Vote Conservative! - Update - Says Simon Cowell!

This coming Thursday, the UK will be voting for prime minister in the general election. The three main leaders and their parties are: Gordon Brown of Labour, Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrats, and David Cameron of the Conservatives.

I'm hoping for a Conservative victory (or vic-Tory, ha ha), for several reasons, the main one being... I'm a righty, obviously. More reasons in more detail in the Times editorial on why they're backing the Tories. They also explain why voting for Nick Clegg would be a bad idea. Julie Burchill writes in the Jerusalem Post on why she wouldn't vote for any of the parties, but in her view the Tories stand out as the much-lesser of many evils - the worst of which appears to be Nick Clegg, who called for the EU to isolate and sanction Israel for daring to defend itself after eight years of rocket attacks on its citizens.

Another reason why voting for Clegg could be disastrous is addressed in a letter to the Times from senior defence and intelligence chiefs, who warn how Lib-Dem policies would leave Britain exposed to terrorism, for example by their ruling out military action against Iran's nuclear project.

It is interesting to see who the papers are backing in the election. So far only the Evening Standard hasn't revealed who they are backing. The Mirror meanwhile, is supporting Labour, whilst all the other papers are supporting the Conservatives - except for two, who are backing Nick Clegg... can you guess who they are?

It's the Guardian and Independent of course! (and their Sunday counterparts). Is it a coincidence that the two most Israel-hating newspapers are supporting the most overtly Israel-hating party leader?

Comparing their attitudes to Israel with that of the Times, it is clear that the Times' choice is the right one. I have pointed to a lot of instances of bias in the Times reporting of Israel, with James Hider being the biggest culprit. However, compared to the Guardian their reporting is a masterclass! - and more importantly, they are unusually fair towards Israel in their editorials, not to mention truthful, compared with the other papers. For example, in one, even whilst criticising Israel, they acknowledge that 

"Israel is not a rogue state... It is an accountable, democratic, transparent nation, and fighting to remain one amid challenges that few other nations ever have to face."

In another editorial, the Times called the Goldstone report biased and observed,

"First, there is no equivalence between the actions of Israel in self-defence and those of Hamas in seeking to destroy it. Second, the UNHRC is not a credible forum. It is... notorious for bloc voting and bias against Israel. And finally, the Goldstone report itself is imbalanced: it focuses on Israel's faults rather than its right to protect itself."

In contrast, it is not surprising for an Independent editorial to echo the sentiments of the disgraceful excuse for a journalist, Robert Fisk.

The Guardian meanwhile, invent their own evidence to try and delegitimise Israel, are prone to exaggeration and lack of important context, and "mistakes" whenever they mention Israel, are in denial about their anti-Israel bias and even antisemitism, and allow George Galloway a column to rave about Iran's "sophistication", whose views on Iran don't seem so different from their own, where they seem to be more concerned about a potential Israeli strike to neutralise Iran, than about Ahmadinejad's threats to "wipe Israel off the map".

Which brings me to Nick Clegg, who has ruled out a strike on Iran, meaning that if he was in power and it came to a point where Israel has no choice but to act, (and I, as well as Israel, sincerely hope it won't come to that point), then Israel's supposedly close ally Great Britain, would not only not give it's support, but Clegg would probably even call for Israel to be disarmed - as he has already done previously when Israel was acting in defence of its' citizens.

And that is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Nick Clegg and Israel, and dealing with antisemitism.

I know I talk a lot about Israel, but England is still home for now, and most of the time I feel free and safe here. But the thought of Nick Clegg as prime minister of this great and tolerant country does not bear thinking about.

...Although it would hurry my plans to move to Israel!


UPDATE: If I'd had any doubts about my decision to vote Conservative, they'd have been completely eliminated with the news that the one-and-only Simon Cowell is backing them too! The man with his head screwed on very tight, despite being a millionaire, says:

"Choosing how you vote should not be a snap verdict based on a few minutes of television. We are not talent show judges picking pretty-sounding contestants now... Nick Clegg is made for TV."

Whatever you agree or disagree with Simon on, you can not find fault with that quote. Most of the people voting for Clegg are voting for him, not his party. Because they jump on the words "change" and "fairness", and they like him dissing the other two parties, but weren't actually paying attention to his policies. The ones who say they like his policies are probably talking about his anti-Israel stance, because that's one of the main things he stands out for, that and his unique combination of smugness, hypocrisy, and naivety.

Guest Post: Can't Take A Joke?

"National Security Adviser James Jones, not the most pro-Israel member of the Obama Administration told a Jewish joke last week. It was made a couple of minutes into his speech at the 25-year anniversary gala of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a pro-Israel organisation. It goes like this, 

"A member of the Taliban was separated from his fighting party and wandered around for a few days in the desert, lost, out of food, no water. He looked on the horizon and he saw what looked like a little shack, and he walked toward that shack and as he got to it, turned out that it was a shack, a store, a little store owned by a Jewish merchant. And the Taliban warrior went up to him and said, "I need water, get me some water." And the merchant said, "I'm sorry, I don't have any water, but would you like to buy a tie? We have a nice sale of ties today."

Whereupon the Taliban erupted into a stream of language that I can't repeat about Israel, about Jewish people, about the man himself, about his family – and just saying "I need water, you try to sell me ties, you people don't get it."

And passively, the merchant stood there until this Taliban was through with his diatribe and said, "Well, I'm sorry but I don't have water for you and I forgive you for all of the insults you've levied against me, my family, my country, but I will help you out. If you go over that hill and walk about two miles there's a restaurant there, and they have all the water you'll need."

And the Taliban, instead of saying thanks, still muttering under his breath, disappears over the hill – only to come back about an hour later and walking up to the merchant and says, "Your brother tells me I need a tie in order to get into the restaurant."

Here's the video and it sounds like most people found it funny. But some people were offended by it.  There were accusations by an attendee who stated that it was "wrong in so many levels" and that it "demonstrated a lack of sensitivity." The attendee continued "Can you imagine him telling a black joke at an event of African Americans?" Truth be told, not really. Abe Foxman Head of the Anti Defamation League (ADL) told ABC news “It's inappropriate... it's stereotypic. Some people believe they need to start a speech with a joke; this was about the worst kind of joke the head of the National Security Council could have told.”  Okay, so some Jews weren't happy. But you know who else didn't like a joke last week?

South Park was celebrating its 200th episode with a special non-appearance by the prophet Muhammed. Apart from he was censored completely. How? Well by wearing a bear suit... Here is the plot.

In last week’s celebrity-studded episode “200", Tom Cruise threatened to sue the entire town unless they could arrange for a face-to-face meeting with the Prophet Mohammed, a taboo-for-parody figure who Cruise believed could make him impervious to being made fun of. The town’s citizens squabbled (“If he shows up here, we’ll get bombed”) and noted in a bit of meta-commentary that they couldn’t even circulate an image of the prophet because it was “completely off-limits and censored.” Finally, upon nabbing Mohammed, the town agreed that shuttling the prophet around in a windowless U-haul truck (while he wore a bear mascot costume) would be the only safe way to present him.

And then not only was there no image, Comedy Central went against the wishes of the shows creators and bleeped out any mention of the word Muhammad. And guess what happened next?

“We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show…This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them.” Posted by the radical Muslim website RevolutionMuslim.com

P.s. there was also a bit with “Buddha doing a line of coke”. So to summarise. 

1. Make a Jewish joke and some people will condemn it. 2. Take the piss out of Buddha and disrespect him and nothing is said or done. (maybe Buddihsts dont watch South Park?) 3. Make a joke about not being able to make a joke about a Muslim prophet and you get a death threat. (But maybe they must secretly watch South Park? How else would they know? Do they really want to kill the people who gave them 199 episodes of quality comedy which they obviously loved? Do Muslims have agents who have to put their lives and morals on the line to monitor South Park episodes to protect the honour of their prophet? Some martyr he is!)

Now, can you see a member of the Obama administration making a joke about an Arab in Egypt? Saudi Arabia? No because the uproar would be like an earthquake. Everything in moderation people! Somewhere between the Jewish and Buddist complaint is about right!"

You Know When People Say Jews Have Nothing To Do With Israel...

Well I'm a Jew. Happy Independence Day, Israel!

Yom Haatzmaut is celebrated not on the English calendar, but on the Jewish date of the establishment of the State of Israel, which is the 5th of Iyar.

Israel's Independence Day is not just celebrated by Israelis, but by Jews of all levels of observance all over the world.* Because we know that the reason we still exist today is because G-d gave us Israel - a sanctuary and a means of defending and protecting the Jewish people, even the ones who don't live in Israel.

It is fitting that the day before Yom Haatzmaut is Yom Hazikaron, remembrance day for our fallen soldiers and victims of terror - this year comemmorating 22,684 - which is followed by Independence Day as a reminder that their lives were not lost in vain.


*except for Neturei Karta lunatics, who erase Yom Haatzmaut from their Jewish calendar in the way that some people try to erase the Holocaust from memory - which is ironic because if Israel didn't exist there may very well have been another Jewish Holocaust. But they don't see that.

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 .

Holocaust, Antisemitism And Nuclear Weapons

Today is Yom Hashoah, the Jewish Holocaust Memorial Day where we commemorate the 6 million Jews who were murdered in the Holocaust. "Never again". But there are some people who don't give those reassurances. In his speech today Binyamin Netanyahu highlighted Iran's active pursuit of a nuclear bomb and anouncement of their desire to destroy the Jewish state - and the world's subsequent shoulder-shrug:

"The world accepts Iran's declarations of annihilation yet we still do not see the international determination required to prevent Iran from arming."

President Shimon Peres added,

"It is our right and duty to demand of the nations of the world not to repeat their indifference, which has cost millions of human lives, including theirs. The United Nations must be attentive to the threats of annihilation coming from one of its members, against another member state."

Mr All-Talk-No-Action President Obama echoed that we must confront antisemitism and prejudice and work to prevent genocide and instead build a world of peace and justice. Does Obama know what the word "justice" means?

Appropriately, as a reminder of the every-present problem of antisemitism, Tel Aviv University released a report today revealing that here has been more than a 100% increase in global antisemitism in 2009, the highest level recorded in 20 years. In a recent incident in Canada, two Jewish students were targetted in an aggressive attack that could have left them seriously injured. Turkey's contribution to these issues was for the prime minister to declare himself "disturbed" by the world turning a blind eye to Israel's alleged nuclear weapons programme. I don't think he's ever said he feels "disturbed" at Ahmadinejad's nuclear weapons pursuit or desire to "wipe Israel off the map".

Times: Human Rights Watch Corruption Revealed

The Times a week ago published an incredible article on Human Rights Watch, revealing their corruption and political bias, some of which I've already blogged on here.

Thanks to Elder of Ziyon for spotting the article when I didn't, even though the Sunday Times magazine comes right through my letter box. It's such an important article, so it's a bit disappointing that it's buried in the middle of the magazine when it should be shouted about on the papers' front pages.

The article reveals some of HRW's military expert Mark Garlasco's enthusiastic postings on Nazi memorabilia forums. The authour, Jonathan Foreman, quotes blogger Omri at Mere Rhetoric as wondering 

"if Garlasco’s 'obsession with anti-Semitic Nazi genocidal lunatics' was in any way related to his 'apologism for anti-Semitic genocidal Hamas lunatics'".

Then Foreman reveals hints of antisemitism at HRW, saying that as well as defending Garlasco's fetish as innocent, 

"HRW also went on the offensive. It accused those who raised the issue of Garlasco’s hobby of being part of 'a campaign to deflect attention from Human Rights Watch’s rigorous and detailed reporting on violations of international human rights and humanitarian law by the Israeli government'. It even used the word 'conspiracy': its programmes director, Iain Levine, later went so far as to directly accuse the Israeli government of being behind it. But he provided no evidence for the charge."

Foreman highlights that

"HRW has published five heavily publicised reports on Israel and the Palestinian territories since the January 2009 war. In 20 years they have published only four reports on the conflict in Indian-controlled Kashmir, for example, even though the conflict has taken at least 80,000 lives in these two decades, and torture and extrajudicial murder have taken place on a vast scale. Perhaps even more tellingly, HRW has not published any report on the postelection violence and repression in Iran more than six months after the event."

A human-rights expert told Foreman that he was

"'not surprised' that HRW has still not produced a report on the violence in Iran... 'it’s not a priority for them because Iran is just not a bad guy that they are interested in highlighting. Their hearts are not in it. Let’s face it, the thing that really excites them is Israel.'"

The article also references Noah Pollak's observation that HRW is less concerned about Palestinians if the perpetrators are Arabs rather than Israelis - for example in 2007 when the Lebanese army shelled a refugee camp killing over 100 civilians and displacing 30,000; HRW put out a press release but didn't produce a report.

It also cites HRW's founder, Robert Bernstein, as pointing out that "Human Rights Watch has written far more condemnations of Israel… than of any other country in the region.”

The article mentions tha

"According to an interview Garlasco gave to Der Spiegel, he was a key player in an air strike on Basra on April 5, 2003 intended to kill Ali Hassan al-Majid, better known as Chemical Ali, but which instead took the lives of 17 civilians.

In another interview, Garlasco said he was responsible for up to 50 other air strikes — none of which killed anyone on the target list but which accounted for several hundred civilian deaths."

There's more:

"In June 2006, Garlasco had alleged that an explosion on a Gaza beach that killed seven people had been caused by Israeli shelling. However, after seeing the details of an Israeli army investigation that closely examined the relevant ballistics and blast patterns, he subsequently told the Jerusalem Post that he had been wrong and that the deaths were probably caused by an unexploded munition in the sand. But this went down badly at Human Rights Watch HQ in New York, and the admission was retracted by an HRW press release the next day."

Whilst that reflects worse on HRW than Garlasco himself, the fact that he made the allegation in the first place without an investigation or evidence is very telling.

If all that is not controversial enough, the deputy of HRW's Middle East department, Joe Stork, 

"was a radical leftist who put out a magazine in the 1970s that praised the murder of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics. In 1976 he attended an anti-Zionist conference in Baghdad hosted by the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein."

Although those may be things he regrets now,

"when Stork was hired by HRW in 1996 he had never worked for a human-rights group, had never held an academic position, and had a history of anti-Israel activism."

Other staff in HRW's Middle East department are also known activists, including one from the extremist "Electronic Intifada".

It is not shocking then, that HRW's UK equivalent Amnesty International, has also had it's share of scandal when one of it's staff was sacked for criticising it's links with, even support for, Islamic extremists.

These scandals together with HRW's reaction to them - and which can be applied to Amnesty too, "has revealed an organisation that does not always practice the transparency, tolerance and accountability it urges on others." 

Hypocritical, and biased. No wonder their reports can be so easily dismissed.

Leshana Haba B'-What? B'Yerushalayim!!

What do anti-Zionist Jews say on Pesach when all the rest of the Jews say "Leshana haba b'Yerushalayim" - "next year in Jerusalem"?

Because by Jerusalem we mean all of Jerusalem. Pesach must be such a hard time for anti-Zionist Jews, having to celebrate G-d's saving us from slavery in Egypt, and eventually taking us to Israel.

I am determined that when I say "leshana haba" this year at the Seder, next year it will be true.

Chag Sameach!

Israel replaces brick in Wailing Wall. World decries “disproportionate land-theft”

Israel today replaced a crumbling brick in the Old City’s Wailing Wall with a new one, to the outrage of the international community.

In a press conference, US president Barack Obama condemned the act, calling it “despicable and disproportionate land theft”. Over in London, Foreign Secretary David Miliband took his dummy out of his mouth to say “yeah!”, and Prime Minister Gordon Brown added, “this situation in Australasia is intolerable. We call upon Peru to immediately withdraw it's cranes and cement from Finland”.

Israel is often provoking the international community by building things in it’s country, such as a long rail track that stretches right across the land from one end to the other, upon which trains run. The track means that people, including those with Jewish blood and who might even be religious Jews, have access to many parts of the country. Israel and Obama are already in dispute over Israel’s refusal to name the system “Palestine Rail”.

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has also threatened to allow people, including Muslims and Jews to plant Kosher trees in the land, and sell the produce to not only Palestinians, but other Jews as well.

Similarly, he has declared that buildings on the brink of collapse will be reinforced, even if Jews live in them, using methods he would not elaborate on - but that analysts suspect may possibly involve the controversial use of bricks and builders.

The world of Jewish-controlled media and politics has called on Obama to halt the manufacture of Kosher cakes in the US, unless Israel stops occupying itself through building schools, hospitals, houses, and other places that may be of benefit to, or prolong the existence of, a Jew. 

"It is for the Jews' own good that Israel stops acting as though it is a thing that exists", they said in a statement. "This will help the Jews gradually die out so that their suffering will end."

Obama has yet to respond to the proposal.

James Hider's Bias In The Times

James Hider, the Times' favourite Israel-hater, had a poor and biased article published on Monday with obvious omissions of facts and context.

The IDF, acting in self-defence killed two Palestinians on Sunday, who had attacked them with a pitchfork, and were also armed with a syringe and glass bottle filled with stones. The Times says that "the unrest was prompted by Palestinian anger at restrictions on access to farmland which is close to an Israeli settlement", as though the only natural reaction to settlements is to try to stab an Israeli with a pitchfork.

Hider uses EoZ's favourite phrase "protests erupted" (the media uses passive phrasing when referring to Palestinian violence); and quotes Ghassan Khatib, an aide to Salam Fayyad the Palestinian Prime Minister, as saying: “We look at this as part of the Israeli escalation. It could have been treated in a completely different way. But the Israelis have been escalating..."

So Hider quotes a Palestinian on Israel's behaviour, but chooses not to mention Hamas' threats of a new intifada.

He talks about the Palestinians that Israel killed, but doens't mention all the injuries and damage caused by the rockets and boulders that Palestinians have been attacking with. Injuries and damage caused to Israelis, even if the intention is to kill, is just not newsworthy compared to some houses being controversially built in Jerusalem.

Here's what Hider and the Times missed:

Today (because it's safe to say it won't be in the Times tommorrow), two Israelis were wounded when Arabs threw rocks at them in their car. One was treated on the spot, the other had to be evacuated to hospital. This incident occured near where a checkpoint was removed in June, under pressure from the US. There has been a rise in rock and fire-bomb attacks in the area, since the checkpoint was removed.
Also today, a rocket fired from Gaza landed on Israeli farmland.

Yesterday, two rockets launched by Palestinians landed in an open area in Sderot, and one mistakenly in Gaza.

On Sunday, several Israeli vehicles were damaged in separate rock-attacks. Also on Sunday, a rocket launched landed south of Ashkelon, no damage.

On Saturday, at least four rockets were launched from Gaza, one landing close to a kibbutz in the South, and sirens going off in several areas from Sderot to Ashkelon.

On Friday, five rockets had been fired in the last 24 hours, with one landing in the Western Negev, and another in the Gaza strip. A man also had his windshield smashed and 18-month old daughter injured in a rock attack in the Old City in Jerusalem.

On Thursday, several Israeli vehicles were damaged in separate rock-attacks at different locations, and a woman and man were injured in two other attacks. A Thai worker on a kibbutz was killed by a rocket in one of five rockets launched into Israel in two days.

On Wednesday a bus was stoned and a rocket was fired landing near Sderot and causing two people to go into shock, one of them a girl.

On Tuesday three buses were stoned, an Israeli woman was injured in a rock-attack and had to be treated in hospital, and two mortar shells missed their target and landed in Palestinian territory.

And on the Saturday before that, Palestinians attacked IDF soldiers with a firebomb and rocks, and in a separate incident that day, a Palestinian was caught at a checkpoint in possession of three knives.

Those incidents are not "resistance"; there was no provocation: the building of houses does not merit an innocent civilian to be injured or killed by rockets or boulders. But perhaps that is the case to James Hider of the Times.

The Times' Idea Of "Context"

The Times sometimes likes to give a bit of "context" to the situation in Israel, as this makes it seem more informed and reliable. People can read their little information boxes and think they know all about the history of the conflict.

According to the Times' history lesson, after the 1979 Camp David accords between Israel and Egypt, the Egyptian prime minister was assassinated, and two years later, out of nowhere "Israel launched a massive invasion of Lebanon".

If the Times is going to give some context, maybe it would be better if they didn't portray Israel as the war-mongers everyone believes it to be, and instead give the whole picture, such as the assassination attempt on the Israeli ambassador to London. The war was not a success, but it wasn't without purpose:  "The operation was meant to destroy militant infrastructure on the Lebanese-Israeli border, which had been used by terrorists to attack IDF forces, as well as the Israeli communities abject to the border." The story of Israel's life.

After the 1993 Oslo Accords, and Yitzchak Rabin's assassination, the Times says "the two sides plunged into fresh violence with the 'al-Aqsa intifada' in 2000". But fails to mention that in five years after Oslo, but before that intifada, 279 Israeli civilians had been murdered in 92 Palestinian terror attacks. Or that the "trigger" for the intifada was Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount, with the Palestinian Authority issuing a call "to all Palestinians to come and defend the al-Aksa mosque." (Just like they tried again a few months ago, by spreading rumours that the Jews were going to attack the mosque.)

At least with the 2002 Road Map, the Times identifies the part Hamas played in "plunging the region back into conflict", but with the first two scenarios, readers who didn't know any better would be seriously misled.

A couple of days before that article, the Times published an op-ed by Malcolm Rifkind where he demonstrates typical ignorance of the conflict by saying that unless the Palestinians get "a viable, truly independent Palestinian state with something like the pre-1967 boundaries... there can be no stability in the Middle East nor true security for Israel".

As demonstrated with the disengagement from Gaza, giving up land to the Palestinians' full control is not an option, as it will inevitably be used for terrorism. Netanyahu outlined a just proposal for 2-states that would give the Palestinians land but not an army, ensuring Israelis' safety. 

However Rifkind dismisses what he calls a "nominal autonomy" as similar to apartheid South Africa, and says that Israel needs a "peaceful, democratic... government with a genuine commitment to the two-state solution. Would this require a miracle? Perhaps. But are not miracles more likely in the Holy Land than anywhere else?

The only miracle we need is for the Palestinians to put their weapons down. Call me cynical, but I don't see that happening, even in the Holy Land. Especially in the Holy Land. Israel and the Jews' very existence is the miracle, considering what we're faced with.

Israeli Soldiers Charged

Two IDF soldiers have been charged with allegedly forcing a nine year old Palestinian boy to open some bags they suspected might contain explosives, during 2009's Operation Cast Lead.

It might be a surprise that I, Proud Zionist, am reporting this breach of the IDF rule against using human shields, but the reason's in this very sentence. The IDF has a strict code of morality and if soldiers break these rules they will be punished accordingly. I am supportive of Israel and the IDF, and I will state with confidence that in general, the IDF is the most moral army in the world.

That's why when a one-off incident like this occurs, it should be acknowledged - as just that, a one-off incident, where the soldiers involved will be dealt with accordingly - in this case tried and possibly serving a jail sentence of up to three years.

Cast Lead was justified, and I believe that the IDF in general conducted itself in a manner superior to how any other army would have under those circumstances. The IDF went out of its way to protect Palestinian civilians, but in an army of thousands there are bound to be isolated incidents of rule-breaking and inappropriate conduct. The fact that the IDF does not hide these incidents reflects on how seriously it takes it's own morality.

My problem is that the media worldwide will undoubtedly pounce on this incident and twist it to indicate that "Goldstone is right" and that "Israel committed war crimes in Gaza". But it wasn't Israel or the IDF, it was just two idiot soldiers.

And whilst the media gets busy reporting that, they most likely won't be reporting this - that a rocket launched today struck a storage facility on a kibbutz, just a short distance from residential buildings. Or this - that an Israeli woman was injured when Palestinians threw "stones" at her car. Palestinians throw "stones" every day at Israelis in their cars, and sometimes out of them. I want to be clear: these are not "stones"; they're boulders.

Ahmadinejad's latest psychotic ranting and threats to Israel and the Jewish people probably also won't be reported in the mainstream media.

Because anti-Israel bias dictates that Israel only ever be portrayed as the aggressor, never the victim.

The Financial Times: Delegitimate, Lawless, Rogue Israel

In the space of about a week, the Financial Times published three op-eds on Israel, two of them related to the Dubai assassination.

On 23^rd February, Henry Siegman wrote about how Israel is apparently delegitimising itself. He claims that the Middle East peace process has undergone two transformations: the settlements in the West Bank, and Obama’s forceful stand on the issue together with Netanyahu’s subsequent rejection of his demands.  According to Siegman, “The disappearance of the two-state solution is triggering a third transformation, which is turning Israel from a democracy into an apartheid state.”

Why apartheid? Because, he says, “A democracy reserved for privileged citizens while all others are denied individual and national rights and kept behind checkpoints, barbed wire fences and separation walls manned by Israel’s military, is not democracy.” He claims that as long as Israel doesn’t withdraw to the pre-1967 lines, it’s legitimacy is challenged. 

Siegman predictably places all the blame on Israel and makes no reference to the Palestinians’ rejections of peace proposals, nor to the consequences of Israel’s disengagement from Gaza - in a word, Hamas - let alone to the countless terrorist attacks that have been prevented as a result of the security fence and checkpoints, or even the thousands of terror attacks that were carried out over the years, the shootings, stabbings, suicide bombs and rockets.

Siegmen also uses the classic method of displacement where he refers to “Anti-Semitic opponents of Israel” – by which he distances himself from this label whilst at the same time blaming Israel for antisemitism. I also blame Israel for antisemitism, but in a different way: I think Israel’s actions are often used as an excuse for antisemitism that is already there, hiding under the surface waiting for a trigger. (That is not to say that criticism of Israel is antisemitic – but comparing Israel to Nazis is, as is calling it apartheid.)

Two days after that article was published, there was one by David Gardner (and this one I could only find on Norman Finkelstein’s website). Gardner lists failings of Mossad as though they happen all the time, and tries to make out that Mossad operations only ever backfire on Israel. But the main point he makes is that Mossad assassinations “encourage the perception that it [Israel] is a rogue state”.

A week after the first article, and finally a voice of reason is heard in the FT. Andrew Roberts, a British historian states that countries’ use of “targeted assassination... in no way weakens their legitimacy”.

On Siegman’s reference to apartheid, Roberts says 

“As for the ‘separation walls’ and checkpoints that one sees in Israel, the 99 per cent drop in the number of suicide bombings since their erection justifies the policy. There is simply no parallel between apartheid South Africa – where the white minority wielded power over the black majority – and the occupied territories, taken by Israel only after it was invaded by its neighbours… If Arab Israelis were deprived of civil and franchise rights, that would justify such hyperbole, but of course they have the same rights as every Jewish Israeli.”

And on Gardner’s point, Roberts observes that the Dubai assassination is no different from the targeted killings of Taliban leaders carried out by Nato, or by the assassinations that have taken place in many countries including Britain, France and Russia “without the legitimacy of those states being called into question, or their being described as ‘rogue’”.

“That kind of language is only reserved for Israel”, even though the French and Russian victims posed no danger to citizens, whereas Mahmoud al-Mabhouh was proven to be directly involved in killings of Israelis, and organising the shipment of weapons from Iran to Gaza.

The FT’s chosen headline on this article is also notable – “Israel is no more rogue than America” - the implication being that America and Israel are both rogue countries, just not one more than the other – when actually the article is not saying this at all, but that in fact that neither are rogue states, not even close.

Robin Shepherd writes on the FT readers’ reaction to the article.

Media Reaction To Dubai Assassination

I've been intrigued by the papers' coverage of the Dubai assassination story, which all seem to regard it with one shared emotion: fascination. The more anti-Israel outlets seem too caught up in the drama and mystery to properly find a way to make Israel look bad in all of this - except to omit details of the Hamas victim's involvement - confessed involvement, I should add - in terrorism.

Robin Shepherd has analysed the British media's reaction to the story.

Guardian Invents Evidence Against Israel

Last week, the IDF released it’s report to counter Goldstone. The Guardian, in it’s desperation to find a negative angle, resorted to their own “evidence” to delegitimize Israel’s version of an incident in which a flour mill in Gaza was damaged.

The Guardian repeats the Goldstone report’s claim that the flour mill was hit by an air strike, implicating that it was deliberately targeted and therefore a possible war crime.

The IDF meanwhile, described the incidents in detail, explaining how 

“Hamas had fortified this area [of the flour mill] with tunnels and booby-trapped houses, and deployed its forces to attack IDF troops operating there... IDF troops came under intense fire from different Hamas positions in the vicinity of the flour mill. The IDF forces fired back towards the sources of fire and threatening locations. As the IDF returned fire, the upper floor of the flour mill was hit by tank shells.” 

They even arranged for fire engines to reach the area and extinguish the fire.

The Guardian quotes Israel’s defence as merely that “there were Hamas fighters ‘in the vicinity of the flour mill’”. But they claim that when they visited the mill just after the war last year, they “saw what appeared to be the remains of an aircraft-dropped bomb” on the first floor, stating that: 

“The UN mine action team, which handles ordnance disposal in Gaza, has told the Guardian that the remains of a 500-pound Mk82 aircraft-dropped bomb were found in the ruins of the mill last January.” 

Israel Matzav observes: 

“While Goldstone also refers to helicopters, note that the Guardian report, which challenges the Israeli account, refers to a 500-pound bomb. Helicopters don't carry 500-pound bombs. A 500-pound bomb would not have left the roof intact”. 

What, you want actual evidence? Alright. A satellite photograph published by UNITAR - the United Nations Institute for Training and Research, taken days after the alleged incident, shows the roof still intact. 

They note that “the damage signatures [indicate] that the majority of damage in this area was caused by intense IDF ground fire.” Elder of Ziyon points out that this is evidence that was presented to Goldstone but which he obviously ignored. This is the picture in more detail, from Dvar Dea .

More proof? A picture from a BBC report 2009, captioned “A large section of the top two floors of the al-Badr mill was completely destroyed”, also shows that despite that, the roof was, again, still intact .

Compared with the evidence in the IDF's favour, the Guardian's tale of the 500 pound bomb sounds like a work of fiction - and a very amateur and implausible one at that.

Israel Being Disproportionate Again

Arutz Sheva reports: 

"Terror attempts were up in January, according to a report released Thursday by the Shabak Israel Security Agency. 

Eighty attempts were recorded during the month, compared to 51 in December. The most significant increase was in the firing of mortar shells, which went from three in December to 28 last month." 

There were also 13 rockets fired in January compared with six in December.

And what was Israel's reposnse to the Palestinians' 80 attempts to murder Israelis?

The IDF bombed five tunnels (used for smuggling weapons), a weapons-manufacturing facility, and attacked a group of terrorists about to launch rockets into Israel, one of whom was killed - an Islamic Jihad field commander known to be behind dozens of IED and gunfire attacks on Israel.

There's disproportionate for you.

More Proof That "Pro-Palestinians" Aren't Really Pro-Palestinian

How does supporting Hamas help the Palestinians? Why does it appear to be only Zionists who try to expose Hamas' corruption, thereby benefitting the moderate Palestinians who don't want to be drawn into Hamas' war games? In an op-ed in November, Khaled Abu Toameh wrote:

"If anyone is entitled to be called 'pro-Palestinian,' it is those who are publicly campaigning against financial corruption and abuse of human rights by Fatah and Hamas. Those who are trying to change the system from within belong to the real 'pro-Palestinian' camp.

These are the brave people who are standing up to both Fatah and Hamas and calling on them to stop killing each other and start doing something that would improve the living conditions of their constituents...

...The 'pro-Palestinian' activists in the West clearly do not care about reforms and good government in the Palestinian territories. As far as these activists are concerned, delegitimizing Israel and inciting against 'Zionists' are much more important that pushing for an end to financial corruption and violence in Palestinian society."

An incident that recently occurred at Toronto's York University is exactly the problem Toameh is citing.

A Hasbara student group was running a campaign at the university called "Free Palestinians from Hamas", where they were also creating awareness of Gilad Shalit. Inevitably a group of around 50 anti-Zionists gathered there, chanting anti-Israel and antisemitic slurs. Whilst pushing away cameras that were filming their abuse and aggression, they hit two of the Hasbara students. Another time when the Israel activists were campaigning, an 'Israeli Apartheid Week' activist told them "you should be ashamed of youselves".

"Free Palestinians from Hamas", and the Israel-haters still couldn't see past their hate that there is more to the Palestinians' suffering than just getting caught in the war between Israel and Hamas, but that their leaders are the direct cause of much of their suffering. Again and again the Palestinians' leaders get away with murder, literally, because people are so focused on painting Israel as the villain. They're so blinded by their hatred that when someone tries to expose Palestinian corruption, instead of listening or doing something about it, they just dismiss it as Zionist propaganda. Maybe deep down they do care a little bit about the Palestinians, but obviously not nearly as much as they hate Israel and... dare I say it... Jews.

Fisking And Phosphorus

In honour of Holocaust Memorial Day on 27th January, Michael Gove wrote an article for the Telegraph, sensitive, thought-provoking, and true. Gove reinforces the importance of Holocaust education, particularly in the face of current antisemitism, giving as one example Ahmadinejad's call to wipe Israel off the map.

A week after this article, Robert Fisk wrote a two page spread in the Independent on Israel's conference in Herzliya.

Fisk lists instances of where Israel has killed enemies (and one incident where it wasn't Israel, but still blames Israel), implying that Israel only killed civilians, and mentions in brackets that 13 Israelis were killed during Cast Lead, and that Cast Lead came after Hamas rockets – but not giving the number of Israelis killed and injured by rockets and other terrorist attacks over the years, nor the times war has been waged on Israel by it’s Arab neighbours. And of course no mention of Ahmadinejad’s desire to destroy Israel.

Instead he mocks the idea of Israel being under threat or a victim of some sort, and implicates that Israel has no right to criticise the press coverage of it and Cast Lead, as though the press is totally fair and factual (see paragraph above for example of how the press is the opposite of fair and factual when it comes to Israel).

He salivates (to use the nice word) over Goldstone; “Goldstone, Goldstone, Goldstone. The eminent lawyer who so bravely… inspires…” bla bla bla, and criticises Israel’s concern that the Goldstone report aims to de-legitimise it.

Then Fisk himself tries to de-legitimise Israel by comparing Israel to Hamas for not co-operating with Goldstone, and saying that Israel only gave “a slap on the wrist for a couple of officers who used phosphorus”, (which isn't true - read on) without actually referring to the fact that Israel and the IDF carried out their own investigations into their actions in Cast Lead, let alone revealing some of their findings.

If all that wasn't bad enough, Fisk's horrendous piece of "journalism" was reincarnated in the Independent the next day - this time in the form of an editorial, which was well 'fisked'* by Robin Shepherd.

The Times editorial was a lot more balanced, stating that whatever wrong Israel did in Cast Lead, it is not Hamas' equivalent, and is still the only democracy in the Middle East. "Israel is not a rogue state... It is an accountable, democratic, transparent nation, and fighting to remain one amid challenges that few other nations ever have to face."

Despite the balanced editorial, though, when there's a chance for a headline about phosphorus, the Times can't help itself - even if the story is wrong.

In the article "Israeli officers get ‘slap on wrist’ for white phosphorus use in Gaza", the Times claims they were "responsible for firing white phosphorus artillery shells at a UN compound", and quotes the report as saying they were guilty “of exceeding their authority in a manner that jeopardised the lives of others”. Later in the article, the Times does acknowledge that the report doesn't state that the soldiers were responsible for specifically phosphorous shells, but since it was used in the incident the Times wrongly concludes that that must be what they were reprimanded for.

Melanie Phillips explains the truth:

"The two officers were reprimanded not for firing phosphorus shells but artillery shells. Phosphorus shells were being fired on this occasion, but entirely lawfully -- in order to create smoke to deter Hamas from firing its anti-tank weapons. The irony was that the officers were reprimanded for not firing phosphorus but disobeying their orders by firing artillery shells which endangered life (although no-one was actually hurt by them)." 

*Fisking: n. A point-by-point refutation of a blog entry or (especially) news story. Named after Robert Fisk, a British journalist who was [sic: and still is] a frequent (and deserving) early target of such treatment.
H/t Chas Newkey-Burden