
land concessions in return for peace is possible.
Ehud
Barak offered the entire West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
Offers such as this are possible again, but only if Hamas
renounces violence.” (top)
NZ
Herald (6/5/2006): Not all UN Resolutions are right
and noble
Sir/Madam,
J B of Orewa (NZ Herald, 6/5/2006, page A20) says that “the
United States and Britain are trying to use United Nations
resolutions to validate sanctions and even force against Iran.
This would have some credibility fi they also upheld the plethora
of UN resolutions against Israel.” J B’s comments only
make sense if UN resolutions can all be considered to be right
and noble. However first hand exposure to UN decision making
processes led Jane Norton to write (“UN imbalance thwarts
aim of moral fairness”, NZ Herald, 7/4/2006, page 13), “sadly,
it is now hard to see the UN as anything other than a vehicle
for manipulation by member states with their own political
agendas.” This manipulation means that interested observers
must not give their support to UN resolutions blindly but
must look to see the pattern of motions being put forward
and the subsequent voting behind resolutions before giving
their support to them. We suggest that a high count
of resolutions against Israel is more an indication of the
level of prejudice held by a wide number of countries rather
than a symptom of acute moral failure on the part of Israel.
(top)
NZ
Herald (3/5/2006): All or nothing attitudes have led
to trouble
Sir/Madam,
in Barnett’s article “Suicide bombers follow a morality of
their own” (NZ Herald, 3/5/2006, page A15), she says that
“because their methods are repugnant to us, it is easy to
forget that suicide bombers in... Israel, ...are fighting
a war for what they see as their homeland.” We haven’t
forgetten. Nor has the UN. Nor has Israel. After extensive
investigation the UN concluded that the Arabs and the Jews
both had deep, long standing and legitimate claims to the
same land that could never be satisfactorily met by giving
sovereignty to either one or the other. Consequently
a two nation state solution was proposed with partitions designed
to minimise the potential for conflict. The Jews accepted
it. The Arab leadership rejected it, went to war and lost.
It is the Arab leaderships’ persistent “all or nothing” attitude
that has led to today’s situation and perpetuated this matter
at great expense to all. Renouncing violence and opening negotiations
is still a viable option. (top)
Herald
on Sunday, (9/4/2006): Untrue Assertions
Matt
McCarten makes many assertions that are untrue: “it’s sacrilege
to say anything that isn’t fawning support for the Israeli
State.” Untrue: New Zealand stood up for its sovereign
rights when it deported two Israelis for identity fraud in
2004.
“The
creation of Israel was based on the theft and occupation of
Palestine.” Untrue: Israel was created by UN Resolution
and was legitimate under international law. Much of
the land was purchased from absentee landholders and real
estate speculators.
“The
new Hamas leadership is painted as unreasonable and not interested
in peace because they object to Israel pinching the best land
in the West Bank for themselves and leaving the barren bits
for the locals.” Untrue: Hamas is considered unreasonable
because of their commitment to violence, as is evident in
their suicide bombings of Israeli citizens. Their charter
provides an interesting insight: Article 7 mandates
literally hunting Jews to death. (top)
Waikato
Times (7/4/2006): Israel has shown willingness to negotiate
Gwynne
Dyer (Waikato Times, March 25) asserts Israel was unwilling
to negotiate fairly with any of the previous, more reasonable
incarnations of the Palestinian leadership.
This
is untrue. Israel has repeatedly engaged in negotiations
with the Palestinian people.
Under
Ehud Barak, Israel was prepared to concede a considerable
amount of territory as part of its negotiations for peace.
By
turning down an offer with concessions of such magnitude,
the people who consider themselves Palestinians showed their
desire for a negotiated peace was and is disengenuous.
Furthermore,
they have shown trading territory for security and peace is
not possible.
Consequently,
Israel must take action to ensure the security and safety
of its citizens before re-engaging in negotiations for peace.
(top)
NZ
Herald, (8/2/2006): Israeli justice reverred
Sir,
in your article “Too soft on own radicals”, NZH, 8/2/2006,
World section, page 1) the director of the Israeli counterintelligence
and internal security service is quoted to believe that the
Israeli justice system is “favoured towards Israeli militants
over Arabs held for similar cases”.
One
should also bear in mind that the New York Times has reported
that: “One of the most unusual aspects of Israeli law
is the rapid access that petitioners, including Palestinians,
can gain to Israel’s highest court.” Furthermore, Raji
Sourani, the director of the Palestinian Center for Human
Rights in Gaza, says that he is amazed by the high standards
of [Israel’s] legal systems.” (top)
The
Press, (3/2/2006): Majority of Israel has never endorsed terrorism
With
reference to G W Hunt’s comments (“Israeli Terrorists”, page
A8, Friday, 3 February 2006), Hunt implies that Hamas should
not be denigrated as terrorists because Israelis have also
participated in such activities.
The
majority of Israeli society has never endorsed terrorism.
After Bernadotte’s assassination the Stern Gang was subjected
to a crackdown and disbanded, “largely due to public condemnation”
according to Schroenberg (Schroenberg, Schira (2005).
The Assassination of Count Bernadotte. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/folke.html.
Downloaded 4/2/2006.)
This
is in quite stark contrast to Palestinian society where video
footage of crowds publicly dancing and celebrating the dismembering
of two Israeli soldiers with their bare hands vividly comes
to mind (Ramallah, 12 October 2000). Furthermore, as
far as we are aware no Israeli terrorist organization has
ever set genocide or ethnic cleansing as part of its objective;
unlike Hamas who have vowed to kill all Jews (see Article
7, Hamas Charter). (top)
The
Press (1/2/2006): Israel’s existence based on international
law
In
response to Mr Harman’s comments (“Birds of a Feather”, The
Press, Feb 1, Page A16) “Osama bin Laden represents a growing
band of Muslims infuriated after 58 years of humiliating Israeli
military occupation of Palestine,…”:
We
should like to point out that there is no military occupation
that has lasted 58 years.
The
Balfour Declaration recognising the establishment of a “Jewish
home in Palestine” became a binding matter of international
law when the League of Nations made it part of the British
Mandate.
Furthermore,
the UN adopted a resolution for the establishment of an independent
state of Israel in the Palestine on 29 November 1947.
Therefore
Israel’s existence is firmly grounded in international law
and not based on any “military occupation”. (top)
|
