Re.       The Economist and Israel

Cc.      The Foreign Editor

Sir,

The endorsement by The Economist of the invasion of Iraq was wrong from the outset. The reporting on Israel is pitiful, as illustrated by the editorial "Lift the siege of Gaza” (The Economist, Volume 389, Number 8611, December 20, 2008, page 16). The siege has, indeed, unilaterally been lifted and now one of the most lethal armies in the world is descending en masse on a few poorly equipped combatants, but mostly on defenceless civilians.

The Economist regards the Palestinians, notably Hamas, as the main culprits in the conflict. The illegal and brutal occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip by Israel is mentioned, but not identified as the main problem. The Foreign Editor fails to attach proper significance to the fact that Hamas was elected in free and fair elections but, once elected, was forced out of office in a collective effort by the corrupt Fatah, Israel and, shamefully, by the so-called Western world (parading as 'the international community'), all of whom have disregarded international law. Your editorial staff seem unaware of Hamas peace proposals, which are remarkably close to what international law requires. Israel's longstanding policy is never to declare its borders and therefore it expands its territory by the day. No understanding is shown for the justifiable Hamas position that it is not at all clear which Israel it is supposed to recognise. Worse still, The Economist does not factor in that the exiled leader, Khaled Meshaal, informed the world on 21^st April 2008 that Hamas accepts the borders of 4^th June 1967. This position is also remarkably close to the Advisory Opinion on existing international law of the International Court of Justice in The Hague, issued on 9^th July 2004. No Israeli government, no high-ranking civil servants and no Israeli political party have ever recognised the Palestinian State within the borders of 1967. Why recognise your neighbour when he denies your very existence and wants your territory?

The 'pro-Israel lobby', in an attempt to look moderate, always argues that Israel should withdraw from occupied territories. They are well aware that Israel will never do so voluntarily. Alarmingly, The Economist has used the same reasoning.

The Economist faithfully reports what Hasbara, the official Israeli propaganda machine, mandates. I can find no evidence to suggest that independent sources of information are consulted. Israel's ongoing disinformation campaign (pure lies) seems to be more credible to the Western world than verifiable facts on the ground. Implicitly, The Economist regards the Palestinians as a disposable tribe. Israel can maul them at its pleasure for decades with no end in sight. This does not provoke The Economist's indignation.

One could argue that some of the missing facts in the editorial in question are mentioned in the article 'Can nothing be done?' on page 73. Although true, these vital facts are inconsequential to The Economist's stand on Israel.

All this is shoddy journalism by any standard, but not The Economist's worst. The journalist seems to deny some historical facts and is unaware of other basic facts about Israel:

-           Albert Einstein, Hannah Arendt and some 26 other decent Americans, including leading Jews,    warned the Administration in a letter to The New York Times dated 24^th December 1948 not to get involved with Menachem Begin, the leader of a purely fascist party, the harbinger of Likud and Kadima (read their party programmes and the inaugural speech of President Shimon Peres);

-           the dominant ideology in Israel is political Zionism. The main characteristic is fascism: Blut und Boden (the 'Jewish State') and blatant racism are both                         hallmarks;

-           logically, the regime's leadership behaves like fascists. They rob, destroy, confiscate. They obstruct healthcare, education and withhold food, water, petrol, cooking gas and medicines. They abduct, imprison and torture tens of thousands of men, women and children (yes, even women and   children). They are serial murderers (Ehud Barak, the Defence Minister, with his own hands; Tzipni Livni, the Foreign Minister, most probably.) The regime subjugates peoples: the Lebanese for a decade, the Palestinians for over sixty years. It violates the integrity of other states at will: Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and even their close friend, the United States of America. They threaten Iran. Israeli citizens, critical of this regime, are ostracized and harassed until thay leave the country;

-           the goals of political Zionism are the establishment of Eretz Israel and the elimination of the Palestinians from that area. This has been well documented right from the start of the movement at the end of the nineteenth century. This process is well under way. Only when these goals are met, will Israel be ready to agree to a (by that time rather pointless) peace;

-           the Palestinians are vermin that must be eradicated. They are 'animals walking on two feet' (Menachem Begin) that can, of course, be killed at will. That                     is exactly what goes on without any let-up;

-           according to the well-known Israeli military historian, Martin van Creveld, Israeli nuclear weapons are aimed at European capitals. The Economist does                    not seem to care;

-           he compares  the Israeli General Staff with behaviourally impaired children, who only want to fight. History seems to underpin this observation. The Economist, however, cannot be bothered.

The Economist's editorial "Gaza: the rights and wrongs" (Volume 390, Number 8612, January 3^rd 2009, page 7) describes the same distorted picture of facts and figures and reaches even lower levels of decency. Three statements stand out.

Firstly, "Few governments […] would let their towns be peppered every day with rockets, no matter how ineffective." The Economist's institutional memory is disturbingly short. Shooting rockets out of Gaza does not occur out of the blue. Hamas was created – assisted by Israel in order to split Palestinian society and to create an internal enemy for Fatah – in 1987. The first launching of a Qassam rocket into Israeli territory was in 2002. That is 20 and 35 years respectively later than its occupation. The same holds true for suicide bombers. These only appeared after decades of illegal occupation.

Secondly, in the same quote: "Few Governments facing an election, as Israel's, would let its towns be peppered every day with rockets […]" The Economist is of the opinion that murdering many hundreds of innocent people and maiming many thousands more is perfectly justified in order to influence the outcome of elections. This raises the question whether the age of the Magazine has caused dementia.

Thirdly, "[…] Israel is keen to remind its enemies that the Jewish state can still fight and still win." Dear Editor-in-Chief, the concept of a so-called Jewish state does not exist in international law nor in international relations. The country has been accepted in the international community as 'Israel', a state with both Jewish and non-Jewish citizens. The latter are robbed of their citizens' rights in a long running programme of deprivation by the Jewish majority. So much for Israel's democratic content. The concept of a 'Jewish' state only exists in the minds of fascists and people who have lost their way in life.

The Economist stated on December 20^th 2008:

            “Contrary to the absurd claim of the rapporteur of the UN's Human Rights Council […] the Gaza Strip is not facing a Nazi-like "Holocaust" at             Israel's hands.”

Is this a correct statement? Even disregarding what is happening in Gaza now, the following is of relevance. Prof. Dr. Richard Falk is, in fact, the Special Rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian occupied territories. Falk, treated by the Israeli authorities "like some sort of security threat” upon entry into Israel, correctly reported to the Secretary General of the UN that Israel was the first and most serious violator of the ceasefire with Hamas – vital information which The Economist has suppressed.

The Palestinians are deprived by Israel of their political, economic and social life, in Gaza as well as on the West Bank. Prof. Falk defines this as 'slouching towards a Palestinian Holocaust'. The Economist acts in bad faith by rejecting this most relevant conclusion without offering one shred of counterargument. Richard Falk describes himself as an American Jew. He conducts research and formulates conclusions that belie the claims of the all-powerful pro-Israel lobby in the USA and of Israel. Under the existing harsh American political correctness and resulting academic intolerance, this requires considerable integrity and courage. To say that his conclusion is absurd is nothing less than a grave insult for a brave and honest man. The Economist owes him a public apology.

The Economist serves as the obedient servant of fascist principles and goals. The editorial staff should reconsider its views and policies on Israel. Instead, it should adopt a peace-oriented approach embedded in the rule of law. This may save The Economist from another inevitable and humiliating retract at an inconvenient time.

Yours sincerely,

Jan J. Wijenberg
Former Ambassador for The Netherlands