The E.U.’s Middle-East policy is antisemitic

In my blog post of May 22, inst. titled European Union’s [morally] corrupt stance towards Israel, I asserted that the E.U.’s policies and practices in dealing with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict breach IHRA’s international non-binding working definition of antisemitism to which a large number of E.U. member states have subscribed.

The IHRA definition, inter-alia, reads

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:

Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic….

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to applying double standards by requiring of  the State of Israel a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

In this paper, my historical focus is the period  from 1967 to the present.

Dealing with Israel

After the War of 1967 and more particularly  since the formulation of the two state solution, the E.U through its successive representatives for external affairs and a good number of its member states,

  1. Have and continue to keep on picking on Israel, criticise, badger, and pester her for its many alleged failures to advance their notion of what the two-state solution requires Israel to do and to abstain from doing both towards the P.A. and Hamas.
  2. Refuse to recognise Israel’s existing rights to land of the Jordan Valley and Judea and Samaria, perversely named the West Bank, pursuant to section 80 of the United Nations Charter which incorporates by reference the San Remo Resolution of the League of Nations and the Mandate for Palestine established  for the purposes set out in Article 22 of the Covenant of the League;
  3. Obstruct Israel’s effort to establish borders that will insure its security on the lands to which it is entitled under section 80, having regard to the actions and pronouncements of Hezbollah and Iran.
  4. Threaten Israel with sanctions in the event she proceeds to recover and extend its sovereignty over part of the said lands
  5. In the meanwhile, a large number of the E.U member states,                                              a) have and continue to vote in favour of the interminable motions presented at the UNGA mostly by Muslim states whose sole object is to heap abuse upon, insult and slander Israel and  demand egregious  action;                                                                                                b) abstain from voting; or                                                                                                     c) make themselves scarce when the motions are being voted upon.
  6. Pressure Israel to keep on making concessions that would supposedly will clinch a peace treaty.
  7. Ignore the fact that since 1947,Israel has been ready to make peace, and toward this end, inter-alia, initiated the negotiations that led to the Oslo Accord, to set up the foundations and framework for a peace process; made the incredibly generous offers of 1981 and 1988 as well as participating positively in the mediation efforts initiated by the U.S. to secure peace.

How do you make peace with the P.A, which has steadfastly refused all peace offers, never made a peace offer, breached Yasser Arafat’s solemn  acknowledgments, promises, representations and undertakings to the Prime Minister of Israel in 1991.

The P.A. behaves and will continue to behave in this manner because, the sole objective of the PLO that established the P.A. and of the P.A. not to mention Hamas, is to destroy the State of Israel.

Readers who doubt the existence of this objective, are invited to read, among many others, the May 11, 2020, issue of the Official P.A. daily Al –Hayat Al-Jadida; and by way of further illustration  of the consistent pattern of refusal, the October 22, 2014 issue of the paper. Translations of these are available in Robert Spencer’s article titled Palestinian Authority daily promises destruction of Israel as “the will of Allah”, dated May 24, 2020

Conclusion

Surely all of this, if nothing else, clearly and irrefutably amounts to applying double standards by requiring of  the State of Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation under similar situations.

Sadly enough, there is more  than that a great deal more such as, among others, the E.U members’ dealings with Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran.

The sole beneficiary of the two-state solution

Since the P.A. has consistently rejected and continues  to reject  every and all reasonable and some most generous peace offerings of Israel based on the two state formula, clearly the formula is not a solution, let alone the only one.

In the premises,  the only beneficiaries of the solution are  the E.U and its member countries. They have been peddling it because in the circumstances, it is the only one that

  1. Affords them protection from  the risks of incurring the wrath of 50 and more Muslim countries some of whom are liable, as they have done before in 1973, to create havoc with  the economies of the E.U countries;
  2. Provides them with some peace of mind with their respective Muslim and leftist electorate, and
  3. Does not provide local and international terrorist organisations with one more reasons, if any are needed, to destabilise their respective societies.

Insofar as the E.U  and its member countries pursue this policy in order to protect their national economies, domestic security and the other major interests of the country is not antisemitic per se as they would  adopt a similar stratagem with any country in similar circumstances.

However, the matter does not end there

E.U’s current policies regarding the P.A. are antisemitic

The self-interests of the E.U and its member nations, however, can hardly justify the manner in which they handle the P.A.

This type of handling is clearly, beyond the shadow of a doubt, antisemitic to the core.

By way of illustration, the E.U countries provide financial assistance,

a) that enabled the P.A. to establish and finance its “pay for slay” terrorism program that victimizes innocent people in Israel and in the territories, and continues to finance to it to this day;

b) in fundamental violation to the educational standards prescribed by UNESCO to which the E.U countries subscribe, for the production of schoolbooks published by the P.A. which brainwash and indoctrinate  Palestinian students throughout their schooling  to hate Israel and Jews, with the expectation that they will grow up to help destroy the country and/or engage in terrorism against its citizens,

c) for the establishment of Palestinian, so-called, civil society projects, which include organisations and groups that have links to terrorist groups, and

d) to European NGO groups deployed in Israel and in the P.A, whose overriding objectives are to (i) create a negative image of Israel, and thereby (ii) promote hostility against Israel  as well as antisemitism.

e) without taking the appropriate precautionary measures to insure that the money ends up in the coffers of terrorists, as shown by a recent Israeli study.

If that was not enough, among other things, the member countries of the E.U finance the P.A,’s scheme to establish communities and build buildings  in Area “C” which under the terms of the Oslo Agreement is under the exclusive control  of Israel.

Conclusion

I cannot think of any country, other than Israel, which the E.U and its member countries deliberately put and keep in harm’s way by financing the enemy of that country.

In the process, the E.U financially supports a corrupt and illegitimate dictatorial government whose key members and their acolytes misappropriate foreign financial assistance for their benefit and for illicit purposes.

In so doing, the E.U. deprives the citizens of the P.A. of the benefit of funds intended to provide for and promote their well-being on all its dimensions.

Post-script

And in all of this, the so-called progressive Jewish organisations of North America are nowhere to be seen and heard about this critically serious matter.

Speaking of Canada, I very much doubt that the progressives of JSpace Canada and kindred organisations have written to the Minister of Foreign Affairs or better still to the Prime Minister to urge him to tell the EU and its member countries to cease and desist from pursuing a flagrantly antisemitic foreign policy in the Middle-East, by reminding them that Israelis are not “their Jews.”

About the Author
Doğan Akman was born and schooled in Istanbul, Turkey. Upon his graduation from Lycee St. Michel, he immigrated to Canada with his family. In Canada, he taught university in sociology-criminology and social welfare policy and published some articles in criminology journals After a stint as a Judge of the Provincial Court (criminal and family divisions) of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, he joined the Federal Department of Justice working first as a Crown prosecutor, and then switching to civil litigation and specialising in aboriginal law. Since his retirement he has published articles in Sephardic Horizons and e-Sefarad and in an anthology edited by Rifat Bali titled This is My New Homeland and published in Istanbul.
Related Topics
Related Posts
Comments