CAMERA Media Analysis
10 April '11
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=33&x_article=2027
This article has been updated as of 26 April '11. Click here for new article.
April 10 Update: Sanders Also Errs on Lifta Land
April 7, 2011 -- In a Los Angeles Times article today about Israeli plans to develop the abandoned Arab village of Lifta, Edmund Sanders misreports the recently passed Israeli law popularly referred to as the "Nakba Law" ("Israel and Palestinians have conflicting visions for village's future"). Erring on several counts, Sanders writes: "The Knesset last month passed a law that would impose fines on groups or authorities that commemorate the Palestinian displacement." This is a gross misrepresentation of the so-called "Nakba Law," which can be viewed on the Knesset Web site here. The first and second paragraphs of the law, in English (CAMERA's translation) read:
A body which is budgeted (ie, a state-sponsored body) or supported according to clause 21, or a public institution supported according to clause 3a shall not incur expenses in order to engage in activities which involve --
a) 1) the rejection of the existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish nation; 2) the rejection of the democratic character of the state; 3) support for armed struggle or acts of terror, of an enemy or terror organization, against Israel; 4) incitement to racism, violence, or terror; 5) dishonoring of the national flag or national symbol; In this sub-section, "expense" -- includes waiving income.
(b) If the Finance Minister sees that a state budgeted or supported body does not abide by this clause, he is entitled to withold funds from the state budget that are supposed to be transferred to the said body . . .
Thus, the errors in Sanders' description of the law are manifold. First, the law does not apply to "groups or authorities" at large, but specifically to state-funded bodies, such as municipalities, public schools, and the like. NGOs and private outfits do not fall into this category, and there is nothing in the law to prevent them either from commemorating "Palestinian displacement" or rejecting the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. As the fourth paragraph of the law states, "Accordingly, the law will forbid all governmental entities, or bodies which receive government funds, to organize or fund activities which undermine the foundations of the country or to contradict is basic values."
Second, the bill does not outlaw "commemora[tion] of the Palestinian displacement." Rather, it outlaws the rejection of the existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish nation. One most certainly can recognize or memorialize Palestinian displacement, and at the same time recognize that Israel is the state of the Jewish nation.
Third, contrary to Sanders' report, the law does not allow for any "fine." Rather, it grants the Finance Minister the discretion to withhold funds that were otherwise budgeted to the entity.
Separately, Sanders reliance on "Israeli historian Ilan Pappe" as a source in the same article is highly problematic. Pappe has repeatedly and openly eschewed historical facts in favor of ideology, stating, for example, "Indeed the struggle is about ideology, not about facts, Who knows what facts are? We try to convince as many people as we can that our interpretation of the facts is the correct one, and we do it because of ideological reasons, not because we are truthseekers" (Le Soir, Nov. 29, 1999).
Additional instances in which he expressed this sentiment can be seen here. In line with his embrace of ideology over facts, Pappe has repeatedly backed bogus charges against Israel, including the myth of a 1948 massacre of the villagers of Tantura and the bogus assertion that Israel committed a massacre in Jenin in 2002. He has also backed international boycott campaigns of Israeli academia, rendering Sanders' description of him -- "Israeli historian Ilan Pappe" -- inadequate and misleading.
April 10 Update: Sanders Also Errs on Lifta Land
Additional research on Sanders' April 7 article has turned up an additional factual error. The article claims that Lifta's "farmland was confiscated and is now the site of Israel's Supreme Court; its parliament, the Knesset; and the Hebrew University." According to the Jerusalem municipality, none of those institutions are built on land formerly belonging to Lifta. Elie Isaacson, the spokesman for the municipality, noted that the Knesset's land is leased from the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem. As for the Hebrew University and the Supreme Court, they sit on land that once was part of the Arab village of Sheikh Badl, not Lifta.
Likewise, a phone call to Israel Kimhi, of the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies, and a foremost expert on the city of Jerusalem, confirmed that Lifta's boundaries did not extend that far south. He consulted a British Mandate- era map and found that Lifta's boundaries only went as far south as Jaffa Street, and did not reach the government compound area to which Mr. Sanders refers.
If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.
Posts
Lifta's land did in fact reach those boundaries however the British Jerusalem municipality counted the land as Jerusalem. Further proof to support your claim would be required... Lifta was one of the wealthiest Palestinian villages in Palestine, if not the wealthiest. Romema to Mikor Barouch to Ramat Eshkol, Beit Hanina, across to Musrara was Lifta. The land belongs to them, as they owned it with hard earned cash- breaking and selling building stone, which the villagers of Lifta were known for. After they became refugees many have continued in this tradition, as is evident in there current population centers in Ramallah and Amman.
ReplyDeleteRe: Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete#1 Elie Isaacson, the spokesman for the municipality, noted that the Knesset's land is leased from the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem. (This is a source. The municipality isn't renting from the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate, or Lifta's claim is against the Patriarchate?)
#2 As for the Hebrew University and the Supreme Court, they sit on land that once was part of the Arab village of Sheikh Badl, not Lifta.(Where was Sheikh Badl? Are you claiming that Lifta and Sheik Badl are one and the same?)
#3 Israel Kimhi, of the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies, and a foremost expert on the city of Jerusalem, confirmed that Lifta's boundaries did not extend that far south. He consulted a British Mandate- era map and found that Lifta's boundaries only went as far south as Jaffa Street, and did not reach the government compound area to which Mr. Sanders refers.(Once again, this is an authoritative source. What interest did the British Jerusalem municipality have to record the land as Jerusalem in place of Lifta? That they did constitutes an official source. That anonymous says ...)
All of the above have both named individuals, official spokesman, and maps, predating "refugees" status. Anonymous said...with a virtual cut and paste generic description of village life does little to require "further proof" as the original statement will stand on it's own.