It really is quite difficult to decide which was worse; the below the line comments on Mick Dumper’s piece of March 10th or the above the line article. There is a degree of tedious predictability about many a CiF commentator, but to be frank, one would expect more from a professor of Middle East politics at Exeter University. Even though Professor Dumper is undoubtedly extremely learned and has written several books on Middle East politics and on Jerusalem in particular, as we know from many examples (Dumper’s Exeter colleague Ilan Pappe being a case in point), that is no guarantee of either impartiality or accuracy.
Surreal as it may sound, Exeter University receives funding from the Muslim Brotherhood and on the advisory board of one of the university’s research centres sit such characters as Muhammed Abdul Bari – head of the Muslim Council of Britain and chair of the East London Mosque of recent ‘Dispatches’ fame. Also on the same advisory board is Basheer Nafi; a former senior operative of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad who was deported from the US in 1996 for visa fraud and indicted in that country in 2003 for racketeering on behalf of the Islamic Jihad.
One does have to wonder if the research coming out of an establishment with such funders can be described in all honesty as non-partisan and whether academics such as Dumper and Pappe, who clearly have a very definite political agenda, are attracted to such places because of a certain political climate which exists there, or whether it is people like them who are magnets for funders with an Islamist agenda. Either way, Exeter’s funders must have been very pleased by Dumper’s article.
Dumper paints a picture of “the triumph of the radical settler groups in taking over culturally sensitive parts of the city” as though Jerusalem is some kind of ‘Wild West’ in which anyone can just set up camp wherever they chose. He completely ignores the long background story to the Shimon HaTsadik/ Sheikh Jarrah neigbourhood episode which played out for years in the Israeli courts. He then goes on to claim that “[m]ore importantly it also interrupts the delicate moves towards the resumption of negotiations between the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority/PLO.”
Of course there is no earthly reason why that has to be the case. If the PA were really interested in resuming negotiations, then nothing would have prevented them from coming to the table. But perhaps Professor Dumper neglected to read the list of motions accepted by the Fatah conference last August with regard to its preconditions for resuming peace talks because anyone who has read and understood them must be very aware of the fact that getting the PA to the negotiating table is a very distant prospect, no matter how many high-ranking Americans come to visit or however many concessions Israel is prepared to make. No fewer than 14 pre-conditions for resuming negotiations were decided upon at that conference including the release of all Palestinian prisoners held by Israel, the guarantee of right of return for all Palestinian refugees, a complete freeze on settlement building, a lifting of the embargo on Gaza and a guarantee that both East and West Jerusalem will be given over as the capital of the Palestinian state. One wonders just which part of the word ‘negotiation’ Fatah does not understand.
Dumper then progresses to the subject of Hebron. Seeing as learned professors do not make such serious gaffes, one can only conclude that he is deliberately misleading his readers when he fails to mention that Hebron was the subject of a 1997 agreement between Israel and the PA as a result of which the areas of H1 (PA controlled) and H2 (Israeli controlled) were created. In other words, the Jews living in Hebron are there with signed Palestinian agreement. Dumper’s political agenda is clearly revealed when he refers to the Cave of Machpela (situated in area H2, of course) as “(the presumed site of Abraham’s burial place) located in the al-Ibrahimi mosque”. For a more balanced view of the situation in Hebron and the lessons to be learned from the sharing of control of that town in relation to any future agreement over Jerusalem, readers can refer to this excellent analysis by historian Yaacov Lozowick.
Dumper then goes on to cite a paper by Chatham House, neglecting to mention that he is actually the co-author, and to cut a long story short, declares that “the recommendations put forward in a recent leaked EU heads of mission report would go a long way towards halting the slide to both consolidating the Israeli presence and the further fragmentation of East Jerusalem. The recommendations include promoting the establishment of a PLO representative in East Jerusalem, the prevention of financial transactions by EU member states that support settlement activity or the export of products from settlements to the EU member states and the support of Palestinian civil society.”
Like many a CiF reader, Dumper too seems to have concluded that ‘East’ Jerusalem is already the capital of an as yet non-existent Palestinian state, but conveniently ignores the fact that, as seen above, the Palestinians do not limit their aspirations to part of Jerusalem and apparently do not think they should have to engage in tedious negotiations of any future agreement. The fostering of Palestinian intransigence and encouragement of their misapprehension that no compromise will be necessary by people such as Dumper and others with a blatantly anti-Israeli agenda can only lead to further violence and misery. If outside elements such as the EU or the US government try to bulldoze Israel into a settlement of the conflict with which the Israeli people cannot live, then not only will we be exchanging one injustice for another, but this will be a betrayal of everything the Jewish people have achieved in 62 years of Israel’s existence and a return on the part of the world to the shameful days of Evian and Bermuda.
The very fact that Dumper is capable of claiming that “[a] critical issue that will provoke reaction in the streets of East Jerusalem is an Israeli infringement of the Islamic rights to the Haram al-Sharif and associated places” without mentioning the rights of Jewish worshippers at Temple Mount to exercise their religious rights without having rocks and breeze-blocks thrown at them by the Palestinian mobs every time some baseless rumour sweeps the streets with PA encouragement is ample evidence of Dumper’s bigoted views. Like his admirers below the line, Dumper’s concern for human rights comes to an abrupt end when the subject of Israelis arises.
This article garnered 211 comments, many of which were quite simply disgusting and their volume is too large to reproduce here. All the usual apartheid analogies, claims of ethnic cleansing, support for BDS and historical revisionism were in evidence, but I would like to concentrate on one particular type of comment. The Guardian editors are fond of telling us that they do not host antisemitism on their site, but as we all know, one of the many facets of antisemitism as defined by the EUMC Working Definition of Anti-Semitism is ‘[d]enying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.’ Bearing that in mind, take a look at this poster’s comments on the Dumper thread.
TwoSwords
10 Mar 2010, 11:51AM
HebrewHammer
Since 3000 years ago they actually lived there perhaps we can assume it was a metaphorical Jerusalem they were paraying about.
And I assume you therefore support the Serbian claim to Kosovo too?
But I should thank you for declaring your right to something because your ancient ancestors were there – primordial racial property rights. You have expressed the inherently racist nature of Zionism. Thank you.
TwoSwords
10 Mar 2010, 1:43PM
HebrewHammer
Thank you again for declaring the racist nature of your ideology, your state and your very culture.
A city “belongs” to a racial group in your eyes. Primordial racial property rights.
Everything you say is irrelevant. by your logic if scientologists believed in a special link between themselves and London they would be entitled to London.
TwoSwords
10 Mar 2010, 1:53PM
HebrewHammer
How good of you – the master race will allow some Arabs to live in the city. Need a gardener do you?
” the Jewish nature of Jerusalem”
What’s that? Like the Roman nature of London? great basis to decide who should have ownership of a city. Or is this a rule to be applied for ONE ethnic group only?
I wonder what we call people who believe in different rules for different ethnic groups.
Again, thank you for revealing the true nature of your ideology.
TwoSwords
10 Mar 2010, 2:04PM
HebrewHammer
“Built by Jews with Jewish sentiment .
But i never said anything about ownership , you added that bit .”
So you’d be happy with an international zone over Jerusalem? Ancient Jews built the pyramids – what relevance is it who built something. Or does ancient pedigree mean something more? Spit it out. Most of the old buildings in Jerusalem were of Ottoman construction. Do you think Turkey should get the place? Ormaybe the people who live there should have a right to self-determination – including Arabs?
“Racists , but i never said anything of that kind.”
No, but primordial racism is the core of your ideology – Zionism. Unless you are rejecting Zionism?
“I wonder how do you call people that their distorted view of the world keeps them of actually listening to what other people have to say.”
Zionists? Supporters of Israel?
TwoSwords
10 Mar 2010, 2:13PM
HebrewHammer
Yet most Israelis consistently vote for rightwing racist parties.
Even Kadima would by western European standards by deemed a racist party – it had an avowed aim stated by Lipni of reducing the size of Israel’s ethnic minority in order to maintain a certain racial majority. Which is what the BNP is Britain support. Interesting…
TwoSwords
10 Mar 2010, 4:15PM
pretzelberg
“Who are the 22 plonkers who recommended this imperialistic nonsense?”
What’s imperialistic about staying away from a part of the world in which our involvement can bring no good for us? So being ANTI-imperialistic means supporting a racist state carry out ethnic cleansing? Very strange definitions of imperialism in your head…
“TwoSwords and the like’s hatred of Israel sees them throw their otherwise liberal pretences out of the window?”
I don’t hate Israel. I hate racial nationalism – because I am a liberal. I would not be critical of Israel if it was a civic state. It isn’t. It is a racial state. A volk state. It deserves nothing but scorn from liberals.
“Although TwoSwords in general does strike me as a Telegraph reader.”
Try again.
TwoSwords
10 Mar 2010, 4:34PM
Why has pretzelberg’s post been removed? PLEASE let’s not go moderation crazy here.
smtx01
I don’t think there ever be peace. Therefore I plan to do nothing – I don’t personally boycott Israel since I think it will achieve nothing. I morally support people who do since Israel deserves no less. Israel deserves widespread delegitimation since it is a racist state and is hence morally illegitimate.
Its also impossible to boycott your own country unless one lives outside it. You use your vote within a country and boycott countries you don’t have a vote in. Slightly pointless comment.
Maybe Matt Seaton could explain to us why Two Swords is allowed to continue posting at CiF after that antisemitic rant. And whilst we’re at it, it would be pertinent for Mr. Seaton to also address the subject of the ‘reincarnation’ of banned commentators as evidenced in this next comment.
backtothepoint
10 Mar 2010, 1:56PM
@bousteezi
The people who are advocating the boycott of Israeli products here on CiF,are the same people who have no say in anything.
Let me tell you a little story. I had a previous incarnation on CiF, and the pro-Israelis made so many complaints about me that I was finally banned in a rather strange way, but I won’t go into details.
This made me think about all the time I’d been spending on CiF and whether it was the best use of my efforts.
So I decided to get more heavily involved in the “Boycott Israel” movement. We’ve had a great deal of success – for instance, in pointing out to people in my local markets – many of whom are Arab – which products are Israeli. The stallholders have taken note and now we virtually never see any Israeli produce in these markets.
Also, we’ve been working on encouraging people to buy computers with AMD and ATI hardware, since it is not produced in Israel, whereas Intel, with $1.2 bn of production in Israel, has a huge complex in Qiryat Gat, built on land stolen from the Palestinians despite a 1949 guarantee in writing from Israel (whose word was totally worthless).
That’s why I’m not nearly so often present on these threads now. I don’t know if that was what the pro-Israeli faction wanted to achieve, but that was the result.
Any guesses as to who this banned poster is?
Of course the banning of Two Swords and others like him/her and the prevention of already banned posters openly reinventing themselves would be but a drop in the ocean compared to the improvement Seaton could make to his website by ceasing to commission articles from people like Mick Dumper who obviously have nothing to add to the debate from a factual point of view and whose opinions seem to be perfectly in tune with those of his university’s extremist Islamist funders.
Like this:
Like Loading...
COMMITTEE FOR ACCURACY IN MIDDLE EAST REPORTING AND ANALYSIS
Dumper Truc(ulent)
It really is quite difficult to decide which was worse; the below the line comments on Mick Dumper’s piece of March 10th or the above the line article. There is a degree of tedious predictability about many a CiF commentator, but to be frank, one would expect more from a professor of Middle East politics at Exeter University. Even though Professor Dumper is undoubtedly extremely learned and has written several books on Middle East politics and on Jerusalem in particular, as we know from many examples (Dumper’s Exeter colleague Ilan Pappe being a case in point), that is no guarantee of either impartiality or accuracy.
Surreal as it may sound, Exeter University receives funding from the Muslim Brotherhood and on the advisory board of one of the university’s research centres sit such characters as Muhammed Abdul Bari – head of the Muslim Council of Britain and chair of the East London Mosque of recent ‘Dispatches’ fame. Also on the same advisory board is Basheer Nafi; a former senior operative of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad who was deported from the US in 1996 for visa fraud and indicted in that country in 2003 for racketeering on behalf of the Islamic Jihad.
One does have to wonder if the research coming out of an establishment with such funders can be described in all honesty as non-partisan and whether academics such as Dumper and Pappe, who clearly have a very definite political agenda, are attracted to such places because of a certain political climate which exists there, or whether it is people like them who are magnets for funders with an Islamist agenda. Either way, Exeter’s funders must have been very pleased by Dumper’s article.
Dumper paints a picture of “the triumph of the radical settler groups in taking over culturally sensitive parts of the city” as though Jerusalem is some kind of ‘Wild West’ in which anyone can just set up camp wherever they chose. He completely ignores the long background story to the Shimon HaTsadik/ Sheikh Jarrah neigbourhood episode which played out for years in the Israeli courts. He then goes on to claim that “[m]ore importantly it also interrupts the delicate moves towards the resumption of negotiations between the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority/PLO.”
Of course there is no earthly reason why that has to be the case. If the PA were really interested in resuming negotiations, then nothing would have prevented them from coming to the table. But perhaps Professor Dumper neglected to read the list of motions accepted by the Fatah conference last August with regard to its preconditions for resuming peace talks because anyone who has read and understood them must be very aware of the fact that getting the PA to the negotiating table is a very distant prospect, no matter how many high-ranking Americans come to visit or however many concessions Israel is prepared to make. No fewer than 14 pre-conditions for resuming negotiations were decided upon at that conference including the release of all Palestinian prisoners held by Israel, the guarantee of right of return for all Palestinian refugees, a complete freeze on settlement building, a lifting of the embargo on Gaza and a guarantee that both East and West Jerusalem will be given over as the capital of the Palestinian state. One wonders just which part of the word ‘negotiation’ Fatah does not understand.
Dumper then progresses to the subject of Hebron. Seeing as learned professors do not make such serious gaffes, one can only conclude that he is deliberately misleading his readers when he fails to mention that Hebron was the subject of a 1997 agreement between Israel and the PA as a result of which the areas of H1 (PA controlled) and H2 (Israeli controlled) were created. In other words, the Jews living in Hebron are there with signed Palestinian agreement. Dumper’s political agenda is clearly revealed when he refers to the Cave of Machpela (situated in area H2, of course) as “(the presumed site of Abraham’s burial place) located in the al-Ibrahimi mosque”. For a more balanced view of the situation in Hebron and the lessons to be learned from the sharing of control of that town in relation to any future agreement over Jerusalem, readers can refer to this excellent analysis by historian Yaacov Lozowick.
Dumper then goes on to cite a paper by Chatham House, neglecting to mention that he is actually the co-author, and to cut a long story short, declares that “the recommendations put forward in a recent leaked EU heads of mission report would go a long way towards halting the slide to both consolidating the Israeli presence and the further fragmentation of East Jerusalem. The recommendations include promoting the establishment of a PLO representative in East Jerusalem, the prevention of financial transactions by EU member states that support settlement activity or the export of products from settlements to the EU member states and the support of Palestinian civil society.”
Like many a CiF reader, Dumper too seems to have concluded that ‘East’ Jerusalem is already the capital of an as yet non-existent Palestinian state, but conveniently ignores the fact that, as seen above, the Palestinians do not limit their aspirations to part of Jerusalem and apparently do not think they should have to engage in tedious negotiations of any future agreement. The fostering of Palestinian intransigence and encouragement of their misapprehension that no compromise will be necessary by people such as Dumper and others with a blatantly anti-Israeli agenda can only lead to further violence and misery. If outside elements such as the EU or the US government try to bulldoze Israel into a settlement of the conflict with which the Israeli people cannot live, then not only will we be exchanging one injustice for another, but this will be a betrayal of everything the Jewish people have achieved in 62 years of Israel’s existence and a return on the part of the world to the shameful days of Evian and Bermuda.
The very fact that Dumper is capable of claiming that “[a] critical issue that will provoke reaction in the streets of East Jerusalem is an Israeli infringement of the Islamic rights to the Haram al-Sharif and associated places” without mentioning the rights of Jewish worshippers at Temple Mount to exercise their religious rights without having rocks and breeze-blocks thrown at them by the Palestinian mobs every time some baseless rumour sweeps the streets with PA encouragement is ample evidence of Dumper’s bigoted views. Like his admirers below the line, Dumper’s concern for human rights comes to an abrupt end when the subject of Israelis arises.
This article garnered 211 comments, many of which were quite simply disgusting and their volume is too large to reproduce here. All the usual apartheid analogies, claims of ethnic cleansing, support for BDS and historical revisionism were in evidence, but I would like to concentrate on one particular type of comment. The Guardian editors are fond of telling us that they do not host antisemitism on their site, but as we all know, one of the many facets of antisemitism as defined by the EUMC Working Definition of Anti-Semitism is ‘[d]enying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.’ Bearing that in mind, take a look at this poster’s comments on the Dumper thread.
Maybe Matt Seaton could explain to us why Two Swords is allowed to continue posting at CiF after that antisemitic rant. And whilst we’re at it, it would be pertinent for Mr. Seaton to also address the subject of the ‘reincarnation’ of banned commentators as evidenced in this next comment.
Any guesses as to who this banned poster is?
Of course the banning of Two Swords and others like him/her and the prevention of already banned posters openly reinventing themselves would be but a drop in the ocean compared to the improvement Seaton could make to his website by ceasing to commission articles from people like Mick Dumper who obviously have nothing to add to the debate from a factual point of view and whose opinions seem to be perfectly in tune with those of his university’s extremist Islamist funders.
Like this:
Amnesty International’s complicity in extremism: The NGO to host upcoming pro-Islamist event, which includes former Guardian editor
You may also like
BBC continues to ignore Israeli medical care for wounded Syrians
Postcard from Israel: Caesarea
Examining a BBC correspondent’s recommended reading on Egyptian Jews