I must say that when I first read Geoffrey Alderman's piece in the JC last week about alleged Finnish government interference in Israel's internal affairs (see my post of June 25), I did wonder about some of the rhetoric, particularly in the paragraph that went:
That's right, Finland -- thousands of miles to the north of Israel, much of it located within the Arctic Circle. Home to the Lapps and the reindeer. Once ruled over by Field Marshal Mannerheim, the only ally in whom Adolf Hitler could place absolute trust.
Now David Aaronovitch has leapt into the fray in this week's issue of the paper with a rebuttal of many of Alderman's claims and assertions (subscription required). Regarding the application by Peace Now for a Finnish government grant for its work, Aaronovitch notes:
The real issue was what to make of this application and its acceptance. Geoffrey was very murky on his feelings about this, which is to say that — in normal English — he was glacially clear.
One, it was bad to get dosh from the Finns because — despite the fact that Finland is “home to the Lapp and the reindeer” (I did that jigsaw as well when I was a kid) — it was also once led by Field Marshal Mannerheim, described by Geoffrey as “the only ally in whom Adolf Hitler could place genuine trust.”
This is a thrust of genuine ingenuity in an inter-community spat. But it is also guilt by the most minuscule conceivable association. Old Mannerheim has not been on the scene now for nearly 60 years, and weren’t we then the reliable allies of Stalin (the man who invaded Finland in 1939, pushing it into the arms of Germany)? Better have nothing to do with Britain!
But, unless you do the Mannerheimlich manoeuvre, it is very hard to make Finland sound threatening.
Finland hasn’t invaded anywhere. There aren’t too many Finnish terrorists. Mad missionaries from Finland do not knock on doors a continent away.
In fact, if you’re going to get money from any other country, Finland probably stands at the top of the ethical league.
Next, Aaronovotich considers Alderman's contention that by awarding the grant, Finland was interfering in the affairs of a sovereign nation:
There are three problems here. The first is that the grant is for monitoring activities conducted by Peace Now in the occupied territories. How can that be direct interference in the internal affairs of Israel? The Finns are as entitled to fund stuff going on there as anyone else.
Secondly, Israel and its allies may be in a poor position to complain about such a very mild act of extra-territoriality. Adolf Eichmann, we all happily recall, did not give himself up at the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires. And, third, what is happening in the Middle East has more than a little resonance for those in the world who are neither Israelis or Palestinians. This sometimes gets forgotten.
And on, into the third area of Aldermanish objection — the nature of Peace Now’s activities in surveying the settlements and reporting back what they find.
Personally, I have no doubt of the value of this. Settlement-building constituted successive Israeli governments’ own maddening contribution to the collapse of the peace process, just as obduracy and sly support of terrorism constituted Yasir Arafat’s chosen path to the bloody nowhere that we all now inhabit. We need to know what’s going on.
This is perhaps where many readers will find themselves distancing themselves from Aaronovitch, and it's perhaps also the "crunch" issue in the whole debate. An equation of Yasir Arafat with "successive Israeli governments" may not be to everyone's taste.
Anyway, Aaronovitch goes on:
But Geoffrey has two complaints. One rhetorical and valueless: that Peace Now doesn’t also monitor Gaza bomb-making and terrorist academies. Actually, that was what I thought the IDF was for but, if Geoffrey thinks that they could use a little civilian help, he could always volunteer.
The second objection is, well, objectionable. It is that aerial surveillance of settlement activity is tantamount to treason, disclosing to the enemy vital secrets about Israeli defences. Settlements may not, he admits, be sensitive areas in the military sense, but they are “not exactly insensitive in the eyes of the enemies of Israel.”
On this basis — a few thousand quid going to the monitoring and true reporting of settlement activity, most of which is contrary to the road-map, let alone to the Oslo accords — Geoffrey Alderman suggests that the Finns be asked to apologise and that Peace Now be prosecuted. And this despite the fact that far, far, far more outside money has been raised outside Israel to support politically disastrous settlement-building.
Geoffrey’s is, I am afraid to say, an appalling attempt at closing off debate, containing just about every Jesuitical device for discrediting an opponent without once having to deal with his arguments.
It is almost a model of its kind. And, because of it, I invite readers who think that Israel is worth saving, to supplement the efforts of the Finnish government and — like me — put £100 in an envelope and send it to Peace Now. Now.
Food for thought here. And perhaps the Finnish government isn't quite as wicked as Alderman suggested.
No comments:
Post a Comment