Proud Zionist

Rabbis Condemn Charedi Extremists

2012-01-08T00:09:00.003Z

I've been very upset by recent goings-on in Israel, and for once the left aren’t fully to blame! Two incidents have rightly caused outrage throughout Israel and the Jewish people worldwide, both right and left wing, religious and secular.

The first is of a young Dati Leumi (or ‘Modern-Orthodox’) girl being insulted and spat on by so-called Charedi (‘ultra-Orthodox’) men in Beit Shemesh for not adhering to their extreme version of modest dress for Jewish females.

The second is a Jewish female Israeli soldier being harassed by another so-called Charedi man for refusing to move to the back of the bus (just because she’s a woman) on a route between Jerusalem and Beit Shemesh.

Inevitably this was followed by demonstrations in Beit Shemesh, with extreme Charedim on one side, and Dati Leumi and the secular on the other (how often does that happen?!). In demos and in the media though, not much has changed for the secular and left-wing, who have used the incidents as another excuse to show their hatred of and contempt for the religious, portraying some fringe extremists as representative of the wider Orthodox community.

Thankfully, the top Rabbis and religious leaders in Israel and around the world have demonstrated why they are in those positions, with their unequivocal condemnations of those who have abused the Jewish religion with their extremist interpretation of it, in a similar way to extremist Muslims who abuse Islam with terrorism ‘in Allah’s name’.

The Chief Rabbis said the Charedim cannot impose their views on the rest of the population and if they want segregated buses they should run their own bus line – the Sephardi Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar said “A person can be strict about himself, but not about others. If the Charedim want to be strict in their own buses, let them. But imposing it on other people is irrelevant."

One Rabbi points out on his blog Thinking Israel that the Jewish laws regarding social interaction and relationships between men and women are there precisely to “facilitate a non-sexualized public space” where men and women can interact in a ‘neutral’ way, not to segregate them.

Ironically, the fact that some Charedim are so concerned with hiding women away only makes the whole situation worse, as they would “identify sexual stimulation in the slightest reminder of a woman”.

“In most places that the Shulkhan Arukh addresses modesty, the man is instructed to restrict his gaze and not to look at a woman in an inappropriately sexual manner. But it doesn't say that a woman is required to button up in order to prevent or ‘protect’ the man. Men are expected to take care of their sexual drives and to control their eyes and minds... modesty in the public arena is not achieved by suppressing women; it is not women who are to pay the price... any man who has a problem must take care of his problem on his own.”

Rabbi Schochet, a columnist for the London Jewish News wrote on his blog:

“Both these men [involved in the incidents] have been described as ‘Charedi.’ This is typically taken to mean ultra-Orthodox. I take umbrage to that definition. I think of myself as ultra-Orthodox but believe these ‘Charedi’ men to be a disgrace to Jewish society.”

“Maimonides states that if a pious individual acts in a way that the general population would consider inappropriate, this person is performing a chilul Hashem (lit. desecration of G-dliness)”, which is breaking the third of the 10 Commandments - 'Do not take G-d’ name in vain'. He continues:

“If this is, as it is justifiably argued, a fringe group, then that can only be made obvious with vocal protestation. There could be no greater kiddush Hashem (lit. sanctification of G-d’s name) to counterbalance the chilul Hashem. In the words of King Solomon: 'There is a time to be silent and a time to speak'."

Rav Ovadia Yosef of Shas addressed theextremists, saying “We do not hate seculars. On the contrary – we love them and bring them closer. ‘Love your neighbour as yourself' is the entire essence of the Torah.”

He wrote that “he could no longer remain silent after seeing extremists ‘humiliating and insulting people in public, despising and cursing, and causing discomforts among the late Torah sages'", noting that "the Torah promotes graciousness and peace." He warned:

“Do not let the dignity of Torah and Judaism be mocked and humiliated, as this is our life and longevity, the secret of our existence throughout our years of exile, and we must respect each other and bring people's hearts closer to G-d."

In my opinion, the Charedi extremists need to stop checking how girls and women are dressed, go home, learn some more and then practise what they’ve learned, because I don’t recall the Torah anywhere saying to spit on and shout abuse at girls and women. Or just take off their hats and stop pretending that they represent Judaism in any way.

Yachad And Sephardis

2011-11-19T23:06:00.002Z

Unfortunately, as long as Yachad still exist and spew out self-righteous "pro-Israel, pro-peace" commentary (that manages to demonise Israel and push peace further away by absolving Palestinians of blame for the stalemate), I cannot ignore them.

Yachad were riled by a blogpost on the JC website, stating "you almost certainly will not find much love for Yachad in any Sephardi community", as

"Jews from Middle Eastern descent, after living for years among Arabs, tend to know slightly more about the people Israel are dealing with. They understand the Arab ideologies which lead to persecution, violence and death of Jews. They understand Israel's need to protect itself."

It is undeniable that a Sephardi Jew who has experienced Arab persecution (or indirectly through relatives) would likely be more concerned about security needs than anything else. However there are always exceptions in everything so of course many Ashkenazis with no experience of Arab persecution still understand Israel's security concerns, and do not support Yachad; and there will also be Sephardis, whose very existence may only be due to their ancestors joining almost 1,000,000 Jews in fleeing for their lives, who still don't get it.

Yachad were defended in a post on their blog listing countries from where their Sephardi supporters have origins. I don't think anyone was in any doubt about the fans Yachad may have from these countries: Egypt (the Muslim Brotherhood), Turkey (the lovely Erdogan, who after sending Israel a ship of terrorists initially let his people die rather than accept aid from Israel when hit by an earthquake), Iran (Ahmadinejad, who wants the whole of Israel "wiped off the map", not just the settlements).

What the blogpost fails to address is "Sephardi Spirit's" challenge:

"let's see Yachad tackle the more thorny problems such as incitement against Jews in Palestinian school text-books, or the medieval-style antisemitism coming out of the mouths of Hamas leaders, and their point-blank refusal to accept the idea of a Jewish state in the region. Those are the real obstacles to peace... Yachad has done absolutely nothing to demonstrate any sort of commitment to fighting the delegitimisation of Israel."

Going back to my last post about Yachad, since I wrote it I've discovered more about Yachad's favourite news-source, 972 Magazine, who Yachad continuously endorse and defend. Richard Millet blogged last week about some of their writers; Larry Derfner, who was fired from Jerusalem Post for justifying the Eilat terror attack in August which killed 8 Israelis; Joseph Dana, who said that a third intifada would be "unproductive" (never mind the terrorism aspect), and made one of the most ridiculous claims I've ever heard, that "Almost everything we can accuse Hamas of we can find the equal and sometimes worse situation inside of Israel". Yachad can hardly be accused of endorsing this claim, though, as they seem to ignore the existence of Hamas altogether.

Yachad's Search For Themselves

2011-11-15T01:00:00.006Z

The left-wing, supposedly "pro-Israel, pro-peace" group Yachad have professed a disclaimer on their blog that "the views of the bloggers do not necessarily represent the views of the organisation", presumably hoping that with all the criticism they have had so far, at least they won't have to take responsibility for the content of their blog.

Regardless, the last two blog posts very accurately do reflect Yachad's confused, contradictory viewpoint. Which is fair enough, it's their blog.

Darren Cohen starts off by mocking the "3 Ds", delegitimisation, double standards, and demonisation "that have become the archetypal regurgitation of many within the higher echelons of many Zionist institutions". Then, after acknowledging "the hypocrisy of much of the criticism and indeed hatred Israel receives", he compares the treatment of Israel by its enemies to Yachad's plight, applying the 3 Ds to Yachad, as though no criticism of them can be legitimate!

Cohen states that:

"To safeguard the future of Israel as a Jewish and Democratic State, it needs to act urgently to ensure that a viable two state solution is actualized and that the dream of peace can become a reality. This line of thought is now widely accepted by the mainstream and is nothing new. In spite of this, Hannah [Weisfeld] and the organisation she represents are still demonised as naïve at best and anti-Zionists at worse."

Despite what Cohen may think, Yachad's critics are not anti-peace, or against the two state solution. We're just against what Yachad thinks is the right way to achieve this. Cohen has very shrewdly observed our concerns about Yachad - are they naive or are they anti-Zionist? It's hard to tell, and similar to the question we ask of a lot of Israel-bashers: are they ignorant, or are they antisemitic? There's another possibility, which I think applies to many Jewish critics of Israel - cowardice. Understandably many Jews are overcome by a need to fit in with society's majority to avoid being a target, and if that means having to be critical of Israel, so be it.

Cohen is offended by the accusation of 972 Magazine (who are strongly endorsed by Yachad) being pro-Hamas, "a slanderous and unsupported accusation", but he's obviously not done his research.

On 972, Palestinian Aziz Abu Sarah wrote that Hamas’ “decision to reconcile with Fatah indicates their support of the PLO’s new approach [the bid for statehood]. Hamas has no better ideas to offer the Palestinian people on how to end the occupation. It had to make a choice between the status quo or actively working with Fatah and the other Palestinian factions on creating a Palestinian state.” Then he criticised that “The Israeli government ignored that Hamas had been giving clear signs of its willingness to accept to the two-state solution.” Israeli-American writer Mairav Zonszein, seemingly forgetting that Hamas is a genocidal terrorist organisation found it "perplexing" that they would condemn the killing of Osama Bin Laden, and wondered why they didn’t suggest instead that he should have been tried. (as though they privilege their own people with trials!) And it’s not only Hamas they support. Another writer, Roee Ruttenberg expressed support for last year’s flotilla, and the Turkish ‘charity’ who backed it, the IHH, who have links to terror.

Cohen then makes an extraordinarily absurd statement, that the double standards of Yachad’s critics were:

“highlighted by the fact that a leading member of the American Zionist Organisation wrote a piece criticising Israel’s government for allowing the Gilad Shalit prison exchange and yet no one bat an eye lid. Apparently, it is unacceptable to criticise Israel for being too ‘right-wing’, but to criticise the government for a ‘left-wing’ deal that the vast majority of Israelis supported is deemed acceptable.”

Gilad Shalit’s release was one of the most jubilant yet painful, emotionally charged events in Israel’s recent history. I have never in my life felt so torn in my emotions, so unbelievably relieved and happy that an Israeli soldier’s life was saved after five years of torture, but at the same time so grief-stricken for the families of terror victims who had to relive their horror all over again, sickened at the celebrations of terrorists with no remorse for their actions, and fearful for the future, for the safety of Israel’s citizens and soldiers, my family and friends in Israel, from Haifa to Jerusalem to Be’er Sheva. So I can understand those who were against the deal, even though, as I’ve explained, I supported it. I don’t look at it as a matter of politics, left or right wing; to me it was simply about taking the opportunity to save a life.

As for Yachad having “proven over and over again that it is a vociferous pro-Israel voice” and that “it is not acting to demonise or attack Israel”… where have they proven that? Because if I was ignorant of the conflict and got all my links from their Facebook and Twitter, I’d be worse than ignorant - I’d only know one half of the story.

Cohen’s second blog post again mentions the 3 DS, this time in describing how the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement is harmful and counterproductive. Despite this, he commends boycotts as “non-violent resistance to oppression”. Yachad’s official line is that they do not support boycotts, but they were also very much opposed to Israel’s proposed anti-boycott law.

Yachad would do well to clear up their own confusion and contradictions, and save their critics the trouble.

Gilad Finally Home!

2011-10-18T22:38:00.005+01:00

I am ecstatic that Gilad has finally been released and is home with his family, thank G-d alive and well.

As well as he could be under the circumstances; Hamas are capable of anything, so the fact that Gilad is alive and in good physical and mental condition is nothing short of a miracle. The symptoms of malnutrition and lack of sunlight is probably the best anyone could have dared hope for.

In the first stage, Gilad was taken to Egypt where he was forced into a torturous interview on Egyptian TV. His sharp breathing and discomfort were there for everyone to see, although it was only later that we found out there were actually armed Hamas men in the room with him. On top of that, the interview was interpreted wrongly, and of course the mainstream media repeated this false translation. When asked how he felt, Gilad replied "I don't feel so well", but this was translated as "I feel good". Asked if he would campaign for the release of other Palestinian prisoners, he said yes, as long as they stop attacking Israel, but was quoted as simply saying he'd be happy for them to go back to their families.

After that Gilad was turned over to Israeli care, where he underwent medical check ups,changed into an army uniform, and was then flown to meet Netanyahu, who took him to bereunited with his family, after which Gilad and his family were then all flown back to their homein the North of Israel.

Hundreds of Palestinian terrorists were released in exchange, some to Egypt, the rest to the West Bank and Gaza, where Hamas announced in a massive ceremony that they would continue trying to capture Israeli soldiers so they could use them to get more terrorists freed. Some media were bizarrely optimistic that the fact that Israel had to communicate with Hamas for the deal was a step forward that means they could negotiate in the future as well (?!).

Despite this, like I said previously, I still believe Israel made the right decision. Leftist critics of the deal though, have a strange logic. They complain about the "message" that one Israeli is worth 1000 Palestinians, and one Guardian reader even said "The Palestinians should have operated on a one to one exchange basis"! Can Israel do nothing right!

Jerusalem Post highlights several Jewish religious perspectives on the issue: "The Mishna prohibits redeeming captives 'for more than their monetary value' to foster 'society’s welfare' [tikkun olam]", whether literally an large ransom sum, or the cost by encouraging future kidnappings.

On the other hand,:

"Maimonides (1135-1204) states: 'There is no commandment as great as the redemption of captives.'

"And Rabbi Yosef Karo (1488-1575), in his Shulhan Arukh, notes: 'Each instant that one fails to redeem captives when it is possible to do so, it is as though one has shed blood.'

Meanwhile "Shas mentor Rabbi Ovadia Yosef has argued that in cases such as Shalit’s, the clear and present danger to the life of the hostage outweighs the potential danger to Israelis who might become the future targets of the freed terrorists."

Adrian Blomfield of the Telegraph discusses why so many Israelis supported the deal, despite the security risks and the political cost of bolstering Hamas. He quotes Avi Shavit of Haaretz, that:

"Israel's main asset in human and security terms is the sense of mutual responsibility that its citizens and soldiers feel towards one another. Without this feeling, there is no meaning to our lives here. Without this feeling, we have neither army, security, nor the ability to protect ourselves.

"Rightly or not, Shalit has become a symbol of mutual responsibility. And therefore his forthcoming release will not only be the redemption of a captive and the saving of a life and the return home of a son. Shalit's release will be the realisation of Israeli solidarity."

JPost sums it up perfectly:

"This collective willingness to expose ourselves to the risk of a future terrorist attack, if necessary, to secure Shalit’s release speaks volumes about Israelis’ strong sense that we are all in this Zionist project together, in good times and in bad.

It’s not that we are insensitive to the feelings of past terrorist victims’ families and loved ones. Nor are we unaware that many, even most, of those who will be released will return to violent terrorism – and that by paying a ratio of 1 to 1,027 we are encouraging future kidnappings.
It’s just that none of these potential future dangers seems to be able to trump the fact that right now an IDF soldier’s life is being saved."

The past can't be changed and the future can't be predicted with absolute certainty, so I, like many, believe it was most important to focus on the present, and support whatever had to be done to save Gilad. And we did.

Gilad Shalit To Be Freed At Last

2011-10-16T20:59:00.018+01:00

Israel has agreed a deal with Hamas to release over 1000 Palestinian prisoners/terrorists, in return for the release of Gilad Shalit, who has been held captive for over five years, in unknown conditions, with barely any contact between him and the outside world.

Anything can still happen, and even now it's not clear what condition Gilad is in, physically and mentally, but I am overwhelmed with joy at the thought of him finally returning to his family. At the same time, though, Israel is paying a high price for his freedom.

As if it's not bad enough that Israel is having to release hundreds of Palestinian terrorists, the Guardian readers can voice only concern for these terrorists, and their portrayal in the media, sympathising with the:

"thousand nameless, faceless Palestinians without identities, histories, or grieving families... where is the coverage of the Palestinian prisoners rotting in Israeli jails... inhuman treatment at Israel's hands".

..."William Hague reckons Shalit’s captivity was 'utterly unjustified'. How else would 1,000 Palestinians have obtained their freedom? When are Palestinians going to get some recognition as people, every bit as important as Israelis?"

Again we're faced with that question: are these people just ignorant, or are they antisemitic? If the Guardian did give these terrorists the coverage that they deserve, the details into what they did, the reasons why they're in jail, then would the Guardian readers reconsider whether these murderers deserve to "obtain their freedom" by holding an innocent boy hostage for five years, and whether they should be viewed "as important as Israelis"? Or would they still have sympathy for the murderers of innocent civilians? I fear it's the latter, but since they wondered about these "nameless Palestinians' identities", here are a few of those who will be released:

Abdel Hadi Ghanem, an Islamic Jihad terrorist responsible for the 1989 hijacking of Egged bus 405, driving it over a cliff edge, killing 16 Israelis.

Fahad Schludi, a terror operative who took part in the 1993 abduction and murder of IDF soldier Yaron Chen.

Bassam Abu Sneina and Riyad Asila, who are serving a life sentence for the 1998 murder of yeshiva student Haim Kerman.

Nael al-Barghouthi, the longest-serving Palestinian prisoner, who was sentenced to life in prison in 1978, for murdering an Israeli security officer.

Yehiya As-Sinwar, who was one of the founders of Hamas’ security forces in Gaza and was involved in the abduction and murder of IDF soldier Nachshon Wachsman. He is also the brother of one of the terrorists involved in Gilad Shalit’s kidnapping.

Jihad Yarmur, who was convicted of Nachshon Wachsman’s murder.

Ahmed Najar, former head of the Silwad terror cell, which killed 3 Israelis in six shooting attacks during the al-Aqsa Intifada.

Mohammed Hamada, who was convicted of planning a rocket attack on Teddy Stadium in Jerusalem.

Ruhi Musteha, a senior operative with Hamas’ military wing.

Husam Badran, the former head of Hamas’ military wing in the West Bank, who orchestrated the deadly terror attacks at the Tel Aviv Dolphinarium in 2001, at the Park Hotel in Netanya in 2002 (which killed 30) and at the Sbarro restaurant in Jerusalem in 2001 (which killed 15).

Muhammad Duglas, who was implicated in the Sbarro attack, and is serving 15 consecutive life sentences for the murder of 19 Israelis.

Amina Mona, a young woman who lured a lovestruck Israeli teenage boy by the name of Ophir Rahum to a Palestinian city over the Internet, only to have him killed by waiting terrorists.

Update: Some more terrorists who shouldn't be released: Walid Anajas, from Ramallah, a commander of Hamas' armed wing, the Qassam Brigades. He was given 36 life terms in 2002 for his involvement in a number of suicide bombings, including that of a Jerusalem cafe in 2002, in which 12 people lost their lives.

Nasser Yataima, who planned a suicide bombing which killed 30 people as they were about to celebrate the Passover festival at a hotel in March 2002, was sentenced to 29 life terms.

Khamis Zaki Aqel, a member of the Qassam Brigades, which carried out a string of suicide bombings and other attacks, was arrested in 1992 and sentenced to 21 life terms. It was not immediately clear for which crime he was sentenced.

Majdi Muhammed Amr, arrested in 1993, is serving 19 life sentences after being found guilty of coordinating the work of suicide bombers, including one who blew up a bus in the northern city of Haifa in March 2003, killing 17 people. [He also murdered David Cohen in a drive-by shooting in July 2001.]

Maedh Abu Sharakh was also sentenced to 19 life terms for his role in planning the Haifa bus bombing.

I have also read that other terrorists being released are those who with their bare hands lynched and murdered two Israeli soldiers in Ramallah in 2000, an incident so horrific, that leaves me feeling as sick and shaken by the memory of it as I felt when I watched the tv footage all those years ago, as well as desperately wanting never to have to remember or acknowledge it, that I could barely bring myself to type this paragraph. If anyone doesn't remember or know about that attack, if you have the stomach for it, please google it, it's probably even on youtube, but I can't and won't look for links.

Probably most of those being released feel no regret, and why would they when they're rewarded so much for their actions by their leaders - the Palestinian leaders who the world thinks Israel should reward for their incitement with land and a state.

But despite all of this, I still believe Israel is making the right decision. After all, there is no other choice. Perhaps mistakes were made in the past and opportunities wasted, but at this moment, we have to simply take whatever we can get, do whatever we can to free Gilad and not leave him languishing any longer.

As a plus side, some top Palestinian terrorists, who Hamas campaigned for in previous talks, are not being released:

Marwan Barghouti who was sentenced to five life sentences for his role in the murders of Israelis during the al-Aksa intifada

Abdullah Barghouti who is serving out 67 consecutive life terms for building the bombs that murdered 66 people

Ahmed Saadat who headed the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and was responsible for the assassination of Israeli minister Rehavam Ze'evi

Hassan Salama, a Hamas leader who was convicted of murdering 67 Israeli citizens

Abbas a-Sayed, mastermind of the Park Hotel suicide bombing in which 30 Israelis were killed on the eve of Passover 2002

Ibrahim Hamed, who was found guilty of involvement in terrorist attacks that led to the death of 82 Israelis

It hardly even feels a victory, looking back at all the carnage and trauma they caused.

This is the most miserable, bittersweet I've ever felt writing a post, and it's not even over yet. Please G-d Gilad should be home with his family soon, alive and well, and every terrorist who ever caused pain and suffering to innocent people should feel a thousand times more what their victims felt.

On The Palestinians' Bid For A Terror-State

2011-09-26T01:12:00.014+01:00

In a speech filled with lies, hatred for Israel, and a refusal to accept any responsibility whatsoever for the Palestinians' part in the conflict, Abbas on Friday made his bid to the UN for a Palestinian state, without negotiations, and without Palestinian concessions.

It is interesting to note who is for and who is against the bid. Against includes The Times and J Street, because although obviously both are pro a 2 state solution, J Street explain “we do not believe that, in the current context, it [the bid for statehood without negotiations] will advance peace, enhance security and improve conditions on the ground.” Which sums up why most rational people are against it.

Meanwhile the UK version of J Street (but evidently a lot more ~~stupid~~ naive), the questionably “pro-Israel, pro-peace” group Yachad are for it, because they “believe it represents a historic opportunity to advance and expedite the peace process... to be recognised as a state will require the Palestinian leadership to take on the obligations of behaving like a state.” The Guardian of course, is also for it, as they appear not to want the Palestinians to have to make any concessions at all, whether engaging in land swaps, recognising Israel as the Jewish state, or tearing up their agreement with Hamas - you know, the antisemitic, genocidal terror organisation.

So let’s have a look at just some of the reasons why the Palestinian state Abbas asked for is, to put it lightly, a bad idea.

Robin Shepherd observes that:

“There is one party to this dispute that most emphatically does not support a Palestinian state, if that means long-term acceptance of the State of Israel: the Palestinians themselves… opinion polls have consistently shown that the Palestinians only support the idea of a Palestinian state sitting side by side with Israel as a stepping stone to a future one state solution in which they rule over the Jews (assuming they are ruled over and not slaughtered or “driven into the sea” as they are wont to say)… a comprehensive poll by the Israel Project in November 2010 showed 60 percent of Palestinians agreeing with the proposition that: ‘The real goal should be to start with two states but then move to it all being one Palestinian state’”.

On the day of the bid, a member of the Fatah Central Committee, Abbas Zaki, told Al Jazeera that regarding Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ bid for 2 states, “Abbas understands... everybody knows that the greater goal cannot be accomplished in one go. If Israel withdraws from Jerusalem, evacuates the 650,000 settlers, and dismantles the wall – what will become of Israel? It will come to an end. If we say that we want to wipe Israel out... It's not [acceptable] policy to say so. Don't say these things to the world. Keep it to yourself.” This might seem like a stupid thing to say to an internationally aired news channel, but the truth is the mainstream media either don't make the effort to know, or don't care about the difference between what Palestinian officials say in Arabic and what they say in English.

Palestinians often depict a map of the whole of Israel as representing “Palestine”, whether in newspaper cartoons, or Fatah’s own logo, which was on Abbas' official document to the UN.

Abbas himself, speaking for the Palestinians, will not recognise Israel as the Jewish state, as he has said numerous time, including on 27^th August to the PLO Central Council: “Present to us something sensible, don’t present to us ‘The Jewish State’, we will never accept it... The Quartet cannot force upon us the character of the state [of Israel], or that we should recognize the nature of the Israeli state”.

And he didn’t change his mind between then and 22^rd September, the day before the bid, when he told 200 representatives of American Arabs of Palestinian descent “we will not recognise the Jewish state... we will only accept that Palestine be free of settlers and soldiers [i.e. Jews]”.

Which is what the PLO’s ambassador to the US, Maen Areikat, said on 13^th September, that any future Palestinian state it seeks with help from the United Nations and the United States should be free of Jews. He later explained he meant settlers and soldiers (so, still Jews then), but last year he made a similar statement during an interview with Tablet magazine. Asked whether “Any Jew who is inside the borders of Palestine will have to leave”, he responded “absolutely”.

Let’s not forget that Abbas is a Holocaust denier, he denies the Jewish historical connection to Israel, rewrites the history of the conflict, and is responsible for his government’s incitement of hatred and violence towards Israelis and Jews, through Palestinian childrens’ tv programmes, honouring and glorifying terrorists with processions, video tributes, naming streets, schools, town squares and youth groups after them; and rewarding the families ofterrorists with payment.

About a year ago, the PA Minister of Prisoners’ affairs Issa Karake honoured a Palestinian woman, Latifa Abu Hmeid, with a plaque inscribed with the names of four of her sons who are serving sentences in Israeli prisons, all of them for their involvement in the murder of Israeli civilians in numerous terror attacks. Karake stated: “The Palestinian mother is a central partner in the struggle... It is she who gave birth to the fighters, and she deserves that we bow to her in salute and in honour.”

Two weeks ago, Karake stated that "The recognition of the [Palestinian] state means... that the struggles of the prisoners [i.e. terrorists] are legitimized and legal according to UN Resolutions”.

So it isn’t surprising that last week the Palestinians’ statehood campaign began with Abu Hmeid, the mother honoured for giving birth to murderers, leading the procession to the UN offices in Ramallah, where she handed over a letter to the representative there of UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon calling for the UN to recognise a Palestinian state.

Probably the most obvious reason why the statehood bid is a bad idea, yet people still need to be reminded of it, is that Israel left Gaza in 2005, uprooting thousands of Israeli citizens from their homes there. Hamas then took over, throwing out Fatah and firing over 10,000 rockets on Israeli civilians. Israel would need to ensure that the West Bank would be under the control of moderates, and that weapons would not be smuggled in, which would mean that practically every city in Israel would be in range.

Why could Abbas possibly object to negotiations with Netanyahu that would address these problems? And why would people, people who call themselves pro-peace and pro-Israel, support Abbas in this?

Boycotts And Freedom Of Antisemitic Speech

2011-09-04T21:11:00.001+01:00

Contrary to what some people may assume, I’m sadly not paid to blog by the Israeli government or anyone else, but I have just been preoccupied with more Zionisty stuff (that I’m also not paid for), and with my alter-life and job (which I am paid for!)

So, back to business.

There was a lot of fuss made about Israel’s supposedly undemocratic “anti-boycott law” passed in July, which allows victims of boycotts to sue the boycotters. Apart from the fact that the law simply enables Israelis to defend themselves and their businesses, the law is not dissimilar to some in other countries as well, including America. The most obvious point to make though, is the fact that the very premise of the boycotts is not only wrong but also mostly antisemitic (see section on Israel in the definition of antisemitism).

So the fact that the anti-boycott law might be seen as infringing on freedom of speech is pretty irrelevant, as it is in other cases. For example whilst most media will not allow a terrorist the airtime/column space to call for Jihad, many (see: The Guardian, Haaretz) will allow terrorists and lefties to express support and understanding for other terrorists, usually only if they’re Palestinian “freedom fighters” killing Israeli “colonialists” or something. But there’s a very, very fine line between understanding and supporting terrorism, and actively calling for it, so although media might be berated for restricting the former, and even firing a columnist for it, as the Jerusalem Post just did, most normal people will understand.

Anyway it turns out though that perhaps we don’t have so much to worry about with regards to the boycotts. When boycotters have highlighted the Israeli “settler” products they want people to avoid, those companies have reported an increase in sales, because the majority of people living in Israel are not lunatics and actually care about and support the country they live in.

An interesting question is raised: “If Ahmed Tibi, an Israeli citizen currently living over the Green Line (making him a Settler) were to open a factory, would the Left call for its boycott too? Or are their calls to boycott actually racist and only targeting Jews?”

The irony is that even most Palestinians don’t boycott Israeli products; as EoZ says, they just want to live their lives, they don’t obsess over politics the way the fanatical left do.

On Thursday night anti-Israel activists staged a noisy protest inside London’s Royal Albert Hall, where the Israeli Philharmonic Orchestra was playing. The music was disrupted several times by the protestors’ hysterical singing and shouting, and BBC Radio took the concert off the air. Success? Not really. The protestors were drowned out by thousands in the audience who booed them and chanted “out, out”, then cheered and clapped as they were removed. Perhaps many people in the audience support Palestinian rights, and oppose many Israeli policies towards the Palestinians, but anyone with an ounce of sense can see that essentially “terrorizing” an orchestra (in which people of all religions and nationalities, including Palestinian are or have been involved), is not a legitimate form of protest. It can only be antisemitism.

Gilad Shalit Billboard Campaign

2011-06-21T22:01:00.001+01:00

A billboard of Gilad Shalit has been put up in Manhattan, for one month, near the headquarters of the UN, to mark five years that Gilad has been held by Hamas, since 25th June 2006..

I apologise that I didn't blog this earlier (I only opened the email from Gal Sitty, the campaigner, now), but thankfully the campaign succeeded in raising the $10,000 needed to fund the billboard. Please G-d this amazing campaign will succeed in bringing about Gilad's freedom soon and in good health.

More about Gal and the campaign here.

Amnesty "Debate": Yes, Israel Controls The Media

2011-05-26T16:03:00.000+01:00

The Amnesty-MEMO event on "Complicity in Oppression: Does the Media Aid Israel" that took place on Monday sounds as bad as expected, and it can't really be called a debate when only one point of view is aired. All of the speakers believe that Israel controls the media, and Jonathan Hoffman and Richard Millet, who attended said that no pro-Israel questions were taken.

Millet points out that Amnesty's defence of the event doesn't really stand, that “Those who disagree with MEMO, or indeed any apsect of the event, are of course welcome to attend and make their point in a reasonable way.”

Millet quotes Greg Philo (the author of the book that Tim Llewellyn, another speaker, endorsed in the Guardian) complaining that the BBC would say things like "Israel's attack on Hamas enters its second week" when it should say "Israel's attack on the Palestinians". Well, perhaps you could call that bias if Israel did deliberately target civilians. But, as all the evidence proves, Israel did not deliberately target civilians.

Philo also complains that:
"As a consequence [of the pro-Israel media bias] although the public had sympathy for the Palestinians, they wanted the Palestinians to stop firing rockets at Israel. He quoted a woman in one of his focus groups who said: 'When I saw the pictures of the dead children, it was dreadful. I was in tears. But it didn’t make me feel that the Palestinians and Hamas were right. I think the Palestinians haven’t taken the chance to work towards a peaceful solution.'"
So first Philo whines that people want the Palestinians to stop firing rockets at Israel, and then he whines that people think the Palestinians aren't doing enough to advance peace! Because in his mind firing rockets is advancing peace?!
Hoffman relays that when Abdel Bari Atwan spoke:

"The first thing he did – to prove that 'the Israel Lobby' was out to silence him – was to hold up the JC’s front page: 'How Was This Hatefest Allowed on Campus?' Atwan is convinced that the 'Israel Lobby' is to blame for the fact that he is not invited as a guest on TV shows, and he thinks he gets 'worse coverage than Adolf Hitler'."

Hoffman points out "Has he considered that it might just have something to do with the fact that he is an extremist who says that he will 'dance in Trafalgar Square' if Iranian missiles hit Israel?".

Failed Attempts To Undermine Netanyahu's Speech

2011-05-25T23:25:00.001+01:00

Criticisms of Netanyahu's excellent - and brutally honest - speech at Congress were varied, from the Palestinians, to the Liberal Intellectual Journalist, to the 'As A Jew' Jew:

Abbas' "moderate" Fatah interpreted Netanyahu's outline for peace as a "declaration of war", by which they actually meant "we're bored, we want to start a war". They would've had this reaction whatever Netanyahu said in his speech. Except, perhaps, if he said that all the Jews are just going to curl up and die to solve all the world's problems.

The AP's Josef Federman wrote a "Fact check", attempting to contradict Netanyahu's speech with "facts". To Netanyahu's statement "You don't need to send American troops to Israel. We defend ourselves", Federman says that Israel receives military aid from America every year. Whilst America's assistance is undoubtedly helpful, Israel is painfully aware that we can't rely fully on others to defend us. A mere two years after the Jews were nearly wiped out in the Holocaust, the Arabs tried to do it again to the Jews in Israel, but our collective army succeeded in defending the Jews and Israel. The other point, which Honest Reporting makes, is that Federman is deliberately taking Netanyahu's statements out of context to fit his own agenda. In this case, Netanyahu's followed that statement by saying "You've been very generous in giving us tools to do the job of defending Israel on our own."

At Netanyahu referring to Israel as a democracy, Federman objects that the Palestinians in the West Bank can't vote in Israeli elections. Well, why would they? They're ruled by a Palestinian government. I'm not allowed to vote in Israel either.

When Netanyahu called Hamas the Palestinian equivalent of Al Qaida, Federman protests that Al Qaida criticises Hamas as being too moderate. Oh, well if Al Qaida says it, it must be true! Federman also says that whilst Al Qaida preaches global jihad, "Hamas says its struggle is solely against Israel". First, even if that was true, does that mean Hamas can be excused for murdering Jews, as long as they're Israeli Jews? Second, it's not true; Hamas' charter calls for the murder of all Jews. Silly question for Federman: whose side are you on?! Obviously, he chooses Hamas; which is fine, each to their own. But don't pretend to care about the accuracy of the statements Netanyahu made in his speech ; Hamas certainly aren't bothered by that sort of thing, they have bigger issues, like the fact that Israel exists.

Predictably, the Guardian ran an article today criticising Obama by a token 'As A Jew' Jew, Jane Eisner. I think they have a cycle of whose turn it is to bash Israel. First it's a white person, then an Arab, then a terrorist (usually from Hamas), and then a self-hating Jew, and then it starts again. You can't say they aren't diverse!

Eisner starts off by making sure everyone knows she speaks for all American Jews: Netanyahu's "third audience was the American Jewish community. People like me."

She then, with admirable honesty, explains why she's writing this article in the first place: "whether the prime minister's spirited defence of the status quo and his reluctance to offer a way back to the negotiating table will be received well by the White House is an open question. And that puts American Jews in a difficult, uncomfortable situation." It's very rare for these type of Jews to admit that their criticism is because of fear of world opinion on Israel and Israel's supporters.

She states the obvious, that Jews want there to be harmony between the leaders of the US and Israel, but I give American Jews more credit than Eisner does. I think American Jews (and most Jews in outside of Israel) don't take the easy way out when they find themselves in the "difficult, uncomfortable situation" where there is friction between the leaders. They stand up for what they believe is true and right - and like all of Israel's supporters, we'd rather be alive and hated than dead and loved.

Eisner doesn't seem to be in that camp though: The leaders' relationship "got awfully bumpy at times. I fear the impasse is only growing. It need not be this way". Her main concern is Israel's relationship with America; never mind the consequences for Israel if America's ideas don't turn out to be very good ones, never mind all the lessons we've learnt from the Holocaust and after, like how only we are able to ensure our own survival. As long as Obama likes us!

She then revels her own ignorance when she claims that many, like Obama have acknowledged that "the borders of Israel before the 1967 war, before the 43 year occupation, are the starting point for negotiations with Palestinians". They weren't borders, they were ceasefire lines. The land is disputed, not occupied. And it makes more sense that the starting point for negotiations would be for the Palestinian leaders to demonstrate an interest in peace, rather than continuous incitement to terrorism and rejection of Israel's legitimacy. As Netanyahu has explained, the 1967 lines are indefensible*, and "were not the boundaries of peace, they were the boundaries of repeated wars".

Eisner complains:

"Netanyahu's defiant stance puts us in a heart-wrenching conundrum. We can choose to support his view of the world, in which an aggrieved Israel bears no responsibility for the occupation and for the impasse in negotiations... But most of us don't want further procrastination but an end to the conflict, which has stained Israel's moral standing in the way that occupation and continued violence does to anyone".

Well if that's how she sees the conflict, then it really shouldn't be a "heart-wrenching conundrum" for her. She claims "Most of us, I bet, hoped that Netanyahu would have issued a bold, creative speech that would have moved the process forward." Speak for yourself, Jane Eisner. Most of us just wanted Netanyahu's assurance of his commitment to the security of Israel's citizens. If the Palestinians want to talk about peace, we're waiting.

*That video is not a solution to the conflict, it is just to show how Israel would be most secure.

Abbas Extremism Continues

2011-05-24T21:01:00.000+01:00

In the last few days we've seen Abbas demonstrate more and more extremist tendencies.

First he re-wrote the history of Israel in the New York Times, blaming the entire situation on Israel and absolving the Palestinians of an blame, ignoring all the peace proposals they have rejected.

Then he rejected Obama calling the Hamas-Fatah reconciliation an obstacle to peace, saying "Hamas is a part of Palestinian society".

Now, for anyone who was still in doubt about his views, he denied the thousands of years old Jewish connection to Israel, and said "Netanyahu, you are incidental in history. We are the people of history. We are the owners of history". As PMW point out, even the Koran makes no reference to a Palestinian people, whereas the Jewish history in Israel has been corroborated by archaeological finds.

Abbas' statements are not shocking, they're just idiocy, what's shocking is that he is taken seriously as the Palestinian leader. This blog post isn't about that though.

It turns out Abbas is worse than I thought. In 1984 (yes it may have been a long time ago but he was 50 years old), Abbas wrote a book in Arabic in which he denied that gas chambers were used to murder Jews in the Holocaust, and that it was a "fantastic lie" that six million Jews were murdered. He acknowledged that some were killed, but apparently this was because it was the aim of "The Zionist movement", who "led a broad campaign of incitement against the Jews living under Nazi rule, in order to arouse the government's hatred of them, to fuel vengeance against them, and to expand the mass extermination".

The fact that Abbas is a virtual Holocaust denier and crazier conspiracy theorist than he's appeared to be
just makes all his current actions make a whole lot more sense. I was thinking that maybe joining Hamas has started to affect him, but really he's just showing more of his true colours that he's been attempting to hide all these years behind his reformed, supposedly "moderate" character. Maybe that is the effect Hamas have been having on him, who knows. The only certainty is that Abbas is extremist and untrustworthy, and not a really great prospect as a partner for peace.

On BBC Bias

2011-05-24T13:30:00.004+01:00

The Guardian really plugged the Israel haters yesterday; as well as publishing a letter from the senior editor of the pro-Hamas MEMO, they also published an article alleging that the BBC is biased towards Israel, by Tim Llewellyn, another of the speakers at MEMO's debate yesterday on the same subject.

Llewellyn's agenda is evident from the beginning. In the second paragraph he claims:

"The BBC coverage of Israel and Palestine, where another state continually kills and oppresses Arabs, is replete with imbalance and distortion".

His summing up of the conflict, as Israel intentionally and maliciously oppressing the Palestinians for no apparent reason is simply absurd and the fact that he follows this by lecturing the BBC on "imbalance and distortion" renders his entire article a joke.

He lists ways the media is supposedly biased towards Israel, according to a book co-written by Greg Philo, also a speaker at the debate:

"They find that the Israeli explanation of why it went to war on a mainly defenceless Gazan population is the one broadly accepted by the BBC. It was a 'response' to Palestinian rockets. The Palestinian case, that the Israelis violated a ceasefire that had held for nearly five months in November 2008, and that the Gazans had endured many years of intensifying siege and blockade, which had reduced them to stagnation and penury, was rarely put, if at all... The BBC repeatedly stressed the word [Israeli] 'retaliation'".

But Israel didn't go to war on the "defenceless Gazan population", it targetted Hamas and the evidence is in the ratio of civilians to terrorists killed; much lower than in other conflicts, with Hamas confessing to over 700 terrorists being killed, all this bearing in mind all the precautions Israel took to minimize civilian casualties, and the fact that Hamas used the Palestinians as human shields. Also it is undeniable that the war was a response - Hamas fired about 200 rockets into Israel in November 2008. They are entirely to blame for the plight of the Palestinians in Gaza, so Llewellyn's complaints are void.

"They cite a BBC reporter saying: 'Israel feels itself surrounded by enemies, with reason.' They add: 'We have not found a commentary noting that 'Palestinians feel themselves to be subject to a brutal military occupation, with reason.' Israel's official view is given as fact, they say, but the Palestinian view, on the rare occasions it is found at all, is not. Israelis 'state', Palestinians 'claim'."

The first point above is true, the media hardly ever cite the real reasons for the conflict, how aside from the fact that Hamas want to destroy Israel, they also constantly act directly against the Palestinians' best interests. As for the second point, it's just not true - Palestinians' lies are constantly repeated as fact (eg. Israel murdered a peaceful protestor with tear gas), and when the truth comes out (she wasn't even at the protest, she died of medical issues), the media never report what actually happened. On the rare occasion that they do say the Palestinians "claim", well, it might be because it's not unheard of for Palestinians to tell outright lies. (eg. Palestinians "claim" Israel eats Palestinian babies; Palestinians "claim" there is no Jewish connection to the land of Israel etc etc).

"Israeli attacks are always reported as retaliation to Palestinian violence or rockets, and the idea that Palestinian rockets, however ineffective, are armed resistance to Israel's hammering from land, sea and air is rarely broadcast. The daily indignities and brutalities of the siege and the occupation and the shelling and shooting of civilians are virtually absent from BBC consciousness unless an attack on Israel sparks interest."

Here Llewellyn shows that he views rockets targetted at innocent civilians as a justified "response" ("resistance") to Israel killing the terrorists who fire the rockets. That and the fact that he calls the rockets "ineffective" when just last month an Israeli schoolboy was killed, is insane and obscene. And whilst it is constantly reported when Palestinians are killed, whether they are terrorists, or civilians where terrorists had just fired rockets from their back garden, the most common, almost daily, Palestinian attacks deliberately targetted at Israeli civilians (whether by rocks or rockets, both can be fatal) are rarely reported, much less when they celebrate and boast about it.

"what is missing from the coverage is the view that the Palestinians are engaged in a war of national liberation, trying to throw off an occupying force. Any Israeli casualty is headline news, shown in high quality images. BBC teams are based in West Jerusalem, de facto Israeli territory, and are on hand. Arab casualties may be shown in reports of a funeral, usually agency film, the victim anonymous"

This is just so untrue I really wonder where they get their "evidence" for this. Again Llewellyn demonstrates that he views Israeli citizens, whether a three month old baby or a 16 year old schoolboy or a pregnant woman, as legitimate targets because they are "an occupying force". And again, his second point is a blatant lie. Not only are Palestinian deaths reported in great detail - both visually and in words - and often out of context (if it's civilians ignoring how they are used as human shields, if it's terrorists showing their families mourning), but Israeli deaths are reported with much of the focus on how it would be considered Israel's fault, for example where the victims are called "hardline" settlers as though it's ok to kill a baby just because she lives on land that the Palestinians claim is theirs.

When Philo and Berry interviewed students, they found that they:

"were largely unaware of the Israeli occupation, often believing the Palestinians are the occupiers. Few knew that Hamas had been democratically elected in January 2006. 'I had the impression they were a terrorist group from watching the BBC' said one respondent."

Which is a bizarre quote to use to try to back up their claims of BBC bias, because everyone know Hamas is a terrorist organistaion, even they don't try to hide it - and just because they were "elected" doesn't change that fact. Just Journalism "recently addressed how a BBC profile of Hamas downplayed the Islamist group’s targeting of civilians and its extremist ideology."

If all that wasn't bad enough so far, Llewellyn ends the article by claiming that after 9/11:

"Israel and its friends were quick to capitalise on 'terror' and 'Arabs' and massively enhanced their propaganda here, gaining access to BBC staff at all levels".

So not only is he accusing Israel (or the "Zionist/Jewish lobby") of forcing the media to report what they tell them; he also accuses Israel of exploiting "terror" in quote marks, as if it doesn't exist and Israel's never experienced the consequences of terrorism. It's more than just ironic that Llewellyn's antisemitic implication of Jewish control over the media claims that the media is afraid of being called antisemitic, because this very claim seeks to undermine defenders of Israel and balanced reporting as "playing the antisemite card".

I've found fisking this article to be totally surreal, I can't quite believe the lies I've read. And it's even more surreal that I'm having to write in defence of the BBC's reporting, especially considering that there are so many instances where they clearly are biased against Israel.

For example, Just Journalism found Wyre Davies' BBC:

"analysis of Israel’s negative response to the Fatah-Hamas unity deal declines to engage directly with the reasons why Israel might be perturbed by Hamas being brought into the process, alternatively choosing to portray a gleeful Netanyahu with a new ‘message’ to ‘take to the wider world...

Davies denigrates any treatment of Hamas as a terrorist group, making absolutely no reference to the organisation’s long history of killing and maiming Israeli civilians in targeted attacks, which is the basis for the application of the terrorist label. He makes no reference to, nor takes account of, high profile recent statements by Hamas leaders that they will never accept Israel and want to see it expunged from the Middle East."

Meanwhile I look forward to Philo. Berry and Llewellyn's defence of Press TV.

Obama's Speech And The 1967 Lines

2011-05-23T19:05:00.009+01:00

The senior editor of MEMO (the pro-Hamas group who are tonight, hosted by Amnesty holding a debate called "Complicity in Oppression: Does the Media Aid Israel?"), Ibrahim Hewitt, wrote in to The Guardian complaining about Obama's speech; that negotiations on land would "reward Israel for its illegal settlement policy" (disputed, not illegal), that a non-militarised Palestinian state would be "at the mercy of the Israel Defence Forces" (not such a bad thing; it's an indisputable fact that if the Palestinians put down their weapons the conflict would end but if Israel put theirs down they would be destroyed); that Israel is a Jewish state and that the US is committed to Israel's security. How terrible.

It's not surprising that the Israel-bashers are disturbed by Obama's professed support for Israel, but the speech wasn't all good. Hewitt says that since Israel accepted the two-state proposal in 1947, (which the Palestinians rejected, as Abbas forgot to mention in his NYT op-ed), Israel should have no case not to go back to what Hewitt calls the "1967 borders", which is similar to what Obama suggested: "We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps".

Obama correctly called it lines, unlike Hewitt, because they were never borders. But if Israel did go back to the pre-'67 lines, Gaza would be part of Egypt, and the West Bank in Jordan. There never was a Palestinian state. The most obvious point to make, which Netanyahu did, brilliantly, is that those lines are indefensible, leaving Israel only nine miles wide - "these were not the boundaries of peace, they were the boundaries of repeated wars". They were unsustainable, and the only reason Israel is (bli ayin hara) more stable now than it was then is because it can defend itself, because it won that land when the Arabs started the '67 war.

Just Journalism point out that the coverage of Obamas' speeches about Israel (in The White House, and at the AIPAC conference) focuses almost exclusively on his demands on Israel rather than his condemnation and demands of the Palestinians, such as that

"the recent agreement between Fatah and Hamas poses an enormous obstacle to peace. No country can be expected to negotiate with a terrorist organization sworn to its destruction. We will continue to demand that Hamas accept the basic responsibilities of peace: recognizing Israel's right to exist, rejecting violence, and adhering to all existing agreements. And we once again call on Hamas to release Gilad Shalit, who has been kept from his family for five long years."

Meanwhile Honest Reporting observe that whilst Netanyahu's response to Obama was reported in the New York Times as "Netanyahu Responds Icily to Obama remarks", what didn't get that sort of coverage was Abbas' response, his complete rejection of Obama calling the Hamas-Fatah reconciliation an obstacle to peace, saying that after all, "Hamas is a part of Palestinian society".

It's quite frightening how since Abbas joined Hamas he's abandoning any pretence of wanting peace. He is just one step away from openly advocating terror attacks on Israeli civilians.

Amnesty Hosting Antisemites

2011-05-22T19:19:00.002+01:00

Tomorrow Amnesty International in London is hosting a debate called "Complicity in Oppression: Does the Media Aid Israel?", by the pro-Hamas Middle East Monitor Online (MEMO).

MEMO is run by Dr Daud Abdullah, a Hamas supporter who signed the "Istanbul Declaration", which calls for "Resistance against the Jewish Zionist occupation" and attacks on any ships who attempt to block the smuggling of arms to Hamas. MEMO also have articles written by Khalid Amaryeh, including one where he denies that Jews (or, as he calls them, "these pathological liars from Eastern Europe") have any historical connection to the land of Israel. Another MEMO article, by Kathleen Christison discusses "Zionist influence over civil society and policymakers" and, you think she won't go there but she does, "Jewish influence in the economies, the film industries, the media and academia in key Western countries". MEMO also recently published an article by by Skeikh Raed Salah, leader of the Islamic Movement in Israel, who raised money for Hamas and claims that Jews use the blood of gentile children to bake bread.

Michael Weiss's piece in the Telegraph criticises the relationship between Amnesty and MEMO, and asks readers to ask Amnesty why they are hosting an event by an antisemitic organisation.

In response to the piece, Khalid Amaryeh* of MEMO wrote another article comparing Israel to Nazis, which is not only absurd and insulting to the 6 million Jews who were killed, but also, by definition, antisemitic. And in the comments section on Richard Millett's blog post on the issue, he wrote to another commenter, "I don't give a damn whether you are a kike or not".

Naturally, none of the above is the most concerning part of the event. From Harry's Place:

"The speakers at the MEMO / PSC event include Abdel Bari Atwan, who will “dance in Trafalgar Square” if Iran nukes Israel, loves Israelis-are-Nazis abuse, and was a fan of Saddam Hussein; Tim Llewellyn, a freelance Israel hater with quite a taste for antisemitic language; and Victoria Brittain, who has made a career out of promoting some of the worst extremists. Abu Qatada of Al Qaeda, for example, is a victim of 'casual racism'."

Overall, this is not at all surprising from Amnesty. These so-called "human rights" organisations have a long history of controversy and corruption in their links with terrorists, antisemites and their supporters, and singling out Israel for condemnation and unfounded accusations. Recently, Human Rights Watch even took the opportunity when Osama Bin Laden was killed, to criticise "the US and other countries who resort to torture, ill-treatment, and other violations of [terrorists'] basic rights", but later changed this statement, realising that most people probably didn't really appreciate their preaching equivalence of terror victims and the treatment of terrorists.

UPDATE: (23/5/11) *After just last week calling someone a "kike", Amaryeh wrote an article on Hamas' website - more specifically, of their "armed wing".

Also, The Guardian today published a letter from the senior editor of MEMO, and an article by one of the speakers at the debate, Tim Llewellyn, arguing that the BBC is biased towards Israel. (that would be the day!)

Abbas Goes More Hamas

2011-05-19T20:55:00.002+01:00

The Fatah-Hamas reconciliation is not good for anyone who wants peace, as it just means Fatah siding with Hamas, who still want Israel's destruction and refuse to negotiate*. It's not surprising then that the Guardian is fully behind the reconciliation, especially considering that when they released the Palestine Papers in February, they demonstrated that they were actively against the very idea of the Palestinians making any concessions for peace - what the Guardian actually called weakness - and they legitimised Hamas.

But Hamas are not the only problem. In the New York Times op-ed this week, Fatah's leader Abbas wrote an outrageously distorted op-ed, rewriting the history of Israel, and, apart from all Fatah's incitement to terrorism*, the op-ed suddenly makes it so clear why Abbas hasn't negotiated: he's not only in denial about the history of Israel, he lies about his own history.

He wrote that in 1947, after it was proposed that Israel be divided into two states, "Zionist forces expelled Palestinian Arabs... and Arab armies intervened. War and further expulsions ensued... Minutes after the State of Israel was established on May 14, 1948, the United States granted it recognition. Out Palestinian state, however, remains a promise unfulfilled."

Of course he wouldn't mention that the Palestinians rejected the proposal, and that the armies of Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Jordan invaded Israel with the sole intention of killing all the Jews, to get us out of the way. Really, the Nakba is just mourning the failure of finishing the Holocaust.

He claims "we have been negotiating with the State of Israel for 20 years without coming any closer to realizing a state of our own... Negotiations remain our first option".

Again, Abbas ignores the facts - that over the years the Palestinians have refused a 2 state solution seven times, including Abbas himself only in 2008.

Whilst Hamas may be the terrorists, Abbas sure isn't interested in peace either. His issue is with the very existence of Israel, not settlements. He couldn't be more clear about that than if he joined Hamas. Oh, wait.

UPDATE:

* And who reiterated that they will never recognise Israel in response to Obama's Middle East speech

* And a new Fatah law granting terrorists in Israeli prisons a monthly salary.

Terrorism On Nakba Day

2011-05-16T21:01:00.001+01:00

Nakba Day, when the Palestinians mourn the establishment of the State of Israel, kicked off yesterday morning with a terror attack in Tel Aviv. An Arab truck driver deliberately crashed into several cars, shouting "Allahu Akbar". He injured 17 and killed one, a 29 year old recently engaged man, Aviv Morag.

In another incident, in East Jerusalem two Israeli policeman were deliberately run over by a car at a checkpoint.

Two terrorists were arrested as they were caught trying to enter a Jewish settlement, armed with knives, no doubt wanting to carry out an attack similar to that on the Fogel family in March.

Later, thousands of Syrians and Lebanese broke through the borders into Israel and violently rioted against the IDF, injuring some of them. When tear gas and other riot dispersal methods didn't work, the IDF fired warning shots but were finally forced to open fire. About 12 "protestors" were killed overall, some by Lebanese forces.

In other riots around the country, hundreds of Palestinians threw rocks, molotov cocktails, flares, firebombs, burnt tires, damaged the Gaza border and other property, and hid behind ambulances as they launched their attacks.

It is highly likely that Syrian President Assad actively encouraged the invasion to divert attention from his forces' killing of 800 Syrian protestors. Ironically, some of those who entered Israel weren't protesting but were fleeing the danger in Syria. One said:

"I'm tired of living in Syria, we'd rather die than see more bloodshed. We've crossed the border in order to stay with our families, away from all the killing in Syria. We ask the powers that be in Israel to help us stay and not send us back."

Surely there's got to be a smarter option than illegally breaking into a country along with a violent mob of hundreds.

The protests weren't just about commemorating Nakba day though; a while ago hundreds of thousands joined a Facebook group calling for a third intifada - and for Arabs from the surrounding countries to march into Israel, which is exactly what they did.

Around the world, Palestinian supporters held demonstrations in support of a third intifada, including in London where there was also a counter-demo, a pro-Israel, pro-peace rally.

The third intifada demonstration was supported by the "peaceful" BDS, but at the demo itself there was no pretence of peaceful aims. The pro-Palis chanted "victory for the intifada", called for jihad against Israel and for Israel's destruction, waved the flag of the terrorist organisation Hezbollah, and chanted "khyber al-Yahud", which means "slaughter the Jews". Well, at least they were honest!

UPDATE: One Syrian confessed that he was shot in the legs in the Nakba Day protests after he tried to kidnap an Israeli soldier. There were probably other similar incidents. Either way, for only 12 of the hundreds who swarmed into Israel to be killed reflects the extraordinary restraint taken by the IDF.

Israel Memorial Day: Yehi Zichram Baruch

2011-05-09T10:35:00.000+01:00

Today is Yom Hazikaron when we remember the 22,867 soldiers who lost their lives defending the state of Israel and the 2,443 civilians who were murdered in terror attacks; 13 in the last year, from a pregnant woman, to a three month old baby, all victims of shootings, stabbings, or rockets.

Netanyahu quoted from the Book of Jeremiah, “Our grief is overwhelming, our hearts ache, where will we find comfort? The prophet said: ‘Refrain your voice from weeping, and your eyes from tears; for their work shall be rewarded.’”

Netanyahu said :

“We shall find solace in building the land and the people, in striving for days of peace, and in our knowledge that their work shall be rewarded and their heroism shall be remunerated”

"If the fallen soldiers were with us today, they would have witnessed countless miracles throughout the years... Those who fell in all these operations, campaigns and wars to protect Israel, would probably be surprised how Israel has turned from a state verging on the desert with only meager resources into one of the most developed, prosperous and advanced countries in the world. My friends, none of this would have happened if not for the young men and women who sacrificed their lives to ensure our existence."

Fatah And Hamas Disagree On Bin Laden

2011-05-02T18:34:00.000+01:00

US forces have finally found and killed the world's most wanted terrorist Osama Bin Laden, who was behind 9/11.

Naturally most of the world is rejoicing, but Bin Laden's death seems to be the first surprising hurdle for the potential joint Hamas-Fatah government that was announced last week, who of course can't agree on a joint reaction to this.

A Fatah spokesman said "Getting rid of Bin Laden is good for the cause of peace worldwide", but Hamas leader Ismael Haniyeh mourned Bin Laden, saying "We condemn the assassination and the killing of an Arab holy warrior... We regard this as a continuation of the American policy based on oppression and the shedding of Muslim and Arab blood."

Um, again... we're supposed to try and make peace with the people who want Israel's destruction and worship the terrorist who caused the deaths of thousands of innocent people all over the world?

Honest Reporting point out two things you need to know about Bin Laden and Israel. First, that he hated the West more than he hated Israel, it was not America's support for Israel that drove him.Second, that, Al Qaida like recognition for their actions, and according to Bin Laden's former bodyguard, blaming the Mossad for Al Qaida's terror attacks is "nonsense and an attempt to cast doubt on the ability of the Muslims to do something of this sort."

Fatah Join Hamas

2011-04-28T21:13:00.002+01:00

Hamas and Fatah have agreed a reconciliation to be followed by elections. Hamas' position regarding Israel, of course, remains the same. An official confirmed: "Our plan does not involve negotiations with Israel or recognizing it. It will be impossible for an interim government to take part in the peace process with Israel." In short, Fatah have joined the terrorist group. This could only lead to disaster for both the Palestinians and the Israelis.

Netanyahu has said: “Peace with both is impossible, because Hamas aims to destroy the State of Israel and says that openly. I hope that the Palestinian Authority will make the right choice – that it will choose peace with Israel. The choice is in its hands."

Jew Murdered In Terror Attack By Palestinian "Policeman"

2011-04-24T18:19:00.012+01:00

A 24 year old Jewish father of four from Jerusalem, Ben Yosef Livnat was murdered this morning, and four others injured, when they were shot in their car after visiting Joseph's Tomb to pray, by Palestinian terrorists (who were also policemen), screaming "Allahu Akbar".

Baruch Dayan HaEmet, may his loved ones be comforted.

Following the terror attack, Palestinians set fire to Joseph's Tomb.

Chas Newkey-Burden writes:

"Contrast the situation there with the Old City of Jerusalem, where the Israeli authorities painstakingly protect the rights of all faiths to visit and pray at their places of worship in dignity and comfort...

Israel deserves enormous credit for the way it governs the Old City of Jerusalem, allowing all faiths to enjoy their holy sites. Were Israel to behave how the Palestinians did in Nablus today, one can only imagine the global outrage. Imagine for a moment that some Arabs were shot by Israelis as they left the site of the Dome of the Rock. Imagine that following this, some Israeli youths set fire to the Dome of the Rock. We would be talking about global outrage, possibly even talk of World War Three breaking out.

Yet when that chain of events happened in Nablus this morning it merited little coverage, condemnation or even reflection...

I hope that one day, Israel is given due credit for the way it so beautifully governs the Old City of Jerusalem, proving itself once more a moral example to the world."

And people wonder why Israel is reluctant to give the Palestinians control over land where the lives of Jews, if they dared visit, would be in the hands of Palestinians with guns.

Boy In Hamas Schoolbus Attack Dies Of Wounds

2011-04-17T20:44:00.000+01:00

The Israeli boy injured in the Hamas rocket attack on his schoolbus has died of his wounds.
May his loved ones be comforted. Baruch Dayan HaEmet.

Meanwhile two of the Palestinians arrested over the murder of the Fogels have been found guilty.

Anti-Israel Activist Murdered In Gaza

2011-04-15T13:46:00.002+01:00

Islamic fanatics kidnapped and then murdered yesterday an Italian journalist and anti-Israel activist in Gaza.

Bizarrely, before they killed Vittorio Arrigoni, they tried to negotiate a prisoner swap with Hamas for his release; Hamas have condemned the murder.

Just Journalism highlight that the BBC claims that "Hamas had been credited with eliminating the threat of kidnapping in Gaza until his abduction", and the Financial Times claims that "Gaza has been widely regarded as a safe destination for foreign journalists, aid workers and diplomats since then." But JJ point out instances of Hamas violence against journalists in Gaza, including only last month when they stormed Reuters' office, threatened the journalists with guns, attacked one with a metal bar and threatened to throw another out the window. JJ also point out that the media are also ignoring that Israeli intelligence is frequently warning Israelis against kidnap threats, and, of course, that Hamas have been holding Gilad Shalit hostage in Gaza, his condition unknown, for the last four years.

Arrigoni was a member of the International Solidarity Movement, an extremely anti-Israel group. Incidentally Rachel Corrie, killed while standing in front of an Israeli bulldozer from which the driver couldn't see her, was also a member of ISM, but the fact that Arrigoni was killed by Palestinians and not by Israelis means he won't become an icon like Corrie did.

EoZ explains why Arrigoni was not a peact activist, or human rights activist, or even a pro-Palestinian activist, as the media have referred to him. None of his actions reflect love or care for the Palestinians, only hate for Israel: "He never had anything bad to say about Hamas. He never campaigned for Arab countries to stop their discrimination against Palestinian Arabs. He never spoke a word demanding that 'refugee camps' in Gaza be dismantled and real homes built."

Just as is evident from the murder of the Israeil anti-Israel activist and actor Juliano Mer-Khamis a couple of weeks ago, "The anti-Israel left might consider themselves 'Palestinian', but clearly some Palestinian Arabs don't."

And despite this, these murders, "done by the people they supposedly love - will not make a dent in far leftist 'support' for PalArabs, because they don't support them in any real way."

All the confirmation you need for this is the nonsensical Tweet by ISM that, just like the world did in their mourning for Mer-Khamis, completely ignores who is responsible for the murder as they refuse to address that the Palestinians' own worst enemy is themselves and not Israel: "While we mourn Vittorio, let’s remember that he died resisting the Israel Occupation."

UPDATE: Hamas have blamed the murder on Israel (of course), claiming that it was to dissuade other foreign activists from heading to Gaza on another flotilla. I didn't even think of it from that angle!

Hamas Fire 80 Rockets Into Israel in 24 Hours

2011-04-09T22:03:00.004+01:00

Hamas fired 80 rockets into Israel over Shabbat, with residents of Southern Israel having to spend Friday night in their bomb shelters.

One of the terrorists killed by Israel's retaliation was physically involved in the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit.

Hamas have, absurdly, defended their attack on an Israeli schoolbus, saying "It was not known that the bus targeted on the outskirts of Gaza carried schoolchildren". Oh, so they only meant to target a regular bus. And there I was thinking they had no morals!

George Galloway's Lunacy

2011-04-08T16:50:00.001+01:00

Just in case anyone was in any doubt...

Hamas Breaks "Ceasefire" After 12 Hours: New Record?

2011-04-08T12:11:00.002+01:00

Hamas fired 16 shells into Israel this morning, breaking their own ceasefire which they called for yesterday, after they deliberately targetted a schoolbus, injuring one child, and then fired 50 rockets into Israel.

UPDATE: A few days ago one of the candidates for Egyptian presidency has said that if Israel attacks Gaza he will open the Egypt-Gaza border. Israel Matzav suggests that Hamas are now looking to start a war with Israel so that they can fight alongside Egypt.

Hamas Strike Israeli School Bus, Fire 50 Rockets, Then Call For Ceasefire

2011-04-07T23:56:00.001+01:00

Today Hamas fired an anti-tank guided missile deliberately at an Israeli school-bus - minutes after most of the children had got off. A 13 year old boy was critically injured, who Hamas called a 'settler'. People are asked to pray for Daniel Aryah ben Tamar.

After the attack, Hamas fired 50 rockets into Israel, and then called for a ceasefire, like they did a couple of weeks ago after they fired rockets, and before they fired some more.

On Monday, an Israeli actor and pro-Palestinian activist was shot dead in the West Bank by Palestinian terrorists. The Palestinian charged with the murder is Hamas but was previously in Fatah's terrorist group Al Aqsa Martyrs.

Meanwhile, it turns out Hamas were responsible for the pipe bomb in Jerusalem that injured one Israeli, two weeks before the bus-station bomb.

This is the boy injured today:

Goldstone should be feeling particularly uncomfortable with all this, considering his retraction of his retraction - that despite his confession that the report on Cast Lead is full of lies against Israel that have no basis in fact, he doesn't want it nullified.

So Hamas can continue to fire rockets onto Israeli schoolchildren safe in the knowledge that there will be no Goldstone report into their war crimes, that only Israel's response will be condemned.

Judge Goldstone's Guilt

2011-04-06T14:16:00.009+01:00

Two years after the Goldstone report accused Israel of committing war crimes in a “deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorise a civilian population”, Goldstone has confessed that his conclusions were wrong.

Of course, all of his accusations against Israel were disproved both at that time and even before his investigation, by research undertaken by Israel supporters and truth-seekers all over.

The report was widely accepted, and used to further delegitimise Israel and deny its right to self-defence. I look forward to Robert Fisk’s reaction to this, as at the time he referred to Goldstone as “the eminent lawyer who so bravely… inspires…” etc. The self-hating Jews will also be quite upset about Goldstone’s retraction.

Significantly, The Times had observed that it was imbalanced for equating Israel and Hamas and not acknowledging Israel’s right to self-defence, and that the UN, who facilitated the investigation, is undeniably biased against Israel.

As Michael Weiss points out in the Telegraph, the report didn’t acknowledge Hamas’ use of civilians as human shields, and storage of weapons in schools, mosques and hospitals, when even last week the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights criticised Hamas for violating international law by continuing to “store explosives or to treat such explosives in locations close to populated areas” (not for firing them at Israeli civilians though).

Now Goldstone acknowledges that: “The allegations of intentionality by Israel were based on the deaths of and injuries to civilians in situations where our fact-finding mission had no evidence on which to draw any other reasonable conclusion”, and that Israel’s investigations into 400 alleged incidents of misconduct “indicate[s] that civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy”.

He admits, “If I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document”, but then blames this on Israel’s “lack of cooperation”. Bizarrely, he expresses disappointment that Hamas never investigated their own war crimes, even though he acknowledges that it is their “policy to destroy the state of Israel”.

Goldstone’s admission is brave but he demonstrates cowardice as well because instead of taking responsibility, he is blaming Israel for withholding information. But that evidence was available at the time for anyone who looked for it – either Goldstone is very stupid, or he deliberately chose to ignore the evidence and has only now realized how absurdly untruthful and damaging his report is.

It was not very difficult for supporters of Israel to learn the truth about everything that happened, so it is beyond me why so-called “amateur” bloggers like the great Elder of Ziyon and others are seen as irrelevant, whilst people like Goldstone who choose to ignore the facts receive worldwide recognition for their work. We are not detectives, but I and ever other pro-Israel blogger out there are more qualified than Goldstone to comment on the truth about Cast Lead and the general situation in Israel and the territories.

The reason why Goldstone wrote his retraction is evident from this quote: “the Human Rights Council should condemn the inexcusable and cold-blooded recent slaughter of a young Israeli couple and three of their small children in their beds.”

Recently Interior minister Eli Yishai wrote to Goldstone telling him to condemn Palestinian attacks on Israelis, because his report on Cast Lead legitimises the attacks by not holding the terrorists accountable and instead condemning Israel for acting in self-defence.

When Goldstone sees all the attacks on Israelis, and the absurd restraint Israel shows in its retaliations, and then hears and sees how the world still demonizes Israel, it would be impossible for him not to feel guilty. Yishai’s letter would merely have been the trigger for the article, written out of the guilt that Goldstone already feels.

Ex-Muslim Feminist Is A Real Liberal

2011-04-03T19:47:00.003+01:00

There was a very interesting interview in The Times yesterday, with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an ex-Muslim Dutch feminist, politician and writer.

Hirsi Ali was born in Somalia and had a strict Muslim upbringing. She underwent female "circumcision", was beaten and locked up by her mother for trying to work, and only evaded being forced into marriage when she was a child because her father was living abroad.

The article mentions that Hirsi Ali is "particularly harsh on Western feminists such as Germaine Greer, who once wrote that genital mutilation must be seen 'within its cultural context'". Just one of many examples where the extreme left abandon all their principles when it comes to certain aspects of Islam.

The interviewer Janice Turner suggests to Hirsi Ali that if a white person would echo her opinions that Islam is inferior to Western society, they would be labelled a racist. Hirsi Ali responds:

"To me, it's not racist to demand, as a white woman or a white man, 'I will not accept little girls in my country to be forced into marriage, or their genitals to be cut, for them to be pulled out of school, for them to be condemned to a life of submission or violence or death through an honour killing.' If you protest, that doesn't make you into a racist. In my view it makes you a humanist or universalist."

In her new book, she "calls on Western feminists to make common cause with their Muslim sisters. She points to the 13.5 million Saudi women objectively under house arrest, the 34 million Iranian women able to be married at age 9 or stoned for adultery, the women of 26 Arab, African and Asian nations who have their genitals excised."

I am always very interested when I read about liberal or ex-Muslims to see what their views are on Israel, because I believe this says a lot about just how liberal they really are. In general, "liberals" who are anti-Israel will turn a blind eye to Arab oppression, to the extent that they even defend it, and instead accuse Israel of being non-democratic. Meanwhile in the current Arab protests there are a lot of people who call for freedom but at the same time would have no qualms about Israel being wiped off the map. Those people evidently aren't even aware of what true democracy actually is.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is different. First of all, she not only has an issue with Islamic extremism, but says that Israel "has a problem with the ultra-Orthodox". However, she has observed that Israel is a liberal democracy where men and women are equal. A Palestinian confessed to her that economic problems are partly their own fault because of "money sent from abroad to build Palestine being stolen by corrupt leaders". When she tries to give talks on Palestinian corruption though, Hirsi Ali says:

"I do not get a large audience. Often one is talking to a wall. Many people reply that Israel first has to withdraw from the territories, and then all will be well with Palestine."

She observes,

"Most outsiders remain silent on all the problems in their territories. That helps the Palestinians become even more corrupt than they already are. Those who live in the territories are not allowed to say anything about this because they risk being murdered by their own people."

As Elder of Ziyon illustrates so brilliantly, Real Liberals Love Israel.

Recent Antisemitism In London

2011-04-03T13:16:00.001+01:00

Two weeks ago there was a "Celebrate Palestine" event at SOAS university, as part of "Israel Apartheid Week". Four pro-Israel activists attended to try to educate those misguided lefties on why Israel actually isn't apartheid, with some help from Elder of Ziyon posters.

The civilised discussions ended when one pro-Palestinian activist said that "the best thing that Jews have ever done was to go into the gas chambers. It was the best thing to happen to Germany to have been cleaned of Jews. The same thing needs to happen in the Middle East." He had no objection to being filmed, saying that "these things should be heard".

When asked by an activist if he could be filmed, the antisemite said yes, and that "these things should be heard". Another man came up and told him he didn't have to be filmed or interviewed, then "launched himself at the activist, grabbing his camera, punching him and then biting him on the cheek".

It's not surprising that people who seem so intent on denying Israel it's legitimacy and right to self-defence are capable of such disgusting words and violence, but they usually do make a bit more of an effort to hide their antisemitism. One of the pro-Israel activists who was there said "I didn't think I would ever get to a stage in which I would feel like a Jew in Nazi Germany, and I don't say it lightly".

Unfortunately, an even more recent incident has given me and a lot of other people that exact feeling. Every week there are aggressive demonstrations in front of the Ahava dead-sea products shop in Central London. Because of complaints by other shops on the street, Ahava's lease will not be renewed and they will be forced to leave when it expires in September. Colin George who manages the clothes shop The Loft next door, said:

"I'm pleased Ahava is leaving. It's brought the street down. I've complained to the landlords, as has everyone here. Everyone would like them to leave. I wish they had left two years ago. Protesters are just going to follow them around, wherever they go. Maybe the should be an online business instead."

Hamas Fire Rockets, Call For Ceasefire, Fire More Rockets

2011-03-26T20:13:00.004Z

Hamas have offered Israel a ceasefire, but claim that if they wouldn't "respond" to Israeli force, then they "would not have the right to exist".

And Hamas' 50 rockets last week were in response to what? In the past week Israel has been targetting only militants and rocket launching sites (which sadly are often civilian areas), striking terrorists who have or were about to fire rockets into Israel.

This morning, a Hamas rocket hit a family's home in Southern Israel. I'm still waiting for Hamas' explanation as to what made the family a legitimate target.

UPDATE: Sunday morning the IDF struck terrorists in Gaza who were about to fire more rockets, killing two.

Look Up, Rockets Are Falling

2011-03-24T23:02:00.004Z

Well, probably not where you are.

Palestinian terrorists in Gaza fired at least eight rockets, grads and mortars into Southern Israel today, landing in Sderot, Ashkelon and Ashdod - the furthest so far. This month's tally has reached about 100.

The woman who was killed in the Jerusalem bombing yesterday was Mary Gardner, a British Christian in her late 50s who was in Israel studying Hebrew for her work translating the Bible. Very, very sad. RIP.

Interior Minister Eli Yishai wrote to Goldstone telling him to condemn the Palestinian attacks on Israelis, saying that his report on Cast Lead legitimises the attacks by not holding the terrorists accountable and instead condemning Israel for acting in self-defence.

Nu, Goldstone?

Terror Attack In Jerusalem (Not "Terror Attack")

2011-03-23T19:36:00.005Z

One woman has been killed and 40 injured in a bombing in central Jerusalem today. The bomb was reportedly left in a bag on the street just outside the bus station.

When the shock began to wear off, I wondered how the media would try and twist this to belittle and justify Palestinian attacks on Israelis. After all, if "illegal settlers" aren't the victims, you'd have to be very creative to find another way to blame Israel for this.

Two patterns have emerged in the coverage. The first, predictably, is to avoid the word "terror" and even "attack". Most likely as well as other media outlets, The Independent, Reuters, and CNN all had this to say: "Police described the explosion as a 'terrorist attack' - Israel's term for a Palestinian strike", as though it was a military exercise.

Which is a funny thing to say considering that Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad's statement on the bombing was "I harshly condemn this act of terror".

The second pattern is to portray the bombing as part of a "cycle of violence", and I'm pretty sure most of the media have done this. For example the Guardian completely twisted the events of the last few days, not explaining that the reason civilians died in Israel's strikes on Gaza was because they were used as human shields by terrorists; and calling Hamas' firing of 50 rockets into Israel in the space of a couple of hours "sporadic".

A BBC interviewer asked Jerusalem Post Editor-in-Chief David Horowitz if the bombing would have been a response to the strikes on Gaza. Horowitz had to explain that the murder of the Fogels was followed by rocket attacks on Israel which was followed by Israel striking legitimate terror targets, unintentionally killing some civilians who were on the site where rockets had been fired from.

Melanie Phillips points out that with this huge upsurge in violence from the Palestinians,

"It therefore takes a particular degree of bone-headed malevolence to view this latest attack instead as a ‘tit-for-tat' response to Israeli violence. But then, the BBC and other British and western media have all but ignored the rocket attacks, and minimised the Fogel massacre. As usual, Israeli victimisation is thus denied in an obscene moral equivalence – which invariably turns Israel from a victim attempting to defend itself into the aggressor."

Incidentally, only two weeks ago there was another explosion in Jerusalem in which one Israeli was wounded.

Shortly after today's bomb, terrorists in Gaza fired another barrage of rockets into Israel.

Meanwhile, Israel sent into Gaza over 200 trucks of aid.

I pray for the speedy recovery of all the victims.

Terrorists Fire 70 Rockets Into Israel In Less Than A Week

2011-03-23T13:13:00.001Z

Gaza terrorists fired 10 mortars and 2-3 grads into Southern Israel today including Be'er Sheva and Ashkelon. One man was wounded by shrapnel, several others were treated for shock.

On Saturday alone 50 mortars were fired into Israel. When the IDF responded with airstrikes on terrorist targets, Hamas accused Israel of "escalating against our people", and asked for a ceasefire. Five terrorists were killed as well as, sadly, four civilians who had been used as human shields by the terrorists - rockets were fired from right behind their house. A Palestinian boy who was injured was transferred to an Israeli hospital for treatment.

Elder of Ziyon provides a calendar of all the rockets that have been fired into Israel so far this month.

Hamas seem set on starting another war with Israel.

IDF Soldier's Music Video

2011-03-22T20:40:00.002Z

I was sent this video by an American musician called Hayim Ani who recently made Aliya and is now in the Egoz unit in the IDF.

Although he had to leave his band behind in America, Hayim is continuing as a solo musician, and made this very creative music video before he enlisted in the army.

Perhaps people who see it might realise that IDF soldiers are not the monsters they are portrayed as in the media, but are actually humans with different talents and interests and backgrounds, united by their pride of Jews and Israel, and a sense of responsibility to protect its citizens.

They Kill, We Build

2011-03-22T00:34:00.005Z

Th reaction of most Jews and Israelis' to the terror attack in Itamar probably will have been a deep, sickened feeling of grief and horror followed by defiance and determination to carry on.

Some reacted differently though - condemning settlers through their crocodile tears. Yitzchak Laor writes in Haaretz that the brother of Udi Fogel, murdered in the terror attack in Itamar “sought to remove the murder from any context other than the pain over his brother's death... [but] No one allowed for the murder to be rescued from the sole context in which the right wing placed it.”

But the right have placed the death and the world’s reaction exactly in context – because the brother wouldn’t feel the pain of Udi Fogel’s death if it weren’t for the incitement to murder Jews that takes place in Palestinian society – and the rest of the world that ignores – if not encourages - antisemitism. It’s not about revenge and anger, but to move forward from these things it helps a little to try and understand them. To the surviving family it might feel like the end of the world, but viewed in context it is part of the Jews’ long timeline of persecution and suffering – and our reaction to this is “Am Yisrael Chai”. They have tried again and again to stamp us out but with G-d’s help we still survive. 12 year old Tamar Fogel, who saw the bodies of her parents and three siblings, has shown amazing strength and understanding of this:

But Laor just views this as the right as ‘exploiting’ “its 15 minutes of media exposure to impose its version of ‘history’." On the decision to publish photos of the bodies – the decision which was actively encouraged by the surviving family – Laor calls it “so explicit it is practically pornographic” – yet it is only when Israelis are the victims that the media are so hesitant to give details, in case people might actually feel sympathy.

Laor accused the right of displaying “joy in pouring salt on our wounds, all in the name of Israel's hasbara. But this isn't hasbara; it's a desperate need to impose ‘our’ version of events, under cover of the horror.”

What he just said is Hasbara. Giving the real version of events because the world constantly ignores our side of the story. In the days following the attack, the media has made it very clear what they view as the “obstacle to peace” – and it is not the murder of sleeping Jewish babies. “Israel approves more settlements”, the headlines read – adding, as an afterthought “oh and by the way this might have something to do with the mysterious deaths of hardline extremist Jewish settlers who asked for it”.

As I have already demonstrated here, the settlements are irrelevant. Someone who murders babies, and those who celebrate this act, are not looking for peace or negotiations. There are no excuses. Daniel Greenfield wrote a great piece on this for Arutz Sheva.

Meanwhile in Itamar in the week of the Shiva, a Palestinian woman went into labour. IDF soldiers together with settler paramedics delivered the baby, taking care of her and the mother. You would never read this sort of thing in the Western media, because there the IDF and settlers are constantly dehumanised. But IDF decency to Palestinians is not at all an unusual occurence in Israel.

Incitement And Violence

2011-03-16T13:22:00.009Z

The BBC and Guardian reported that many Palestinians were "shocked" by the Itamar attack, with no evidence for this, and conveniently forgetting about the handing out of sweets in Gaza, and Hamas spoksman Samu Abu Zuhri saying they "completely support the resistance against settlers".

Abbas did condemn the attack, but his words are meaningless whilst his government continues to incite hatred and violence against Jews and Israelis, glorify terrorists and spread antisemitic propaganda in Palestinian schools, media, mosques and on the streets.

Here are just a few examples of this incitement from recent weeks:

- On the day that the Fogels were buried, Fatah members named a town square after the female terrorist Dalal Mughrabi, who led a bus hijacking in 1978 that killed 37 Israelis – including 13 children. Summer camps in 2008 and this past summer have also been named after her.

- Two days before the Fogels were murdered, Abbas’ advisor Sabri Saidam said in a speech that Palestinian weapons must be turned towards Israel.

- The day before that, the PA announced a youth football tournament named after Wafa Idris, the first female Palestinian suicide bomber. Among other things, a student group and a UNICEF-funded summer camp have also been named after her.

- On March 4th, Fatah held a procession commemorating suicide bombers including Muhammad Daraghmeh who killed nine Israelis in a suicide bombing in Jerusalem, and Ayyat Al-Akhras, the youngest female suicide bombing at 17, who killed two Israelis.

- Three weeks ago, Palestinian Authority TV (under control of Abbas’ office) broadcast a video tribute to “martyrs” – including Habash Hanani, who in May 2002 entered Itamar (where the Fogels were killed), and murdered three Israeli students at the local high school.

- In December, Abbas awarded $2000 to the family of a terrorist who tried to attack Israeli soldiers with pipe bombs.

Details on more similar incidents here.

The Palestinian leadership are raising another generation of children to believe that their religion calls for the murder of Jews and that this will bring wealth and honour for them and their families.

For too long the world has been ignoring this, focusing incessantly on Israel building houses – but suicide bombings and rockets aren't aimed solely at settlers - and there is absolutely nothing that makes it ok to slash the throat of a three month old sleeping baby, killing her, her 4 and 11 year old brothers, and their parents.

The issue of settlements is irrelevant until the Palestinians stop teaching their children to hate and murder, and teach peace instead.

Meanwhile yesterday the IDF discovered tonnes of Iranian-made weapons on a ship that was headed from Turkey to Egypt, with Hamas being the intended recipient.

Also yesterday, Egyptian security forces intercepted five vehicles loaded with weapons that were headed from Sudan to Gaza.

Palestinians Murder Jewish Family And Children In Their Beds

2011-03-12T20:26:00.005Z

Palestinian terrorists have stabbed to death five Jews of the same family as they slept in their beds. The victims are Udi Fogel (36), his wife Ruth (35) and three of their children: Yoav (11), Elad (4) and Hadas (3 months old).

Fatah's Al Aqsa Brigade claimed responsibility; Hamas handed out sweets in Gaza to celebrate the murder.

The Fogel family lived in the West Bank town of Itamar, with sick irony after having been forced out of their home in Gush Katif in the 2005 disengagement from Gaza. Giving up land brings peace? Really?

The Guardian does not once mention that Palestinians committed this terrorist attack, but calls the town "home to some of the West Bank's most fervent settlers" and "intensely naiontalist-religious" as though that makes it ok for Palestinians (who The Guardian do not refer to as hard-line or intensely naionalist-religious) to stab a three-month old baby to death while she sleeps.

Meanwhile the BBC claims that the attack "has shocked many Palestinians", ignoring the fact that actually the Palestinians' reaction was default: handing out sweets in Gaza, calling it "heroic and courageous", and justifying their joy as "a natural response".

Netanyahu has observed: "I noticed that some of the states who rushed to the Security Council to condemn Israel, the Jewish State, for planning to build a home somewhere are slow in issuing a harsh condemnation over the murder of Jewish babies."

Slow is an understatement. If all the people that ever criticised the settlements had an ounce of compassion and morality in their bones, they would unequivocally condemn this sickening murder and the incitement of violence and hatred towards Jews that takes place in the Palestinian schools and mosques, bringing up a new generation of Jew-hating terrorists.

The Promise: "Die, Evil Jews!"

2011-02-28T19:34:00.005Z

The fourth and final part of The Promise, if possible, was even worse than the previous three put together in it’s demonisation of the Jews.

Anyone who defends the programme as “balanced” and really believes that all Jews are as evil as they are portrayed in it, must either be a. ignorant, or b. antisemitic.

This is just beyond anti-Zionism and any defence of it as such, as opposed to antisemitic, is just laughable.

I am not at all saying that some of what the Israelis and Jews did in The Promise didn’t happen; it did, and I would not defend the actions of the Irgun, some of what they did was disgusting.

But looking at The Promise from the perspective of someone who has no knowledge of Israel now or then, what they would think is that the Jews are totally evil.

In modern-day Israel, the Israeli brother tells Erin that “you can do anything you want to the Palestinians” with no consequences, and we see Israeli soldiers stand by as Jews scream abuse and throw glass and rocks at defenceless Palestinians - and this is portrayed as the norm – whilst the Palestinians in The Promise never do anything like this.

The reality is very different, not least because much as people like to pretend it isn’t, Israel is a democracy and Jews, just like Arabs will face the consequences if they are involved in violent behaviour. And that includes Israeli soldiers who are punished if they act against the IDF's strict code of conduct.

Meanwhile in The Promise’s version of the late 1940s the Jews are not only murderers but traitors as well – Clara, the Jewish woman who Erin’s grandfather was involved with, and his British-Jewish soldier friend both betrayed him leading to the deaths of British soldiers and Arabs.

The Promise completely ignores the other side to all this: that a. the majority of the Jews condemned these attacks – and not only condemned, but the Haganah, the original Israeli Defence Forces who worked alongside the British, captured and turned in Irgun members to the British; and b. at that time the Arabs attacked and killed hundreds of unarmed Jewish civilians.

The Promise fails to mention that the UN proposed the partition plan to create a Jewish state and a Palestinian state, and that the Jews accepted this but the Arabs rejected it.

It also throws in a large dose of sympathy to a Palestinian family whose daughter was a suicide bomber, and whose brother, a member of Hamas “says it’s his job to protect the family” – as though that’s in their charter and not to kill all the Jews or anything like that.

Finally, at the end of the programme, the director dictates to the viewers exactly what he aimed for them to think:

- About the creation of the state of Israel, Erin’s grandfather: “embarrassed and ashamed”.

- About present day Israel, Erin on the idea of returning: “Why, what’s the point?”

I have never seen such an obvious attack of delegitimisation of Israel on every level like this. With it's sympathy of Palestinian terrorists, and deliberate distortions and omissions of Israelis' and Jews' actions, The Promise is against both Israel’s right to existence and it’s right to self-defence, without both of which all the Jews would die. If that’s not antisemitism I don’t know what is.

The Promise: The Ultimate Defence Of Antisemitism

2011-02-26T20:18:00.012Z

Amir Ofek of the Israeli embassy said that with regards to the anti-Israel Western media, The Promise is "worse than anything I've seen" and has "created a new category of hostility towards Israel".

I would go further, and say that of anything I've ever read or seen, The Promise is the most antisemitic and antisemitic-inducing of all. Whatever comes out of the Arab media is only to be expected and I haven't seen any Nazi propaganda films, but for Western media standards, The Promise is pretty shocking, and I am not easily shocked.

We meet a lot of Jews and Israelis in The Promise, and pretty much all of them are evil or portrayed as evil, barring the self-hating lefty Israeli brother, whose Christian-Arab terrorist-turned-"peace"-activist friend is, for a Christian, surprisingly hostile to Israel. Also I didn't know that the Al Aqsa Martyrs employed Christians, I thought it was just an Islamic thing.

Anyway Channel 4 defended The Promise saying that the characters

"'consistently and sympathetically present a contemporary Israeli perspective' and the Holocaust was 'powerfully evoked' to explain the longing for a Jewish homeland... 'Nobody escapes scrutiny in this film; different parts of the story reflect well and badly on the Palestinians, the Israelis and the British'."

Uh, really? Let's first count the ways the Israelis are reflected well:

1. Jews died and suffered in the Holocaust.

A round of applause for The Promise and Channel 4 for not being Holocaust deniers (even though Channel 4 have given a platform to Ahmadinejad The Holocaust Denier).

2. Some Israelis (namely Lefty Israeli Brother) hate Israel, which makes them good and peace loving, even though they think Israeli civilians deserve to be blown up by Palestinian suicide bombers.

Ok, now let's count the way the Palestinians are reflected badly (because the ways they're reflected well are too many to count):

1.

Yeah, there are none. There was a Palestinian suicide bombing which was just because, according to the self-hating brother "they can't make their point any other way" - but it definitely wasn't animalistic, as the 'Racist' Israeli Mother called it - and even though suicide bombings decreased by over 90% after the security fence was built, this fact is ignored in The Promise, and the fence is cited as having nothing to do with preventing terrorism; instead it is just to humiliate the Palestinians, so really the suicide bombings are the Israelis' own fault.

Despite this, Christina Patterson of the Independent (who has an issue with Jews) calls The Promise "extremely balanced".

The programme according to which typical Israeli children scream and throw stones at Palestinian girls whilst Israeli soldiers watch. In The Promise, Palestinians don't do these things, but they are "held and humiliated for the hell of it" by the IDF, not because Palestinians have ever been known to be violent towards Israelis or anything like that.

Patterson of course ignores Jewish history and links to Israel and sees the Holocaust as the only reason Jews wanted Israel as a homeland. She then ignores all the Palestinian persecution of Jews and pogroms against them before the Holocaust and claims that "you can see why their [the Palestinians'] sympathy for their newish neighbours might have worn a bit thin". Sympathy 'worn a bit thin' possibly being the biggest understatement ever made on Palestinian terrorism.

Patterson then seems to equate Palestinian terrorists with settlers and thinks that all that needs to be done for peace is for Israel to acknowledge "what Arabs around the world are reminding us: that there comes a time when bullying backfires."

Can Christina Patterson do simple maths?

If security fence = 90% decrease in suicide bombings

and giving away land (i.e. Gaza) = increased rockets on Israeli towns,

then what the hell is she talking about?

The Promise: Demonising Jews And Israel Since The 1940s

2011-02-16T00:17:00.003Z

Most people reading this will be aware of Channel 4’s 4-part drama The Promise, of which two episodes have been aired so far. The programme is set in two eras: it follows a British teen who spends the summer in Israel in 2005, whilst reading her grandfather’s diary who was a soldier in the Palestinian Mandate in the 1940s.

As a drama, it’s effective, yet it will be hard for some people to remember that although it is based on true events, it’s actually fiction – and of course, biased against Israel and full of distortions and omissions.

And I’m not going to not say that just because there’s a risk I might be told I’m imagining it, there is no anti-Israel bias, Israel really is all-evil.

Which seems to be the view of the New Statesman’s Laurie Penny, who mocks Julie Burchill’s criticism of The Promise as “bonkers”, exaggerating and at the same time condensing her concerns as accusing the programme of “foaming anti-Semitism, borne out of Gentile resentment that Jewish people are good at science”.

There is no known reason for antisemitism but now that Burchill mentions it, it’s hardly implausible that antisemites would feel resentment that the Jews as “such a small, persecuted tribe can keep surviving, thriving and achieving”.

Penny throws in an “as a Jew I’m offended” remark, calls the programme “a reflective and excruciatingly well-researched series”, and then gives her laughable defence of why this is the case and it can’t possibly be biased: because it “opens with five gruelling minutes set in Bergen-Belsen concentration camp, cutting in segments of real footage from the mass graves”.

Done with the Jews-as-victims part, Penny finally reveals her true agenda as she turns to the Palestinians and describes the IDF “penning your family behind gun-bristling checkpoints, cramming your friends and neighbors behind apartheid walls, bombing your home, machine-gunning your grandchildren.”

Because Israel does that all the time of course, and all just for fun with no reason. Because even though the Jews were victims in the Holocaust, now they’re not allowed to defend themselves.

And that pretty much sums up the message of The Promise. Jews are no longer victims, in fact Jews are the oppressors, and any time you might think a Jew is a victim, it’s their own fault.

For example, at the end of Part 1, Lefty-Israeli-Brother tells impressionable British girl Erin that the fence is not to prevent terrorism; it’s just to humiliate the Palestinians. Two minutes later there is a suicide bombing, the implication being that the brother is right. But there is no counter-argument that suicide bombings decreased by over 90% after the fence was built.

In Part 2 the brother (who was injured in the bombing) discovers that Erin’s grandfather was in the 1946 bombing of the King David hotel by the Irgun. He states that the two cases are “exactly the same; people blowing up buildings because they can’t make their point any other way”. It’s amazing that he can call it exactly the same, yet on the one hand the programme seems to defend suicide bombings and blame them on Israel; and at the same time leave out all the context of the King David hotel bombing – such as that the Irgun gave three warnings for the hotel to be evacuated, which were ignored, and that Jewish groups condemned the Irgun, Ben Gurion calling them “the enemy of the Jewish people”. Suicide bombers, on the other hand, don’t give warnings because their aim is to cause maximum civilian casualties, and in the Arab world, rather than condemnation, people who kill Israeli civilians are usually considered heroes.

It is made clear in The Promise by the exaggerations and lack of context of the Irgun that it is not just what they did but also why they did it that is the director’s problem. As the Israeli grandfather explained, after the horrors of the Holocaust in which his whole family had been killed, the Irgun aimed to ensure nothing like that would ever happen again by securing Israel as the Jewish homeland. The means were wrong, but that does not take away the right of Jews and Israel to self-defence.

BBC Airs Documentary “Normal Israelis”

2011-02-06T01:17:00.005Z

The BBC has aired a new documentary called “Normal Israelis”. It looks into a group of people living in Israel called the Normal Israelis, who although previously unheard-of actually make up the majority of Israel’s population.

The documentary follows the lives of these mostly-Jewish people, as they go to school or work, play and bring up children, go to the cinema, cook, sleep, and celebrate things such as birthdays and weddings.

As well as occupying houses in cities from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, some of the Normal Israelis even live in areas in the West Bank, despite international criticism that Jews shouldn’t live where Palestinians don’t want them. These Normal Israelis are of the ideological view that them being Jewish and alive isn’t really a good enough reason for them not to own and live in houses in those areas.

But the one place in Israel you won’t find any Normal Israelis living is in the Gaza Strip. There everyone appears to be Palestinian for some reason, with not a Jew in sight.

The Normal Israelis hold an unusual and unique stance towards peace, compared with most of the rest of the world. They say they want peace, but strangely they also don’t want to be attacked by those who want to attack them – and they even support measures taken to prevent this! When they do come under attack, usually by rockets from Gaza, they will complain about this, claiming it goes against their ideology of not wanting to come under rocket attacks.

But the Normal Israelis are also quite similar to Normal Palestinians in some ways, for example they’re both forbidden to murder and stab people and stuff – even people they know - , and both are frequently questioned and checked by the Israeli army when they go through checkpoints, to ensure they don’t do these things.

Despite their normalness, perhaps the strangest thing about the Normal Israelis is that they say they don’t hate the Normal Palestinians, but at the same time they also claim not to hate Israel, some of them even going so far as to confess that they like some things about their homelandl!

A BBC spokesperson said of the documentary:

“We wanted to be fair and balanced, and to give an insight into all parts of Israeli society, as we hadn’t previously looked into the Normal Israelis. We’ve discovered they’re actually quite boring people though, so we probably won’t mention any of them ever again.”

Divisions Among The Arab Protestors

2011-02-05T23:16:00.003Z

Alan Dershowitz observes how the world has been so busy condemning Israel for it’s “oppression” of the Palestinians that there have been no protests or calls for boycott against the Arab dictators and their countries’ routine violation of human rights – until now, when the Arabs themselves are starting to protest. Dershowitz points out that “Radical leftists and campus demonstrators, by giving a pass to the worst forms of tyranny, encouraged their perpetuation”, only now deciding to care a bit about people other than the Palestinians.

Whilst the spreading protests in the Middle East are an encouraging sign of Arab citizens’ desire for moderation and democracy, it is also a cause for great concern, particularly in Egypt where extremists are waiting in the wings to seize power.

The danger now is that not all those protestors know what they want, or what democracy even is. If they knew what democracy is, they wouldn’t be saying that they hate Mubarak because he’s “Zionist”, and because they want a leader whose pledge is to destroy Israel. They would say they want to be like Israel. But they’re not saying that.

If this sounds patronizing to those Arabs… I haven’t finished. I only half-blame them for their confused mindset, their primitive antisemitism fuelled by misinterpretation of their own religion, and brainwashing by their leaders. But they wouldn’t be able to keep it up for so long on their own. For that, the leftists in the West are to thank.

With all the turmoil in the region at the moment, many references to Israel are accusatory, calling it “the main stumbling block”, and suggesting that the creation of a Palestinian state would solve all the misery of the millions of Arabs ruled under oppressive regimes. And it is these ridiculous accusations that are prolonging the problems in the Middle East. The protestors need to choose, which do they want more? Freedom and democracy? Or the destruction of Israel? At this particular crossroads in Egypt, the two can’t go together and the protestors don’t seem to understand that.

As Dershowitz puts it:

“Unless we restore human rights to its proper role as a neutral and universal standard of human conduct, the kind of tyranny and despotism that stimulated the current protests will continue.”

Instead of promoting the idea that Israel is to blame for all the world’s problems, the pro-democracy protestors need to be encouraged to unite together, rather than divided between those who know what kind of revolution they want and those who are struggling with the incompatibility of their antisemitic beliefs with the idea of a free and democratic society.

Perhaps this would be overcome if, as David Suissa suggests, the Israel bashers would tell the Arab world:

“Why don't you try to emulate the Jews?

Why don't you give equal rights to your women and gays, just like Israel does?

Why don't you give your people the same freedom of speech and freedom to vote that Israel does? And offer them the economic opportunities they would get in Israel? Why don't you treat your Jewish and Christian citizens the same way Israel treats its Arab and Christian citizens?

Why don't you study how Israel has struggled to balance religion with democracy - a very difficult but not insurmountable task?

Why don't you teach your people that Jews are not the sons of dogs but a noble, ancient people with a 3,000-year connection to the land of Israel?”

Maybe once the protestors reform and get rid of their racist prejudices against other religions, then reform might follow in other areas.

The Guardian’s Amazing Suicide-Resurrection Show

2011-01-27T11:25:00.048Z

Last Sunday, the Guardian editorial criticised the Palestinian leaders as "weak" and "craven" for being willing to negotiate on issues such as the settlements, Jerusalem, and Palestinian refugees' "right of return". The Guardian spelled out their idea for a solution, which is for the Palestinians to reject any sort of concessions on those issues, and for acceptance of Hamas (who, for those who don't remember, call for Israel's destruction).

This was reinforced in a Guardian column written that day by Palestinian Hamas supporter Karma Nabulsi, disgusted at the Palestinian leaders, practically spitting as she rejects the idea of concessions and states that "had such deals eventually come to light, Palestinians would have rejected them comprehensively". Her solution? The restoration of the "Palestinian revolution", a barely hidden reference to the intifada.

Two days after it's amazing scoop, the Guardian, red-faced, looked around and saw that strangely, the other newspapers didn't seem to agree that the Palestinians and Hamas should be able to do whatever-the-hell they want. The other newspapers seemed to think it was a good thing that the Palestinians were actually considering negotiating! That it might be a sign that at some point there could be peace!

So the Guardian backtracked and wrote an editorial to clarify, in case people somehow got the idea that it is anti-Israel and more terrorist than Hamas:

"Let there be no doubt. A two-state solution remains the only show in town... But such a deal requires both sides to make difficult concessions; in other conflicts we always praise those who do so."

The next day, though, they published an article by Hamas spokesman Osama Hamdan, who blathers on about repression, betrayal and treason, before offering his idea on how to solve - sorry, I mean prolong - the conflict:

"As an immediate response to these revelations, we in Hamas have begun a series of communications and meetings with Palestinian factions and prominent personalities to discuss practical measures. It is our responsibility to regain the initiative in order to protect our cause and isolate those who have betrayed it."

This isn't so far off what the Guardian said in their first editorial: like Hamas they view Fatah as traitors and incompetent in their approach to negotiations, (and, needless to say, Israel as well); and they place their trust in Hamas by calling for their legitimisation and acceptance.

In case Hamdan wasn't clear in his article, by "cause" he means the destruction of Israel, and the "practical measures" he refers to are terror attacks on Israeli civilians. The day after that article, the Guardian published a reader's letter that abandons all pretence and euphemisms, claiming that the leaks show that:

"the Palestinians have a moral right to their terrorism within historic Palestine against neo-Zionism... Terrorism, as in this case, can as exactly be self-defence, a freedom struggle, martyrdom, the conclusion of an argument based on true humanity".

The Guardian defended this letter as not going against their policy "not to publish letters advocating violence against others", claiming that the letter is "about the way language is used... he [the letter-writer Ted Honderich] is not advocating suicide bombing."

I think Honderich would beg to differ, seeing as he's made it quite clear that by stating that suicide bombing is a moral right, he means just that.

I can think of no better definition for the phrase 'epic fail' than - n. The Guardian.

Palestine Papers: Negotiations, Lies, And The Guardian's Relief

2011-01-25T13:38:00.014Z

The Guardian, in conjunction with Al Jazeera have leaked papers relating to Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations from the last 10 years. Strangely, even with their exclusive access, the Guardian can't actually seem to comprehend the meaning and significance of the documents. One of their headlines claims "Palestinian negotiators accept Jewish state, papers reveal", leaving out what PA negotiator Saeb Erakat actually said in the memos, which was "call it what you want... this is their issue, not mine". In response to the leaks, JPost reports that Erakat denied that the PA has ever offered to give away any of East Jerusalem, and "denied that the PA had agreed to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. He said that when asked by Israel to accept this demand, he replied that it was tantamount to asking a Palestinian to join the Zionist movement." Erakat has also reinforced that the position has always been that the

"Palestinian Authority would never give up any of our rights. If we did indeed offer Israel the Jewish and Armenian quarters of Jerusalem, and the biggest Yerushalayim as they claim, then why did Israel not sign a final status agreement?... Is it not strange that we would offer all these concessions which Israel demands, yet there is still no peace deal?"

Meanwhile PA president Mahmoud Abbas claims that it has been distorted so that the position of dividing the Old City, taking in 100,000 Palestinian refugees, and recognising Israel as the Jewish state is portrayed as the Palestinian position by Al Jazeera and the Guardian, when actually this is what is widely known as the Israeli position: "What is intended is a mix-up. I have seen them yesterday present things as Palestinian but they were Israeli... this is therefore intentional". So Abbas is now using Israel's transparency in these matters to defend himself.

In Hamas' view, this shows the "ugly face of the [Palestinian] authority, and the level of its co-operation with the occupation... and involvement in attempts to liquidate the Palestinian cause, particularly on the issue of Jerusalem and refugees, and its involvement against the resistance in the West Bank and Gaza Strip".

Unsurprisingly, but sickening all the same, is that this is the Guardian's take on it as well. Robin Shepherd observes that it shows that the political establishments, NGOs and media, particularly the Guardian, "have been adopting a position which was significantly more uncompromising on 'settlements'... more hardline against Israel than the Palestinian leadership itself."

CifWatch point out how, even worse, the Guardian's editorial in scorning the Palestinians' flexibility as "weakness" has actively

"egged on the Palestinians to reject even the slightest territorial compromise, encouraged them to accept nothing less than new maximalist demands, and, most dangerously, legitimized and empowered the most radical movement in their society: Hamas".

"Not content to merely cheer lead for the Palestinian side, and demonize Israel, they now seem to view their role as inciting the Palestinians to reject moderation and accommodation... in framing the compromises which may have been considered by the Palestinian leadership, as a cowardly surrender to the cause, Guardian editors have now emboldened Hamas, and have abandoned even the pretense of advocating for peace."

In stark contrast to the Guardian - who, originally shocked and dismayed at the Palestinians' apparent willingness to talk, are at the same time relishing their role in how the leaks will prolong the conflict* - the Times take an optimistic view of hopes for peace in the future:

"At last, Palestinian leaders appear to acknowledge that peace requires giving up things that they would otherwise wish to keep. They have provoked denunciation from theocratic absolutists [like the Guardian!] for whom compromise is betrayal. And that is reason enough to be hopeful."

We can be hopeful, but should also be realistic. Elder of Ziyon points out that whilst the documents do seem to be true, the Palestinian leaders' reactions to it are what is most telling about the difficulties in solving the conflict. The fact that they kept it all so secret, never explaining to their people their efforts to make peace, and now the way in which they're denying the truth of the documents, indicates that peace is not their priority. They have demonstrated they they are fully aware that the majority of the Palestinian people would not accept any of the suggested concessions, and they have done nothing to try and educate their people to change this stance.

*Excellent article on 'How The Guardian Helped Kill The Peace Process'.

Terrorists Attack; Terrorists Arrested

2011-01-08T18:47:00.006Z

Yesterday IDF soldiers found Hamas terrorists planting explosives near the Gaza security fence. In the fighting that followed, four Israeli soldiers were wounded and one killed.

Today a Palestinian armed with two pipe bombs and a knife was shot and killed at a checkpoint as he approached IDF soldiers, shouting "Allahu Akbar".

Terrorists in Gaza fired a barrage of mortars into Southern Israel today, injuring three Thai kibbutz workers, one seriously.

Last week Israeli soldiers accidentally killed a Palestinian man in a raid to re-arrest six Palestinian terrorists that had been released by Abbas. One of them, released just four months after his arrest, was involved in the shooting and murder of four Israeli civilians last August, and a 2008 suicide bombing that killed one Israeli and wounded 10. The accidental killing of the innocent Palestinian is tragic, but there is a bigger picture that the media most likely ignore: the corruption of the Palestinian "justice" system, the fact that the murderer of four Israeli civilians was released four months after his crime, and the obligation of the IDF to re-arrest these terrorists before they murder even more Jews. Not something Israel haters are really bothered by.

Still Relevant...

2010-12-30T23:47:00.012Z

A few months before I started this blog, I did a couple of pieces that were featured on Elder of Ziyon. Now that I do have this blog, I thought I may as well add them to my collection here. Even though they're from February 2009, they are still relevant as Israel is continuously, disproportionately blamed for that winter's war (and pretty much the whole Middle East conflict in general).

The first piece is a spoof news story:

"UN: It's OK To Be Antisemitic... But Not Anti-Zionist

After many months of debate the UN has finally announced that it is acceptable to be openly antisemitic, but at the cost of being openly anti-Zionist.

A poll showed the majority of voters were in favour of sacrificing the ability to insult Israel for the sake of being to say what they really feel with regards to Jews.

"It was really tiring venting all my Jew-hate on Israel" one voter said. "Always having to say some sh** about Israel putting 10 million Palestinians in phosphorous chambers and causing a holocaust."

The ruling means that it is permissible, upon seeing a Jew, to shout insults such as "big nose" or "greedy f***er", and in some cases violence may also be acceptable, for example when the nose is extra large or the Jew is dressed very religiously.

However none of that applies to Israeli Jews, and the UN has warned of harsh consequences for those who say anything negative and untruthful about Israel, such as that Israel made up that it is fighting terrorists, Israelis are ugly, or that Israelis didn't invent falafel and hummus.

A UN spokesman said:

"For too long people have been holding the urge to express their disgust at the Jews' ugly conks and the fact that they're the ones who caused the recession, and that they control the media. We feel this is a positive move in giving people the freedom to express themselves in a healthy, honest way instead of always hiding behind the 'I'm not antisemitic, I'm anti-Zionist' defence.""

My second item was a satirical poster for the now infamous antisemitic play, Seven Jewish Children (view large version here, thanks to EoZ).

The Forgotten Refugees

2010-12-26T00:33:00.004Z

There is always lot of talk about Palestinian refugees, who are referenced in over 120 UN resolutions, but finally Israel is trying to do something about the forgotten refugees: 900,000 Jews who, after the creation of the state of Israel, were forced to flee persecution in Arab countries - most of them to Israel. The issue of these Jewish refugees is now something that will be addressed in any future peace negotiations. Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon has said that bringing the issue to public awareness is "a matter of justice, closure and righting a wrong."

The creation of the state of Israel was a necessary reaction to the Holocaust, for the survival of the Jewish nation. Ayalon writes on CiF how this almost resulted in a second Holocaust of the Jews in the Middle East, where the reaction of the Arab countries was persecution and potential mass murder of the Jews residing there. Meanwhile Israel absorbed all it's refugees, whilst the Arab countries refuse citizenship to the Palestinians who live there are second-rate citizens with few rights.

However, in another article on CiF, none of those points are addressed. Just Journalism observe how Rachel Shabi doesn't mention the Arabs' mistreatment of Palestinian refugees, and almost completely ignores the violent persecution of Jews by Arabs, instead implying that most of them moved to Israel out of choice. But not only does she downplay the Jews' suffering, she also accuses Israel of exploiting it as "political point-scoring". CifWatch points out the obvious: "It is the Palestinians penned in camps who are the hostages to political point-scoring." Shabi advises that instead of focusing on the Jewish refugees, we should "celebrate" and "commemorate" "the long, vibrant experience of Jewish life in the Arab world". In other words, that the forgotten Jewish refugees should remain forgotten.

Read more about the Jewish refugees at 'Justice For Jews From Arab Countries', or the 'Point of no return' blog. It links to a film on the subject that you can watch online, created by the educational organisation The David Project.

Arabs Stab Two Non-Israelis, Killing One

2010-12-19T13:07:00.003Z

Arabs and Palestinians are frequently caught at checkpoints in Israel in possession of knives, but yesterday two managed to carry out an attack on two women hiking in the Bet Shemesh / Jerusalem forest, killing one of them.

The British national, Kaye Wilson, told how the Arabs approached them asking for water, then removed her Star of David chain and stabbed her and her American friend Christine Logan multiple times. Wilson probably saved herself by faking death, but Logan was murdered.

People are wondering what on earth would possess the Arabs to attack two non-Israeli women, and not even in the West Bank (as though that would be a good enough reason). Arabs stabbing someone wearing the Jewish symbol? Unheard of...

UPDATE: Statement from the British government to the Arab terrorists: "Why would you do that? After all the times we've condemned Israel..."

(They didn't actually say that. But they're probably thinking it.)

Israel Eases Gaza Blockade; Welcomes Rocketfire Into Negev In Return

2010-12-08T23:48:00.003Z

Israel has announced that it will ease restrictions on Gaza and allow exports into the West Bank and abroad, to help improve the economic situation in Gaza.

Israel reassured the Palestinians and international community that this would have no effect on Hamas' booming business venture, of firing rockets into Israel.

A statement affirmed "Israel concurs that Hamas can and should continue to smuggle in weapons from Egypt and then fire them into the Negev, where they are welcomed with open arms."

"If the Palestinians keep up this behaviour, we may soon legalise other uses of violence against the State. We only want to make things easier for you."

Hamas replied in a statement: "Thank you".

They then fired four mortars into Southern Israel, wounding one man with shrapnel in the neck.

Israel's response was swift: "Let us know if you need anything else."

Devastating Fires In Israel: Some Help, Some Celebrate

2010-12-03T14:24:00.007Z

Since yesterday morning fire has been raging through the North of Israel in the Haifa area.

9800 acres (40,000 dunams) of land has been destroyed, including residential areas and forests.

17,000 people have been evacuated.

At least 40 people have been killed - prison guards whose coach got caught in the flames as they travelled to evacuate prisoners to a safe area - most likely Palestinian prisoners, who were not harmed.

Meanwhile, many Palestinians and Arabs celebrate this tragedy.

There are numerous indications that this is an arson attack as a wig and bicycle were found near the centre of one fire, two arsonists were caught trying to start a new fire, and several fires have started in other locations, these incidents all extremely likely connected.

Help has arrived from Bulgaria, France, Jordan, Russia, Turkey, Spain, Croatia, Azerbaijan, Egypt, Italy, Switzerland, Germany, Greece, Cyprus, Romania, Holland, Canada, America and Britain. My faith has been restored a little by the fact that these countries were able to overlook their attitudes towards Israel in the I-P conflict, and to know that not everyone believes Israel deserves to burn.

Most amazingly, the Palestinian Authority has also sent help, 21 firefighters and three trucks. This is extremely generous of them, despite the fact that, whatever they say about Israel, they for sure know that if anything like this happened in Gaza or the West Bank, Israel would be there to help.

Please pray for all those affected and for the rain that Israel desperately needs.

Palestinian "Justice"

2010-11-13T19:39:00.003Z

- A young Palestinian has been jailed for criticising and mocking Islam on his blog and on Facebook groups that he created, claiming to be G-d. The blogger faces a potential life prison sentence, whilst residents of his West Bank town say he should be publicly executed. Somehow I don't think any of this will change his opinions on Islam.

- Meanwhile on Gaza's new "five-star" prison, the director said "We do not practice any torture here. That takes place at the interrogation centre, before people are convicted." Once convicted though, those accused of collaborating with Israel are hanged in the basement. But before that, they can enjoy tv and radio in their rooms, and to visit and be visited by their families.

- In other news, last month the Working Group Against the Trafficking of Women set up a window display in Tel Aviv's Dizengoff mall, where real women posed with price tags attached, under a banner saying "Women for Sale". The aim was obviously to create awareness of the issue, and to gather signatures for their petition, but Iranian media reported it as "Prostitution in Israel", describing it as a "slavery mall". Thankfully the Western mainstream media isn't quite at that stage yet, although there have been instances where it's not very far off.

The Times' Narrative-In-Brief

2010-11-10T19:26:00.004Z

On his visit to Israel, Germany's foreign minister called for Israel to end the Gaza blockade, the Times reported yesterday in a news brief.

What they forgot to mention was that:

he also called on Hamas to release Gilad Shalit: "it is very important that we help the family, that we help this poor young man and that we see him as soon as possible, safe and healthy, back in the arms of his family"

and he also "said his decision to not meet with Hamas stemmed from the Gaza leadership's refusal to renounce violence and recognize Israel".

But of course if the Times had reported that, it might have ruined the Israel = oppressors, Palestinians = victims narrative.

Fight The Media? BE The Media!

2010-11-08T19:20:00.016Z

I’ve always been a proud supporter of Israel and interested in media and journalism, so it was inevitable that I eventually started this blog in June 2009 – just about the time I’d finally had enough of the continuous and absurdly biased and inaccurate coverage of Israel’s Operation Cast Lead in Gaza.

My main motivation for this blog was as an outlet for myself, to record the media’s hypocrisy and express my feelings on the subject. This was after spending much time getting into pointless and frustrating online arguments with Israel-hating lefties and terrorist supporters who repeatedly accuse Israel of genocide and ethnic cleansing and Naziism, and ignore all the facts, logic, and evidence you throw at them.

It feels like the media and internet are so vast, how can we possibly counter all the hate and lies? - but it works to our advantage as well. There are so many outlets for expression that anyone and everyone can get involved in fighting Israel’s media war, and make a difference even by doing something as small as clicking ‘play’ on a YouTube video. Within a day of the notorious flotilla incident in May, Israel’s footage of their soldiers being stabbed and attacked on the Mavi Marmara was on the front page of YouTube, which then generated hundreds of thousands more views. The footage was later used in a BBC documentary of the incident, so informative and balanced that Israel’s critics were incensed. All of this was achieved simply by people watching the video and sharing it online.

Some of the most powerful online videos are only 30 seconds long, such as those by Free Middle East, or “What makes a hero?” by YouTube member aussievideodude. The IDF itself records footage and posts clips on its YouTube channel, and Honest Reporting do educational videos and podcasts. Just as effective – if not more so – is the use of humour in videos, such as No Laughing Matter’s mock interviews, Latma’s satirical news channel, and Elder of Ziyon’s ironic videos, like “The Humanitarian Crisis of the Gaza Mall”. Sometimes ridicule is the only way to get people to take another look at themselves.

Twitter is a great website for posting information as it happens and sharing it fast. When Israel was helping in Haiti after the earthquake there, they used Twitter not only to update followers of their efforts, but also to communicate with people who required aid. And last year on the third anniversary of Gilad Shalit’s capture, there was a campaign to create awareness of his plight that succeeded in getting his name as one of the top trends that day (until Michael Jackson died). If you have an important link related to Israel, post it with a related tag like #Israel or #IDF so it can be found easily. On the other hand, Twitter can also be used to directly fight back against anti-Israel bias. Chas Newkey-Burden has described how on his blog he fisked an article that a journalist had tweeted, and then sent his post to the journalists’ followers – succeeding in getting some of them to rethink and even retweet his blog.

On Facebook you can share news stories and videos, and discuss the Middle East conflict with other members – on both pro and anti-Israel groups. In one of my more enjoyable exchanges on a Facebook group, I simply responded to my opposition’s ranting with links to pictures and videos clearly in Israel’s favour; I didn’t even have to write anything, and he was so livid he could barely type (or maybe he just had a bad education). The key is not to emote, but to remain calm and polite (however painful it is). Remember that it is the Palestinian leadership who act against the interests of both sides, and so demonizing and boycotting Israel does nothing to help the Palestinian people.

Another essential way to fight Israel’s media war is to submit complaints and letters in instances of media bias or inaccuracy – you are likely to find plenty of cases yourself, or just follow media monitoring sites like Honest Reporting, Just Journalism, CiF Watch and Reuters-Middle East Watch.

And finally, there are the blogs, where you can choose to either get into heated debates with leftist, Israel-bashing bloggers, or else keep up to date on the latest news from Israel and the Middle East that you’d never otherwise find in the mainstream media, and share your own thoughts and frustrations with fellow Zionists and bloggers.

My blog is not in the league of must-reads like Elder of Ziyon, Chas Newkey-Burden’s Oy Va Goy, Robin Shepherd, Honest Reporting and CiF Watch, but I recently had a reader post this very humbling comment that makes it all worthwhile:

“I just found your blog during an angry debate with my viciously anti-Semitic, pro-Palestine aunt, during which she called me a Zionist and sneered that I might have Jewish blood. I just wanted to let you know you're doing a bang up job and I'm glad there are people like you out there. Sometimes I swear it feels like I'm the only pro-Israel person in the world.”

So whilst I started the blog for myself, never thinking it would have an impact on anyone else, it was extremely rewarding to find that it is actually making a bit of a difference, at least for one person in their fight for Israel.

Everyone can do something. And even when you feel like banging your head against a wall – maybe the brick wall that’s ignoring you – don’t give up. You are definitely making a difference.

For more advice and ways to fight Israel's media war, join http://www.facebook.com/israelonline.

Israel's New "Collective Punishment" Of The Palestinians

2010-11-02T19:08:00.002Z

So what is this new new method that the evil Israelis have thought of to punish the Palestinians?

To impose "house arrest on stone-throwing youths in east Jerusalem and hold their parents legally responsible for their actions".

An East-Jerusalem activist, Fakhri Abu Diab, called it "collective punishment". It would be interesting to see the rest of the world and media's reaction to this, considering it's essentially the equivalent of ASBOs for Palestinian 'chavs'.

AFP observes that:

"the tensions stem from an urban development plan pushed by the Israeli-run municipality that would see the destruction of 22 out of 88 homes that were built without legal permits... The presence of dozens of families of Jewish settlers living in and around an archaeological site in the crowded Arab neighbourhood just outside the walls of the Old City has further inflamed the situation."

When will we learn? Jews must not live and Palestinians must not be held to the law.

Abu Diab reinforces this point, saying that the children "need to feel a sense of security in their [illegal] homes" and that "the daily clashes in Silwan need a political solution" - by which he surely means "Jews: get out", and not that Palestinians should teach their children that stoning isn't really acceptable in the 21st Century and that Jews are human beings, not pigs and apes (not that they should be stoned either).

Meanwhile Hamas continue to demolish Palestinians' houses in Gaza, as previously reported in May, claiming they are illegal even though the Gazans hold legal documents proving their ownership, forcefully dragging them out of their homes and beating them.

At that time, one Palestinian observed "At least when the Jews destroy your house they tell you first", whereas now a Fatah spokesman claims that "Hamas has proven to be identical to the Israeli occupation" - except they're not so identical really, one reason being that the only media that reports Hamas' demolition of houses is the Palestinian media that is daring enough to do so, whilst Israel's actions are continuously and disproportionately condemned by the international community.

Double Standards And Double Standards

2010-10-27T20:53:00.009+01:00

A few stories to catch up on from the last month or so...

- First there’s the Silwan incident where Palestinian youths threw rocks at an Israeli in his car, forcing him to swerve to try and escape, in the process accidentally hitting two of the kids with his car. The MSM angle was of course something along the lines of “Jew Runs Over Innocent Palestinian Babies”. But Honest Reporting explain why the whole thing was almost certainly a set-up, with photographers from at least five different news agencies ready and waiting for an incident that they would then twist to fit their own agenda of Israelis = oppressors, Palestinians = victims.

- Another big October story was Israel’s new bill requiring candidates for citizenship to pledge allegiance to “the state of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state”, and the proposition to the Palestinians that they recognise Israel as a Jewish state (gasp!) in return for a settlement freeze. Abbas refused, of course, claiming that “the issue of the Jewishness of the state has nothing to do with the matter [of negotiations]”. Which is a very strange comment to make. Who does he think he’s negotiating with, if not the Jewish state of Israel? How can there be negotiations if we don’t exist?

Just Journalism highlight the media’s hypocrisy in dismissing the loyalty oath as discriminatory, whilst at the same time supporting a state exclusively for Palestinian Arabs. In Israel’s declaration of independence, it is “abundantly clear that Israel viewed itself as the homeland for the Jewish people from its inception. The international community recognised the country on that basis. Should Israel’s desire in 2010 to retain its Jewish character be portrayed as so controversial?” After all, if we can’t be Jewish in Israel then where can we?

Just Journalism give the example of the Independent’s Adrian Hamilton, who claimed that the oath is an indication of Israel’s “fundamentalism”, identifying the problem as that “the more closely you define Israel as a uniquely ‘Jewish’ state, the less room there is for it to act as a co-operative member of a Muslim majority Middle East.” If that statement wasn’t outrageously contradictory and hypocritical enough in itself, then just a week after that he wrote about how “Multiculturalism needs defenders”, criticising that “as societies have turned inwards so they have also turned against the outsiders”, and that the debate about immigration in Europe is inherently racist. JJ observe that according to Hamilton’s typical leftist viewpoint, “while Europeans should be more tolerant of non-white Christians in their midst, the Muslim Middle East must be supported in its rejection of a Jewish entity in theirs.”

- Islamic Jihad have published photos on their website of when they were visited in Gaza by Turks. These were “peace activists” though, who had journeyed on board the recent “Viva Palestina” flotilla. “Peace acitivists”, remember. Who visited terrorists and then posed with them for pictures whilst holding machine guns and rocket launchers. EoZ publishes assurances from Islamic Jihad, wondering what all the fuss is about, that the activists were in no danger during the photo shoot, and that they were simply “photos of solidarity” with the Palestinians and their right to “resistance”.

Guest Post: In Defence Of Eden

2010-10-10T17:38:00.005+01:00

This story kicked up a major firestorm when former IDF Soldier Eden left the photo gallery from her time in the IDF accessible to the public on Facebook. Two photos have led to condemnation by Israelis, the IDF, Palestinians and foreign press and commentators from all around the world.

The coverage has led to four main talking points:

Eden has been effectively crucified by the foreign press and media and her photos have brought forth accusations of ‘Israel’s Abu Grhaib’
Eden has been compared to Lynndie England, the US marine who posed with horribly abused Iraqi prisoners at Abu Grhaib
The IDF has condemned Eden and called the photos ‘shameful’ and ‘repulsive’ and also excluded her from reserve duty
The photos have had a domino effect and proved to be the trigger for leftist anti Israel NGO Breaking The Silence to release more photos of supposed IDF brutality and prisoner abuses with the statements that they hold thousands of similar images

These are the photos:

As you can clearly see Eden is posing, but she is not doing anything that could be considered as abusive. The reason these detainees are bound and blindfolded is that they are likely suspects with links to crime, terror or other illegal activities. They may be blindfolded so as not to be able to disclose their whereabouts or identify the soldiers who arrested them. Aside from the restraints, they have been treated in a humane and dignified manner. There are no visible marks or bruises, their clothes are not removed, their religious symbols (skullcap on the third detainee on the right) have been respected and they are seated on blocks and able to rest their backs rather than being face down or sitting on the floor.

In my opinion these images are definitely inappropriate and disrespectful towards the detainees. Even if Eden is only making a slight smirk and not doing anything wildly offensive, the simple fact is that human rights have to be held to the highest standards in all situations. Although there is a high possibility that the detainees may be guilty of a crime, it still doesn’t give us the right to treat them in a degrading manner, no matter how much we think they deserve it. And that’s where Eden went wrong - to her, she isn’t doing anything wrong, and although I believe she probably did take care of them, allowing herself to have her photo taken with them was inappropriate.

Eden might be disappointed at the perceived lack of support and overly harsh criticism from the IDF but she needs to realise that the moral and ethical conduct in the IDF is held to the highest levels and any break in that conduct will lead to serious repercussions. In any profession where a person is placed in your custody, you have to be extra sensitive and careful not to breach the human rights of your patient or client. That means doctors and medical personnel do not pose with their patients, law enforcement should not pose with their criminals and soldiers should not pose with their detainees.

In defence of Eden, the situation for Israeli teenagers is very different from those in western countries. At 18, both boys and girls have to enter either the army or for girls the option of national service which can include serving as a medic. That means that 18 year old boys and girls have to face potentially life threatening circumstances on a daily basis. From treating terror victims and watching their friends suffer in wars and operations to protect the citizens of Israel, the stress and pressure on these teenagers are often unbearable and traumatic. Operations of arresting terror suspects or treating patients eventually become the daily norm and teenagers can easily lose their moral perspective. The situation that is documented in the photo of Eden with the detainees is probably a daily occurrence for many soldiers, the only difference in most cases being that photos are not taken. There is no abuse but the fact that a photo of the detainees was taken is a breach of ethical conduct and nothing more than that. This is what the foreign press choose to ignore and decided to twist into a story of regular Israeli abuse of ‘innocent’ Palestinians.

But to compare this to other famous abuse claims? You can see that the prisoners have not been mistreated, certainly not to the extent that detainees have been treated in Iraq (warning - photo extremely distressing), Afghanistan, Iran, even the West Bank and Gaza where Hamas decides that the most humane treatment for a detainee would be to throw them off a tall building to their gruesome deaths.

The comparisons with Abu Ghraib are absurd and only an ignorant fool would ever think of drawing parallels between the two. But here those fools are:

From the Daily Mail article, “The photographs have echoes of those taken in 2003 by U.S. soldiers in Baghdad's notorious Abu Ghraib prison showing Iraqi detainees being humiliated by their captors.”

They also compare Eden’s photo to one with the notorious Lynndie England who is pictured holding a dog’s leash tied round the neck of a naked and bruised Iraqi prisoner lying on the floor! You want to compare these photos? Eden is Mother Teresa compared to Mrs Hitler (sorry I meant Lynndie England).

“Flashback: The Facebook photos are reminiscent of this undated image of U.S. Army Spc. Lynndie England with a naked detainee at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad date unknown. Th
e Abu Ghraib scandal erupted in 2004”.

The Daily Telegraph mentions that the photos bring a reminder of Abu Ghraib but then makes two very important points: “The photographs of the Israeli soldier and the Palestinians, by contrast, show no overt physical abuse or coercion of the prisoners” and “Palestinians are routinely handcuffed and blindfolded when they are arrested to stop them from trying to flee.”

Huffington Post have their own interpretation of the images: “she is sitting legs crossed beside a blindfolded Palestinian man who is slumped against a concrete barrier. His face is turned downwards, while she leans toward him with her face upturned.” They also mention Abu Ghraib: “The photographs were a reminder of snapshots taken in 2003 by American soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq that showed Iraqi detainees naked, humiliated and terrified. In that case, some soldiers went to prison after the photos came to light.”

Mondoweiss a leftist Jewish blog signs off his article with this quote: “The picture I see in Eden's photos? An army that has forgotten the other's humanity--and has lost its own humanity in the process.” So Eden represents the entire IDF does she? This is what we call ignorant.

And of course The Guardian just couldn’t help itself: “The images were reminiscent of the Abu Ghraib scandal in Iraq.”

After the initial story broke, it gave the ammunition to the anti-Israel Israeli NGO called Breaking the Silence to add fuel to the fire. They added one of Eden’s photos to a facebook gallery showing more apparent IDF detainee abuse photos. These photos were then lapped up by the foreign press in particular by the Guardian who produced a photo gallery replicating the photos with their own captions. They also interviewed members of Breaking the Silence.

One of the photos that stood out is shown below. In the original caption, it stated that the body of the man was all but ignored by the soldiers, but on 19^th August this was amended to: “Israeli soldiers stand by the bloodied and broken body of a man.”

How could the Guardian say the soldiers “all but ignored the man”? The soldier on the right is looking at the IV drip which he has attached to the man to ensure he is giving the right amount of saline! This soldier is treating a potential Palestinian terrorist but if you look away for one second it must mean you have ignored an injured innocent Palestinian? Give me a break, it’s a pathetic quote and the Guardian have obviously taken their slice of humble pie and spat it back out by amending the quote to basically accuse the IDF soldiers of causing the man to be ‘bloodied’ and ‘broken’. Is this Palestinian just a ‘man’ or is he a serious criminal, a terrorist, maybe even a potential martyr. Maybe he started shooting at the soldiers who came to arrest him? We don’t know for sure, but the IDF doesn’t just go and batter innocent people. Nice emphasis by the Guardian though which gives the impression that the IDF brutally abused this ‘innocent’ Palestinian.

Their reporting is a complete joke and these publications should be ashamed of themselves for allowing their reporting to be so amateur – when even Al Jazeera didn’t compare Eden’s photos to Abu Grahaib or make their own personal comments on a photos. In fact the Al Jazeera caption simply states “Eden Abergil's pictures of Palestinian prisoners have sparked controversy in Israel”.

In short, this was another case of a relatively minor blunder being completely blown out of proportion and used to slander and criticize Israel and its defenders the IDF, but this happens everyday.

Since I started writing this report, a youtube video of a male IDF soldier dancing inappropriately around a blindfolded female Palestinian has been making the rounds. Now this is something that the press have a right to strongly condemn and you can probably judge for yourself which incident deserves the most attention. But when something apparently newsworthy occurs in Israel, the media need to ensure they conduct the necessary research so they understand the background and context and can make an objective and informative report that looks at the whole story, keeping it in perspective.

No one is perfect and the IDF like every other army has its flaws. But I can safely say that thee IDF are the most humane army working in the most extreme and challenging conditions, which means that when these incidents occur, it is big news in Israel and the world. And rest assured there will be no one more disgusted and ashamed at these incidents than the IDF itself.

Terrorism And Bias

2010-09-26T23:21:00.002+01:00

In the third shooting attack in Israel in less than a month, a nine-month pregnant Israeli woman was shot at in her car today by Palestinian terrorists. Miraculously only wounded in her leg, the woman was taken to hospital where she had to undergo an emergency caesarian section, with her baby delivered in good condition.

The media continues to report on the situation in the Middle East by ignoring the continuous terrorist attacks and writing about how Israel is the object to peace, such as in today's Oberver editorial, which Chas Newkey-Burden nicely fisks.

Also big news is UNHRC's accusation of Israel committing "war crimes" in it's soldiers defending themselves from almost certain death at the hands of the lynch mob in May's flotilla incident.

Robin Shepherd tackles the BBC's standard bias in it's coverage of the UNHRC report; Just Journalism look at the other media coverage; and Elder of Ziyon exposes the omission and twisting of evidence in the UNHRC's biased report.

The Trouble Started When Israel...

2010-09-22T16:33:00.004+01:00

Early this morning an Israeli security guard was driving through East Jerusalem when a mob of Palestinians surrounded his car, blocked the road, and started hurling rocks at the car.

And then the trouble started, according to the BBC. The above has absolutely no relation to what happened next...

Fearing that he would be killed or abducted, the guard opened fire, killing one Palestinian - who had a criminal record and was armed with a knife.

This led to the Palestinians rioting in East Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, with several Israeli bystanders injured, one stabbed, and three more injured when Palestinians overturned their car.

And it all started when an Israeli once again dared to defend himself when being attacked by Palestinians. Why do we keep provoking the Palestinians by living?!

More from Just Journalism on the BBC's inaccurate reporting of this story. Maybe they did it to try and appease the people who were upset by their balanced documentary on the flotilla incident.

Selichot At The Kotel

2010-09-19T00:13:00.005+01:00

This wonderful video of selichot was taken at the Kotel on Erev Yom Kippur, of the Sephardi (and my favourite) tune Adon HaSelichot. It is hard to describe the atmosphere and emotions of Yom Kippur in words, but this clip just about sums it up. Even the most secular Jews observe Yom Kippur. Yom Kippur is an inspiring day anywhere in the world (as I can attest from London), but the Kotel is the holiest place on earth, and I pray that soon we will return to the Jewish homeland. It is the most beautiful day, when millions of Jews all over the world come together, showing our dedication to Judaism and G-d, praying for forgiveness for our sins, for a year of blessing, self-improvement and for our faith to be strengthened.

This upbeat tune for Adon HaSelichot is seen by some as against the serious tone of the day - especially when accompanied by enthusiastic Sephardis clapping and drumming along! - but the song is amazing in its ability to uplift and make you shiver at the same time, which is why it's my favourite.

More Gaza Violence And Media Bias

2010-09-14T19:20:00.008+01:00

It turns out that the two Palestinians killed on Sunday were not "armed" with the weapons; they had just picked them up after seeing them lying on the ground - but they were standing near the terrorists who did fire at the IDF. The Telegraph for some reason illustrates this with a picture of Palestinian children posing behind a hospital's metal gate. I think the picture is supposed to reflect badly on Israel and make the Palestinians look "caged in", but I'm not quite clear how it's significant that whoever built the hospital in Gaza gave it a gate.

The BBC also reports the story in a strange way, early on in the article saying "The Israeli army said it had returned fire after militants approached the border and fired a rocket propelled grenade at a patrol", but only affirming later on in the piece that this wasn't a Jewish lie and actually did happen: "The incident occurred shortly after militants in Gaza fired several rockets and mortar rounds across the border into southern Israel."

Also notable is the statement the BBC make at the end of the article - and which they add at the end of most articles on the subject - that: "One Thai farm worker in Israel has been killed by rocket fire from Gaza in the past 18 months, while scores of Palestinians in Gaza have been killed over the same period."

See how "disproportionate" Israel is! Never mind how many rockets have been fired in that period (about 2000), if it only killed one person, Israel isn't allowed to retaliate. Meanwhile scores (in other words, so many it's impossible to count, not like Grandma's home-knitted rockets) of Palestinians have been killed. It doesn't matter if they were killed accidentally blowing themselves up, or whilst they were in the middle of trying to murder Israelis - either by knife, gun, or rockets - the important thing is to imbed it in your mind that Israel-Is-Disproportionate-And-Bad.

A near-identical incident occurred today when Palestinian terrorists again fired missiles at the IDF, who retaliated, reportedly killing one Palestinian. Make that 'scores of Palestinians, plus one', and, to the BBC's disappointment, still only the one Thai farm worker.

Over on the Sky website though, Dominic Waghorn blogs one of Hamas' propaganda videos, depicting the Palestinians destroying and taking over Israel. Of course this is only the dream of the select members of the Hamas "military wing". No other Palestinians share that dream of killing Jews and taking over Israel. They want to share the land and live in peace, like what happened when we gave them Gaza.

UPDATE: At least 11 rockets and mortars were fired into Israel today, Wednesday, two of which were phosphorous bombs, luckily landing in open areas. Israel responded by striking the tunnels used to smuggle in weapons, and tunnels being dug to send terrorists into Israel, killing one Palestinian.

Hider: Rockets Are Minor Annoyance

2010-09-12T20:20:00.001+01:00

Just Journalism look at the Times' latest editorial, that is "the first since the start of the peace talks to focus on Hamas’ refusal to accept either the legitimacy of the peace talks, or the existence of the Jewish state." (Which the Times, unlike the other papers, have acknowledged previously). The editorial refers to Hamas' recent murder of four innocent Israelis and states that although some settlers and ultra-Orthodox Jews might oppose Israel giving away land (for religious and security reasons), "any equation between such groups and Hamas is crass, mistaken and grossly offensive." It is in its editorials that the Times shows its journalistic integrity, in stark contrast to papers like the Guardian and Independent, who seem to view the settlers as a bigger obstacle to peace than Hamas terrorists.

In it's reporting though, The Times often demonstrates an anti-Israel slant that is common in the rest of the media. The culprit is their Middle East correspondent, James Hider. Last week he wrote an opinion piece that gives more of an insight into his anti-Israel attitudes than is already evident in his news reporting. To be fair - as I always am! - Hider does not seem to be an extremist left-wing Hamas and terror supporter. He occasionally acknowledges Hamas' murderous intent, but does tend to follow the rest of the media in focusing more on the settlers.

The op-ed opens with a ridiculous exchange with a Tel Aviv waiter, who learns that Hider lives in Jerusalem: "'Jerusalem?' he gasped. 'It's full of violence and police checkpoints. I never go there. What's it like now?'" I know people say Tel Aviv is a bubble, but I don't believe a typical citizen there is that ignorant. This must be the only Tel Aviv-ian who is, and trust Hider to find him. There are violence and checkpoints in and around both Jerusalem and Tel Aviv - but neither city is "full of" them. Jerusalem is not what you'd call a war zone, and nor is it the hole that Hider tries to imply it is. It is a thriving, bustling, modern town, with residents of all religions and backgrounds - and richer and poorer areas, just like every city in the world has.

Hider describes the divisions and differences between on the one hand Fatah in the West bank and Hamas in Gaza, and on the other hand the secular Israelis and the "rising influence of the ultra-Orthodox" in Jerusalem. But he claims that "what unites most Israelis is a sense of indifference": "Most Israelis don't think about the millions of Palestinians on the other side of the walls and fences, unless Hamas is firing its rockets into the communities in the south. But since Israel's devastating offensive into Gaza in late 2008, even those have slowed to a minor annoyance."
10,000 rockets is a "minor annoyance"? Bomb shelters, trauma, damages, injuries, deaths, a minor annoyance? Is that what Hider would call it if a kassam fell on him?

Following that article, Hider was back to news reporting on Tuesday, with a piece on, yes, the settlers, and the "Countdown to construction that could doom peace".

Meanwhile, there have been more Palestinian terror incidents that didn't make the news. On Monday Palestinians shot at two plain-clothed Israeli policemen, lightly wounding them. A two year old baby was hospitalised after Palestinians threw rocks at the car her family was driving. In another Palestinian rock-throwing incident, an Israeli vehicle was damaged but no one was injured.

Hamas continue to fire rockets into Southern Israel on an almost daily basis, including two today, miraculously causing no injuries. An eight year old Israeli boy was injured when Palestinians threw rocks at his face. Also today, Palestinians armed with guns and a rocket launcher were killed by the IDF after approaching the Gaza fence despite warning shots from the IDF.

The twelve year old girl wounded by Palestinians last Thursday is in intensive care following head surgery - her family request that people pray for Herut bat Timor.

Hamas Continue Terror Attacks

2010-09-03T17:21:00.004+01:00

Hamas have threatened to continue their terror attacks until the peace talks stop, and they mean what they say.

After murdering four Israelis on Tuesday, on Wednesday another two Israelis were injured in the same way, shot at in their car whilst driving.

And yesterday a 12 year old Israeli girl was injured and evacuated to hospital after being hit in the head by a rock thrown by Palestinians (although this sort of attack is actually fairly common.)

Just Journalism examine yesterday's coverage of the peace talks, noting the Times' detailed look at Hamas and their violent opposition to peace, whilst others - most notably the Guardian, as usual - equated settlers with terrorists.

Today though, the Times headline refers to the "drive-by shootings of settlers", as though being settlers means they deserved it.

Why is it that the media view settlers as the main obstacle to peace, when even the Palestinians don't? Hamas don't distinguish between Israelis based on what town they live in. To them, a Jew is a Jew and must be killed.

They only use settlers as an excuse. Whatever they say about the settlements, we've seen already with Gaza that Israel giving away land does not bring peace from the Palestinians - it is met with more violence: 10,000 rockets have been fired into Southern Israel over the last few years.

So it is not up to Israel and never has been; we have always been open to peace. Once the Palestinian leaders agree that they want peace, and convince their brainwashable people that peace is good and not terrorism, then the talks might actually go somewhere.

Peace-Yearning Palestinians Murder Four Israelis

2010-08-31T18:44:00.016+01:00

Four Israeli civilians were shot dead - five including an unborn baby - this evening in a Palestinian terror attack, whilst driving near Hebron. The victims: Kokhava Even-Chaim leaves her husband and eight year old daughter; 24 year old newly-wed Avishai Shindler; and Yitzchak Imas and his nine-month pregnant wife Talya, leave six orphaned children.

A spokesman for the Palestinian group, Popular Resistance Committees, said this was the Palestinian reaction to the US-proposed peace talks:

"They should not have gone for this move without the support of the Palestinian people... Our people still abide by resistance and do no believe in the fictitious talks scheduled to commence tomorrow."

A Hamas spokesman said: "Hamas praises the attack and regards it as a natural response to the crimes of the occupation"; later Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.

Israeli MKs say it shows that the Palestinians do not want peace (see statements above) and that we should halt the talks as security for Israeli civilians must be our first priority.

MK Eldad warned:

“Anyone who in recent months has helped build the myth that Abu Mazen [Abbas] is in charge of what is going on in PA controlled areas must open his eyes and put a halt to the continued strengthening of the Palestinian army that is being built with American support. This group could easily take over Hamas' job, and we should not be surprised if and when their weapons are directed against us”.

In the media coverage of the upcoming talks, there has been hardly any focus on Hamas and the Palestinians' opposition to it. Instead, the focus has been on Israel, Netanyahu, and the settlements as the "obstacle to peace." Yet if Israel were to pull out of the talks, you can bet the media would say the attack was just being used as an excuse.

It will be interesting to see what Abbas' reaction is. Unless he condemns the attack in strong terms, and finds a way to convince us that the majority of Palestinians are against the attack and do want peace, then by rights we should not engage in "peace" talks just to make Obama look like he's doing something useful.

I blame Obama, first for pressurising Israel into removing the very checkpoints that were built specifically to prevent this sort of attack, as well as hundreds of others, and then for pressurising Abbas into talks that he and the Palestinians obviously do not want. If Obama were a decent human being, he would apologise for that, and condemn the attack in a satisfactory manner whilst also acknowledging his own part in triggering it, ideally also apologising directly to the family members of the Israelis murdered in the attack.

Obama is either evil, or a fool, so I'm not expecting him to do the right thing.

UPDATE: In response to the attack, Yesha Council officials announced the end of the settlement freeze in the West Bank, stating that "every community in the area will locate an area within it and start construction in it by 6pm Wednesday... "They kill, we build."

That just about sums it up. Whatever people say about the Gaza "siege" and the "occupation", it does not compare to the ruthless and deliberate murder of innocent civilians. If Israel was the terror regime it's portrayed as, the IDF would bomb every last Palestinian in the West Bank to ensure nothing like this ever happens again. Instead there is a hunt underway for the terrorists responsible, whilst Palestinians celebrate in the streets.

The world tells us what to do and promises security in return, but only Israel can guarantee it's own security. So the only option is to build.

UPDATE: Just Journalism and Elder of Ziyon look at the media coverage of the attack, focusing on how the Guardian and New York Times waste no time in blaming the Israelis for existing, and how "settlers" are, as per the status quo, portrayed as the "obstacle to peace", rather than terrorists.

Palestinians celebrate the attack:

Orphaned Israeli girl cries at her parents' funeral

The Imas family, children now orphans:

Their crime? Jewish, Israeli, and living.