By: Paula R. Stern
B.A., Barnard College, 1982
When a college of international renown hires a professor of questionable ethics and scholarly practice, it is to be hoped that the college will realize its error before reaching the stage where it would offer that professor tenure. This was the case many Barnard graduates hoped to find themselves in a few months ago when protests were made over the offer to grant Nadia Abu El Haj tenure.
Abu El Haj is not an anthropologist in the tradition of Ruth Benedict and Margaret Mead, scholars who went into the field, learned the language, and interacted with the people they wrote about. Nadia Abu El Haj does none of this. She has written an anthropology of the role of archaeological knowledge in Israeli society based almost exclusively on published sources in English. She doesn’t exhibit any familiarity with the vast literature in Hebrew on the subjects she wrote about, or give any evidence that she has a working knowledge of Hebrew, a critical flaw in someone supposedly determined to write a scholarly work on anthropology and archeology in Israel.
To make matters even more absurd, her anthropology of Israeli archaeology is based on a single, one-day visit to a single dig, visits to a handful of archaeological museums in Jerusalem, and a standard tourist walking tour of the Old City - Abu El Haj cites the walking tour guide repeatedly. Her great scholarly work…is limited to one book – her dissertation, hypocritically called “Facts on the Ground.”
Abu El Haj scorn for evidence-based scholarship is explicit. In her own words, she writes within a scholarly tradition that "Reject(s) a positivist commitment to scientific methods…" Rather, her work is "rooted in… post structuralism, philosophical critiques of foundationalism, Marxism and critical theory… and developed in response to specific postcolonial political movements."
Barnard’s administration rejected comments from many alumnae who protested Barnard’s offering tenure to this young, clearly biased woman.
The protests were not based on the fact that Abu El Haj is a Palestinian American, but on her inability to follow correct scholarly procedures and actually document anything of truth or value. "Abu El Haj has written a flimsy and supercilious book, which does no justice to either her putative subject or the political agenda she wishes to advance. It should be avoided." So says, Alexander H. Joffe, Lecturer in Archaeology, Purchase College, SUNY who has dug for several seasons at Meggido, Israel.
Other experts have been equally harsh: "Alas, a detailed reading reveals that this book is a highly ideologically driven political manifesto, with a glaring lack of attention both to details and to the broader context. So says, Aren Maeir, Professor of Archaeology, Bar Ilan University and one of the most distinguished archaeologists now digging in Israel.
“The politicization of archaeology is nothing new. What is new in Facts on the Ground, is the length to which author Nadia Abu El-Haj of the Columbia University Anthology faculty has gone to ignore, distort, revise, imply and assert the inaccuracy of historical fact. Her political motive is to deconstruct the legitimacy of the State of Israel.” So says, Dr. Sondra M. Rubenstein, PhD in International Relations, Columbia University and currently a Distinguished Professor at Haifa University. Dr. Rubenstein continues “Facts on the Ground reverses standard academic practice. It is highly politicized where it should be disinterested, and, worse, the author begins with a an apparently dogmatic belief, that archaeology is a process "through which ‘facts' are actually made and agreed upon," (p. 9) to support the inherently illegitimate "precise claims and conceptions of Jewish nationhood,"(p.6) and goes about picking and choosing evidence to support her beliefs.”
An international campaign among Barnard graduates was ignored. We were called “outsiders” because we dared to express our view that it is morally unacceptable and completely unethical to accept someone of El-Haj’s obviously low quality.
“Nadia El Haj's work is a thinly veiled attempt to thrust her political agenda on Barnard by hiding it in the guise of academic freedom and terminology” I wrote to the Tenure Committee several months ago. “She denies me my past in an attempt to steal my future. She justifies the desecration of archeological sites by Arabs while falsely accusing respected Israeli scientists of flagrantly and intentionally demolishing historical sites. She absurdly attempts to suggest that the Jews destroyed Jerusalem in the year 70 CE, in direct contradiction to the only historian who was there at the time.”
Despite the many letters and calls, Barnard voted to give Nadia El Haj tenure and now the process moves to Columbia University for approval. If Columbia denies the deal, El Haj will not get tenure; if they uphold Barnard’s decision, she will. This is where Barnard’s shame turns into Columbia’s dirty deal.
Joseph Massad is a professor of in Columbia’s Middle East department. According to reliable sources, “Prof. Massad has openly supported Islamist terrorism against Israel, including suicide bombings of civilians. In his class on Israeli-Palestinian politics, Massad openly engages in conspiracy theories, teaching students about the connections between Nazis, Rothchilds, international bankers, and a host of other nefarious characters… Massad has also come close to belittling, if not denying the Holocaust outright.” In short, Joseph Massad is a major political embarrassment, and he too is up for tenure.
Some would argue that Abu El Haj is not a major political embarrassment because she has not attracted a fraction of the attention that Massad has. So, Columbia has cut a deal with the out-going president of Barnard in which Barnard and Columbia will grant tenure to El Haj in exchange for financial backing. This money will go towards the financing of a new student center replacing MacIntosh Hall where the fundraising is not going well. This tenure, despite whatever “small” controversy will result, will give Columbia the political cover to deny tenure to Joseph Massad. The expected loss in income from horrified and furious alumae will be compensated for by the grant from Columbia.
By voting to grant tenure to Nadia Abu El Haj, my alma mater has chosen to give one of its highest honors to a woman who rejects the principle that scholarly research must be based on evidence. We are not outsiders - no matter what anyone claims, even the outgoing President of Barnard. We are the ones who attended Barnard, the ones who graduated from there and have hopefully gone on to make lives that better the name of the alma mater we love.
We have the right - even the obligation - to speak out now. This was never an issue for the scholars alone to decide because scholarship was left behind when "Professor" Nadia Abu El Haj turned what should have been a scholarly work into a political tool to get her agenda published.
Columbia’s dirty deal has to be stopped.
If you are a Columbia graduate, a Barnard graduate…or simply someone who believes in the ethics of academia, now is the time to protest. Write to Columbia University, call the administration, write to your local newspapers. Joseph Massad may be an embarrassment to Columiba, but Abu El Haj is a disgrace to Barnard.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Saturday, July 21, 2007
BMJ Proposes a Boycott of Israeli Academic Institutions
Joining a few other British institutions, the BMJ is pollings its members and others as to whether it would be proper to institute a boycott against Israel. At present, the answer is overwhelmingly NO.
Reasons cited include:
With little hope that the organization will actually listen, Setting the Record Straight lists its own readers' comments in hopes that others will read and remember...hatred and bias have no place in the world of intellect and academia. We challenge BMJ to remember and to examine their own reasons for pushing this boycott.
Should we consider a boycott of Israeli academic institutions?
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/335/7611/124
--------
Israel is foremost in the world in Medical innovation. Arab patients in Israeli hospitals are treated no differently from Israeli patients. In my hospital in Netanya Israel There are Arab doctors and nurses. There is no honest reason for a boycott, only hate.
--------
Most of the best and advanced research comes from the hard work and diligence that Israeli acedemia put out each year. Should we be foolish to ignore these hard working people, it would be the same as a dying man choosing to ignore a lifesaving heart surgery because of the race or creed of the surgeon operating on him. Personally, I am not a jew or an Israeli, but I have high regard for a nation of people who go up against terrorists every day and still find the time to produce the most qualified medical and technological research the world has to offer. They have the most Nobel Prizes then any other peoples of the world. Considering how small the Jewish nation is in comparison to the worlds population. I stand up for them and cheer them on. We should emulate them, not berate them or boycott the very foundations that they create to help us in our daily lives. It is like biting the hand that feeds us. A foolish move.
-----------
A boycott is a one sided solution to a two sided issue. If Israel is the only country the approach is being used against then the principle is racist/antisemitic.
----------
Why boycott Israel and not the many countries who are not observing Geneva conventions or are listed by the International Red Cross as not following human rights.
----------
Because a boycott of Israeli academic institutions is just plain wrong. It will be an anti-Semitic action by its nature if not in its intent. You would block those who agree with your political views as well as those who disagree with your views. If you want to boycott, then boycott based on principles. Boycott institutions from countries committing genocide like Sudan and Congo. Boycott institutions from countries that have unequal treatment for men and women - including beatings when women step out of line - like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the Gaza Strip. Boycott institutions from repressive regimes like Cuba, Russia, Belarus, Libya. Boycott institutions from countries that do not let non-ethnic natives become citizens like...Germany. Do you see how idiotic it is to boycott just Israel while ignoring the others.
---------
To single out Israeli academics among all the parties in the Middle-East conflict is unfair. Israel is the most Western of the countries in the region, and most sensitive to this type of boycott. But the behavior of Syria and Iran, and groups like Hezbollah and Hamas are far worse. The University and Colleges Union has no leverage against other groups and countries in the region- but that is no reason to single out Israeli academics.
---------
I cannot believe that people as highly educated as doctors and medical researchers, from Great Britain no less, could be so ignorant and malevolent as to boycott their Israeli colleagues. I am thoroughly disgusted. M. Grossman, Ph.D. Los Angeles, CA
---------
Israeli academics in general and the medical profession in Israel in particular have always worked to ensure the civil and human rights of Israelis and Palestinians whether Jew or Arab. Much of the news reported from Israel is inaccurate and any decision about a boycott would be based on misinformation and prejudice. If the BMJ were to restrict itself purely to medicine it would do more good for Arabs and Jews because when it comes to the hospital or the clinic all the patients are treated by all the doctors equally. Some of the doctors' knowledge does come from academic links and journals. Boycotting those links would just harm patients.
----------
I feel the boycott of Iraeli academics and academic institutions will not actually achieve anything. In many respects it appears to be anti-semetic - why pick on Israel when other countries commit far greater crimes against humanity (Zimbabwe, China, North Korea the USA to name a few). One needs to ask how much influence academics have over government. The answer is very little. Thus - a boycott will achieve nothing except to alienate those individuals in Israel who could make a real difference.
---------
Taking sides in a longstanding political and ideologic battle is not academic. It is pure and simple bias, hatred, and yes truly antisemitic (or more specifically anti-Jewish). Singly out Israel, the only real democracy (amid several nations which are fascist dictatorships that abuse their own people-including the palestinian authority and Hamas- deny their people any rights, threaten them with death or dismemberment if they speak anything but the party line, send their women and children to blow themselves up) Israel has done more for science, medicine, technology, the arts, advancing techniques that have saved lives than any other nation given its population size. IN addition, they have consistently tried to broach peace agreements-only to be met with more war, hatred and killing from their Arab and yes, muslim neighbors. Fundamental islam and wahabiism is at the forefront of this hatred and violence-perhaps that would be a better use of their boycott and their time to fight this growing movement in the world (they are the true enemies of a democratic world)
-------------
Because a boycott of Israeli academic institutions is antithetical to the principles of academic freedom and free discourse. To artificially suppress the opinion or viewpoint in an argument, conflict, or academic discussion is to render any resulting conclusion biased, unfair, and inaccurate. To boycott Israel in any way is to not only unduly push a particular political agenda, but to destroy any chance of fair representation in the political arena. The boycott also makes the base assumption that Israeli academics not only unconditionally support the actions of their government, but that they have some affect upon those actions and may play a controlling roll in them. To boycott Israeli academic institutions is to unfairly punish people who have little or nothing to do with the actions that the boycott seeks to protest. It also may cause undue harm to parties completely uninvolved in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. The advances of Israelis in the fields of medicine, computer technology, agriculture, and other peaceful, non-political spheres would be affected by an academic boycott. This may deprive the world of advances in these fields that may improve or even save lives.
---------------
yet again,the bmj uses its pages to allow a "debate" over the policies of israel,the only jewish state in the world. the idea of the academic boycott and all other boycotts by trade unions is a chance for those who want to destroy the only democratic country in the middle east. the arabs have failed to destroy it by force;that is still their stated aim and now we have the odious comparison of israel as an apartheid state.
if the boycotters had any any decency they would not use computers with intel chips made in israel,or use drugs developed in israel.
i am concerned that the bmj,a respectable scientific journal,has dumbed itself down to a poll that allows anyone to vote and to vote as often as one wants on a subject that does not deserve the publicity generated.
it would appear that the editor has not learned from the uproar caused by previous anti-israel and anti-jewish articles from derek summerfield et al (quoted yet again by hickey)
Competing interests: i am a jew and a doctor.i am sick of the likes of tom hickey being given a platform for their racist anti-semitic views in a respectable journal
------------------
Tom Hickey portrays a Palestinian nation which is subugated and oppressed. He paints an Israeli society where there is intimidation of anyone who dares oppose state policy. He glosses over genocides in Darfur and government policy intended at causing mass death by starvation in Zimbabwe. He places any equivocation of anti-Israelism and anti-semitism as an attempt to international stiffle debate. He uses these as his argument in favour of boycotting the academia of Israel and then tries to create a world in which this boycott would only affect institutions and not individuals.
Tom Hickey is clearly an articulate author who manges to constructively build his arguments into a natural conclusion.
Tom Hickey fails to acknowledge the huge amounts of international aid regularly passed to the Palestinians, more per head than any other UN recipient group. Tom Hickey fails to acknowledge that contributions to this aid was withehld by both the USA and EU for many years because of the abuse of this money to use it towards military objectives rather than the humanitarianism it was intended for.
Tom Hickey tries to portray Israeli society as intimidated against free speach by an authoritarian soviet style leadership where nothing could be further form the truth. Indeed it is this free speech which allows internal objections to government policies to reach the international arena.
It is unequivocal. Israel is a democratic inclusive society which has been subjected to attrition and war and state sponsored terrorism from its neighbouring states since its independence in 1948. Israel is not protected by the comfort zone of seas and friendly like-minded nations from those who are hostile to its existence in the way England or the USA are protected.
Israel is not a perfect nation state. Mistakes are made and, as anywhere, individuals exist who abuse the trust their position expects of them. Israel has an internal infrastructure that allows for decisions and actions of its officials to be challenged and, when found guilty punished.
This is very much unlike the Palestinian militias. Tom Hinkley, when did you last here a report of a suicide bomber being condemned for blowing up the wrong target and creating civilian casualties? or a rocket attack across a border being targetted on appartment blocks and not an army camp?
Israel has to take steps which are fair reasonable and proportionate to defend its democracy and its freedoms just as England is doing in its way now. Tom Hinkley's arguments are built on castles of sand. That sand will be washed away by those individuals determined on extending their perverted unchallengable interpretations of religion and politics into the worlds which allow Tom Hinkley the freedoms to mix with peoples of other races cultures and thoughts that oppose his own. They will hitch hike onto his stance and debate and, when they acheive their targets ignore without compunction or feeling his protestations at their excesses.
Competing interests: I am a Jew I am a doctor of medicine I am a GP Program Director
___________
have no objection to the BMJ's pages being used for critical discussion about the merits or otherwise of an academic boycott of Israel. However, I continue to be baffled as to why it is only Israel that receives all this attention. If the criterion is "non-Arab country with worst recent record in relation to the Palestinians", then Israel is indeed the probable winner. But I would respectfully suggest that you give a proper airing to a number of different possible criteria by which we might fairly and squarely decide who to boycott:
1. Middle Eastern country with worst track record in relation to Palestinians (possibly not Israel).
2. Middle Eastern country that has killed the most Palestinians (not Israel).
3. Middle Eastern country that most disenfranchises people living and working within its borders (not Israel)
4. Middle Eastern country with worst track record in denying rights to Arab women and children (not Israel).
5. States that have killed the most Arabs latterly (we might just have to boycott ourselves and the USA).
6. States that have killed the most foreign nationals latterly(time to look in the mirror again)
7. States that most brazenly abuse human rights (lets see if we have the courage to boycott China now)
So I have no problem with discussing a boycott of Israel. But if we discuss only Israel, then the charge of anti-semitism is both inevitable and also well deserved.
----------------
Reasons cited include:
- Israelis incredible contributions in the field of science, invention, medical research etc.
- Israel being the only democracy in the Middle East
- The absurdity of singling out only Israel, and not Sudan, Iran, Iraq, etc. etc. and much more.
With little hope that the organization will actually listen, Setting the Record Straight lists its own readers' comments in hopes that others will read and remember...hatred and bias have no place in the world of intellect and academia. We challenge BMJ to remember and to examine their own reasons for pushing this boycott.
Should we consider a boycott of Israeli academic institutions?
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/335/7611/124
--------
Israel is foremost in the world in Medical innovation. Arab patients in Israeli hospitals are treated no differently from Israeli patients. In my hospital in Netanya Israel There are Arab doctors and nurses. There is no honest reason for a boycott, only hate.
--------
Most of the best and advanced research comes from the hard work and diligence that Israeli acedemia put out each year. Should we be foolish to ignore these hard working people, it would be the same as a dying man choosing to ignore a lifesaving heart surgery because of the race or creed of the surgeon operating on him. Personally, I am not a jew or an Israeli, but I have high regard for a nation of people who go up against terrorists every day and still find the time to produce the most qualified medical and technological research the world has to offer. They have the most Nobel Prizes then any other peoples of the world. Considering how small the Jewish nation is in comparison to the worlds population. I stand up for them and cheer them on. We should emulate them, not berate them or boycott the very foundations that they create to help us in our daily lives. It is like biting the hand that feeds us. A foolish move.
-----------
A boycott is a one sided solution to a two sided issue. If Israel is the only country the approach is being used against then the principle is racist/antisemitic.
----------
Why boycott Israel and not the many countries who are not observing Geneva conventions or are listed by the International Red Cross as not following human rights.
----------
Because a boycott of Israeli academic institutions is just plain wrong. It will be an anti-Semitic action by its nature if not in its intent. You would block those who agree with your political views as well as those who disagree with your views. If you want to boycott, then boycott based on principles. Boycott institutions from countries committing genocide like Sudan and Congo. Boycott institutions from countries that have unequal treatment for men and women - including beatings when women step out of line - like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the Gaza Strip. Boycott institutions from repressive regimes like Cuba, Russia, Belarus, Libya. Boycott institutions from countries that do not let non-ethnic natives become citizens like...Germany. Do you see how idiotic it is to boycott just Israel while ignoring the others.
---------
To single out Israeli academics among all the parties in the Middle-East conflict is unfair. Israel is the most Western of the countries in the region, and most sensitive to this type of boycott. But the behavior of Syria and Iran, and groups like Hezbollah and Hamas are far worse. The University and Colleges Union has no leverage against other groups and countries in the region- but that is no reason to single out Israeli academics.
---------
I cannot believe that people as highly educated as doctors and medical researchers, from Great Britain no less, could be so ignorant and malevolent as to boycott their Israeli colleagues. I am thoroughly disgusted. M. Grossman, Ph.D. Los Angeles, CA
---------
Israeli academics in general and the medical profession in Israel in particular have always worked to ensure the civil and human rights of Israelis and Palestinians whether Jew or Arab. Much of the news reported from Israel is inaccurate and any decision about a boycott would be based on misinformation and prejudice. If the BMJ were to restrict itself purely to medicine it would do more good for Arabs and Jews because when it comes to the hospital or the clinic all the patients are treated by all the doctors equally. Some of the doctors' knowledge does come from academic links and journals. Boycotting those links would just harm patients.
----------
I feel the boycott of Iraeli academics and academic institutions will not actually achieve anything. In many respects it appears to be anti-semetic - why pick on Israel when other countries commit far greater crimes against humanity (Zimbabwe, China, North Korea the USA to name a few). One needs to ask how much influence academics have over government. The answer is very little. Thus - a boycott will achieve nothing except to alienate those individuals in Israel who could make a real difference.
---------
Taking sides in a longstanding political and ideologic battle is not academic. It is pure and simple bias, hatred, and yes truly antisemitic (or more specifically anti-Jewish). Singly out Israel, the only real democracy (amid several nations which are fascist dictatorships that abuse their own people-including the palestinian authority and Hamas- deny their people any rights, threaten them with death or dismemberment if they speak anything but the party line, send their women and children to blow themselves up) Israel has done more for science, medicine, technology, the arts, advancing techniques that have saved lives than any other nation given its population size. IN addition, they have consistently tried to broach peace agreements-only to be met with more war, hatred and killing from their Arab and yes, muslim neighbors. Fundamental islam and wahabiism is at the forefront of this hatred and violence-perhaps that would be a better use of their boycott and their time to fight this growing movement in the world (they are the true enemies of a democratic world)
-------------
Because a boycott of Israeli academic institutions is antithetical to the principles of academic freedom and free discourse. To artificially suppress the opinion or viewpoint in an argument, conflict, or academic discussion is to render any resulting conclusion biased, unfair, and inaccurate. To boycott Israel in any way is to not only unduly push a particular political agenda, but to destroy any chance of fair representation in the political arena. The boycott also makes the base assumption that Israeli academics not only unconditionally support the actions of their government, but that they have some affect upon those actions and may play a controlling roll in them. To boycott Israeli academic institutions is to unfairly punish people who have little or nothing to do with the actions that the boycott seeks to protest. It also may cause undue harm to parties completely uninvolved in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. The advances of Israelis in the fields of medicine, computer technology, agriculture, and other peaceful, non-political spheres would be affected by an academic boycott. This may deprive the world of advances in these fields that may improve or even save lives.
---------------
yet again,the bmj uses its pages to allow a "debate" over the policies of israel,the only jewish state in the world. the idea of the academic boycott and all other boycotts by trade unions is a chance for those who want to destroy the only democratic country in the middle east. the arabs have failed to destroy it by force;that is still their stated aim and now we have the odious comparison of israel as an apartheid state.
if the boycotters had any any decency they would not use computers with intel chips made in israel,or use drugs developed in israel.
i am concerned that the bmj,a respectable scientific journal,has dumbed itself down to a poll that allows anyone to vote and to vote as often as one wants on a subject that does not deserve the publicity generated.
it would appear that the editor has not learned from the uproar caused by previous anti-israel and anti-jewish articles from derek summerfield et al (quoted yet again by hickey)
Competing interests: i am a jew and a doctor.i am sick of the likes of tom hickey being given a platform for their racist anti-semitic views in a respectable journal
------------------
Tom Hickey portrays a Palestinian nation which is subugated and oppressed. He paints an Israeli society where there is intimidation of anyone who dares oppose state policy. He glosses over genocides in Darfur and government policy intended at causing mass death by starvation in Zimbabwe. He places any equivocation of anti-Israelism and anti-semitism as an attempt to international stiffle debate. He uses these as his argument in favour of boycotting the academia of Israel and then tries to create a world in which this boycott would only affect institutions and not individuals.
Tom Hickey is clearly an articulate author who manges to constructively build his arguments into a natural conclusion.
Tom Hickey fails to acknowledge the huge amounts of international aid regularly passed to the Palestinians, more per head than any other UN recipient group. Tom Hickey fails to acknowledge that contributions to this aid was withehld by both the USA and EU for many years because of the abuse of this money to use it towards military objectives rather than the humanitarianism it was intended for.
Tom Hickey tries to portray Israeli society as intimidated against free speach by an authoritarian soviet style leadership where nothing could be further form the truth. Indeed it is this free speech which allows internal objections to government policies to reach the international arena.
It is unequivocal. Israel is a democratic inclusive society which has been subjected to attrition and war and state sponsored terrorism from its neighbouring states since its independence in 1948. Israel is not protected by the comfort zone of seas and friendly like-minded nations from those who are hostile to its existence in the way England or the USA are protected.
Israel is not a perfect nation state. Mistakes are made and, as anywhere, individuals exist who abuse the trust their position expects of them. Israel has an internal infrastructure that allows for decisions and actions of its officials to be challenged and, when found guilty punished.
This is very much unlike the Palestinian militias. Tom Hinkley, when did you last here a report of a suicide bomber being condemned for blowing up the wrong target and creating civilian casualties? or a rocket attack across a border being targetted on appartment blocks and not an army camp?
Israel has to take steps which are fair reasonable and proportionate to defend its democracy and its freedoms just as England is doing in its way now. Tom Hinkley's arguments are built on castles of sand. That sand will be washed away by those individuals determined on extending their perverted unchallengable interpretations of religion and politics into the worlds which allow Tom Hinkley the freedoms to mix with peoples of other races cultures and thoughts that oppose his own. They will hitch hike onto his stance and debate and, when they acheive their targets ignore without compunction or feeling his protestations at their excesses.
Competing interests: I am a Jew I am a doctor of medicine I am a GP Program Director
___________
have no objection to the BMJ's pages being used for critical discussion about the merits or otherwise of an academic boycott of Israel. However, I continue to be baffled as to why it is only Israel that receives all this attention. If the criterion is "non-Arab country with worst recent record in relation to the Palestinians", then Israel is indeed the probable winner. But I would respectfully suggest that you give a proper airing to a number of different possible criteria by which we might fairly and squarely decide who to boycott:
1. Middle Eastern country with worst track record in relation to Palestinians (possibly not Israel).
2. Middle Eastern country that has killed the most Palestinians (not Israel).
3. Middle Eastern country that most disenfranchises people living and working within its borders (not Israel)
4. Middle Eastern country with worst track record in denying rights to Arab women and children (not Israel).
5. States that have killed the most Arabs latterly (we might just have to boycott ourselves and the USA).
6. States that have killed the most foreign nationals latterly(time to look in the mirror again)
7. States that most brazenly abuse human rights (lets see if we have the courage to boycott China now)
So I have no problem with discussing a boycott of Israel. But if we discuss only Israel, then the charge of anti-semitism is both inevitable and also well deserved.
----------------
Friday, July 6, 2007
Welcome to Setting the Record Straight
This is a blog that will focus in the weeks and months and hopefully years to come, on setting the record straight. It is natural, in any conflict, for one side to claim the other party is at fault. This is the way of humanity. Each person, each society, sees its own needs and will place those needs above others. When the needs require twisting facts and lying, it is time to set the record straight. That is the goal of this blog.
Our first story is comes from a minor report issued by Palestine Solidarity Campaign member, Joanne Moston, who chose to play with the truth by writing that Israel had cut the water to Bethlehem. One could argue that Joanne was simply misguided, rather than intentionally attempting to mislead, but note her ascertain below that, "There is NO WATER IN THE CAMP!" and her conclusion that this is a breach of human rights. After her initial claim, it was carefully investigated and proven to be completely false. Israel did NOT cut the water to the residents of Bethlehem - in fact, the municipality, under the complete control of the Palestinian Authority cut the water.
Not one to readily admit she was wrong, Ms Moston went on to attempt to correct part of her mistaken claim...by twisting reality yet again to find some way, some desperate means to blame Israel for something. That after all, is clearly HER agenda. Take a moment to read Joanne's initial claim, the evidence that was presented to her, and her attempt to place spin on her original claim. After doing so, one can only conclude that her personal agenda so blinds her to the realities of the situation as to make her all but useless as anything but a mouthpiece for whatever words are put in her mouth. One wonders if Joanne even understand the concept of justice...or peace as she claims to so desperately want. Certainly, she doesn't understand the concept of investigating claims before asking people for money.
Ms Moston's original call to arms:
So, here we are to help by SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT.
No, Israel most definitely did NOT cut the water to Bethlehem.
Our first story is comes from a minor report issued by Palestine Solidarity Campaign member, Joanne Moston, who chose to play with the truth by writing that Israel had cut the water to Bethlehem. One could argue that Joanne was simply misguided, rather than intentionally attempting to mislead, but note her ascertain below that, "There is NO WATER IN THE CAMP!" and her conclusion that this is a breach of human rights. After her initial claim, it was carefully investigated and proven to be completely false. Israel did NOT cut the water to the residents of Bethlehem - in fact, the municipality, under the complete control of the Palestinian Authority cut the water.
Not one to readily admit she was wrong, Ms Moston went on to attempt to correct part of her mistaken claim...by twisting reality yet again to find some way, some desperate means to blame Israel for something. That after all, is clearly HER agenda. Take a moment to read Joanne's initial claim, the evidence that was presented to her, and her attempt to place spin on her original claim. After doing so, one can only conclude that her personal agenda so blinds her to the realities of the situation as to make her all but useless as anything but a mouthpiece for whatever words are put in her mouth. One wonders if Joanne even understand the concept of justice...or peace as she claims to so desperately want. Certainly, she doesn't understand the concept of investigating claims before asking people for money.
Ms Moston's original call to arms:
Ms Moston was sent the following letter:I had a text message from my friend in Deheisheh camp, Bethlehem, today, and heard that the water in the camp has been turned off now....by Israel....for 10 days. There is NO WATER IN THE CAMP! I don't know about elsewhere in the West Bank, but for sure other places will be affected.
Is there anything that we can do from here? I have told him to buy a tanker load, which costs 300 NIS which he hasn't got, ( £37.50 ) so I have arranged a loan from a money changer for him to order 2 tankers, so that his family have water, and there will be enough to share with is neighbours. The temperature has been over 40 C for the past week or so. Surely this is a breach of human rights, apart from the fact that the Palestinians have to pay 4 times as much as the Israelis for water, and it is their own water, from under the West Bank that they are paying for. Am I angry?? YES I AM!! Perhaps I should send this to our new envoy for the Middle East!?
Joanne
Not one to readily admit her error, it seems, Ms. Moston did not respond directly to the people who took the time to explain how wrong she was. Instead, she sent the following note to her colleagues:Following the claim that water has been "cut off", a spokesman for the
Co-coordinator of Civilian Activities in the Territories had the following to
say:a) Israel - i.e. the Coordinator in the Territories is not aware and
does not know of any suspension in the water supply to Dehaisha.b) The claim that water supply has been cut has been checked with both the Palestinian Authority and with UNWRA. Neither are cognisant of any problem.
c) Dehaisha and the rest of Bethlehem is located in Area "A" in which the Palestinian
Authority is totally responsible for all civilian matters including the regularity of water supply.
d) Israel's responsibility to supply water stops at the municipal boundary.
e) Water supply and distribution of water within Bethlehem including Dahaisha [as well as in the other Palestinian towns located in Area A] is not in Israel hands.
f) Under the Interim Agreement on Self Government, Israel is responsible for supplying a 4% increase in the amount supplied last year. In reality, Israel has supplied 20% in excess of last years supply.
g) There is a very high probability that the infrastructure in Bethlehem and Dehaisha is defective or has been tampered with. Experience in Hebron has shown that water losses amount to 40% of the amount supplied- due to leakage resulting from a lack of infrastructural maintenance and more significantly by water theft. Holes are made in the supply pipes and water is drained off by the inhabitants in order to avoid paying for the water consumed.
h) Water wells around Bethlehem have been approved and supply pipes
have been laid.
i) There was indeed a cut in the water supply for a couple of days to a small Palestinian settlement near Nablus (Shehem). This was caused by deep -ploughing which punctured the underground supply line and the farmer responsible covered up the damage- leaving the Israel Water Authority to discover where the leak was- which took time.
j) Israel also supplies water to Gaza well in excess of anything they are entitled. Gaza is served by wells in the Gaza aquifer and this has been over exploited by the Gazansk) There has been wildcat drilling of the order of 100's of illegal wells.
l) In contrast to Israel- the Palestinians DO NOT RECYCLE THEIR WASTE WATER.The Israel settlements in the Gaza strip which Israel vacated 2 years ago already, each had a water recycling plant which was left in good order. Not a single plant is in operation since Israel's withdrawalm) Waste water and sewerage is left untreated within the West Bank and Gaza and is allowed to percolate into the ground causing pollution to the ground water.
To all concerned re WATER in Deheisheh Camp.
I have had a long conversation with a friend in Deheisheh Camp, to find out
the exact situation so that I can pass it to anyone who has shown concern about
this problem.
1. I know I said the water was turned off by 'Israel' and that is how the people there see it, because the water is controlled by Israel, and it is never enough, and is often cut duing the summer because it's hot, and this year during the past few weeks there has been a heatwave. However, the water has been cut off for 16 days in total, and IT CAME ON AT 1AM THIS MORNING! Because it had been on for 3 days some of the inhabitants of the first 2 rows in the camp, had some water, so it did go quickly to the 3rd and other rows. The water was turned off by the Bethlehem Municipality, as I said previously, in order to ration it. Yes, there are problems with the infrastructure, because funds have been cut to Palestine, because they voted for the 'wrong people.'!!! If the water supplied by Israel is not enough, so it has to be rationed / or cut off, it would obviously be seen to be done by Israel as they are in control of it....although the municipality had their hand on the tap!
2. UNWRA did know about the lack of water in the camp, though they seem to be denying it.
3. It is very likely that the pipes are damaged as the road has often been severely damaged by tanks. Apparently there has been a recent problem with supply in parts of Bethlehem due to structural damage. This happend here in Britain...millions of gallons lost due to leaks, but one section of our population does not have their water turned off for 16 days. I am making no apology for publicising my concern about the water cuts. It happens every year in summer, and is considered a war crime for an occupying force to deprive anyone of water, though is is 'indirectly' in this case. My concerns are purely humanitarian. I don't want people to suffer by deprivation of everyones right to water, food and shelter. If I can do anything to help those people, I will. Now they have water....until the next time, in 2 or 3 wks, when it goes off again. I have been buying water in tankers for some years now, but this year it was a much worse situation. Thank you to all those who have sent donations so that I could authorise a supply in tankers. Every penny sent, will be used for water bills, this time, and any over will be kept for next time this emergency occurs.
Praying for Peace with Justice, Joanne
So, here we are to help by SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT.
No, Israel most definitely did NOT cut the water to Bethlehem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)