Hasbara videо: The imaginative world of deputy FM Ayalon (UPDATED) | +972 Magazine Hasbara videо: The imaginative world of deputy FM Ayalon (UPDATED)

+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

Hasbara videо: The imaginative world of deputy FM Ayalon (UPDATED)

So this is where deputy foreign minister Danny Ayalon exists: In a vast white space populated by magically appearing and reappearing figments of his imagination. Why am I not surprised.

I wonder if the comment about Israel not trying to occupy the Kingdom of Jordan  being a “painful compromise” is the official position of the Foreign Ministry, and if so, what do their Jordanian counterparts think of the image of all of Jordan with the Star of David on it. Hmm.

Update: The video appears to be lifted straight off an earlier and equally ludicrous campaign by the flagship settler organization, the Yesha council. Take a look:

Yesha itself rather happily announced in a mass email today that “The Foreign Ministry has endorsed the Yesha Council’s information line by using our information video starring Golan Azoulai.” In the next few hours they seem to have gotten a lot of very angry phone calls, because later today they released the following clarification: “Following several questions that were addressed to us,  we’d like to clarify that beyond the use of the central idea of the clip, there is no official relationship between the Yesha Council and the new clip [sic], which was produced without our knowledge.”

This merits a fistful of observation:  How can an organization engage in a relationship with a clip? Does it being unofficial mean the Yesha Council and the new clip are just kinda dating from time to time? Also, “there’s no connection except the central idea” must be one of the weakest denials of the year.

The key issue here is that it seems the Foreign Ministry has adapted the ultra-expansionist views of the Yesha Council, wholesale.

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article
  • LEAVE A COMMENT

    * Required

    COMMENTS

    1. Deïr Yassin

      Wow, so many lies in such a short time.
      Danny Ayalon asks rhetorically: “What was Jordan doing in the West Bank in the first place ? …Jordan simply occupied it in its previous attempt to destroy the newly established State of Israel”

      Another Israeli who never cared to read Avi Shlaim’s “Collusion Across the Jordan, King Abdullah, the Zionist Movement and the Partition of Palestine” where Shlaim claims – and he’s not the only one – that a secret deal was made between the Zionists and King Abdullah. He got the West Bank if he promised not to attack Israel. In Simone Bitton’s film on “Palestine: the History of a land” [Palestine: histoire d’une terre], there’s a footage of King Abdullah with some of the Zionists bosses, making their dirty deal.

      Reply to Comment
    2. Danny

      This man physically reminds me of Joseph Goebbels (minus the brown uniform). He has the same face and exudes the same sort of repugnance. Israel should be ashamed to have this man, along with his boss, running its foreign policy.

      Reply to Comment
    3. Carl

      Only 315 views? This is comedy gold: surely deserving of more. Actually if you watch it whilst imagining Danny Ayalon as one of the cartoons rather than an actual person, it’s even funnier.

      Anyone from the UK remember that shit advert a couple of years back where a guy with a sub-Manuel Spanish accent and trousers a touch short of his armpits tried to flog you timeshares? If so, imagine him reading Danny’s words and it’s funnier still.

      Roll on video No. 63… .. .

      Reply to Comment
    4. So true!
      I’m amazed official Israel would be so honest. Admitting the “67 borders” is a lie. They’re from 1949.

      Admitting the UN Partition Plan was never fulfilled. And in fact discarded. Israel is not relying on that for legal legitimacy.

      This means the State of Israel OWNS everything that happened under its rule from 1948 (and from 1967 its rule grew to all of Mandate Palestine) till today. The UN is off the hook for the Partition Plan.

      Israel admits the one-state solution.
      and by inference, apartheid, ethnic cleansing and having NO LEGAL BASIS other than the Balfour Declaration of 1917 (UN vote and plan for partition are in the bin) which is weak weak weak (and Israel isn’t fulfilling that either – no Arabs to blame for refusing this one)

      This is huge.

      Reply to Comment
    5. Noam

      interesting… we’re always told by Ayalon’s type that this conflict is not territorial, right? that’s it’s all about THEIR refusal to accept Israel in ANY boundries. AND YET, the best argument he could find against calling occupation by its name, is that the area is simply “disputed”.
      so wait, assuming we even accept this interpretation – then it IS a territorial dispute after all?
      i’m puzzled. (one has to admit, this isn’t half bad for propaganda) 🙂

      Reply to Comment
    6. The effort to declare greater Israel on the basis of legal precedent is important.

      It lays out the fallacy of both Israel’s and Palestinian solidarity’s legal claims.

      The Ayalon sequence RESTS on the Balfour Declaration and the post-WW1 Sykes Picot, then San Remo declarations affirmed by the League of Nations, and as currently authoritative sequence.

      The Balfour Declaration though was a recommendation, a declaration of policy, not a legally binding agreement. The Sykes Picot and San Remo agreements were made between imperial powers that were voided legally. If the primary body of the San Remo agreement was voided, how can a secondary clause be currently legally binding. The League of Nations disbanded, and the UN did NOT ratify prior League of Nations declarations.

      The legal basis of both Israel’s and of Palestine’s existence is the principle of self-governance. The only question is the question of jurisdiction of the self-governance of entities.

      The principle of self-governance is ONLY a present phenomena. Prior residents don’t vote (absentee ballots?). The residents that might have been there if, don’t vote.

      The right of return asserted by Palestinian solidarity, over a short period of time, is a restoration of the principle of self-governance in a jurisdiction (repairing a prior denial of self-governance).

      The right of return over three generations now is something different, as it distorts self-governance among current residents.

      Reply to Comment
    7. Noam

      furthermore… many things about the right-wing’s position are just plain stupid. take the 30 seconds after 02:02 for example. he stresses almosy NO-ONE accepted Jordanian sovereignity over the West Bank.
      I would be careful there, as England and Pakistan (the only nations that recognized the WB as Jordanian for 19 years), are still 2 more than those who have ever recognized Israeli rule there since 1967.
      If eveyrthing is so clear under international law, how come Israel never managed to convince even ONE of its allies that this is the case? Why didn’t Israel ever bother to annex this territory and incorporate it into itself, if it so cleary belongs to it? Why is it still “disputed”? The answer is clear – Israel doesn’t want to become Israstine. At least not now.
      Let’s say we even accept the term “disputed”, rather than “occupied”. Still, there is no dispute over the fact that the Palestinians aren’t citizens, OR about this disputed territory being administered militarily. Even if it isn’t a direct technical violation of international law – is settling civilians in such a territory, under a superior status than the local population, moral? Democratic? How do you explain that?

      This is utter garbage.

      Reply to Comment
    8. Nice fairytale.
      Theodor Herzl accepted the removal (“transfer”) of the Palestinians, though he emphasized the need for diplomatic caution in the face of Ottoman, British and larger Arab vested interests. In his diaries in 1895, Herzl wrote of the need to “spirit the penniless (Arab) population” across the border to Arab countries while being mindful that “both the process of expropriation (of property and land) and that of the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly.”

      From Herzl through Ben-Gurion, consensus existed that forced ‘transfer’ was the solution to the Jews’ ‘Arab problem.’ Ben-Gurion’s position was clear: ‘better that the smallest possible number of Arabs remain within the area of the state. Their forced removal could be completed only under cover of war … Ben-Gurion insisted at the time: ‘We must respond with a decisive blow: the destruction of the place or the expulsion of the residents along with the seizure of the place. When in action we … must fight strongly and cruelly, letting nothing stop us. It is not our task to worry about the return of the Arabs.’” See: http://www.acjna.org/acjna/articles_detail.aspx?id=558
      It it only were like Amos Oz put it: A drowning man in the sea has a right to climb onto the wood, on which another man has to move a bit. It seems more to be the case that the man first on the wood is now beeing drowned, slowly.

      Reply to Comment
    9. Anne O'Nimmus

      Well, Mr Ayalon, if Israel has sovereignty over the West Bank, why is it not internationally recognized? And why has it not in 44 years lifted military occupation with its brutal paralegal consequences for the indigenous Palestinian people and simply said to them, you now have Israeli citizenship and are subject to the same laws as all Israelis? Oops! I know! Cos that interferes with the colonisation exercise, with its continuous land theft! And the settlers just LURVE being teh overlords!

      Reply to Comment
    10. Louis

      LOL… Well Scripted… So the conclusion? Great Performance! Did anyone pick up on the Glenn Beck motif? So Danny to your thesis: No Occupation, tear down the fiction of the green line and just have one political rule over all the area…… call it “Jewish and Democratic” and pledge full democracy to and for all the residents… meaning, among other other things full voting rights, full land use and zoning and natural resource rights, full cultural rights… and, of course, given that according to Danny, 67 was not a hostile occupation, but only a ‘corrective’ meassure, lets take other corrective meassures in order to fix the harms done by the 44 years of un-democratic rule over the retroactive citizens of the “Jewish and Democratic” State who are not part of the Jewish majority… after all even in an ethnic Democracy, the principle of democracy is far more deep than one-vote per citizen… i.e. it is not a regime of the majority at the expense of democracy itself…See More

      Reply to Comment
    11. shraga

      this comment was edited for its hate-talk

      it’s very sad to read that the people who commented here can’t argue with facts rather than confronting them. I understand that finding out that the philosophy you base your hate against Israel is one big lie. I know it’s very popular to stand against Israel.

      Reply to Comment
    12. Bridget

      What’s up with all the silly stick figures….?
      Couldn’t they use footage of real people at least? Was this aimed at younger kids?

      o.0 huh.

      Reply to Comment
    13. Shoded Yam

      “…Was this aimed at younger kids”
      .
      Sadly no. Howvever, it does illustrate the level of contempt the gov’t of Israel has for the collective intellect and powers of perception of diaspora jewry.

      Reply to Comment
    14. directrob

      No problem, I concede, Gaza, Judea and Samaria are part of Israel. Now give all people within the borders equal rights and let the fugitives return.

      Reply to Comment
    15. Philos

      Dimi, please provide link to Yesha Council statements

      Reply to Comment
    16. The Barking Goat

      Sadly for the 972niks, it’s HIGHLY unlikely that Hadash will ever get elected to run the country. Until that happens you’re stuck with more mainstream people like Ayalon.

      Reply to Comment
    17. RichardNYC

      @NS
      Does anyone here actually have any substantive criticism of Ayalon’s explanation? Or is adolescent name-calling the best you can do? I expected as much from the comments, but not the the author of the piece. I’m against settlements, for pragmatic reasons, but I’m also against the exploitation of legalese for the political purposes. the pro-Palestinian crowd has been trivializing and eroding the legitimacy of international law with its propaganda for years, and Ayalon’s account of the legal history of the West Bank is basically correct. Now let’s be grown ups and actually talk about what he said instead of regurgitating the now vaguely anti-semitic “hasbara” trope.

      Reply to Comment
    18. ARTH

      The issue isn’t the historical facts. The issue is that there are people in these regions who have no civil rights and who have no control over their land and water. Moreover, their land and water is being confiscated and given to a “settler” population which has come from without.
      If there were non people, Arabs, Palestinians, whatever, then Ayalon could claim whatever he wanted and there might even be some sort of legitimacy to what he is saying.. The issue of “occupation” is not merely a legal definition. It is a a state of existence under which a civilian and native population exists, unjustly. The lie of Ayalon is not his interpretation of the historical events, the lie is that there people who were there and are there now don’t matter and are not, by default, entitled to ordinary human rights and freedoms. The other of Ayalon is that creating settler cities and towns there is not at the unjust expense of the people who are already there and that Israel has both the right and the entitlement to do it.

      Reply to Comment