Friday, 25 December 2009

Carter: Israel has "had an entire year without terrorism"

In a typically one sided opinion piece in the Guardian, Jimmy Carter writes: 
"Israel has long argued that it cannot negotiate with terrorists, yet has had an entire year without terrorism and still could not negotiate."
You could say, well the media never reports on the acts of terrorism that have occured over the past year in Israel, so Carter must be right, but then, I read the news and I am aware of the terrorism.    For example, there was a would-be suicide bomber who was stopped and disarmed at one of those darned checkpoints.    Just a few days after Carter's piece an Israeli was shot and murdered by a Palestinian terrorist , ironically, but perhaps inevitably, as a resident said, in an area where a security checkpoint had recently been removed.                    Meanwhile another Palestinian was caught at a checkpoint in Hebron in possession of two knives. An Israeli boy was injured by a Molotov cocktail and an Israeli girl was injured by a firebomb, both in the West Bank. Not to mention the continuous rocket attacks on Southern Israel from Gaza. And the Israeli settlers' persecution of the Palestinians continues. Oh, wait a minute. I got that the wrong way round.    What were you saying, Mr. Carter?

Tuesday, 15 December 2009

The Guardian, Tunnels and Swine Flu

The Guardian today published a full-page report on the tunnels linking Egypt to Gaza. The tunnels are several times referred to as a "lifeline" for the Palestinians, but there are two facts that the article gets wrong.

If you were to guess that the article makes no mention of weapons being smuggled through the tunnels... well, you'd be wrong! Here's what it has to say about that:

Hamas "monitors movements to ensure that drugs, alcohol and weapons are not imported."

In fact, Hamas smuggle weapons through the tunnels themselves.

The article also mentions that one product that is smuggled through, aniseed, is "suddenly hugely in demand as a remedy for swine flu", which is followed by a tunnel owner stating, "We have no alternative".

Really? What about the 10,000 doses of the swine flu vaccine Israel has provided to Gaza? And the 40,000 more on the way. And Israel treating Gaza swine flu suspects to try and prevent it spreading.

So whilst Israel is loosening the blockade to save the Gazans, what is Hamas' role in all this?
"Last week, Hamas police detained a swine flu patient in critical condition on his way to Israel for treatment, and he died shortly thereafter in a local hospital."

Wednesday, 2 December 2009

Open Letter To Self-Hating Lefty "Jewish" Organisations

In Tuesday's Times there was a full page letter/advert written by a number of Jewish organisations: Independent Jewish Voices, Jews for Justice for Palestinians, Jewish Forum for Justice and Human Rights, Jewish Socialists' Group, Jewish Writers Against the Occupation, and Scottish Jews for a Just Peace.
What do all these groups have in common? Well, I have a hunch that they don't care about justice and human rights for Israel. They also represent a very small minority of Jews. People who only call themselves Jewish when it's Israel-bashing time. I don't know why they do it, but anyway.
Here's the letter, with my thoughts:
Dear Prime Minister,
We appreciate your Government's stated intention to build bridges with the Jewish community in the light of responses to the Goldstone report. To achieve this, it is vital for you to recognise that British Jews do not speak with one voice on this matter.
Of course British Jews don’t speak with one voice, but if you are going to try to “buildbridges” with the Jewish community, wouldn’t it makes sense to try to do it with the MAJORITY of British Jews. i.e. the ones who actually identify with their Jewish status, and Israel’s role in that; not the ones who only call themselves Jews when they want to criticize Israel.
What are they even saying in this paragraph? That Brown can't "build bridges" with the Zionist British Jews? That the self-hating Jews are the more important and they're the ones that Brown should please?
We welcome the Goldstone Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza conflict as a key document in the upholding of international law in situations of violent conflict, and regret your Government's failure to endorse the Report and its recommendations at the United Nations General Assembly.
The Goldstone report was less about fact finding and more about vilifying Israel and excusing Hamas terrorism.
We condemn the vilification of Richard Goldstone, an internationally acclaimed jurist who has made a substantial contribution worldwide to the development and maintenance of international humanitarian law, and his distinguished co-authors.
Did they even watch this video, where an Israeli terrorism victim asks Goldstone why he left her story out of the report?

Did they know he sent a 13 year old boy to prison for protesting apartheid in South Africa? Do they still condemn the "vilification" of Goldstone after this?
We note that the preparation of the Report was severely hampered by the refusal of the Israeli authorities to respond to reasonable enquiries or to facilitate access by the mission to Gaza or the West Bank and that it was only Egypt's assistance which eventually allowed the Mission to gain access to Gaza.
Why should Israel respond to the enquiries when they’ve already presented the evidence? Is it their fault that Goldstone and his team completely ignored the evidence that was there for everyone to see?
We further note that the Report unequivocally condemns not just Israel's devastation of Gaza but also Hamas's indiscriminate rocket attacks against Israeli neighbourhoods and does not in any way deny Israel its right to legitimate self-defence.
Well, they noted wrong. The Goldstone report did not condemn Hamas even once. And by not condemning Hamas and only singling out Israel for condemnation, the implication is that terrorism is acceptable and therefore Israel cannot defend itself against it.
We fully support its recommendation that both parties conduct full investigations into the allegations of war crimes in the Report.
We believe Israel cannot afford, nor should it wish, to exempt itself from the scrutiny of the international community on these matters. We consider that it is the attempt to do so, rather than the Goldstone Report, that is damaging Israel. We therefore urge you to endorse the Report at the next available opportunity.
Wrong again. Israel rejects the report because it’s a load of lies. It is the lies that damage Israel, not Israel’s attempt to prevent the spreading of those lies. And it doesn't help when a bunch of self-hating Jews stick their noses in.

Wednesday, 25 November 2009

Dispatches Documentary Parody

This video isn't really a parody of Dispatches: Inside Britain's Israel Lobby, but it reminded me of it so much that I had to share it. (And it's hilarious!)
The video is actually a spoof of the Ross Kemp on Gangs documentary series.

Note the dramatic music, significant looks into the camera and grave voice tone. In particular watch at 1.24 and 2.14. The perfect example of how you can suggest conspiracy from nothing.

I've no doubt the same techniques will be used in Channel 4's upcoming documentary on Haredis in Israel.

Saturday, 21 November 2009

Just When You Thought It Was Over... Channel 4 Does It Again

As if the borderline antisemitic Dispatches: Inside Britain's Israel Lobby wasn't enough, next Friday (27 November) Channel 4 will be airing a documentary that sounds possibly worse.

Their Unreported World documentary series describes itself as "Critically acclaimed foreign affairs series offering an insight into the lives of people in some of the most neglected parts of the planet - lives largely overlooked by the global news machine".

This time the episode takes place in Israel, where they investigate the growth and influence of "Jewish 'fundamentalists'" in Israel.

According to the summary of the programme, the ultra-Orthodox Haredis are accused of "creating tension within Israeli society and endangering any negotiations on a peace deal with the Palestinians."

Mea Shearim is described as a "poor, overcrowded part of the city where everyone is wearing clothes in the style of 18th-century Europe", where one nutter who is obviously going to be portrayed as representing all the Haredis says "We are the real Jews... everyone else in Israel just happens to be born Jewish."

Another Haredi says "Every 20 years we have a community that is growing at eight or nine times... It means we are growing in size and influence." Could be another nutter, or could be that his comments were taken out of context. After all what "influence" do they have? If they're anything as influential as Britain's Israel lobby it's certainly nothing to worry about. 

A reform Rabbi tells the reporter that "because Haredis are exempt from military service and heavily subsidised, they are creating huge tensions within the country." This must be the only time that people who aren't fighting in the Israeli army are the ones that are villified.

And then it just gets worse and worse. I will state the obvious here: Haredis are not perfect. No one is. Their lifestyle choices may be "extreme" but if it's not killing anyone then where's the harm? Take segregation of men and women on buses, for example. Extreme, yes, but if they want to adhere to the laws of the Torah more stringently than other Jews, by taking extra measures to prevent touching between sexes, that's their call. It's not imposing on more secular Israelis in the rest of the country.                                                   

When Haredis do something morally wrong though, such as a woman's claim in the programme that she was beaten up by a "Haredi Modesty Squad" after she left her husband, that is disgusting and inexcusable. And the vast majority of Haredis would agree with me. After all, their aim is to keep the Torah, and nowhere in the Torah does it say to beat up a woman for anything. You get psychos in every community.

However, it is clear from the summary of the programme that is goes out of its way to seek out only the bad in the Haredi community, and then portray that as the norm with complete disregard for whatever good that they do, and their contributions to Israeli society. Even their involvement in politics is portrayed as sinister. It's the Israel lobby all over again.

Tuesday, 17 November 2009

What I Learnt From 'Dispatches: Inside Britain's Israel Lobby'

By now everyone will be aware of the Channel 4 documentary about the Jewish (sorry, Israel) Lobby, that aired last night. To save you having to watch it I have summarised what I learnt:

The Israeli flag is creepy and when it’s waving next to the British flag it means Zionists are about to attack the British. (The Good British, not the pro-Israel British.)

It is wrong for journalists to write articles sympathetic to the dangers and threats Israel has from the Arab world. It is wrong for them to travel to Israel on trips funded by the pro-Israel lobby BICOM where they might learn something about the situation there other than that “Israel is bad”. They are only allowed to write articles that show that Israel is bad.

BICOM’s donor owns a stake in a mall in the “settlement” Maaleh Adumim. This means he is a bad man and BICOM is bad.

The lobbies are AGGRESSIVE to the media, they SCARE them and keep them “under constant attack”. The lobbies are bad.

It's ok to compare Israel with apartheid South Africa as the Guardian did and it's not antisemitic and does not cause antisemitism as The Lobby was concerned. (Although "Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions." and “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour” [my italics] are antisemitic. But that's not what the programme's doing, is it.)

CAMERA is "aggressive" against "what it calls" anti-Israel reporting. In actual fact there is no anti-Israel reporting, all media coverage of Israel is favourable (because of The Lobby). The Press Complaints Commission found “only one small fact” to be wrong in the Guardian article comparing Israel to South Africa, so it’s ok. And CAMERA is bad.

Self hating Jews who call Israel apartheid are good and right. And don’t deserve to be called self-hating even if they are. Jews who don’t call Israel apartheid, or who love or support Israel, are bad and liars. But not all Jews do love Israel, so not all Jews are bad, and therefore that statement can’t be antisemitic.

Cif Watch!! Is bad. It called the Guardian antisemitic. The Guardian isn’t, nor are it's journalists. The Guardian isn’t even anti-Israel.

No critics of Israel are antisemitic, but critics of Israel are always called antisemitic by bad Jews.
Has the BBC been compromised by the pro-Israel lobby!!?? Of course. They are not biased against Israel but are FORCED to be biased in favour of Israel and have NO CHOICE but to do and report what The Lobby tells them. Bad lobby.

Israel is powerful and the only thing Israel does is make Palestinian children die, just for the fun of it. There are no other factors involved. Israel is bad.

The BBC is BOMBARDED with emails from all over the world accusing it of bias. But it isn’t biased. Journalist Orla is undeserving of criticism. No one who says anything against Israel is deserving of criticism. Without the CHILLING ASSAULT and PRESSURE of The Lobby, Jeremy Bowen wouldn’t have been investigated for his bias. But he wasn’t biased. The BBC were FORCED to investigate Bowen, and any journalist who’s ever been investigated has been so because of The Lobby.

Complaints of bias are unjustified, there is no anti-Israel bias. Did I say that already?

Why does Simon Plosker of Honest Reporting ATTACK the BBC and WHO does he WORK FOR? The Zionist Mafia, must be. Honest Reporting is bad.

“Demonization of Israel” and “Anti-Israel bias” only exist in quotation marks.

The BBC didn’t broadcast the DEC Gaza appeal because it was bullied by Israel.

Which means that Israel wants everyone to die. Israel is bad. And anyone who is pro-Israel is bad.

This programme is not anti-Israel or antisemitic, and will not incite antisemitism either.

Guest Post: Israeli Settlements Are An Obstacle...

"I am a Jew who loves Israel. Allow me to clarify in case you find the title misleading. “Israeli settlements are an obstacle”. An obstacle to terrorism, that is.

Let’s start with some major events that occurred in the Middle East in recent years. Mahmoud Abbas has just announced his resignation in protest to his perceived lack of American support in halting Israeli settlement construction. This follows on closely from a press conference between Hilary Clinton and Benjamin Netanyahu where Clinton publicly acknowledged Netanyahu’s willingness to offer a partial settlement freeze which no Israeli government since the signing of the Oslo accords has ever had to consider as a precondition to peace talks. Not only did the left wing labour government of Rabin who signed at Oslo not offer a settlement freeze, they kept building!

Anyway, the current hot topics are the push for a complete settlement freeze and the Goldstone report which accuses Israel and Hamas of war crimes. There was Operation Cast Lead in Gaza in 2008 and prior to that, the second Lebanon War, Ariel Sharon’s coma and perhaps most significant, the unilateral disengagement from Gaza in 2005.

Now follow this closely. Taking recent years events into context the Israeli settlements that were considered an obstacle to peace in fact played a significant part in preventing more widescale violence.

Gush Katif, Netzarim and the other Israeli settlements in Gaza were protected by IDF soldiers permanently stationed there. During this period, there were murderous terrorist attacks on the Jewish communities but let’s look at the difference between then and now. Then, the IDF based in Gaza would carry our counter-terror operations which prevented the mass build up of weapons which Hamas have now acquired since the disengagement.

Israel left Gaza. Then came a spate of terrorist attacks and a huge increase in rocket and mortar attacks on Israeli Southern belt communities. Eventually, after eight years of terrorist attacks and 10,000 rockets whose frequency increased to 2,500 (a quarter of the total rockets fired since 2001) which hit southern Israel in only three years! And this led to Cast Lead in January 2009 which wreaked havoc and destruction in Gaza.

There is always the question of what if. Ariel Sharon thought that if he withdrew from Gaza then the International community would support him on other matters. Instead it culminated in operation Cast Lead and a huge drop in support and more criticism for Israel in the international arena.

But what if Israel had not disengaged? Cast Lead may have never needed to happen or at least on the scale that it did.

There is talk about Israel leaving the Golan Heights and the West Bank unilaterally. But right now we have a tense calm in these areas and the Gaza withdrawal has provided an obvious precedent should a unilateral Israeli withdrawal be considered again.

Sad to say but it will. I just hope that the Israeli government have learnt from past mistakes."

Tuesday, 3 November 2009

Who Is To Blame For Tunnel Deaths?

According to actress Mia Farrow, Israel is to blame.After another tunnel collapse and death over the weekend, Farrow wrote on her blog:
"The 1.5 million people living in Gaza depend on hundreds of tunnels beneath the border to get fuel and other products since Gaza has been sealed off after Hamas takeover in June 2007. But Israeli bombings are frequent and more than 130 Palestinians, many of them children have been killed while working in the tunnels."
She doesn't question why there are many children working in the tunnels that are dangerous enough without the risk of being bombed by Israel in response to rocket attacks. Nor does she mention that the rockets that Hamas fire into Israel, causing Israel to bomb the tunnels, are smuggled through those very tunnels, which is why Israel wants to stop them. Also, Israel's bombings are not at all frequent, and the vast majority of Palestinian tunnel deaths have nothing to do with Israel. Incidentally, the day after Farrow's comments, a Field Work Coordinator for the Al-Mezan Centre for Human Rights in Gaza blamed Hamas, demanding that they do more to protect the tunnel workers. He said:
"Our research on the ground has shown that a total of 120 people have died in tunnel collapses. Another seven were killed inside tunnels as a result of Israeli aerial attacks." "The government here in Gaza just wants to make money off the tunnel owners and that's it. They take money from the people but do not provide any services to them. They don't care about the conditions for the workers, whether or not it's safe or the quality of the goods coming in from Egypt."

Tuesday, 27 October 2009

Amnesty's Disproportionate Response

Do these "human rights" organisations do anything else but scrutinise Israel's actions and then write false reports about it? If they do, I haven't heard about it. Israel must actually be the most evil country in the world, going by those reports.

The latest says that Israel is denying the Palestinians water. Are any other people in the world denied water? Can't be, if they were, I'm sure it would have been widely publicised, wouldn't it?

Amnesty has released over 20 reports condemning Israel, since Cast Lead. Has it released this many about any other country? I doubt it. Are more Palestinians dying than any other people? Not even close. This disproportionate attention suggests Amnesty has an agenda...

Amnesty has accused Israel of only supplying between 20 and 70 litres per day to the Palestinians, but the Water Authority said that they actually receive 200 litres per day.
"The Foreign Ministry also refuted the report on Tuesday, stating that according to the existing water agreement, the Palestinians are allocated 23.6 million cubic meters of water per year, but 'in actual effect, they have access to twice as much water.'

In its statement, the Foreign Ministry said that Israel has 'extensively surpassed the obligatory quantity' of water supplied to the Palestinians, while the Palestinians have 'significantly violated their commitments under the water agreement' by neglecting the construction of sewage treatment plants despite 'foreign funding earmarked for this purpose,' as well as drilling over 250 unauthorized wells...

The Water Authority also stressed that it routinely provided the PA with more water per year than the amounts stipulated in the Oslo Accords. It also said Palestinians routinely dug illegal wells and refused to purify and reuse their sewage for agriculture. Instead, they dumped their sewage into the streams in the West Bank, causing massive pollution.

NGO Monitor's president, Prof. Gerald Steinberg, said... 'the report adopts a painfully simplistic narrative which places blame solely on Israel, to the extent that the Palestinian leadership is absolved of responsibility for the agreements signed
under the Oslo framework.'"

Robin Shepherd highlights Amnesty's anti-Israel stance as by promoting Ben White's book 'Israeli Apartheid: A Beginner’s Guide', they endorse the notion of Israel as an apartheid state, and so "it should come as no surprise that the report adopts the Palestinian narrative of the wider conflict in its entirety." Amnesty did not even consult the Israeli Water Authority (so how could they have carried out their research properly?)

Shepherd points out "how Amnesty effortlessly and unashamedly apportions blame to the 'more than 40 years of occupation'", automatically taking the Palestinian point of view. He sums up the other side of the story that was not included in the report:
“There have been more than 60 years of rejectionism and terrorism by Palestinian and Arab leaders. This has had the derivative effects of both reducing their capacity to consume water at first world levels and of depriving them of the kind of statehood (offered on several occasions by Israel) which would allow them to take greater control of their own water resources in particular and their economic development in general."
Shepherd observes that the fact that Amnesty consciously
"adopted hook, line and sinker one of of the two available narratives and simply erased the other from consideration... is not a sign of an organisation whose main priority is to promote an unbiased appraisal of an undoubtedly important humanitarian problem. It is a sign of an organisation whose underlying agenda is avowedly political and avowedly anti-Israeli."

Monday, 26 October 2009

Today's Journalism Scores: Times - 1, Guardian - 0

As everyone is aware, there have been clashes at the Temple Mount between Israeli police and Palestinians looking for trouble. The Times report mentions that "The police action... came after local Muslim leaders claimed that Jews were attempting to conquer the mosque and claim it as their own." It includes a quote from a Palestinian:
"A 22-year-old, who gave his name as Amar, said he had been detained last week for hurling stones at a passing Israeli patrol, but had returned again yesterday. 'They start this. They incite this, and then we respond and they make it look like we are the bad guys... We are protecting something very important to us, and they know that this is important, and that’s why they try to make us angry by sending their settlers there'."
and from an Israeli police officer:
“These are kids that have been whipped into a frenzy by something they believe is happening here. This is all unnecessary, and at the end of the day serves no one.”
It explains why this all started:
"Local Arabic radio stations began broadcasting at the weekend that Jews were planning to enter the site to pray, or dig under the compound and harm buildings there, prompting calls for Muslims to go and defend the site."
and gives Israel's response to the accusations:
"Israeli officials said that they had carried out archaeological excavations in the area, but that the work did not threaten existing structures. Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister, said the accusations against Israel were lies."
It even gives a bit of historical background as to why the Temple Mount is holy to Muslims and Jews, as well as stating "It is only open for Muslims to pray, though there are several hours each day that tourists, including Jews [if they can take the stoning and won't dare to pray there], can visit.", and quoting the head of the Jewish Temple Mount Institute saying "I will be tolerant to Muslim prayer on Temple Mount, but in this democratic country everyone has the right to pray in the holiest site in the world". The Guardian, meanwhile, paints this picture:
"Israeli forces stormed up into the compound behind riot shields and crowds of Palestinians fled, some taking sanctuary in the al-Aqsa mosque." "Palestinians have been increasingly concerned about right-wing Jewish settlers entering the compound and about rumours - denied by Israel - of excavations near the site."
That second quote was only added much later today, and doesn't really get across the fact the concern wasn't about "Jewish settlers entering the compound", but the rumour that they were going to "conquer" it, or that Musilms leaders on Arab radio encouraged Palestinians to riot at the mosque to defend it. One more detail was missed out by both newspapers, that the original "storming" of the compound by the Israeli police only happened when Palestinians began throwing rocks at the regular patrol that were already there. Still, the Times wins that round.

Does Anyone Really Care About The Palestinians?

It sometimes seems as though people don't really care about the Palestinians, unless there's a way to demonise Israel. For example, on the very rare occasions that Hamas is criticised, it is for their rocket attacks against Israel, but not for using their own people as human shields. Recently though, the Independent reported on something we don't hear about very often: the suffering of Palestinian refugees in other Arab countries. On the other hand, there was an article by the Daily Mail on Sunday that got quite a strange response. The article stated that:
"The Government is sending British police and intelligence officers to the West Bank to try to stop a wave of brutal torture by Palestinian security forces funded by UK taxpayers. Their mission is to set up and train a new ‘internal affairs’ department with sweeping powers to investigate abuse and bring torturers to justice."
An official from the Palestinian Authority admitted "that torture, beatings and extra-judicial killings have been rife for the past two years, with hundreds of torture allegations and at least four murders in custody" Head of the PA's human rights department said they want to "instill respect for human rights as part of the security forces’ daily behaviour and to teach them how to treat prisoners properly". Victims, most of whom were arrested for involvement with Hamas, told of their experiences of "torture, including beatings, being suspended from the ceiling and electric shocks". Now I think is a great idea. Anyone who really follows what goes on in Gaza and the West Bank knows that many Fatah and Hamas officials just have no idea how to treat their fellow human beings, let alone their brothers. They need help. We go on about Israel and human rights, but no one really talks about the way the Palestinians treat each other. These are the heartfelt comments below the article:
"If the Palestinians need help & expertise, then they should be paying us" "We're still in recession, and yet our government is behaving like the saviours of humanity spending our money on something which let's face it isn't even going to benefit anyone." "Stop wasting our money - it's none of our business!" "sort your own problems out first before sticking your nose in elsewhere." "Brown and co are sticking their noses in again where they have no right" "why cannt [sic] we concentrate on putting our own house in order?"
If Israel had been accused of torture and beatings and suspending Palestinians from the ceilings and giving them electric shocks, the world would be in uproar. (Kind of how it is now with the very exaggerated and misleading Goldstone report). As it is, it's only the Palestinians who are the accused now, and so the Palestinians and their well-being isn't our business anymore, and we shouldn't waste our money in trying to get them to stop torturing each other. Perhaps the money would be better spent on Gaza where Hamas will steal it and use it for their own purposes such as making and smuggling weapons.

Sunday, 25 October 2009

Checkpoint Humiliation

A 21 year old Palestinian woman was humiliated when she was arrested at a checkpoint North of Jerusalem on Sunday. Because she stabbed an Israeli security guard in the stomach. He was moderately injured. Refuah shelema.

Thursday, 22 October 2009

More Goldstone Controversy

First of all... a pro-Israel article on the Guardian! It's by Harold Evans, ex-Sunday Times editor, arguing against Goldstone, but the Guardian readers are, as expected, incensed that someone would dare to call Hamas the aggressor and Israel the defender, to refer to Israel's withdrawal from Gaza and Hamas screwing up their opportunity to make a state for their people, to mention the thousands of rockets Hamas have fired, each with the intention to murder innocent civilians, that the rockets were not universally condemned as they should have been, asking why Israel was accused of disproportionate force yet no one wondered "What is a 'proportionate' attack against an enemy dedicated to exterminating your people?", that the IDF showed great restraint and as Colonel Richard Kemp said, "did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare", that Hamas used it's people as human shields, and that Goldstone has equated killer and victim, Hamas and Israel. (In fact the report is worse than that because it excuses Hamas from terror and condemns Israel for defence.) So what is the Guardian readers' response to the truth in every statement above? CifWatch braved the comment pages to weed out the poison and antisemitism. Take a deep breath and read it. Of course for every pro-Israel article on Cif, there are many, many, many, anti-Israel ones. Simply too many for me to dissect. And they're all the same anyway. Same false accusations of deliberately targetting civilians etc etc. The more recent anti-Israel articles are of course all in support of Goldstone, including one by Goldstone himself (originally in the Jerusalem Post). In response to Goldstone's defence of his report, once again I give you: CAMERA's list of falsehoods in the report, the website on the the report, Elder of Ziyon on the IDF's report, and on inaccuracies in the Goldstone report with other commentaries as well, aaaannd.... Elder of Ziyon and Ynet's discovery (because clearly no one that voted on it actually bothered to read it) that the Goldstone report in fact does not condemn Hamas.

Wednesday, 21 October 2009

HRW Founder Calls It Anti-Israel

Robert Bernstein, founder of Human Rights Watch has finally come out and written an excellent article criticising it of anti-Israel bias.
"The region [Middle East] is populated by authoritarian regimes with appalling human rights records. Yet in recent years Human Rights Watch has written far more condemnations of Israel for violations of international law than of any other country in the region."
He compares Israel's 7.4 million citizens, their 80 human rights organisations, free press and democracy to the Arab nations' 350 million people, many of whom are ruled under brutal regimes.

"The plight of their citizens who would most benefit from the kind of attention a large and well-financed international human rights organization can provide is being ignored as Human Rights Watch’s Middle East division prepares report after report on Israel." "Human Rights Watch has lost critical perspective on a conflict in which Israel has been repeatedly attacked by Hamas and Hezbollah, organizations that go after Israeli citizens and use their own people as human shields. These groups are supported by the government of Iran, which has openly declared its intention not just to destroy Israel but to murder Jews everywhere. This incitement to genocide is a violation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide."

"Leaders of Human Rights Watch know that Hamas and Hezbollah chose to wage war from densely populated areas, deliberately transforming neighborhoods into battlefields. They know that more and better arms are flowing into both Gaza and Lebanon and are poised to strike again. And they know that this militancy continues to deprive Palestinians of any chance for the peaceful and productive life they deserve. Yet Israel, the repeated victim of aggression, faces the brunt of Human Rights Watch’s criticism."
Just like with the Goldstone report. The Times reports on Bernstein's article as well, but they just miss out the most important point, that:
"Human Rights Watch has written far more condemnations of Israel for violations of international law than of any other country in the region"
Instead they quote HRW as saying that "its scrutiny on Israel represents only 'a tiny fraction' of its work." If Israel is a "tiny fraction" of their work, what are the bigger "fractions" on? Iran? I don't think I ever heard HRW say anything about them. And guess how they illustrated the article... that's right, phosphorous! (again)

Sunday, 18 October 2009

Conflicting Messages From The Times

In it's editorial on Friday, the Times called the Goldstone report biased and stated that it should be rejected at the United Nations "Human Rights" Council. The Times highlights the problems with the report:
"First, there is no equivalence between the actions of Israel in self-defence and those of Hamas in seeking to destroy it. Second, the UNHRC is not a credible forum. It is... notorious for bloc voting and bias against Israel. And finally, the Goldstone report itself is imbalanced: it focuses on Israel’s faults rather than its right to protect itself."
It's much more than that, but at least the Times is trying to stand up for Israel's rights. But then, perhaps in an attempt to appear objective, the article states that Israel caused "more than a thousand Palestinian civilian deaths", which is simply not true. Of the 1200 killed in Gaza, about 700 have been proven to be terrorists.
"But Israel was responding to a sustained barrage of rocket attacks by Hamas after its takeover of power in Gaza. It had no choice but to respond to these provocations. Hamas, backed and supplied by Iran, has rejected all attempts to persuade it to recognise Israel, instead relentlessly pursuing the destruction of the Jewish state in the interests of an intolerant and delusional pan-Islamic ideology. Unlike Israel, it consistently engages in the cowardly practice of using civilians as human shields."

"Judge Goldstone takes Hamas to task for killing Israeli civilians and 'seeking to spread terror' through rocket attacks on southern Israel. But he reserves his strongest language for Israel’s 'disproportionate' use of force and its 'deliberate targeting' of Palestinian civilians."

"Israel adheres to standards higher than those of its enemies. Its right to self-defence is not in question: what is at issue is how it exercises that right, and whether it does so in conformity with its own moral values. In launching an inquiry, it would challenge Hamas to do the same."
But the last paragraph ignores the fact that Israel has conducted it's own investigation, proven how many terrorists were killed, that Hamas used human shields, hid themselves and weapons in populated areas, in mosques, schools, hospitals and ambulances.

Putting that aside, the article is, as usual, too little too late. Where was all that during the war? When did the Times report on the rocket attacks, or Hamas' use of human shields, their refusal to recognise Israel and objective to wipe out the Jewish state, or Israel's right to self defence?

Then, the next day, in their article on Britain abstaining from the vote, what is the accompanying picture of? Hamas terrorists? The damage caused by their rockets? Course not, it's only phosphorous. Otherwise you might think Israel are the victims in some way.

Meanwhile it's worth reading Colonel Richard Kemp's statement on the IDF, where he explains how "The IDF did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare".

Also, Goldstone was "saddened" that the resolution made no reference to Hamas' crimes. His exact words were: "There is not a single phrase condemning Hamas as we have done in the report". Well it was probably a bit difficult to find that "single phrase" in the 600 pages about Israel!

Speaking of which, another rocket was fired into Israel today, thankfully with no damage. The psychological effects of that alarm on the million Israelis in the South having to run into shelters, and the terrorists' prayer for an Israeli death as the rocket was launched, are never newsworthy though.

Finally, here is CAMERA's list of falsehoods in the Goldstone report, the website on the the report I linked in my last post, Elder of Ziyon on the IDF's report, and on inaccuracies in the Goldstone report with other commentaries as well. The UN is a joke. But we knew that already.

Monday, 12 October 2009

The Guardian Just Gets Worse And Worse

First, they give the Left's beloved terrorist-sympathiser George Galloway a column in which he goes on about poor old Iran being bullied about its nuclear weapons, and calls it a 'sophisticated state'.

Chas Newkey-Burden asks,
"In what sense is Iran “a sophisticated state”, George? In the sense that it rigs elections and then persecutes and murders peaceful protestors? In the sense that it hangs women in public squares after perfunctorily finding them guilty of adultery? The way it does the same with men because they are gay? Or maybe Iran’s sophistication is seen in how its legal system executes children and cuts the hands and feet off offenders. Perhaps it is the non-free press that so proves its sophistication, or the imprisoned bloggers? Or the large parts of the country where people wallow in darkness and squalor due to its messed-up energy and economic policies?"
Then the Guardian ignore a letter spelling out their anti-Israel bias because they hope if they ignore it it'll go away. Read the letter here on CifWatch, it's amazing.

Then they mysteriously, "accidentally"
omit all the names of the Israeli Nobel Peace Prize Winners from a list of all winners, ever.

And on top of that, in their
editorial about Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize (I cannot believe I just said those words), the Guardian made a reference to "Israeli-occupied Gaza", only later remembering that in fact Israel disengaged from Gaza several years ago, and replacing 'occupied' with 'blockaded'.

In other news, an
excellent website has been set up by a number of bloggers, which discredits the insanely inaccurate Goldstone report on Cast Lead.

Thursday, 10 September 2009

A Picture's Worth A Thousand Words

Elder of Ziyon has exposed that Human Rights' Watch 'senior military analyst' Marc Garlasco has an dark obsession - with Nazi memorabilia.

HRW's defence is that Marc is not a Nazi and there's nothing wrong with his hobby. So, according to Human Rights Watch, there's nothing wrong with that picture?! However, the issue is not so much about Marc Garlasco, however disturbing his hobby is. The issue is with Human Rights Watch; as EoZ says, "HRW's poster boy for human rights research nurses a serious obsession with, and fascination for, the worst human rights abusers in history."

NGO Monitor goes into more detail.

On top of that there is the fact that this HRW investigator, who clearly anyway has an agenda against Israel and the Jewish State's right to defend itself against those who aim to destroy it, is obsessed with souvenirs of Nazis, the very people who tried to kill all the Jews, with the Holocaust resulting in the establishment of the State of Israel.

And HRW don't seem to think there's anything wrong with that.

And that's not all. The brilliant EoZ also links to a quote from Garlasco that demonstrates his unsurprising hypocrisy when it comes to Israel, as he says on the US army in Afghanistan:
"I don't think people really appreciate the gymnastics that the US military goes through in order to make sure that they're not killing civilians... the Taliban are violating international law... You have the Taliban shielding in people's homes. And you have this small number of troops on the ground. And sometimes the only thing they can do is drop bombs.”
Daled Amos, the blog linked from EoZ, observes "Odd that the criteria that Garlasco so easily applies to the US, he refuses to use what talking about Israel."

That's still not all. Amos quotes, from an interview with Garlasco, talking about when he worked in the Pentagon for the US army:
"Garlasco says, before the invasion of Iraq, he recommended 50 air strikes aimed at high-value targets - Iraqi officials. But he says none of the targets on the list were actually killed. Instead, he says, 'a couple of hundred civilians at least' were killed."
EoZ puts it perfectly: "Perhaps we should ask HRW to investigate whether Garlasco should be charged with war crimes."

Double Checkpoint Humiliation!

A difficult day for Palestinian terrorists in the West Bank just trying to go about their daily business with dignity and freedom. First, IDF soldiers at a checkpoint near Hebron discovered a Palestinian man was carrying four knives, so he was sent for questioning. If that wasn't bad enough, another Palestinian was humiliated when he tried to stab an IDF soldier at a checkpoint near Nablus; the soldier avoided injury, and the Palestinian was turned over to security forces for interrogation. This checkpoint business really is humiliating for the Palestinians, every time they fail in an attempted terrorist attack they must feel so ashamed at getting caught and letting down their people.

Wednesday, 9 September 2009

Melanie Phillips Tackles The BBC

In an excellent article by Melanie Phillips, she looks at a BBC report on religious soldiers in the IDF, that seems to equate them with Islamic Jihadists. That, Phillips astutely observes,
"was open bigotry against Judaism itself. One of the most deeply offensive sections was the ‘aha!’ moment where she pointed accusingly at soldiers visiting Masada who were wearing the ritual fringed garment worn by all orthodox Jewish men as if this was a sign of their moral perfidy. To be an orthodox Jew, she was in effect saying, was to be guilty of malevolent intent towards the Palestinians: to be aggressive and warlike and fanatical, characteristics they allegedly got from the Hebrew Bible."
She concludes,
"the BBC blames, smears and demonises them -- and through them, blames, smears and demonises the religion of Judaism itself"
Suddenly the BBC's anti-Israel bias doesn't look so bad.

Wednesday, 2 September 2009

Guardian Balance?!

The Guardian has actually exposed it's readers to a dark and dangerous pro-Israel article, for once. And they don't like it. Rivka Carmi, president of Ben Gurion University, makes an excellent case against Self-Hating-Neve-Gordon's calls to boycott Israel. Her article was also in the LA Times, and, in an extremely rare case of balance, the Guardian has included it on CiF! As expected, though, the Guardian readers and commenters completely miss the point. (The Guardian obviously knew they would before they uploaded the article, which is why on rare occasions it does publish pro-Israel pieces, with the writer inevitably getting abuse from it's deluded readers). Carmi describes BGU's
"community outreach and scientific innovation", how her "professional career has focused on preventing hereditary genetic diseases in the Bedouin Arab community", that "the laboratory that I founded at Ben-Gurion University is working with Bedouin, Palestinian and Jordanian doctors and researchers to improve the health of Arab children across the region", and about the development of "advanced water technologies to solar energy, environmental conservation and emergency medicine".
And the majority of Guardian-ites still want to boycott Israel, and by extension, Ben Gurion University and all their work and contributions. They hate Israel so much they would even deny Arabs the benefits they get from Israeli research!

Seth Freedman Idolises Ex-Jewish Fatah Member

Freedman first off tries to portray ex-Jewish, Muslim convert and Fatah member Uri Davis as moderate and peaceful -
"the image he gives off is light years away from his detractors' portrayal of him as a Qur'an-bashing, fire-breathing radical."
That is despite the fact that Fatah are radicals, at least when it comes to Israel. Although, Freedman admits, Davis wants to bring about change in Israel through boycott, divestment and sanctions against it - all as part of the "anti-apartheid campaign".

Freedman gives more of an insight into Davis' mindset, telling how Davis criticises the Hagaddah as it "celebrates collective punishment". So Davis rewrote it and "kept the original skin of the text minus the ugly parts and minus God".

Whether the 'ugly parts' of 'collective punishment' he is referring to is the Egyptians' slavery of the Jews or G-d's punishment of the Egyptians, either way his Hagaddah is not going to make much sense.

Freedman ends, almost wistfullly,
"But the task ahead of him [to get more Jews to join Fatah!] is a daunting one, and how many others he can convince to follow in the wake of him and his yellow Beetle down the streets of Ramallah remains to be seen."
I don't even think my (very low) opinion of Freedman would get any lower if he converted to Islam and joined Fatah.

Monday, 31 August 2009

Guardian Finds Yet ANOTHER Self Hating Jew!

Read Cif Watch and Robin Shepherd's takes on this self-hating Israeli Jew's typically biased Guardian comment piece. The Guardian is like a beacon to these people! Or maybe it's the other way round. This piece the Guardian found on an Israeli blog, but they have now given Meron Rapoport his own profile page, where no doubt further anti-Israel articles will soon be cropping up. Here the Guardian drools over him being "winner of the Napoli International Prize for Journalism for a inquiry about the stealing of olive trees from their Palestinian owners." (After a google check, that seems to be the only time the 'prize' has ever been won, or even mentioned.) But of course, his 'prize' would hardly be for balanced or insightful journalism; the Guardian doesn't seem to like objective journalists.

Sunday, 30 August 2009

Guardian: Only Bad Israelis Are Good Israelis

We keep hearing about these human rights groups and activists, and then it always turns out they don't really care about humans' rights at all - at least, not Israel's rights.

They, according to Antony Lerman of the Guardian, are the only ones
"that have the moral authority and objective expertise to call the government to account for any human rights abuses suffered by Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza at the hands of Israeli officials or settlers."
Except that they have no moral authority and certainly no objective expertise whatsoever!
Lerman says that "Breaking the Silence is the organisation of veteran Israeli soldiers that interviewed those who participated in Operation Cast Lead in Gaza."
But some of the soldiers who testifed were found not to have even been in Gaza, but were just saying what they had heard.
Lerman goes on,
"If you make these groups the enemy, you are setting your face against the kind of essential truth-telling and openness that must underpin the trust both sides need to have in each other if a just peace is to be achieved and sustained."
Aside from the fact that Breaking the Silence is not about finding the truth, but about demonising Israel; what about the truth-telling and openness on the other side? All we ever hear about is Israel's war crimes and atrocities, it's time we knew the truth about the other side, that Soldiers Speak Out were given the same attention as Breaking the Silence.
And then, worst of all, Lerman claims
"Their very aims are to strengthen democracy and the rule of law. These groups are now an integral part of a kaleidoscopic array of voluntary organisations that make up a vibrant global Jewish civil society."
So what makes us Jews "civil" are Palestinian rights groups that deliberately set out to demonise Israel with no conclusive evidence. It's the same as saying not all Jews are bad, only the ones that love Israel.
Lerman accuses "Netanyahu's demonising of human [Palestinian] rights groups [of doing] disservice to a proud Jewish history."
In what world is he living that anti-Israel, antisemitic, pro-Palestinian rights groups are part of our proud Jewish history?! Only self haters would be proud of that! The headline even calls those groups "Israel's priceless assets"!
But Jews who are proud to be Jewish, and proud of Israel, would be proud of groups like Soldiers Speak Out, that tell the truth; and Magen David Adom, that with no political agenda treats both Israelis and Palestinians.

Thursday, 27 August 2009

Send The Guardian Your Letters

The Guardian has printed a selection of letters today that are quite hostile to Israel, and need to be addressed. June Forsyth Kenagy from New York asks,
"how on earth can you promote a new Middle East agreement that is only between the US and Israel? Therein lies the root of the problem: not only a lack of respect for the human rights of Palestinians, but utter failure to treat them as equals."
June is confused and someone has to explain to her that Hamas don't want peace, and will not negotiate because the only thing they want is Israel's destruction. Cathal Rabbitte from Switzerland says,
"Israel won't recognise Hamas, refuses to discuss East Jerusalem, does not accept the 1949 ceasefire line as Israel's border, and expects 450,000 settlers to be integrated into an expanded Israel. There doesn't appear to be anything to talk about."
Again, very confused, and needs to know that on the contrary it is Hamas who refuse to recognise Israel. And Israel does recognise Hamas - for what it is, a terrorist organisation that seeks Israel's destruction. Israel has done enough talking, it's now time for Hamas and Fatah to say what they want. (But we already know what that is - and it isn't peace.) Tim Llewellyn from London says,
"So Israel is going to be asked to reduce, very minimally and temporarily, its illegal acquisition of Palestinian land, while Iran is going to be subjected to possibly wounding disciplinary action for its legal uranium enrichment programme."

I'm not sure what one has to do with the other, but whilst Israel's aim there doesn't threaten the existence of the Palestinians, Iran has explicitly stated it's aim to "wipe Israel off the map". Legality shouldn't come into it! Unless ,of course, you are more concerned about some shacks being built than the possibility of Israel being nuked. (Which does seem to be the case among Guardian readers and lefties.) It is typical of the Guardian to only print this one-sided selection of letters, so I urge anyone reading this to send in your own letters to, referencing the relevant letters above from 27th August, and include your full name, full address and phone number (the last two won't be printed).

Guardian's Extreme Anti-Israel Bias

Two weeks ago, I blogged about an example of the Guardian's hypocrisy in it's news reporting, and I speculated (naively, but I'm still learning!) that perhaps it wasn't the reporter's bias, but the Guardian's editors'. Then I saw an anti-Israel comment piece by someone whose name rang a bell - Peter Beaumont, and it turned out that it was his bias that really stood out to me in that article I looked at. So I browsed through his history of articles to see just how biased the Guardian's 'foreign affairs editor' is. Working backwards, his last Israel-Palestinian article praised the ex-Jewish Fatah member whose aim is to "save Palestine". Then comes Human Rights Watch' 'white flag deaths' report (the one I blogged about); then a comment piece criticising Netanyahu (well, he's not likely to praise him, is he?). After that is an article, picture gallery, and audio slideshow on "Life in Gaza after the Israeli invasion", where of course the only people affected are innocent civilians, because Hamas = terrorists is probably just a myth according to Beaumont. Before that is an article on how the Gaza tunnels are needed for economical reasons, as though weapons are never smuggled through them. Then another on how one man makes his living "from the devastation of Gaza". The one before that is about how the sea gives Gazans a place to breathe (ignoring the fact that many of the (many) open spaces in Gaza are used as terrorist training camps), describing the restricted sense of freedom by the sea that is of course only caused by Israel, because in the fantasy Gaza where Beaumont visits, there is no Hamas beating people up on the beaches for frivolity. He also somehow manages to make it sound as though the "segments of polystyrene, tan globes of pungent horse dung, bags and plastic bottles" on the beach are Israel's fault, when actually Hamas are a bit too preoccupied with plotting the destruction of the Zionists to worry about litter in Gaza. Before that are numerous articles on accusations against Israel of war crimes, including Breaking the Silence's "testimonies" but not the IDF's own investigations or Soldiers Speak Out testimonies. And it goes on and on, and gets even worse as he reported on the Israeli election and on Cast Lead. There were some "neutral" articles I skipped, because I was only looking for ones that specifically showed Israel or the Palestinians in either a positive or negative light. The articles I mention above are from a period of six months, and of all the articles written by Beaumont, the Guardian's foreign affairs editor, in that time, there is not one that is sympathetic to Israelis, shows them in a positive light, or gives Israel's point of view. (Unless it's self-haters', it goes without saying)

Wednesday, 26 August 2009

The Guardian Finds A New Recruit!

Actually, it turns out he isn't a new recruit. Neve Gordon is a professor at Ben Gurion University in the Negev. (But hopefully not for long - a petition has been started in an attempt to get him fired). He's created a lot of outrage over an op-ed he wrote for the LA Times calling to boycott Israel, and the Guardian of course loved the article and borrowed it. I naively thought that perhaps the Guardian had just discovered a new self-hating Jew for their Comment And Antisemitism Is Free blog, but turns out he's been writing for them already for a while! And what was the last thing he wrote for them before this? About how poor old Hamas-and-terror-supporting, Israel-hating, Palestinian-not-peace activist Ezra Nawi is to be "jailed for caring" (sob). He stated then that Nawi's "'crime' was trying to stop a military bulldozer from destroying the homes of Palestinians" - actually his crime was punching a police officer in the face in an attempt to stop the demolition of illegal Palestinian houses. Gordon also somehow manages to make it sound as though to be a human rights activist, you must only support the Palestinian cause and that Israeli victims are not deserving of human rights activism. But that's only to be expected of someone who (indirectly) supports Hamas. His boycott article is hardly even worth reading, as he is calling on the boycott as a way to end Israel's "apartheid regime". Agin he refers to the Israeli "peace camp", by which he means anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian activists - because if you want peace you can't support Israel can you? Look at the evil warmongers of Sderot, how they've been taunting Hamas with their mere existence and provoking Hamas into defending themselves with thousands of rockets. No, according to Gordon, Hamas are the ones who want peace, and Israel is to blame for everything, therefore boycotting Israel is the solution.

Even More Checkpoint Humiliation

This morning, Israeli soldiers once again humiliated a Palestinian at a checkpoint, in Hebron. The Palestinian tried to stab the soldiers so they shot him in the legs. IDF medics then treated the terrorist at the scene, and had him transferred to Shaarei Tzedek hospital in Jerusalem.

Tuesday, 25 August 2009

More Checkpoint Humiliation

At a checkpoint in Samaria on monday, three Arabs were humiliated and arrested after police discovered weapons in their car. We must get rid of the checkpoints already, otherwise how will terrorists be allowed to move freely through the country without this constant humiliation?!

Seth Freedman Spouts Nonsense Faster Than I Can Keep Up!

Someone needs to create a Seth Freedman Watch blog because I'm struggling to find the time to dissect his frequent nonsensical rantings! His latest, claims that the Swedish newspaper report that IDF soldiers murder Palestinians and steal their organs, is not antisemitic. And Seth Freedman is not self hating! His claims are taken apart at CiF Watch and Elder of Ziyon, who points out that "Freedman's test of anti-semitism is whether the accusation is against all Jews based on a libelous interpretation of Jewish religious teachings." Which is ridiculous, because, as EoZ points out, that would mean that claims of Jewish control over the media or the banks or whatever aren't antisemitic! So according to Freedman then, there is no antisemitism. Because he wouldn't consider the most common antisemitism, hidden inside anti-Zionist arguments, to be antisemitic; only anti-Zionist.

Guardian Watch Blog

A great new blog [] monitoring antisemitism on the Guardian online's Comment is Free (And So Is Antisemitism) blog. They've discovered the delights of Self Hating Seth Freedman and others over there, as well as the lovely liberal-minded Guardian commenters.

Get involved!

Wednesday, 19 August 2009

"Peace" Activist Supports Terror!

I've been waiting for something like this to come out. The fact that Ezra Nawi is a gay Jewish Israeli who protests for Palestinian rights, has made him a cult hero, with 20,000 signing a petition for him not to be jailed for allegedly punching a police officer whilst protesting against the demolition of illegal Palestinian houses. Why 20,000 people think that just because someone supports the Palestinians should make them above the law is beyond me. But, as with many anti-Israel pro-Palestinian protesters, Nawi supports Hamas. Of course many of the people who already support him probably won't be put off by this, but at least now we know the truth behind this "peace" activist.

Tuesday, 18 August 2009

Guardian Columnist Wants Thoughts On Article Emailed To Him

Slavoj Zizek complains about the eviction of Palestinians from their houses that I blogged about a couple of weeks ago, saying that:
"Although Israeli police cited a ruling by the country's supreme court, the evicted Arab families had been living there for more than 50 years".
Yes, but illegally. And they had forged the ownership documents they represented to the court. They're lucky they weren't jailed for that. Zizek says Israel had planned to build 70,000 new homes in settlements, and somehow conjure up some 300,000 people to live there. He says this whilst at the same time Netanyahu has already started freezing settlement expansion. And he calls the wall, painted on the Israeli side with grass and trees which 'imagines empty land waiting to be settled', a a symbol of "ethnic cleansing". If only the ethnic cleansing in the Holocaust had just been a wall. If only people hadn't acted on the imagined idea of ridding the world of Jews. He then mentions "the gradual strangling of the Palestinian economy, the parcelling up of their land, the building of new settlements". But forgets to mention Israel's destruction of new settlements, or how the Palestinian economy is among the highest in the Arab world. Zizek then goes too far when he says -
"Palestinians often use the problematic cliché of the Gaza strip as 'the greatest concentration camp in the world'. However, in the past year, this designation has come dangerously close to truth."
Not really so problematic for him to say, then. Finally, he concludes:
"Taking all this into account in no way implies sympathy for inexcusable terrorist acts. On the contrary, it provides the only ground from which one can condemn the terrorist attacks without hypocrisy."
Yet he chooses to ignore that fact that that terrorism is bred by the very act of giving Palestinians land. (See - Gaza) With all the biased rubbish I comment on from the Guardian's online comment section, this one actually made it into the paper. There's an email address for him at the end of the article, so please email him your thoughts at

Palestinians' Life Of luxury Compared To Other Arabs

Palestinian Arabs have a higher life expectancy than Arabs in other countries. This is despite all their suicide bombings and terrorism, and despite the civilians, opposers and 'collaborators' treatment by Hamas and other Palestinians. It is probably helped by the fact that they are often treated in Israeli hospitals by genius Israeli doctors, and that they receive a disproportionate amount of aid compared to other people in need such as those in Darfur. Some other facts:
"the gross domestic product in Judea, Samaria and Gaza is $3,380 per person, higher than in Egypt, Jordan and Syria"
"Although the United Nations frequently reports on the dire straits of Arabs in Gaza, 44 percent of Egyptians live on less than $2 a day"
"Life expectancy for PA Arabs is 73.4 years, higher than almost every other Arab country, except for Oman and Bahrain, where the average is 75.6 years, while Arabs in Egypt live on average to the age of 71.3 years and in Jordan 72.5 years."
"Literacy in the PA is 92.4 percent, compared with 71.4 percent in Egypt and 80.8 percent in Syria."

Monday, 17 August 2009

B'Tselem Cameras Turn Against Them!

B'Tselem, the Israeli but anti-Israeli Palestinian Rights organisation, which give cameras to Palestinians with which to record Israeli settlers' misbehaviour, have accidentally exposed Arab mistreatment of animals. In a picture they posted on a website, there was a baby deer apparently kept by Arabs in cruel conditions. Under Israeli law, deer are protected animals and individuals are not allowed to keep them. The deer was rescued and is now kept in the Biblical Zoo. Because of its captivity it could not be returned to the wild as it would be killed by other animals.

Hamas Using Cement For Smuggling Tunnels

"Under pressure from the Obama administration, Defense Minister Barak authorized a large quantity of metal pipes and 300 tons of cement to be shipped to Gaza despite fears that Hamas would use the building materials for smuggling tunnels and to build more Kassam rockets."
So, under pressure from Obama, we have allowed cement in, allowed Hamas to steal some of it, when it was supposed to be used for a sewage system and a damaged flourmill, and instead use it to build tunnels to smuggle terrorists and weapons through. That obviously doesn't concern Obama, though.

Sunday, 16 August 2009

Checkpoint Humiliation

IDF soldiers humiliated a Palestinian woman today at a checkpoint in Hebron, West Bank. They transferred her for interrogation. Oh, and they took away her weapons, the b******s!

Saturday, 15 August 2009

Violence And Killing In The Religion Of Peace

24 have been killed, including 6 civilians (war crimes! war crimes!) in clashes between Hamas and, says the BBC, "a radical Islamist group". (As though Hamas itself isn't a radical Islamist group). The group is actually the Jund Ansar Allah, (connected to Al Qaeda), who failed in their attempted terrorist attack on the Gaza border, using 'suicide' horses. The BBC article ends:
"Hamas's full title is the Islamic Resistance Movement, and it faces opposition from within its own membership and support base if it cracks down too hard on groups for either engaging in acts of resistance against Israel or activities presented as Islamic. This week Hamas decided that it had had enough."
Alhough Hamas says that -
"The Jund Ansar Allah is the group that was responsible for the terror attacks on internet cafes, wedding parties and music stores in Gaza over the past year"
- it all seems quite ironic when Hamas' "virtue campaign" has just recently started getting exposure. The group call Hamas "unreligious", implying that they are too moderate (!), and they want to implement Sharia law in Gaza. They even used suicide bombings against Hamas in the fighting. And then, irony of ironies, Hamas blame Israel for this!
"Haniyeh described the group as one that took advantage of youth and infused them with 'strange ideas' based on acting against so-called atheists in a violent way... He said the dire conditions [of Israel's "siege" on Gaza] fostered negative thinking in younger generations."
Sounds like Hamas are having a taste of their own brainwashing, hate-and-violence inducing medicine. Of course that means I can't condemn Hamas for using violence against the group, because as with Israel, when you are faced with such an extremist group that is opposed to democracy and all about violence, there is no other option than to fight back. UPDATE: Hamas believe that the group were armed by Fatah. Although that doesn't make much sense since Fatah are supposed to be so much more secular than Hamas.

Friday, 14 August 2009

Guardian Hypocrisy

The Guardian in their article on HRW's report, demonstrate their usual anti-Israel bias, where they only present the Palestinian version of events with lots of detail, and then snarkily dismiss Israel's version in quotation marks - the IDF's investigaton "concluded that they 'operated in accordance with international law'".
"The Israeli military said that in some cases Hamas militants had used civilians with white flags for cover. It said yesterday the reports were based on 'unreliable witnesses' whose testimony was 'unproven'... Human Rights Watch said it could find no evidence of misuse of white flags or the use of civilians as human shields in the cases detailed."
So with Israel it's "unreliable witnesses", in quotations, but Human Rights Watch found NO EVIDENCE of that. I think I'll direct them to the video I posted below.
HRW's "report follows the publication last month of anonymous testimonies by more than two dozen soldiers who fought in Gaza, compiled by Breaking the Silence... which accused the IDF of allowing an atmosphere of permissive violence against civilians".
More than two dozen! But, in the interests of Inaccuracy, the Guardian fails to mention the other soldiers' testimonies, from Soldiers Speak Out. It ignores the fact that HRW's 'evidence' is just based on rumours, and continues:
"They [Israel] accuse the organisation of having an anti-Israeli bias, despite the fact that HRW has also forcefully criticised Palestinian rocket fire out of Gaza that targeted civilians."
Really? HRW said that?! Oh, yeah, I did write about it. But the Guardian DIDN'T! Because, as usual, they only ever report one side of the story. If they didn't report that story in the first place, I don't think they have the right to bring it up now to use against us, and pretend that such a big deal was made about Hamas firing rockets. We all know no one cares about the rockets anyway, that it's just seen as a 'primitive' method for the poor freedom fighters to try and save themselves.

Thursday, 13 August 2009

Human Rights Watch' Amateur Report

Human Rights Watch is accusing the IDF of deliberately shooting at civilians during Cast Lead. The IDF says this is based on unreliable “evidence”, and HRW of course ignores Hamas’ use of human shields. People seem to be confusing war with war crimes. Civilians die in war, it happens, it’s not war crimes. These accusations come again and again, and every time we find evidence that indicates the IDF does not and has not deliberately killed civilians. NGO Monitor discredits the report. And this video, from the IDF youtube channel, shows Hamas’ true colours. I do not understand how, against this sort of evidence, people still believe the IDF has carried out stuff that they have no evidence for.

Fatah And Violence

An interesting comment piece on the Guardian site. Yes! Interesting! About Palestinians and NOT anti-Israel! It’s about Palestinians and womens’ rights. Unfortunately, just before I found the piece, which says things might be better if Palestinian women were allowed on the Fatah committee, I came across this article, about women in Gaza getting military training to “resist the occupiers”. Somehow, I doubt that the endorsement of women in the Palestinian governments will bring much more of a diplomatic attitude to things. As it is, Fatah say they “maintain the right of resistance… by all means possible”, and “the call to ‘liquidate the Zionist entity’” remains. Also, they say they “will continue to sacrifice victims [themselves] until Jerusalem will be returned to the Palestinians” – the whole of Jerusalem. Which just reconfirms my doubts of there ever being peace with the Palestinians, because we will never give up Jerusalem. And the peacefulness continues on the side of the Palestinians as two Israeli civilians were shot at in the West Bank yesterday, both only injured lightly.

Israel Is The Cause Of Islamic Fundamentalism!

Ben White, writing for the Guardian, expresses “concern about the direction the Hamas government is taking with regard to social freedoms and a religiously driven ‘virtue’ promotion campaign.”, and its “forced Islamisation”
“This context includes a young woman accosted by Hamas police on the beach, who then roughed up her male companions. It has also meant the harassment of shopkeepers displaying mannequins and lingerie packets. The background is a "virtue campaign" organised by the religious affairs ministry, which, in the words of the Hamas deputy religious affairs minister, is intended to ‘keep [people] away from sin’.”

And here’s where it starts to get funny!
“While the rare incidents of physical violence are condemned by senior Hamas leaders…”
Um, first of all, acts of violence committed by Hamas are not rare. Secondly I don’t think I’ve ever once heard of a ‘senior Hamas leader’ condemning any other Hamas member for being violent, in fact they're usually the ones that order the violence. White goes on to ask, about the ‘virtue campaign’:
“But why is this happening now? One answer is that these developments in Gaza are a consequence of the state of siege that the tiny territory has been under – a society that has been fenced-in, starved, and seen its very fabric torn apart by unemployment and wanton military destruction. In the words of a Gaza human rights worker, isolation bred ‘extremism and dark ideas’.”
So, basically, this Islamic oppression, that has been going on for hundreds of years in many Muslim countries (note – Iran), is because of Israel?!
“Already hit by criticism in Gaza by Islamic Jihad about a theoretical willingness to negotiate with Israel, it is possible that Hamas's leaders are seeking to safeguard its credibility and among the radical jihadist groups by off-balancing improving international relations with a domestic hard line.”
Hey, don’t bring us into this, Hamas has never said anything to us about a willingness to negotiate! And part of the reason Hamas has ‘credibility among the radical jihadist groups’ is because of its already ‘domestic hard line’. “The trend in Gaza is also a reflection of the limitations of Hamas's political vision and” bla bla bla. No, you idiot, it’s because, according to Hamas, Allah said so in the Koran! What White is saying is practically blasphemy! If Hamas saw that he was pinning the 'blame' of Islamic ‘virtue’ on Israel, they’d behead him!