Guardian

CiF contributor Ghada Karmi promotes Greater Palestine.


On Friday, whilst all eyes were on events taking place at the UN building in front of that horrible green marble wall (talk about crimes against interior decorating), the Guardian published an article at ‘Comment is Free’ by one of its favourite anti-Zionists (and peace process rejectionists) – Ghada Karmi.

Veteran CiF readers will, by now, be familiar with her uncompromising stance.

Indeed, this is far from the first time that Karmi – the Palestine Solidarity Campaign patron, CAABU board member, signatory of the Stuttgart Declaration (which calls for an end to the Jewish state) and Exeter University lecturer – has pushed for ‘Greater Palestine’ on the Guardian’s pages.

And, she will apparently be encouraged to continue to do so no matter how much suffering and bloodshed her historical revisionism is likely to bring about.

Karmi’s article berates Mahmoud Abbas for going ahead with his statehood bid at the UN on the grounds that it represents an unacceptable compromise.  Her position is, in fact, no different to that of Hamas and the other Palestinian factions which reject a negotiated two-state solution.

“But the UN drama now unfolding is no more than a dangerous sideshow detracting from the real issue. The statehood debate has hijacked the historical facts and created a new reality: that the Israeli-Palestinian problem is about the 1967 Israeli occupation, and dividing historic Palestine into two states is the solution. This is the reality the international community has been encouraged to accept. In fact the conflict dates from the 1948 expulsion of the majority of Palestine’s inhabitants to accommodate Israel’s creation, as today’s 6.5 million Palestinian refugees can attest. Redressing that terrible injustice is the only durable solution. While Palestinian statehood in a fifth of the original homeland might seem attractive given the power imbalance between both sides and Israel’s obduracy in peace negotiations, this was the worst historical moment to push for such a paltry aim which Palestinians may live to regret.”

This article does not represent a mere expression of an outlandish opinion in an op-ed: the frequency with which the Guardian publishes the opinions of Karmi and others with the same agenda implies that these are opinions which find sympathy among its higher echelons.

Of course the comparable ideology on the other side is not – even in the name of ‘balance’ – granted exposure on ‘Comment is Free’. In fact one only has to read the Guardian editorial which was published a couple of hours later to see what the Guardian considers ‘rejectionist’.

“If Mr Netanyahu or any future leader were ever to cross a line, it would not be by repeating that everything is on the table when plainly it is not. It would be by turning to Israel and saying that peace would involve giving up what he still refers to as Judea and Samaria, words which in a two-state context are rejectionist.”

So, even referring to a geographical area by its original name is, according to Guardianspeak, ‘rejectionist’, (users of terms such as Cymru and Nah-Eileanan Siar may care to take note of that) but apparently demanding the dissolution of an entire country is not.

The concept of ‘Greater Israel’ (as promoted by a handful of Israeli extremists who will never find their way onto the pages of ‘Comment is Free’) and the concept of ‘Greater Palestine’ (as promoted by Ghada Karmi, Sam Bahour and assorted Hamas op-ed writers who do appear there quite regularly) are both archaic, irrelevant and extremely unhelpful ideologies which do nothing to advance a much-needed solution to the current conflict. Both are uncompromising in their essence and neither should have a place among liberal voices truly seeking the wellbeing of all the peoples involved.

By publishing polemics such as this, by Ghada Karmi, the Guardian shows itself to be way outside mainstream liberal opinion and firmly in the camp of the extremists and the real rejectionists of a negotiated peace process.

8 replies »

  1. Ghada Karmi is saying openly what her Fatah pals – (sorry our peace-partners) say in private or only to the Arab public in Arabic.

    “Fatah Central Committee Member Abbas Zaki Calls Netanyahu and Obama “Scumbags” and Says: “The Greater Goal Cannot Be Accomplished in One Go”
    Al-Jazeera TV (Qatar) – September 23, 2011 – 01:49″

    She – exactly as her Guardian “progressive liberal” fellow travellers – is ready to fight to the last drop of blood of her Palestinian brethren – from her secure comfort in the UK.

  2. Karmi says: “But the UN drama now unfolding is no more than a dangerous sideshow detracting from the real issue.” Up to here I agree with Karmi. The real worry that has been sidelined is Iran’s ongoing quest for nuclear weapons. The UN issues will have been an attempt to distract attention from what might now turn into something that Mankind must wake up to – a new nuclear power.

    But I guess the Guardian will see this as something positive.

  3. Rather than call The Guardian and the likes of Kharmi “rejectionist”, we should employ the term that more explicitly states their apparent position: eliminationist, just as we use it for Hamas, Hezbollah & the PLO – at least as far as the latter’s still extant Charter states.

  4. Looks like the Guardian is compiling a list of forbidden words: so Judea and Samaria are definitely on it; next: maybe Netanyahu — if it’s written in Hebrew on an ancient ring, it can’t be halal, can it?

  5. Is anything new here since Arafat’s notorious 1993 Johannesburg speech, where he said in quite clear Arabic, “First Gaza and Jericho, then Tel-Aviv and Haifa”? The land-faithful in Israel have warned of this ever since then, and have only been called “raving lunatics” for their pains by the true raving lunatics, the concessionist Israeli Jewish land-for-not-necessarily-peace camp.

  6. Off-topic in a specific sense but on-topic in an exceedingly important general sense:

    (The website on which this video was originally hosted was seriously hacked shortly after this video was posted there.)

    Renowned Islamic Ideologue Defines Iran’s Foreign Policy

  7. PLEASE BE AWARE: I think that visiting the hacked original site which hosted the video, the site lenziran.com, may compromise any computer that visits it, or may, at least, record, and provide to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRIGC), the ip address of, any computer that visits it.

    Web page of another instance of the video clip:
    http://www.mrctv.org/videos/renowned-islamic-ideologue-defines-iran’s-foreign-policy

    The speech is by Hassan Rahimpour Azghadi, a member of the Supreme Council of Cultural Revolution in Iran.

    Translated by Laleh Gillani

  8. “The concept of ‘Greater Israel’ (as promoted by a handful of Israeli extremists who will never find their way onto the pages of ‘Comment is Free’) and the concept of ‘Greater Palestine’ (as promoted by Ghada Karmi, Sam Bahour and assorted Hamas op-ed writers who do appear there quite regularly) are both archaic, irrelevant and extremely unhelpful ideologies which do nothing to advance a much-needed solution to the current conflict. Both are uncompromising in their essence and neither should have a place among liberal voices truly seeking the wellbeing of all the peoples involved.”

    I cannot believe that I’m reading these words written by you, Israelinurse.
    To call the inclusion of Judea and Samaria, the actual heartland of the ancient Jewish kingdoms, “Greater Israel”, which only comprises 23% of the area of historic Palestine awarded to the Jews to “re-create” their “ancient homeland” in the San Remo agreement of 25 April 1920, in which the territories of Mesopotamia, (Iraq), Syria (Syria and lebanon) and the future Jewish state in Palestine, were agreed, remains true until the present time, because of the principle of estoppel amongst other things.
    When the British illegally lopped off 77% of the land designated for the Jews, to give it to Abdullah to create Trans-Jordan in 1921 for reasons of political expediency (and refused to call it Palestine) as Abdullah wanted, it was made crystal clear that all the land West of the Jordan was reserved for Jewish sovereignty, and this was incorporated into the Mandate for Palestine document of July 1922 which all 51 members of the league of Nations ratified, and is legally binding until the present day, as it was incorporated into Article 80 of the UN Charter upon the dissolution of the league.

    Truth does not lie equidistant between two points, and for you to equate the extremists of the Arab position with the so-called Jewish”extremists” who simply wish to retain a tiny piece of land which belongs to the Jews, demonstrates profound ignorance on your part.
    I suggest you read Howard Grief’s and Jacques Gautier’s books to learn the real significance of what you are saying.
    Further, there is no evidence whatsoever that further territorial compromise by Israel will bring peace. On the contrary, all the evidence points to the opposite, as following the Gaza debacle.
    The “moderate” Fatah doesn not hide its true intention.
    The best guarantee of peace and the safety of the Jews is to keep hold of the land.