The Gaza war: “a crack” in relations between Muslim and Jewish communities, and the yellow star is a “cheap provocation” – British and Israeli newspapers

As international newspapers, including British and Israeli ones, continue to pay attention to the ongoing war in Gaza, today we focus on three articles.

The first is an article by journalist Raymonda Ali in the British newspaper The Guardian, in which she states at the beginning that “the rift that has affected relations between Muslim and Jewish communities in Britain in particular, and in the world as a whole, is a of the victims of the war in Gaza”.

He expresses fear that this split will lead to “the erosion of concerns about the protection of religious relations between sects, which threatens to fuel an already serious wave of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia”.

Raymonda points out some examples of incidents that actually happened after the war. Of which:

Raymonda says she and a group of women from different religions are trying to “save relations between the sects” to which they belong.

She notes that last week “she was invited to a private meeting hosted by a Jewish woman and a Muslim woman. The meeting took place in the sanctuary of Westminster Abbey in London, in the aptly named (Jerusalem) Hall.”

The women gathered expressed “the need to create a third space outside of religious institutions and political organizations”.

“Relationships are tested in difficult times,” they noted, adding: “Now we must show friendship, solidarity and trust” more than before.

“Women’s voices are almost always absent from decision-making,” says Raymonda.

It quotes one of the participants, a veteran peace activist and expert on religious relations, as saying that between 1992 and 2019, women “made up only 13% of negotiators, 6% of mediators and 6% of signatories in peace processes in the world. .” This is despite the fact that women’s power is “an agent of social change and conflict resolution around the world.”

She said there are “multiple examples of women working for peace. There is a grassroots initiative in Israel and Palestine that includes thousands of Palestinian and Israeli women, who continue to work for peace on the ground today. United Kingdom, there is also Nessa Nashim Network, which is a women’s network. “Muslim-Jewish, she has worked to build lasting friendships.”

The writer pointed out that some of those she met during the meeting had been subjected to criticism within their sect.

A women’s and refugee rights activist, to whom Raymonda gave the pseudonym “Aisha”, received threats when she condemned Hamas attacks on Israeli civilians on October 7. One of them told her: “You deserve to be burned.”

“Aisha” said that “sympathy for the other side” in their view is considered treason, and they ignore her activism “for decades for Palestinian freedom and rights.”

“Aisha” recounted how a close Jewish friend told her that she “asked her synagogue to pray for the people of Gaza and called for a ceasefire.” And she adds: “The message of all our sacred texts is the same: love your neighbor. If women had been present at the table, we would not have arrived at the situation we find ourselves in now.”

Raymonda says a Jewish friend of hers is calling on Jewish community leaders to “express their solidarity for the thousands of deaths in Gaza… and our grief should not be limited to one without the other.”

The writer admits that she almost lost hope, but those she spoke to during that meeting gave her hope back with their sympathy, tears and prayers.

The author concludes her article by urging “every effort… for understanding and security, in this heated political climate and with the spread of violence around the world.” “If we burn every bridge, the ugliness will never end,” she says, “but if we build bridges in the hope of a better future, humanity might have a chance.”

The second article is an editorial expressing the opinion of the Israeli newspaper “Haaretz” on what the Israeli representative to the United Nations, Gilad Erdan, did, who placed a yellow star with the writing “It will never happen again” during a meeting of the UN Security Council.

The newspaper said his behavior “weakened and embarrassed Israel.”

But the delegate said this was “his way of protesting what he described as ‘global silence’ regarding Hamas’ killing of Jewish children in Israel, just as it remained silent 80 years ago when the Nazis killed Jewish children in Europe”.

Haaretz believes that “Erdan was wrong and misleading at the same time” and placed the yellow star, in his opinion, “a cheap provocation”, because, as the editorial says, “it denigrates the victims of the Holocaust”.

The paper highlights a fundamental difference between “the massacre committed by Hamas… and the massacres committed by the Nazis and their collaborators… during World War II.”

This difference is that when “the Holocaust occurred, the Jews did not have a state of their own and did not have an army. The Jews were abandoned to their fate by their neighbors, who persecuted them or turned a blind eye to what was happening to them.”

The newspaper states that what the yellow star, worn by Erdan, symbolizes “is the weak, frightened and persecuted Jew, forced to helplessly raise his hands in the face of the weapons of the German soldiers and their collaborators.”

He adds that the horrible scenes that occurred on October 7 should not have happened in Israel… because whoever abandoned the Jews to their fate – and the other nationalities in the kibbutzim – was not the world, but their country.”

The newspaper placed the blame on the “failure” of the heads of the security apparatus in their mission, on the government and on the prime minister, who it described as “failing to take responsibility”.

The newspaper concludes its editorial by saying: “The world has not remained silent, Erdan… in fact, the opposite is true”, citing the positions of leaders such as American President Joe Biden, German Chancellor Olaf Schulz, Prime Minister British Rishi Sunak and French President Emmanuel Macron.

We conclude this presentation with an editorial from the British newspaper The Independent, which deems a temporary and immediate ceasefire necessary.

The paper first addresses Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s claim that he does not agree to stop fighting with Hamas, comparing the October 7 attacks to the atrocities of September 11.

He said: “The United States did not agree to a ceasefire after the bombing of Pearl Harbor (the attack launched by Japanese forces in 1941, which prompted the United States to enter the war), or after the terrorist attack of September 11th, and Israel too will not accept the cessation of hostilities.” With Hamas after the terrible attacks of October 7th.”

He described calls for a ceasefire as “a call for Israel to surrender to Hamas, to surrender to terrorism, to surrender to barbarism. That won’t happen.”

The newspaper’s editorial then explains the reasons why it has adopted the opinion that an immediate, even if temporary, ceasefire is necessary and states that Netanyahu’s words come “amidst columns of smoke, images of tanks flow through the rubble… and children who were killed during the bombings, and testimonies from reliable media.” And international humanitarian agencies, all this confirms that the difficult situation in Gaza is worsening day by day.”

His words also come in the context of “the looting of some of the meager aid flowing through the Rafah crossing from the United Nations depot, due to the state of insecurity caused by desperation… and amid the economic pressure exerted by Israel … the siege … and the deprivation of the population in the name of a global war for survival and the right to self-defense.” … of food, water, medicine and electricity.”

The newspaper predicts that the situation will worsen if Israel and Hamas wage a relentless war, considering that the spiral of violence could intensify, spread and spiral out of control.

Netanyahu’s words came as the Israeli military expanded “its ground invasion and its warnings to Gaza residents about the need to move south… and its orders to the Jerusalem hospital administration to evacuate remaining patients “.

“Even if this were legally justified… and in the context of attempting to achieve Israel’s war objective of destroying Hamas, which is said to be stationed under or near the hospital, it is impracticable… despite the army’s claims that this would avoid the civilian casualties as much as possible.” ..But there will be blood,” according to the newspaper.

In light of these reasons, the newspaper states, “a temporary and immediate ceasefire is needed… to allow hospitals like Jerusalem to treat patients and prepare them for transport… and to allow aid to be delivered in orderly manner … and to make room for diplomatic efforts to try to keep the conflict within the rules of war and save as many lives as possible.” innocent people… and efforts were made to free the hostages.”

The newspaper concludes its editorial by saying that it is unwise for Israel to put itself “in the position of losing international support… nor imagine it can militarily defeat terrorism completely and forever.”

He adds: “If the first duty of fighters is to protect innocent civilians, then we must find a way, through Qatar or the Egyptians, to push Hamas and Israel to reach an implicit agreement to provide aid and supplies… to save Lives Palestinians. If this is not achieved, the disaster will remain even more terrible.” “It will be much harder to get out of it.”