Yachad And Sephardis

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.

The Promise: The Ultimate Defence Of Antisemitism

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?

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.

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".

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.

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 

All Jews Are Extremists, Hate Obama, And Play The Antisemite Card

Well, that's what you might think judging by the widely publicised reactions of Jews to Obama's Cairo speech. 'Widely publicised' being the operative phrase. You might also thing that all Jews are drunk, ignorant and racist. In today's Times, the headline reads "No you can't, Israeli hawks tell the President". The Times loves the word 'hawk'. Lieberman is a hawk. Netanyahu is a hawk. Right-wing Israelis are hawks.

Whilst you can't blame Israelis for making that (photoshopped) poster of Obama wearing a kafiyah (after all, he is very fond of Muslims and reportedly has connections to Islam himself), calling him an antisemite is a bit much. No wonder people don't take accusations of antisemitism seriously.

Obama visited a concentration camp, he wants Ahmadinejad The Holocaust Denier to go there. Maybe Obama dislikes Israeli Jews, (he doesn't seem very concerned about Iran's threat to them), but in other ways he has demonstrated that he is not antisemitic. So I don't think Obama's an antisemite but I also don't think he cares enough about what's best for Israel. I don't hate him but I don't like his ideas. I'm not a drunk idiot so I won't wish harm on him although I'd prefer the US had a different president. And I don't particularly want a Palestinian state but that doesn't mean that I want the IDF to kill all the Palestinians for fun either (which they don't, but sometimes the way it's reported it sounds like they do), so I'm not an extremist even though I am a Zionist. Is there something wrong with that? I'm sure there are many others who share my views, so why does the media only find the drunks and extemists?