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!

Thursday, 6 August 2009

BBC: "Hamas" "rocket attacks" "war crimes"

Human Rights Watch said:
"As the governing authority in Gaza, Hamas should publicly renounce rocket attacks on Israeli civilian centres and punish those responsible, including members of its own armed wing".
Hamas' response:
The report is biased, "Hamas did not use human shields and did not fire rockets from residential areas. Hamas does not target civilians."
Oh. Forget I said anything then.

Sunday, 2 August 2009

Obstacle To Peace?

The Times reports that according to the British consulate, extremist (don't forget the 'extremist') "Israeli settlers 'are wrecking [the] peace process'". And what else does the consulate say is wrecking the peace process? What else does the Times report is an obstacle to peace? Fatah calling for violence against Israel and rejecting it as the Jewish state? Or perhaps Hamas threatening to boycott "unity talks" with Fatah? Neither, of course. They're just minor blips. According to the British consulate, and the Times, as usual it's those dreaded Israeli Extremist Settlers who are the real obstacle to peace. So they moved into some Palestinians' illegal houses after they were evicted. Sure, it must be a bit annoying for the Arabs there to have to live in such close proximity to those filthy Jews, but calling them 'extremist' is a bit much. It's not like they're blowing up Palestinian buses or firing rockets at them. UPDATE: This article explains more about the eviction.