Thursday 30 May 2024

The War of Words

 Published in the Jerusalem Report, issue dated 10 June 2024

Anyone following the course of Israel’s struggle against Hamas would, hand on heart, have to admit that Israel is not winning the war of words. One commentator thinks it is “remarkable how effective the opponents of the Jewish state have been in arm-twisting something close to the entirety of the Western intelligentsia into accepting Hamas’s framing of the war.”

            It was the Hamas-inspired term “collective punishment” that the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Karim Khan, used in his application on May 20 to issue arrest warrants against Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and defense minister, Yoav Gallant.

He states as fact in his application that Israel indulged in “collective punishment of the civilian population”.  This is a totally unproven charge, emanating from Hamas’s anti-Israel publicity office, and assiduously disseminated to the world’s media.  Khan substantiates it by charging Israel with deliberately starving the Gaza population, willfully causing them great suffering or serious injury, willfully killing and intentionally directing attacks against them, murdering and persecuting them.

            Note the words “deliberately”, “willfully” and “intentionally”.  The idea of some secret Israeli plan to attack the people of Gaza sails perilously close to historic antisemitic tropes, and is nothing more than personal biased opinion which, like the charge of genocide, is unprovable because untrue.  It is to be hoped that the ICC judges charged with examining Khan's arrest warrant application perceive his anti-Israel charges for what they are.

            The anti-Israel lobby has succeeded in turning the overriding issue of the Gaza war into a recital of  civilian casualties and deaths caused by Israeli callousness. The figures provided by Hamas have been universally accepted and quoted without question, even by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).  On May 6 it issued Hamas-inspired figures of women and children killed in Gaza – approximately 9,500 women and 14,500 children.  Two days later it quietly announced that the number of verified deaths was now 4,959 women and 7,797 children (defined, incidentally, as anyone under 18 and thus inevitably including Hamas fighters).  In short the verifiable death toll has been reduced by more than 50% for both – a fact not referred to by Khan.  He makes no mention, either, of the huge efforts of the IDF to warn civilians of upcoming military operations, and get them to evacuate dangerous areas.

            Khan sidesteps the fact that civilians have been in the crossfire because Hamas – not Israel – has put them there. He does not mention that it has embedded its fighters, its weaponry, and its command centers in the heart of the civilian population, both above and below ground.

It seemed that President Joe Biden, pressured by domestic problems in an election year, sought to placate Arab American and Muslim voters by rowing back on his previous unequivocal support for Israel’s self-defense attack on Hamas.  Biden’s announcement early in May that he had paused a shipment of 3,500 bombs to Israel, and would not help with a ground invasion of Rafah was, the New York Times reported, “a sea change in US policy that Arab, American and Muslim leaders have demanded for months.” However, his immediate and unequivocal condemnation of Khan’s move in the ICC as “outrageous” puts the US-Israel relationship back on track.

Pro-Hamas propaganda adheres to the philosophy of Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carroll’s Alice Through the Looking Glass: “When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.

Take the word “apartheid” – a term that antagonistic propaganda has very nearly succeeded in smearing on Israel. People who lived through genuine apartheid in South Africa have testified over and over again that nothing of the sort exists in Israel. Where are the segregated entrances to public facilities, where the “No Arabs” notices? Where are the shops, the cinemas, the sports arenas in which Israelis and Arabs cannot mix freely? Arabs sit in Israel’s parliament and occupy senior positions in the judiciary. Arab nurses and doctors work side by side in Israel’s hospitals with Jewish colleagues.

Palestinian Arabs living in Areas A and B of the West Bank are wholly or partially self-governing. The position for Palestinians in Area C is certainly less than satisfactory. It is a legacy of the Oslo Accords, agreed by Yasser Arafat on behalf of the Palestinian Authority but never fully implemented. None of this counts when “apartheid”, twisted out of its true meaning, is used as a convenient weapon against Israel, and is taken up by those who wish the Jewish state ill.

It has been said that a fair proportion of activists on student demos or pro-Palestine rallies chant: “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” mindlessly, not understanding its implications. The river is the River Jordan, the sea is the Mediterranean. The area between them is where Israel is located. Allow Palestine to take it over, and there is no Israel. So what they are demanding is the annihilation of Israel and the slaughter of its people.. Hamas propaganda has succeeded in getting hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of people to call continually for this.

Another weapon in the propaganda war is “genocide”. The true definition, in accordance with the Genocide Convention, is quite clear. To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. The evidence offered for Israel’s genocidal intent often includes statements made in the heat of the moment by Israelis, some quite eminent, immediately after the horrifying events of October 7. These “wild and whirling words” cannot be taken as, and do not represent, the policy of the state of Israel. The Jewish state has never had the remotest intention of destroying the Palestinian people. Its actions over the 76 years of its existence, starting with the Declaration of Independence, provide ample evidence of that.

Israel’s true intent, as stated in the Declaration, is to “foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants…it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.” Those are the principles at the heart of the state of Israel, however much fallible human beings may have fallen short of living up to them.

          Yet, by sheer repetition, the outrageous suggestion that Israel is intent on genocide gained such acceptance that it made its way to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), whose ruling on the charge was immediately twisted and misinterpreted.  Most of the world believes that the ICJ determined that the claim that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people is plausible, and that it will issue a final judgement on this in due course.  This is simply not the case.

The record was put straight on April 26 by Judge Joan Donoghue, who was president of the court during the hearing.  In an interview on the BBC to mark her retirement, she said: “I’m correcting what’s often said in the media.”  She explained that, contrary to the widely-held misconception, the court's ruling was not that the claim of genocide was plausible.  What it actually determined was that the Palestinians had a “plausible right” to be protected from genocide.

Reporting of her statement has been very limited.  So the idea that Israel faces a charge of “plausible genocide” in the ICJ remains firmly embedded in the public consciousness.  It is reiterated time and again by anti-Israel speakers.   

Israel’s enemies are very well aware of the key role that words can, and do, play in their on-going conflict with the Jewish state. Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, recently emphasized the importance of using propaganda, especially in the context of the Israel-Hamas war.

On March 26. during a meeting with Iranian poets in Tehran, Khamenei asserted that influencing the information space and using it against adversaries can be just as effective as military strength.  He went further. All war is a media war, he said, and it is the side with the greater media influence that will come out on top.

During his meeting with Hamas leader-in-exile, Ismail Haniyeh, on the same day Khamenei especially praised the Palestinian militias’ media efforts in shaping public attitudes and narratives in the Muslim world.  Khamenei boasted that Palestinian militias’ media outlets have outperformed the Israeli media throughout the Israel-Hamas war.

The working philosophy of Hitler’s propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, proves itself repeatedly:  “Tell a lie often enough, and it becomes the truth.”  Israel, a thriving democracy, bases its publicity (or hasbara) on telling the truth, not lies.  That, unfortunately, cuts no ice in this war of words.



Tuesday 28 May 2024

The ICJ throws Hamas a lifeline

Published in the Jerusalem Post, 28 May 2024

 

On Friday afternoon, May 24, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) responded to the request by South Africa, made on May 10, that the court order an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.  It did not do that.  By a majority of 13 to 2 the bench of international judges ordered Israel to halt its military assault on the city of Rafah.  The court’s president, Judge Nawaf Salam, said  that the provisional measures ordered by the court in March did not fully address the situation in Gaza now, and conditions had been met for a new emergency order.

As in its previous ruling, the court has not ordered a ceasefire, nor required Israel to stop its assault on Hamas.  Nor has it changed its position on the assertion, constantly repeated in the media and elsewhere,  that it has concluded there is a “plausible” case that Israel has been committing genocide in Gaza.  

About that, the facts are that on April 25 Judge Joan Donoghue, who presided over the hearing in the ICJ of the accusation of genocide brought by South Africa against Israel, said in a BBC television interview that the court “did not decide – and this is something where I’m correcting what’s often said in the media – it did not decide that the claim of genocide was plausible….The shorthand that often appears, that there is a plausible case of genocide, is not what the court decided.” 

  She explained that what the court did decide was that the Palestinians had a plausible case to be protected from genocide. That is doubtless why the court ordered Israel to take special care to avoid infringing those rights.  Now it has gone one step further because, in the presiding judge’s words, of “the situation in Gaza now” and ordered Israel to cease its military operation in Rafah.

  Israel has failed to convince the ICJ that the measures it has taken, and is taking, to minimize the effect of its military operations on the civilian population are adequate, nor that ceasing the pursuit of the genocidal and terrorist Hamas and its leaders will result in untold further misery for them. 

The court has apparently not taken into account, either, that on May 8 the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) issued revised and verified figures of women and children killed in Gaza.  Creeping up daily to stand on May 7 at  approximately 9,500 women and 14,500 children killed since the beginning of the conflict, on May 8 the figures had been slashed by more than 50%.

   With no fanfare, the OCHA announced that the verified number of women killed was now 4,959, and the figure for children 7,797.  In short the verifiable death toll has been reduced by more than 50% for both. The data now differentiates between the total number of deaths as reported by Hamas (over 34,000) and the number of “identified” fatalities (some 24,000).  

Even the revised figures are open to question.  Hamas counts everyone aged 18 and under as “children”.  There are many full-time combatants aged 17 or 18, and they are almost certainly inflating the children fatalities.  Moreover the fatality figures, which include all deaths in hospital, include the elderly, an unknown number of whom will have died from natural causes.  In addition the figures include an element categorized as “unregistered” deaths.  These figures do not refer to identified bodies held by hospitals, but to unverifiable reports of deaths attributed by Hamas to “reliable media sources.”

In short, the new figures issued by OCHA may themselves one day be subject to a further downward revision.

On May 19 the editor of the UK’s Jewish Chronicle, Jake Wallis Simons, in light of the OCHA’s volte face, wrote:  “By rights, this should be the moment that the humanitarian case against Israel’s campaign in Gaza goes into terminal collapse.”

            It will not, of course.  It was the Hamas-inspired term “collective punishment” that the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Karim Khan, used in his application on May 20 to issue international arrest warrants against Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and defense minister, Yoav Gallant. 


He states as fact that Israel, as part of a systematic plan, indulged in “collective punishment of the civilian population”.  This plan, he wrote, involved deliberately starving the Gaza population, willfully causing them great suffering or serious injury, willfully killing and intentionally directing attacks against them, murdering and persecuting them – all of which amounted to war crimes and crimes against humanity.  Note the words “deliberately”, “willfully” and “intentionally”.  The idea of some secret Israeli plan to attack the people of Gaza sails perilously close to historic antisemitic tropes, and is nothing more than personal biased opinion which, like the charge of genocide, is unprovable because untrue.  It is to be hoped that the ICC judges charged with examining Khan's arrest warrant application perceive his anti-Israel charges for what they are.

            Eminent statisticians had started querying the accuracy of Hamas-provided data months ago.  Prof. Gregory Rose is an expert in international law at the University of Wollongong. Together with economist Dr Tom Simpson, and biomathematician Prof. Lewis Stone, he has pointed to the fact that between December 1 and December 8, 2023 the recorded number of adult male casualties declined by over 1,300 individuals.

“These mass resurrections of Gazan men,” they have written, “blew out the women and children death ratio from supposedly 68% to 80%.”

Hamas’s figures of deaths in Gaza do not distinguish fighters from civilians.  Israeli agencies and the IDF believe that between 14,000 to 15,000 terror operatives have been killed in the fighting.  On May 13 prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the ratio of Hamas combatants to Gazan civilians killed was about one-to-one.  If the new figures of civilian deaths released by OCHA are taken into account, more Hamas fighters than Palestinian civilians may have died.

The OCHA is quoted as saying: “United Nations teams in Gaza are unable to independently verify these figures, given the prevailing situation on the ground and the sheer number of fatalities. The UN will verify these figures to the extent possible when conditions permit.”

Meanwhile Hamas breathes a sigh of relief.   The ICJ has saved it from imminent destruction, and its leaders from exile or worse.  

The ICJ has also ordered it to return the hostages at once. But then, Hamas is not subject to their jurisdiction.


Published in the Jerusalem Post, and the Jerusalem Post online titled: "The ICJ's ruling on Rafah helps Hamas carry out more terror", 28 May 2024:
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-803912

Published in Eurasia Review, 31 May 2024
https://www.eurasiareview.com/31052024-the-icj-throws-hamas-a-lifeline-oped/#google_vignette 

Published in the MPC Journal, 5 June 2024
https://mpc-journal.org/the-icj-throws-hamas-a-lifeline/

 

 

Tuesday 21 May 2024

ICJ Judge sets the record straight

Published in the Jerusalem Post, 21 May 2024

            The USA’s well-respected National Public Radio (NPR) network published these words on January 26, 2024:  The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has found it is "plausible" that Israel has committed acts that violate the Genocide Convention.” 

As the world’s press and online media reported the ICJ’s decisions in the case brought before it by South Africa, which had charged Israel with committing genocide in Gaza, this same form of words appeared time and again.   What is not generally known, however, is that the judge who presided over the court and who actually delivered the court’s decision, maintains that the world’s media were wrong then, and have been repeating the incorrect interpretation of the court’s decision ever since.  This is not, Judge Joan Donoghue says, at all what the court decided.

On April 25, Judge Donoghue, the president of the ICJ when hearing the case, was interviewed on the long-running BBC television program Hardtalk to mark her retirement.  Her interviewer, Stephen Sackur, asked her if the key point the court considered in reaching its preliminary decision was whether there was a plausible case that Israel had committed genocide in Gaza following the Hamas attack of October 7.


           
“You quite clearly decided that there was a plausible case,” said Sackur. “Is it right to say that’s at the heart of what you decided?”

Interviewer and guest had clearly agreed that this question would be put quite early on.  Judge Donoghue responded: “I’m glad I have the chance to address that.”

            She began by explaining that the court’s test for deciding whether to impose measures  – that is, to require certain steps to be taken by parties to the proceedings – uses the idea of  plausibility.  The test, however, is the plausibility of the rights asserted by the applicant – in this case, South Africa.  So what the court decided was that the Palestinians had a plausible case to be protected from genocide, and that South Africa had the right to pursue that claim in the court. That is doubtless why the court ordered Israel to take special care to avoid infringing those rights.

            “It then looked at the facts as well,” continued Judge Donoghue, “but it did not decide – and this is something where I’m correcting what’s often said in the media – it did not decide that the claim of genocide was plausible….The shorthand that often appears, that there is a plausible case of genocide, is not what the court decided.”   

        So there it is, in black and white, from the most authoritative source possible – the judge who presided over the ICJ when it heard the case, and who delivered the court’s decision in person following the hearing. The court did not decide that there is a plausible case of genocide to answer. The only conclusion to draw is that the continuing cry of “genocide in Gaza” from pro-Palestinian activists has no foundation in fact or law.

            Later in the interview Sackur asked why the court had dealt only superficially with Hamas.  Judge Donoghue explained.  “The court has jurisdiction only over cases between states, and Hamas is not a state.  The court is not in a position to order Hamas at all.  The only thing we could do – and we did do, at the very end of our reasoning –  was to state very specifically that we condemned what Hamas had done, and to call for the immediate and unconditional release of the hostages.  We felt that was very important.”

            Unfortunately Judge Donoghue’s clarification of the ICJ ruling has received comparatively little media coverage, and the idea that Israel has been found guilty of “plausible genocide” persists across the media.  It is reiterated again and again because those peddling it find it suits their anti-Israel agenda.

   On May 12 the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that Cairo intended to join the case brought by South Africa before the ICJ.  Their reason?  Egypt perceives that Israeli aggression against Palestinian civilians is escalating.  The Iran-based MEHR media group that released the story could not resist slipping in, to substantiate Egypt’s decision even further, what Judge Donoghue termed the widely-believed, but false, “shorthand”: 

“The top United Nations court,” ran the MEHR report, “issued an interim ruling in January that found there was a plausible risk of genocide in the enclave.”

That is a misinterpretation of the court’s findings, but at lest makes no accusation.  The student protesters participating in campus sit-ins in the States, their copy-cat British counterparts, the weekly pro-Palestinian marchers through London and other cities – all go one stage further, maintain that Israel is indeed committing genocide in Gaza, and constantly repeat their demand that Israel be stopped.

Nowhere are the ICJ’s findings more misunderstood than within the UN itself, where groups and individuals with their own anti-Israel agendas fling the term “genocide” around with abandon. 

 On March 21, Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in the Occupied Territories, presented the Human Right Council with a report called "The Anatomy of a Genocide".

"I find that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the threshold indicating the commission of the crime of genocide against Palestinians as a group in Gaza has been met," she said, and proceeded to call for sanctions against Israel and an arms embargo. 

Israel's diplomatic mission in Geneva said the use of the word genocide was "outrageous" and that the war was against the Islamist group Hamas, not Palestinian civilians.

Albanese, an Italian lawyer, is one of dozens of independent human rights experts mandated by the UN to report and advise on specific themes and crises. A US ambassador in Geneva has said she has a history of using “antisemitic tropes”.

This constant assertion by the pro-Palestinian lobby that Israel is engaged in genocide in Gaza may be part of a strategy aimed at influencing the ICJ’s final decision on the charge brought by South Africa, years away though that decision probably is.  Meanwhile, the best thing that pro-Israel spokespeople can do is to publicize, as widely as possible, Judge Joan Donohue’s rejection of the commonly held misconception of the ICJ’s findings – namely that there was a plausible case that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza.

“That,” Judge Donoghue has said unequivocally, “is not what the court decided.”

Published in the Jerusalem Post, and in the Jerusalem Post online as: "Israel's advocates must publicize Judge Donoghue's clarification of ICJ ruling", 21 May 2024:
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-801937

Published in Eurasia Review as "Setting the record straight", 24 May 2024:
https://www.eurasiareview.com/24052024-setting-the-record-straight-oped/#google_vignette

Published in the MPC Journal as "Setting the record straight", 29 May 2024
https://mpc-journal.org/setting-the-record-straight/



Tuesday 7 May 2024

UNRWA probe ignores the basic issue

 Published in the Jerusalem Post, 9 May 2024 

         Consumers of the news media may have gained a rather distorted view of recent events concerning UNRWA (the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees). The position is not quite as many of the journals have been suggesting.

          O
n January 26, Philippe Lazzarini, UNRWA’s head, stated: "The Israeli authorities have provided UNRWA with information about the alleged involvement of several UNRWA employees in the horrific attacks on Israel on October 7."  Shortly afterward UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres clarified that 12 UNRWA employees had been identified, of whom nine had been fired, one was dead, and the identities of the other two were still being confirmed.

More than a dozen countries, including the US, immediately suspended their funding of the agency, causing a financial shortfall of about $450 million.

A few days later Guterres set up two separate investigations. A review team, led by former French foreign minister Catherine Colonna, was tasked with assessing how far UNRWA adheres to the principles of neutrality in its operations, while UN’s top watchdog, the Office of Internal Oversight (OIOS), would investigate the veracity of Israel’s claims against the 12 UNRWA staff members.  Israel later provided the UN with detailed allegations about seven more UNRWA staffers.

On April 22 the Colonna-led review issued its report into UNRWA’s “neutrality” in carrying out its functions.  The report identified no less than 50 aspects of the agency’s operations where it fell short, and recommended changes in each case.  Guterres immediately accepted all 50 recommendations, and announced that UNRWA “will establish an action plan to implement the recommendations contained in the final report.”

Although it was no part of the Colonna team’s brief to comment on the OIOS investigation into Israel’s charges against UNRWA staff, they thought it appropriate to include the following in their 54-page report: “Israel made public claims that a significant number of UNRWA employees are members of terrorist organizations. However, Israel has yet to provide supporting evidence of this.”

Inevitably the world’s media leapt upon this nugget, to the virtual exclusion of everything else in the report.  The headlines were a classic exercise in schadenfreude: ”Israel failed to support its claims about UNRWA staff”; “Israel has yet to produce evidence for claims against UNRWA”; “Report finds ‘No Evidence’ in key dossier”; “Israel hasn’t offered evidence tying many UN workers to Hamas,” and so forth, and so on.  But all were premature in their assumptions..

On April 26 UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric provided the media with the first authentic information on the investigation ordered by Guterres into Israel’s charges against UNRWA personnel.  He explained that the 12 UNRWA staffers named originally by Israel had been augmented later by seven more – five in March and two in April.  Of the 19 allegations, one case had been closed for lack of evidence, while four others had been suspended for insufficient evidence.  So now the UN investigators are looking into allegations against 14 members of UNRWA’s staff. 

Dujarric told reporters that OIOS investigators had already met with Israeli authorities and would visit again in May.  They had, however, given no indication of when their investigation would be completed.

“These discussions are continuing,” he said.   

So the suggestion in the Colonna review that Israel cannot substantiate its allegations against named UNRWA staff is belied by the fact that the OIOS investigation is very much ongoing.  What the Colonna report does reveal, however, is that UNRWA is an organization flawed in its operations by 50 examples of bias, and it would not require many guesses to determine against whom the bias is directed.

Shakespeare was adept in inventing insults.  Somewhere in his play King Lear he has one character roundly condemning another in these terms:  “Thou whoreson Z. Thou unnecessary letter…”  “Unnecessary” is a label that could well be applied to UNRWA.

Around the time the State of Israel came into being, something over half the non-Jewish population of what was called “Palestine” at the time, some 750,000 people, left their homes – some on advice, some from fear of the forthcoming conflict, some during the fierce exchanges.

After the armistice, the UN set up a body to assist them – UNRWA.  It  began its work in May 1950.  Seven months later the UN established the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), excluding Palestinian refugees from its remit.  Ever since, to their disadvantage, Palestinians have been treated differently from all other refugees in the world.  One reason is that from the start UNRWA totally ignored a key aspect of its remit.

The 1949 UN General Assembly resolution that established UNRWA called for the alleviation of distress among Palestine refugees and stated, crucially, that: “constructive measures should be undertaken at an early date with a view to the termination of international assistance for relief.”  In other words, the new agency’s mission was intended to be temporary, as the refugees under its wing were resettled.

Resettlement never occurred. On the contrary, UNRWA’s policy was to perpetuate the Palestinians’ refugee status.  It decided to regard as refugees all the “descendants of Palestine refugees”– children, grandchildren and great grandchildren in perpetuity. The effect?  The number of Palestinians registered by UNRWA as refugees, in camps scattered around the region, has mushroomed from around 750,000 to 5.9 million at the last count, and is growing exponentially year on year.  Its expanding client base is, of course, used by UNRWA to justify an ever-larger staff and an ever-increasing budget. By 2024 the “temporary” UNRWA had been transformed into a bloated international bureaucracy with a staff in excess of 30,000 and an annual budget of around $2.2 billion.

Worse than that, nearly 6 million people had been converted into permanent charity-dependent clients, with no incentive to become part of productive economically independent communities where those able to work have well-paid jobs, and the population thrives on earned incomes not handouts.

While UNHCR, the main UN agency dealing with refugees, concentrates on resettling them, facilitating their voluntary repatriation or their local integration, UNRWA maintains in their refugee status decade after decade an ever-expanding client base. 

There is every good reason to reform the present situation. Though of course the services UNRWA currently provides are essential, there is absolutely no need for that flawed organization to run them.  It should be dissolved, and its functions absorbed into an enlarged UNHCR, an efficient well-run organization. UNHCR is a global body dedicated to supporting people who have fled their homes because of conflict or persecution.  It protects their rights and crucially, unlike UNRWA, does not perpetuate their refugee status but helps them rebuild their lives.  It has a positive agenda. The unnecessary UNRWA is based on a negative philosophy.

All this, vital though it is, was of course well beyond the scope of the Colonna report.

Published in the Jerusalem Post and the Jerusalem Post online, 7 May 2024:
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-800162
 

Published in Eurasia Review, 17 May 2024:
https://www.eurasiareview.com/17052024-unrwa-probe-ignores-the-basic-issue-oped/

Published in the MPC Journal, 14 May 2024:
https://mpc-journal.org/unrwa-probe-ignores-the-basic-issue/