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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Times' Narrative-In-Brief

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

What they forgot to mention was that:

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

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

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

Hider: Rockets Are Minor Annoyance

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

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

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

Hider describes the divisions and differences between on the one hand Fatah in the West bank and Hamas in Gaza, and on the other hand the secular Israelis and the "rising influence of the ultra-Orthodox" in Jerusalem. But he claims that "what unites most Israelis is a sense of indifference":

"Most Israelis don't think about the millions of Palestinians on the other side of the walls and fences, unless Hamas is firing its rockets into the communities in the south. But since Israel's devastating offensive into Gaza in late 2008, even those have slowed to a minor annoyance."

10,000 rockets is a "minor annoyance"? Bomb shelters, trauma, damages, injuries, deaths, a minor annoyance? Is that what Hider would call it if a kassam fell on him?

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

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

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

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

Saturday Times Fruitcake

Yesterday's Times served up a thick slice of past-its-best fruitcake in the form of an op-ed by senile author Margaret Atwood (also published in Haaretz).

Before this, the only link I can find between her and Israel is that in May she accepted a $1,000,000 literary award from Tel Aviv University despite calls from Gazans and the 'Palestinian Campaign for the Academic & Cultural Boycott of Israel' not to "accept prizes from Apartheid Israel". Judging from her Times article, accepting the money does seem to have been against her principles. (But then, until someone against my principles offers me a million dollars, I'm not really in a position to judge this dilemma!)

In the article, Margaret (I can't call her by her last name as it doesn't quite paint the picture of her as the batty old woman that she is), lists seven wacky future scenarios for Israel and the Palestinians, which Margaret seems to think are realistic possibilities.

The first is that Israel has been destroyed and all the Israelis killed - by who, she doesn't say, and she doesn't expand on what she thinks the consequences or reactions to this would be either. Instead she goes straight into the second future with no 'Palestine', all the Palestinians either "slaughtered or driven beyond it's borders", and Israel isolated, sanctioned and boycotted. With civilians losing their rights, "The moderate Israelis have emigrated, and live as exiles, in a state of bitterness over wasted opportunities and blighted dreams". 

The third and fourth futures are one-state, in one case in civil war but successful in the other. In the fifth all the Israelis and Palestinians have been killed by atomic bombs (again Margaret doesn't tell us who the culprit would be), and in the sixth "climate change has turned the area into a waterless desert". Margaret forgets that Israel already was a waterless desert, until the Jews developed it into the miraculously flourishing Middle East oasis it is now.

Margaret then gets to her seventh future, a working two-state solution. And how does she predict this would come about? "The impetus came from within Israel." See, and this whole time I thought it was the Palestinians wanting to kill us that was the problem, and that if Israel puts down its weapons and pulls down the fences it would be suicide (or suicide bombers, to be more precise.) But now Margaret has opened my eyes to the truth! If Israel puts down it's weapons and pulls down the fences, everything will just fall into place and Hamas will cross out the bit where it says kill all the Jews on their charter and replace it with the new Palestinian holiday "Hug A Jew Day". 

Margaret rambles on about everything Israel would need to do that would bring about peace, but doesn't address what the Palestinians need to do (let alone the rest of the Arab world, such as Iran and Hezbollah, or their ally, Syria), ignoring the thousands of rockets Hamas have fired into Israel since the disengagement from Gaza, and the hundreds of Palestinian suicide bombings and terror attacks on Israeli civilians before the security fence was built.

In Margaret Atwood's dream-world, she pictures "a shared Memorial Day, in which all those fallen in past wars were honoured." So she wants Israeli terror victims to mourn the Palestinian suicide bombers who killed their loved ones? And she expects Palestinian terrorists to mourn the Israeli civilians they killed? And what about the Palestinian civilians who died because Hamas used them as human shields, who's supposed to mourn them - Israel or the Palestinians?

Margaret Atwood clearly hasn't thought this fiction through. The truth is that there won't be peace as long as the Arabs and Palestinians don't want it. Everything else is just a fruitcake's fantasy.

Turkey And Islamism

In an interview with the Times today, Turkey's President Abdullah Gul says:

"I consider it very wrong to interpret Turkey's interests with other geographic regions as it breaking from the West, turning it's back on the West or seeking alternatives to the West. Turkey is part of Europe."

However, the Times points out that Turkey's "interests with other geographic regions" includes welcoming Iran's President Ahmadinejad, who both denies the Holocaust and wants to create a Holocaust, by "wiping Israel off the map"; congratulating him on his fraudulent election victory; voting against UN sanctions to try and halt the Iranian nuclear programme; supporting the terrorist organisation Hamas - as "respecting the choice of the Palestinian people in Gaza", and preparing to host Sudan's war criminal President al-Bashir at an Islamic conference until the EU objected. 

On the flotilla incident, for which Turkey is demanding an apology, compensation, and for Israel to agree to an international inquiry into the incident, Gul asks:

"If an army of a state kills your people in international waters, how would you react?" 

The Times though refers to those killed as 'civilians' (at least not 'peace activists') and fails to mention the Turkish government's support for the flotilla and for the IHH, the radical Islamic "charity" that sent the largest ship, the Mavi Marmara - on which there was no humanitarian aid, and many of the activists, with links to terrorism, brutally attacked the IDF soldiers before they even landed on the ship.

So really, the question should be, "If a government-supported flotilla of terrorists and terrorist supporters was going to break your country's security blockade, how would you react? And if they ignored your warnings not to approach, and then stood ready wielding knives and batons, and then attacked and overcame you and your fellow soldiers when you boarded, how would you react?"

The Turkish politicians are not speaking or acting for the secular majority of their population. And if they are, many of those will have been manipulated in their thinking by their government. But there will be many Turks who are opposed to their Islamist government; most will probably be anti-Israel too, but at least opposed to the terror regimes that their government supports.

In an open letter to Turkey's PM Erdogan (on Harry's Place), a Turkish-American Muslim citizen asks:

"Mr Erdogan, do you even care about the ordinary, normal Muslims of your own country and the world? If you do, then why have you successfully established such frightening friendships and contacts with some of the most dangerous and brutal dictators of the so-called Islamic world?"

"These countries need genuine democracies, freedoms, and liberation from Islamism... how do you sleep at night, Mr Erdogan, when you officially invite the genocidal maniac Omar al-Bashir to Turkey... responsible for butchering hundreds of thousands of Muslims. Did it ever occur to you to send some 'humanitarian ships' to Sudan?"

Read the whole letter, it really paints a picture of what Erdogan and his government are doing in Turkey and how it effects the Muslims who yearn for a peaceful, moderate existence in their country.

Support Israel: If It Goes Down, We All Go Down

In a fantastically blunt op-ed in the Times today, Spain's former prime minister from 1996 - 2004, Jose Maria Aznar, urges people to "Support Israel: If it goes down, we all go down". On the flotilla incident, he observes:

"In an ideal world, the assault by Israeli commandos on the Mavi Marmara would not have ended up with nine dead and a score wounded. In an ideal world, the soldiers would have been peacefully welcomed on to the ship. In an ideal world, no state, let alone a recent ally of Israel such as Turkey, would have sponsored and organised a flotilla whose sole purpose was to create an impossible situation for Israel: making it choose between giving up its security policy and the naval blockade, or risking the wrath of the world.

He points out that Israel's legitimacy should not be a question, that Israel is "a dynamic and open society that has repeatedly excelled in culture, science and technology" and that "it is a normal Western nation, but one confronted by abnormal circumstances... the only democracy whose very existence has been questioned since its inception."

Whilst Israel is so often viewed as a threat, Aznar acknowledges that the real threat is "the rise of a radical Islamism which sees Israel’s destruction as the fulfilment of its religious destiny", and Israel is the world's first line of defence against this. The whole article is brilliant; and it gives me hope and faith that if Aznar can see and spell out the truth so clearly, perhaps a small number of open-minded people can see it too once they read the piece. Here is the best bit:

"To defend Israel’s right to exist in peace, within secure borders, requires a degree of moral and strategic clarity that too often seems to have disappeared in Europe. The United States shows worrying signs of heading in the same direction... To abandon Israel to its fate, at this moment of all moments, would merely serve to illustrate how far we have sunk and how inexorable our decline now appears. This cannot be allowed to happen."

So he was motivated to start a Friends of Israel initiative. He explains:

"It is not our intention to defend any specific policy or any particular Israeli government. The sponsors of this initiative are certain to disagree at times with decisions taken by Jerusalem. We are democrats, and we believe in diversity.

What binds us, however, is our unyielding support for Israel’s right to exist and to defend itself."

When you look at all the Israel-bashers who are so certain in their own morality, so sure that they're right and Israel is wrong, so confident that they know the answer to peace, and so blind of their own racism and antisemitism - and then ask the simple question, through all of their beliefs: Do you believe in Israel's right to exist and defend itself - the answer, if they looked deep inside themselves, and were brutally honest, would be no. 

Many people are open about this: "get out of 'Palestine'"; "there is no Israel"; "Zionism must be defeated"; and those people are mostly branded extremists. But the truth is probably most Israel-bashers feel that way, and they might not be open about it beacuse they'd fear being called antisemites, even though that's what they are.

There is no answer to antisemitism. Jews always have and always will be victims of baseless hatred. The only question is how and why antisemites express their hate through Israel-bashing. The answer is in an article Chas Newkey-Burden linked to on his blog, by Leon de Winter in the Wall Street Journal.

De Winter shrewdly observes that there is a "deep need... to call the Jews murderers" even when they're so obviously acting in self-defence, as with the flotilla. 

"This is why the Palestinians, as 'victims' of the Jews, are more important than the numerous Muslim victims of Muslim extremists; this is why millions of other Muslims living under worse conditions than the Palestinians hardly get any mention in the media; this is why Gaza is compared to the Warsaw Ghetto or Auschwitz. By calling the Israelis Nazis, the original Nazis have been legitimized."

There is not much that can be done about antisemitism and antisemitism that is disguised as anti-Zionism - except to expose it. And the way to do that is by asking the question that Aznar has evoked:

Do you believe in Israel's right to exist and defend itself, or not?

As long as people do not, then indeed if Israel goes down we all go down. And as any religious person will know, this is prophecised in Ezekiel 38-39.

Umm... what was I saying about hope?!

Israeli Policeman "Mysteriously" Shot Dead

The Independent gets awarded a point for at least reporting the attack, even if the way they did it was a bit suspect:

"an Israeli policeman was shot dead and two others were injured while their vehicle was driving in the Hebron area. The attack was the first fatal shooting of Israeli security personnel in the West Bank for over a year. No group had admitted responsibility by last night and no one had been arrested."

And obviously, if a group didn't admit responsibility, you can't just say "Palestinian gunmen" could you, because that might make it look as though Palestinians are aggressive sometimes.

Originally a faction of Fatah's al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade had claimed responsibility for the terror attack, but Fatah's armed wing later denied any involvement. Then a group calling themselves the "Gaza Freedom Flotilla Martyrs" claimed responsibility, saying it was just the beginning of it's actions in response to the flotilla raid.

Apart from the Independent I have not seen that any British newspaper reported the murder - even the Times, who the day after had a double page on Gaza.

Possible reasons why it wasn't reported:

 - Yehoshua Sofer was Israeli
 - He was Jewish
 - He was 'just' an Israeli, Jewish policeman

It would seem that if a person is Jewish, Israeli and either Jewish or Israeli and in a uniform, their life is seen as worth less than others'. And their death by an act of terrorism? Not newsworthy. Not when you can go on about the Gazans being denied items that would then be stolen by Hamas to build weapons or bunkers.

Eyewitness Accounts

Here are two eyewitness accounts, the first from an activist, quoted in the Times:

"'I went up on to the deck and saw boats and dinghies, bristling with guns and military, speeding towards the ship. There were helicopters above us, and gas and sound bombs were being used... There were then gunshots and the first passenger was fatally wounded. He was brought to the back of the deck but he’d been shot in the head.'

Ms Colborne said that the captain then announced that live ammunition was being used, and that the passengers should stop resisting."

But she fails to describe at exactly what point the activists were "resisting". As we've all seen from the footage, it was not "resistance" but a pre-planned attack.

Meanwhile, Israeli Sgt. 'S' was the 15th commando to land on the ship. Here's his account:

"'When I hit the deck, I was immediately attacked by people with bats, metal pipes and axes'...

Looking to his side, he saw three of his commanders lying wounded – one with a gunshot wound to the stomach and another with a gunshot wound to the knee. A third was lying unconscious; his skull was fractured by a devastating blow with a metal bar.

He pushed the wounded soldiers up against the wall of the upper deck and created a perimeter of soldiers around them to begin treating their wounds, he said. He then arranged his men to form a second perimeter, and pulled out his 9 mm. Glock pistol to stave off the charging attackers and to protect his wounded comrades. The attackers had already seized two pistols from the commandos, and fired repeatedly at them. Facing more than a dozen of the mercenaries, and convinced their lives were in danger, he and his colleagues opened fire, he said. S. singlehandedly killed six men. His colleagues killed another three."

Those 9 activists were killed in combat - a fight that they had started. They were not innocent bystanders, nor were they "peace activists". They were murderous terrorists, who were killed as a last resort by soldiers whose lives were in danger. The IDF acted in self-defence.

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.

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 

The Times' Assault On Israel

The Times obviously can't bear the positive coverage Israel is finally getting in the press, most notably by news channels including Sky, CNN, and Fox News.

So it now has devoted a whole page in the newspaper to a complete non-story that seeks out to utterly vilify Israel in case there was anyone who saw what Israel is doing in Haiti and thought, "hey, maybe Israel's not all evil."

The story claims that Israel is not granting aid workers for the Palestinians work permits, and implies that Israel targets the aid organisations because they don't like their criticism of Israel. Israel's interior ministry denied that visas had been stopped.

This is clearly a cynical attempt by the Times to defame Israel at a time when people (heaven forbid!) might start warming up to the country. This is made even clearer by the small piece accompanying the article, entitled 'Haiti and Gaza are not the same'.

In the piece, instead of praising Israel for saving lives in Haiti, the Times chooses to criticse Israel for "noisily trumpeting its own relief efforts" there.

How terrible of Israel! The Times doesn't understand that since every good thing Israel does is usually completely ignored by the world media, so when Israel contributes a good thing to a place in the world where everyone is watching, it might be nice to be seen as a country that doesn't just "ethnically cleanse" people and "commit genocide".

Also, I don't really see Israel "noisily trumpeting" anything. Are they not allowed to update the IDF spokesperson site and upload Youtube videos to show what they're doing in Haiti? Should they have told Sky and CNN "no, don't film us or talk to us, this is top secret." Should they close their twitter account rather than communicate with people who need aid or rescuing from the rubble? Should they not publicise their location so people know how to find them? 

The only phrase the Times uses to describe Israel's efforts there is "image-burnishing". It's almost as if the Times would rather that Israel never turned up to Haiti at all, and left the non-existent hospitals there to treat the survivors instead.

The "noisy trumpeting" that the Times criticises is actually an email being sent around written by some Jewish Zionist, and nothing to do with the sinister government-implied "hasbara war" the Times refers to.

Though I hate to say this, I will be honest, as I always try to be: the email is badly written. It makes a good point, (that Israel's "disproportionate" response in Haiti should not be ignored, whilst the media and governments amplified Cast Lead); but it comes across all wrong. First, it implies that because of what Israel is doing in Haiti, all criticism of Cast Lead is invalid. I would say that most criticism of Cast Lead is invalid anyway, not because of Haiti, but because of Hamas and their rockets and using Palestinians as human shields, and Israel not deliberately targetting civilians, etc etc. The email sounds as though it expects Goldstone to take back what he said just because Israel is doing a good thing, but this is ridiculous; people who criticised Cast Lead would not change their minds just because Israel is doing something good somewhere else, and I don't expect them too. The most we can hope for is that people realise Israel's not all bad (not even close), but I'm sure most people know that already, although sometimes it seems like they don't.

The other fault of the email is that it mentions the Arab and Muslim world's lack of aid to Haiti, which is, accoring to the email, nothing. That's just not true. The Arab world has given very little, but not nothing. There's Islamic Relief which collected aid, and a few countries got involved like Egypt and Morrocco. 

Jewish and Zionist criticism of Arabs and Muslims is almost always justified, but since they would probably be accused of racism or Islamophobia for it, it's probably best to just stick with "noisily trumpeting" Israel's good actions rather than bringing down the Arabs. (Especially when it's done without thinking, like in the email). When it's obvious, like Iran and Saudi Arabia's disregard for the suffering of Haiti, other people will do it instead. When it's not obvious, (or it is but is ignored by the rest of the world), like honour killings and forcing an 11 year old girl to marry her father's 80 year old cousin, we're almost morally obligated to expose it, and shouldn't not just for fear of being called racist.

Having said all that, the Times' gleeful exploitation of a badly worded email that means well, to use as a way to quash Israel, it's efforts in Haiti, and it's supporters even when Israel is giving of itself to do dangerous, difficult, exhausting, not to mention costly work saving lives; is disgusting. I didn't think the Times would stoop that low. Their attitude can be summed up by Telegraph blogger Stephanie Gutmann's amusing piece.

Please donate to Haiti if you haven't already. We haven't forgotten who this is really about, (although the Times seems to think we have), but we can and should take pride in Israel's amazing work over there.