On 14 February this year, the Reut Institute in Tel Aviv published a paper entitled The Delegitimization Challenge: Creating a Political Firewall which was immediately presented to the Israeli cabinet. This landmark paper centres on the fundamental conclusion that Israel’s existence and security is facing a emerging threat – the threat presented by ‘the forces of delegitimacy’ comprised of two parallel developments.

The first of these is the change in strategy of Middle Eastern based resistance networks such as Hamas and Hezbollah who, the report argues, seek to undermine attempts to end Israel’s control over the Palestinian population in order to pursue a one state solution. The second, and arguably more intriguing development highlighted in the paper, is the rise of solidarity and resistance movements based in the West such as the BDS movement. These movements bring together organisations and individuals who object to Israel’s policies and activities on grounds of achieving justice and human rights for the Palestinian population,  launching campaigns such as boycotting Israeli goods from illegal settlement areas in order to make their point. This growing movement is tarnishing Israel’s reputation among the general public and elites and, more dangerously the paper argues, risks the advancement of the one state solution and the eradication of Israel altogether.   

This paper flies directly in the face of the standard discourse of Israel’s political elites, who have traditionally perceived the most urgent threat to Israel as being potential physical attack from their enemies in the region. As a consequence, their preferred strategy and policy to counter this threat has always been a military one.  To this extent, the fact that this paper was published at all reflects a shift in the discourse. Israel, finally, is starting to realise that the fact its policies are the focus of increasingly vocal outcry across the major cities of the West is probably something they need to take seriously. This in itself is a small victory for the BDS movement – they are gaining strength and forcing their way onto the Israeli agenda.

However, as Naomi Klein argued on her blog a few weeks later, the response recommended by the Reut Institute to this emerging threat is seen by some as “most worrying”.

…the report explicitly urged Israeli intelligence agencies like Mossad to take unspecified action against peace activists using entirely legal methods: “Neither changing policy nor improving public relations will suffice…Faced with a potentially existential threat, Israel must treat it as such by focusing its intelligence agencies on this challenge; allocating appropriate resources; developing new knowledge; designing a strategy, executing it.” The think tank also called on the Israeli government to “sabotage network catalysts” – defined as key players in the “delegitimization network.”

Klein it seems was in part goaded into this response (“I’ve gotten a taste of Reut-style “sabotage” myself”). Eran Shayshon, a senior analyst at Reut, explicitly targeted her as being one of the key players in Toronto’s ‘deligitimization hub’ and makes the claim (denied by Klein) that she is working to undermine the very existence of the Jewish state.

What follows, of course, is a bit of a ‘he said, she said’ altercation, played out on Mondoweiss and on their respective blogs. Klein states she has never advocated any particular outcome in Israel-Palestine. Shayshon points to examples where Klein suggests a one state solution (essentially ending the Jewish state) might be a way forward. Klein laughs at Shayson’s attempts to drag up statements she made in a student newspaper over 20 years ago, and puts the rest of her quotes in context, while landing some Reut body blows by pointing out that she does not single out Israel for BDS style tactics; she uses the same style in any fight against injustice including against her own government in its violation of the Kyoto Protocol. Shayson takes a week or so to regroup, and responds with a discussion on the rise of what he terms ‘Kleinism’; “a simplistic, artificial view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that has led many who consider themselves human-rights activists to focus their criticism nearly exclusively on Israel”.

No response from Klein, as yet. But what this altercation demonstrates quite clearly is that lines on what Israel considers legitimate in terms of comment on its policies from Western critics are being restated and reinforced. While Shayson states this is only his opinion, he lists the following as ‘no go areas’ from the Israeli side of the debate; challenging the two state solution, singling Israel out, demonising Israel, or suggesting that Israel is ‘a state born in sin’.

Moreover, if the Reut report is taken seriously by the political elites, no longer will such criticisms and viewpoints go (relatively) unnoticed or unaddressed by the Israeli intelligence services. In future we’re likely to see even more coordinated and strategic attempts to counter and discredit the major voices in the BDS movement.  Battlelines are being redrawn.

Related Posts

Top 5 videos on Israel-Palestine

Try talking about Israel-Palestine

In global politics, Copenhagen cemented a seismic shift and global power and interplay, with Mark Lynas’ article in the Guardian; How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room as essential reading.

Copenhagen was much worse than just another bad deal, because it illustrated a profound shift in global geopolitics. This is fast becoming China’s century, yet its leadership has displayed that multilateral environmental governance is not only not a priority, but is viewed as a hindrance to the new superpower’s freedom of action.

Meanwhile, whatever you might think about Gordon Brown, his TED talk on the web and our growing interconnectedness is, I think, a fantastic 15 mins on showing how the growing power of technology is strengthening global humanity to fight poverty and injustice.  At the same time, Evgeny Morozov‘s RSA talk warning of how the internet is being manipulated to, at best, influence popular opinion and, at worst, to find, target and destroy dissenting voices is both compelling and terrifying.

The economic crisis has caused many to question whether a debt-fuelled money system is really the best way for the future, reinvigorating economic thinking in the effort to try, test and prove what might make things better. The New Economics Foundation, among others, are doing a lot of research in this area, and argue:

Money and credit have become disconnected from the real economy, from productive investment and sustainable growth. New, more democratic forms of money are required in the transition to a low-carbon economy.

Amidst all the economic turmoil, some have looked at the paltry sums of money dedicated to development assistance and aid in the developing world and asked themselves what exactly is the point? Given no one any longer has much of a clue how to sustain growth in an unpredictable global economy, can development aid really make a difference? Yes, says development specialist and blogger Owen Barder in his excellent article on Open Democracy and on his blog:

Although the effect of aid on economic growth is uncertain, there can be no doubt that aid makes a huge difference to people’s lives.  Aid provides food, health care, education, clean water, financial services, and modest incomes which transform the lives of the people who receive them.

Finally, I loved the AP new’s picture of the decade. A picture is worth a thousand words.

Got any other interesting links, sites, pictures or articles that show us how the world is changing? Post them here.

I guess, like a lot of people, I had heard bits and pieces about the Free Tibet campaign, and knew it had something to do with China and human rights abuses. It’s only after reading these books that I’ve started to get a sense of the sheer injustice in this situation; of Mao’s China effectively invading Tibet under the auspices of ‘reuniting’ this vast country, with its unique history and traditions, with the Motherland in 1950.  

Slowly but surely, China took complete control of the country, crushing Tibetan groups who tried to resist them, torturing and imprisoning 1000s of monks and nuns, and destroying 6000 monasteries which had been the cornerstone of Tibetan life and culture for centuries. Fearing for his life, the Dalai Lama – Tibet’s spiritual leader – fled to India in 1959, and has been there (along with over 100,000 Tibetan refugees) ever since.

China continually refuses to recognise the Tibetan plea for independence, or even autonomy. And Western governments, while occasionally taking issue with human rights abuses in the region, has reaffirmed its stance that Tibet is part of China. 

In October, 2008, the British government clarified their official position on Tibet’s status:

Our ability to get our points across has sometimes been clouded by the position the UK took at the start of the 20th century on the status of Tibet, a position based on the geopolitics of the time. Our recognition of China’s “special position” in Tibet developed from the outdated concept of suzerainty. Some have used this to cast doubt on the aims we are pursuing and to claim that we are denying Chinese sovereignty over a large part of its own territory. We have made clear to the Chinese Government, and publicly, that we do not support Tibetan independence. Like every other EU member state, and the United States, we regard Tibet as part of the People’s Republic of China.

Who knows whether they are right or not - historians throughout the centuries have grappled with Tibet’s legal status – is it an independent nation? An autonomous region of China? Or part of China proper? And arguably, it doesn’t really matter. Surely what’s important is what is in the best interest of the people who live there, and the refugees who were forced to leave. They have a right to safety and self-determination, particularly with regard to their religion, and China has an obligation to give this to them.

To find out more, read Isabel Losada’s ‘A Beginner’s Guide to Changing the World; For Tibet, With Love’ or the Dalai Lama’s autobiography, ‘Freedom in Exile’. Alternatively, visit www.actontibet.org or check out Amnesty’s view on human rights in Tibet here.

Thinking back to a couple of years ago, when it seemed like anyone with an altruistic bone in their bodies was getting to grips with the inconvenient truth that a) the is world heating up, b) the consequences are fairly terrible, and c) we’re the ones responsible. Buoyed by the urgency of the situation, we all swiftly began recycling our rubbish and calculating our carbon footprints. I think it was the Christmas of 2007 that my brother told us instead of giving us regular presents, he had put money towards planting trees in Wales to offset all the flights we had taken that year.  

But no one is talking about climate change anymore. Instead, we’re focused on cash flow. We’re interested in reducing our gas bills, but that’s because it’ll save us some money. We’re not flying as much, but who can afford to go to Europe when the euro is so strong. Up and down the country people are organising clothes swap shops and growing their veggies in their back gardens. But ultimately, the underlying reason for our new found excitement for sustainable living has been the possibility of saving some cash, with saving the planet being a welcomed side-effect.  And once the economy gets back on its feet, the chances are that most of us will forget our sustainable credentials in favour of long-haul holidays and a new wardrobe.

The stark reality is that, in the short term at least, a strong economy does not make for a sustainable environment. And while green fuels, electric cars and low-carbon technologies might help the situation in the longer term, in the short term the planet is just going to keep getting hotter, having a devastating effect not just here in the UK, but more importantly on people already living in hot countries in extreme poverty, who are reliant on farming, agriculture and rapidly depleting water supplies to stay alive.  

According to DFID, climate change means that in just 10 years time farming harvests in Africa will have been cut in half. At the same time as thousands of farmers are losing their livelihoods, up to 270 million people will be struggling to get hold of the water they need to stay alive. And in those areas where the annual rainy season makes water shortages less of an issue, longer and more intense monsoons will not only destroy homes and communities, but make malaria, dengue fever and polio even more prevalent.

Climate change is an inconvenience for us in the UK. But for people in developing countries, it’s an ongoing and life-threatening catastrophe.  And they’re not the ones pumping carbon into the atmosphere, so it’s a pretty cruel twist of fate that they would be the ones to bear the brunt of decades of Western industrialisation, rather than us.

So, as the economy drags itself out out of recession, why not hold onto some of those new found sustainable habits and help our friends in the developing world? Why not take the bus or ride your bike instead of driving? Why not discover what the English coastline has to offer before jetting off to the southern hemisphere? You’ve already started on the vegetable patch, so why not keep it up? And if you must rush back to the high street, choose your purchases wisely - trying to buy ethically can be a bit of a minefield in terms of what actually helps people in developing countries, but at least  fair trade can be a good place to start. None of these things will be too terrible for us to endure, and while no one thing is going to save the situation, together these small changes could actually make a big difference not for us, but for the lives of people who live not so far away.

Written for Blog Action Day. To take part, visit http://www.blogactionday.org/

You can’t argue with the concept, and this being Europe’s largest TEDx event, it brought with it some good speakers and interesting discussions. But as I walked into the hall for the third session after 4 hours of talks to listen to Hugh Garry’s presentation on mobile filming and Paul Coulton’s presentation on online gaming (both of which were enjoyable), two things suddenly struck me, keeping me awake until the small hours last night as I mulled them over in my jumbled and exhausted head. I’m going to try and deal with the first of these thoughts in this blog post. It goes like this.

Bar Phil Griffin’s brilliant talk on urban spaces and architecture, virtually every live presentation at TEDxManchester had been in some way about technology and social media. While in part this is likely to be down to the fact this is the main interest area of most of the organisers and attendees (demonstrated by the fact that the event was primarily promoted through twitter), it does raise a question about whether the digital space has become the primary home for ideas and innovation.

After all, throughout the world entrepreneurs, academics, creatives and social commentators are flocking to digital and social channels as their main means of doing what they do. And as a result, we think that this is where the innovators live. The assumption is that if someone has something worth saying or doing, they’re probably saying or doing it online.

And more than that, the unbridled development of the internet has had and is having a profound effect on almost every area of our society, from how we manage our lives, businesses and relationships to what we expect from governments, corporations and media giants. You would struggle to talk about creativity, innovation and social change without mentioning the digital world, which is probably why the digital world featured so prominently in yesterday’s programme.

But it would be really, really dangerous for innovators to look only to the digital space for inspiration. The very basis of TED is that good ideas – ideas that inspire you and change the way you think – can and do come from anywhere. History, philosophy, politics, international development, economics, literature, nature, quantum physics, health research, psychology…it’s a massive world out there and it’s filled with people taking routes to try and understand it that are not purely digital. Or (shockingly!) are not in any way digital!  

Think about the people in your life and world that inspire you and make you think about things differently. Or even think of those people in the public eye who challenge the way you think about the world. For me, it’s been statesmen like Al Gore, writers like Liz Gilbert, explorers like David Attenborough, not to mention all the musicians, artists, campaigners and journalists out there. And while some of them might have a blog, their ideas are usually about people, nature and what it means to be human, and have absolutely nothing to do with technology.

‘So what?’, you might say. Let’s face it – a lot of the innovation happening out there is happening online. Does it matter if this is the main place we go to when seeking new ideas? Well…yes! If people in the digital space are only hearing ideas from the digital space, then the sphere of inspiration narrows and you end up with the same ideas churning and repeating, putting them in danger of becoming stale. Without external stimulus, progress and innovation grinds to a halt pretty quickly.

The beauty of TED is that it reaches into virtually every field and craft on the hunt for ideas, oiling the wheels of global innovation by giving you access to the minds and thoughts of people you would never ever come across otherwise. TEDx has a massive opportunity to take this philosophy and bring  it into our local towns and cities, and while yesterday was great, I really hope that a) it happens again next year and b) it throws the speaker net more widely to bring us ideas and perspectives from fields we wouldn’t have thought to look in ourselves.

However, most people won’t be aware of this. News coverage so far has been virtually non-existent, and when it does ramp up, it is of course more likely to focus on what’s bound to be a controversial speech from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad than it is on the plight of smaller nations like the Maldives, who come back every year screaming (as loudly as the UN protocol will allow) that climate change threatens their very existence.

Having said that, I’m not surprised or even too concerned about this lack of public awareness of the General Debate. Within the international walls of the UN itself, every speech will play out to a packed out GA, and the issues on the table will be well known and understood by those that are in a position to make the decisions. Also, a lot of the speeches are very boring. Realistically, there are only going to be a few moments that will say something new, and therefore be deemed newsworthy.

What the lack of media coverage does indicate however is how little we seem to care about what goes on in the Glass Building on New York’s 1st Avenue. And why would we? Bureaucracy and political will (or lack of it) hamper the UN’s ability to take meaningful action time and again. Virtual deadlock on the Security Council, where at least one of the P5 (USA, UK, China, Russia or France) vetoes nearly every resolution that could actually make a difference, makes the UN’s main chamber little more than a frustrated talking shop.

But I do love it. It’s a kind of tough love. I genuinely believe that it is an incredible institution and a force for good in the world. The very fact that somewhere like it exists, somewhere which invites people from every corner of the globe to work on making the world a better place, well, it really gives me hope. Where else are the major global issues – climate change, poverty, disease, human rights – going to be tackled? And tackled jointly, meaningfully, and with true international consensus? For these reasons the UN is deserving of our attention if not our support.

But it definitely a prime candidate for some tough love. And with Obama primed to take the stage – it just might get it. My big hope for the General Debate is for the USA to demonstrate that they think the UN is worthwhile. Eight years of a hostile Republican Government has marginalised the UN in the minds of the world’s only super-power, and therefore for the rest of the world. Obama offers a chance for some real commitment to making the UN work, and with the weight of the US behind it, it just might happen. No doubt Obama will have some harsh words for the UN community about reform but I, like everyone else who has worked in the Glass Building, will be hoping those words are under-pinned with a spirit of commitment, vision and hope. God knows the world needs it.

Watch the General Assembly and the General Debate on the UN webcast

The video material I’ve come across over the past few weeks has really helped me start to get to grips with this particular conflict. Some of the videos I’ve been directed to by my wonderful I-P course tutor, and some of them I’ve found myself. So, here are a few of the best documentaries and clips I’ve come across so far, which you might find interesting too. Where possible, I’ve embedded the videos into this article.

1. For getting a good overview: The Promised Land? (Al Jazeera English)

This three-part series gives you an overview of the history right from the roots of modern Zionism in the later 1800s, right through to the present day efforts for peace. Overall, it’s relatively balanced and dispels a lot of the myths (like the idea that Palestine was a barren land when the Jewish people started to settle there), and definitely very useful for getting an overview of how this conflict started and developed into what it is today.  Each of the three programmes is split into two parts, each lasting about 10mins. Here’s part one of the Pioneers episode.

2. For hearing both sides of the story: The Doha Debates

Take a standard debating format, add in some provocative statements about the Middle East and then put the studio in Qatar, complete with controversial speakers and an astute audience, and bam! You have yourself the Doha Debates. Sponsored by BBC World News, here are a couple you might find particularly interesting:

• This House believes the Palestinians risk becoming their own worst enemy
• This House believes it’s time for the US to get tough on Israel

3. For seeing how many Israelis and Palestinians are moderates who want peace

OneVoice is a campaign which aims to bring together the moderate masses on both sides to work together, challenge the extremists and ultimately bring an end to the conflict. Right now they have 650k people signed up in support of a peaceful two-state solution, roughly half of them Israeli and half of them Palestinian. This video features people from both sides talking about the movement, and their desire for peace.   

4. For seeing first hand how some are working together to fight for  peace

A low-key ‘fly on the wall’ clip showing how Israeli activists are working to support the Palestinians in resisting settlers. It comes from that great blog Global Voices and their recent interview with peace activist Ibn Erza.

5. For understanding how debate on Israel is stifled in the USA

This is a montage of interviews with Professors Walt and Mearsheimer, whose article on the Israel lobby questioning whether support for Israel was in the US national interest caused significant controversy in America back in 2006, leaving them open to charges of anti-semitism and un-americanism. What I love about it is how nervous the interviewers are; they sort of know it’s their responsibility to be balanced and objective, but can’t bring themselves to challenge the status quo, and insist on asking questions like ‘do you consider yourself to be a patriot?’

More?

If you know of any other videos that provide an insight into this conflict, be sure to comment on this article and let us all know about them.

Given that this conflict is at the centre, or at least near the inner edge of most foreign policy decisions across the world, the general level of understanding about what the hell is going on over there is pretty poor. It’s not something we like to talk about. It’s like Fightclub. The first rule of Fightclub is…you do not talk about Fightclub. And why don’t you talk about Fightclub? Because, if you do, you get in trouble. It’ll be bad. Presumably even worse than actually going to Fightclub.

You don’t talk about Israel-Palestine. If you build up the courage to make a point or express a view that might be perceived as pro-Palestinian,  you’re an anti-semitic lefty with no sympathy for the Holocaust. Stick up for the Israelis, and you’re both racist and inhumane, with no empathy for an oppressed people. No one wants to be on either side of that coin.  Best keep your mouth shut, your head down and just watch as the violence gets even more bloody.  

There is a culture of fear about talking about what’s happening in that small quarter of the Middle East that has made its discussion virtually taboo. And as a result, unlike Afghanistan or even Iraq, this taboo has meant that all too often the whole issue falls right off the popular consciousness. Where are all the films about Israel and Palastine? Not the cool hip indie films or edgy cartoons; I mean the big films, the blockbusters, the Blood Diamond or Slumdog Millionaire of the Middle East? Or if not films, maybe books? Not high-brow academic histories or intellectual policy hardbacks; I’m talking the Kite Runner of Ramallah; the Book Seller of Jerusalem? You can hear the producers and publishers squirming in their seats as they say, quietly, ’don’t go there.’ 

I’ve had enough of this complicit silence. Bad things are happening over there, things which are hurting people. Myth and misinformation spread like wildfire, ramping up the anger and the hatred while moving the region futher away from any kind of peaceful, just and secure solution.  

Clearly we can’t solve the conflict overnight. But what we can do is learn more about it; the facts, beliefs and people involved; so we can actually discuss it in an informed manner. I’m the first to admit that my current level of knowledge is pretty close to zero. Which in itself is crazy – I studied International Relations for God’s sake! Where was this on the syllabus?! So, it looks like I’ll have to start from scratch. I’m doing a course and everything. So, this is my quest. I’ll keep you posted on what I find…