Yachad's Search For Themselves

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. 

Boycotts And Freedom Of Antisemitic Speech

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.

Fight The Media? BE The Media!

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.

Hoffman Exposes Anti-Israel Judge

In January 2009 during Israel's Operation Cast Lead in Gaza, seven people broke into a factory in Brighton, England, and caused £180,000 of damage, later confessing to their crime.

But this week, after their trial, they walked free. The factory was exporting military equipment to Israel, and their defence was that although they had committed a crime,it was justified as they were doing so in order to prevent the greater offence of Israeli 'war crimes'.

The judge, George Bathurst-Norman, said "You may well think that hell on earth woud not be an understatement of what the Gazans suffered in that time." He was born in Arab Jaffa and was brought out of retirement to try this case. The local MP Caroline Lucas supported the defendants, claiming that "all democratic paths had been exhausted" before they destroyed the factory. Lucas had previously blamed Israel for the Mumbai massacre, and supports boycotts of Israeli products. More on the judge's bias on EoZ blog.

Yet again Israel is denied it's right to self-defence, this time because of corruption in British courts. As Robin Shepherd puts it:

"Bigotry against the Jewish state is now so entrenched in contemporary British society that juries have begun to acquit criminals merely if they can show they acted against Israeli interests. No other defence is necessary."

Now Jonathan Hoffman has fisked the evidence, the 87 page transcript of the judge's summing-up of the case - comments he made to the jury before they decided to acquit the defendants. Through a combinaton of the omission and distortion of facts, blatant lies, and antisemitic analogies, the judge succeeded in manipulating the jury with his demonisation of Israel. Hoffman observes that Bathurst-Norman was more a member of the defence's legal team than the judge, and this is no exaggeration. Read Hoffman's brilliant piece in it's entirety; that the biased, hate-filled rantings that he examines come from a judge is almost beyond belief.

On the whole affair, Melanie Phillips concludes: 

"for a judge to abuse the task of summing up evidence to a jury by turning it into a platform for his own personal prejudice is startling even by the standards of Britain's degraded and vicious Judeophobic public discourse." 

"If the senior judiciary does not institute action against this judge for such a gross abuse of his position, we shall have to conclude that they too see nothing wrong with it - and thus have abandoned all claim to objectivity, fairness or due process in the justice system. We shall have to conclude that, for the English judiciary, there is now one law for the gentiles and another law for the Jews."

Hoffman calls for action: 

"The bottom line is simple. Judge Bathurst-Norman behaved more like the Defence Counsel than the neutral Officer of the Court that he was supposed to be. The role of a Judge - far from advancing his own political agenda - is to clarify points of law to the lay members of the Jury. Bathurst-Norman's comments reveal that he has an extreme anti-Israel agenda. This case must therefore be declared a mistrial and retired under a neutral Judge. And Bathurst-Norman should be prevented from ever presiding over such a case again."

"Please complain to the Office for Judicial Complaints here. [Use the above quotes from Hoffman and Phillips to help form your argument]. The case is R vs Robert Nicholls and others at Lewes, case number t20097131. Please also ask your MP to write to the Justice Minister and Lord Chancellor, Ken Clarke."

The Western Wall = Occupied?

In what is one of the most absurd, ridiculous, I-don't-know-whether-to-laugh-or-cry, Israel-related stories that I've read (and I've read a lot); the UK's Advertising Standards Authority has banned an Israeli Government Tourist Office poster for depicting pictures of....

.... wait for it....

.... Jerusalem.

Specifically, the Temple Mount and the Kotel [Western Wall], as they are considered to be in East Jerusalem, what people call "the occupied territories"; and the ASA doesn't want people to assume that those places are actually part of the State of Israel, as that would be misleading, apparently.

My spoof story was barely an exaggeration.

The Kotel is at the centre of Judaism, physically, spiritually, emotionally, historically. It is not "occupied". The Kotel is Jerusalem; Jerusalem is Israel. The ASA may as well have said that Israel does not exist and the name on the posters should be replaced with "Palestine".

In another twisted story today, Just Journalism report on the Guardian's denial of and indifference to the Iranian nuclear threat. You would have thought that you'd have to be one or the other - either in denial of, or indifferent to - but the Guardian is a special newspaper that manages to be both at the same time. The really twisted part is that the Guardian is evidently more concerned about a potential Israeli strike to neutralise Iran, than about Iran's threats to destroy Israel. I call indifference, rather than denial or ignorance. Only someone in a coma wouldn't be able to confirm Ahmadinejad's words to "wipe Israel off the map". Only someone antisemitic wouldn't be concerned about it.

In good news, though, Britain's Charity Commission is investigating whether War On Want - you know, one of those "pro-peace" organisations that hates Israel and supports terrorists (a bit like those "human rights" organisations that only care about Palestinian, not Israeli rights) - breached regulations during an aggressive protest at a supermarket. More from Chas Newkey-Burden .

Guardian Balance?!

The Guardian has actually exposed it's readers to a dark and dangerous pro-Israel article, for once. And they don't like it. Rivka Carmi, president of Ben Gurion University, makes an excellent case against Self-Hating-Neve-Gordon's calls to boycott Israel. Her article was also in the LA Times, and, in an extremely rare case of balance, the Guardian has included it on CiF! As expected, though, the Guardian readers and commenters completely miss the point. (The Guardian obviously knew they would before they uploaded the article, which is why on rare occasions it does publish pro-Israel pieces, with the writer inevitably getting abuse from it's deluded readers). Carmi describes BGU's

"community outreach and scientific innovation", how her "professional career has focused on preventing hereditary genetic diseases in the Bedouin Arab community", that "the laboratory that I founded at Ben-Gurion University is working with Bedouin, Palestinian and Jordanian doctors and researchers to improve the health of Arab children across the region", and about the development of "advanced water technologies to solar energy, environmental conservation and emergency medicine".

And the majority of Guardian-ites still want to boycott Israel, and by extension, Ben Gurion University and all their work and contributions. They hate Israel so much they would even deny Arabs the benefits they get from Israeli research!

The Guardian Finds A New Recruit!

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

Pepsi Is A Zionist Plot!

Egyptian cleric Hazem Abu Ismail has called for a Muslim boycott of the second-rate Coke flavoured drink because, he says, PEPSI stands for Pay Every Penny to Save Israel. Speaking on a religious Muslim TV channel in Egypt, in February he said:

"When you pay [to buy Pepsi], you are saving Israel. I am not talking about Pepsi, but about Coca Cola and all of them. I don't want to specify the products. See for yourselves. You are Muslims. You can tell me. I don't know. My little son knows more about the boycott than me. When we go shopping, he says to me: "Buy this, don't buy that." He knows them by heart. He has become an expert in this."

Now I'm glad to hear that buying Coke also saves Israel because I love Coke. Pepsi, not so much. The other interesting thing is that the cleric's son is brainwashing his father, not the other way around. You have to feel sorry for some Muslims though; as well as having to suffer being treated with Israeli-developed cures and treatments, and using Israeli-developed technology that they just can't live without, they also can never have the pleasure of an ice-cold, fizzy Coke on a hot summer day without the guilt of saving the Zionists. So, what are you waiting for! Go out and buy some Coke (or Pepsi if that's your preference). And if it turns out that it doesn't save Israel, at least you can still enjoy your refreshing drink.