Human Rights Watch Reject Hamas' Claims

In response to the Goldstone report that made vague references to some rockets being fired into someplace in Israel from somewhere nearby, but didn't actually name the people firing the rockets , or give victims' accounts; Hamas have defended themselves and claimed that the rockets were not directed at civilians.

HRW said Hamas' claim was "belied by the facts", of which there are plenty, not least on the IDF's YouTube channel (link on the right). The whole scenario is so ridiculous; Hamas with their laughable claim that Israeli civilian casualties were accidental, and HRW actually addressing their "report", humouring them the way you would humour a child who's drawn a not-very-good picture and tell them "Well done! But the nose shouldn't be on the forehead."

In between the Guardian taking this opportunity to try and say that HRW isn't biased against Israel, and look it's all just a Zionist conspiracy to stifle criticism, it (the Guardian) manages to throw in right at the end HRW's grievance at Hamas launching rockets from populated areas in Gaza, which endangers the Palestinians "by raising the likelihood of Israeli retaliation" - but doesn't mention an incident where two Palestinian girls died when a Hamas rocket accidentally struck inside Gaza.

Strangely enough, that was just before Cast Lead when there were no Israeli military targets in the area.

Just Journalism Exposes BBC's Twisting Of Defence Into Attack

In the BBC's recent documentary on Jerusalem (last paragraph in this post), there was an incident described that left me confused. The documentary portrayed an Israeli's seemingly extremely aggressive shooting of Palestinians in Jerusalem, including a child, which left a father apparently unable to walk without crutches and his son traumatised. (Watch it here at 22 minutes, but it'll probably become unavailable soon.)

I recalled reading about an incident where an Israeli was arrested for shooting two Palestinians, but was then released when CCTV footage revealed he had been threatened by the Palestinians and had acted in self defence.

Indeed, the BBC documentary actually showed this footage, but the story they described sounded so different that for a second I actually thought these might have been two seperate incidents. It reminds me of that game where you have to click on the word in red, but the word red is written in blue and the word blue is written in red and it's all very disorienting!

A Haaretz article I found confirmed that they were the same incident, but didn't give many more details than the BBC's version.

Just Journalism though, have exposed the inaccuracies and lack of context in the BBC's version of events, and link to a YNet article that gives the Israeli's story in more detail - including the fact that even when he first fired a warning shot in the air, the Palestinians did not back off.

Just a minor detail on the Israeli side of the story that the BBC forgot to mention.

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.

Weapons In A Mosque?!?

Since people don't really listen to the IDF when they say Hamas store weapons in civilian buildings, maybe they'll believe Gulf war vetaran, Colonel Tim Collins.

He filmed a 10 minute segment in Gaza and Sderot for the BBC's Newsnight . (It will be removed in a few days and I don't think can be watched abroad, but for whoever can watch it, it starts at 27.23 minutes.)

Collins talks to some Gaza militants, who admit that the TNT in their rockets has been smuggled throught the tunnels under the Gaza-Egypt border.

He examines a destroyed mosque and states (at 34.40) that in the cellar of the mosque he has found clear evidence of secondary explosions, and the damage caused to the mosque can only be explained if weapons were stored there.

So now what will be done with this evidence of Hamas war crimes? They smuggle weapons and explosives illegally into Gaza. They use their people as human shields by storing those weapons in schools and mosques. They launch the rockets from inside or near those buildings even when civilians are around. And they direct the weapons at Israeli civilians.

The IDF has already investigated Cast Lead. Goldstone and the UN have investigated Israel. The Israeli government is writing a report.

Israel's accusations have been backed up by their own evidence, and now by Tim Collins, and still nothing is being done about Hamas' crimes.

Speaking of the BBC, on 18th January they aired a documentary on East Jerusalem. Robin Shepherd and Honest Reporting analyze it perfectly, picking out the typical bias and lack of context.

Three Days After Haiti... Who Is Commemorated?

Three days after the devastating earthquake in Haiti, in which up to 200,000 people are estimated to have died, over 150 people gathered in Trafalgar Square for a commemoration, and five minutes silence... for Gaza.

They held up sheets of paper with the names of 1417 victims (of which over 700 were terrorists, and many more were killed either by being used as human shields by Hamas, by secondary explosions, or by Hamas rockets accidentally landing in Gaza instead of Israel.)

"I came here to show my solidarity with the Palestinian people. I feel that they are being ignored", one protestor said, ignoring the hundreds of thousands of Haitians in need of aid.

But one protestor didn't forget Haiti:

"Andrew Medhurst a banker said: 'I am appalled that the British government is either too scared or has an agenda which means it can't criticise the Israelis. Everybody needs to say this is not right and put pressure on the government'. His daughter compared the damage to Gaza to the damage caused by the earthquake in Haiti."

No wonder the girl is so brainwashed, if her father thinks the British government never criticises Israel. Were the Haitians to hear of this comparison, I'm sure they would have a similar reaction to Jews when Gaza is compared to the Holocaust: i.e. if only it was just a "blockade" and a war against armed terrorists, instead of hundreds of thousands killed.

Meanwhile, the Gazans themselves have been collecting for Haiti (also comparing Cast Lead to the earthquake, but at least they're contributing something.)

And Israel of course, was the first to set up a field hospital in Haiti, where they are the only ones equipped to perform operations. They have treated hundreds of injured , and delivered several babies (one of which was named 'Israel' by the grateful mother). They also rescued numerous survivors from the rubble, including eight university students rescued by Zaka.

You can read more stories of Israel's efforts on the IDF spokesperson site and see amazing footage on their YouTube account, CNN's video report, and Sky News .

And don't forget to donate. (it won't be stolen by Hamas and used for weapons)

UK's Appreciation Of Antisemitism

If anything was to prove the existence and obvious, continuous escalation of antisemitism in the UK, it's this.

British TV audiences' favourite Channel 4 programme in the year 2009 was Peter Oborne's Dispatches documentary on the Israel lobby.

The documentary was borderline antisemitic and the perfect example of the type of journalism it claims doesn't exist - because of the "Jewish lobby's" supposed sinister campaign to stifle criticism of Israel. What the documentary does is demonize Israel, demonize Jews who support Israel, and create a Jewish conspiracy where there is none.

And the audience just loves it.

Ross Kemp In Israel

Part 2 of Ross Kemp in the Middle East aired tonight, this time with Kemp investigating in Israel - speaking to victims of suicide bombers and rocket attacks, as well as extremist settlers.

Like in Part 1, the documentary appeared to be quite balanced and objective; however there were once again obvious flaws, and important issues ignored.

Of those I noticed last week, only one was addressed in this episode: the reason for the blockade/security fence, to prevent suicide bombings. This was still something that should have been mentioned in Part 1 to provide context, as in this episode he only referred to the West Bank fence, not the Gaza one. In fact, Kemp should have asked Palestinians what they think about the fact that the fence has drastically reduced suicide bombings and terror attacks in Israel.

There were two main flaws overall in the documentaries, and they're big ones.

The first is that Kemp spoke a lot about division in Israeli communities, and how this posed as an obstacle to peace negotiations; however he did not properly look into the divisions between Hamas and Fatah, and how they torture and kill each other.

The second is that Kemp seemed to equate the extremists on both sides, and claimed that hate on both sides is an obstacle to peace. Equating suicide bombers and Palestinian extremists who want every Jew dead, with Jewish settlers who are simply building shacks on hillposts is utterly ridiculous. As for hate, I did not see one Israeli in the programme say anything about hating the Palestinians or wanting them dead. The settlers in the programme may have seemed a little crazy, but their actions weren't physically hurting anyone.* Murder is much worse than robbery (especially robbery of the kind where you're taking back what you think belongs to you.)

Hatred on the other side, though, is a completely different story, and one that needs investigating. Like I pointed out last week, Kemp did not sufficiently investigate Hamas tyranny in Gaza, or look at the contents of their official charter. Most importantly, he did not look into the brainwashing of Palestinian children that takes place in their schools, or the intrinsic antisemitism they are taught by extremists in control of their education.

Still, I commend Ross Kemp for his efforts, and we can't expect him to do everything! At least he is one journalist who approached the situation in Israel with an open mind and the objective of being, well, objective. In that respect, his documentary is possibly groundbreaking.

Now we just need a documentary about Hamas, and perhaps when people see the truth about them, we can try to come up with a realistic solution to peace in Israel rather than hypothetical talks with terrorists who don't want to talk and just want to kill.


*I am aware that there are settlers who have attacked Palestinians, but the ones Ross Kemp was referring to were not violent.
If I'm being totally objective, perhaps Kemp could have looked into allegations of crimes the settlers have comitted, but I doubt he would have found out anything much. The Palestinians accuse the Israelis of a lot of things that aren't true.

How Terrorists Help Gaza

Here's what happens when you try to help the people of Gaza through terrorism (funded partly by George Galloway):

"Gaza terrorists fired a volley of 10 mortar shells at southern Israel at midday on Thursday, all of them exploding in open areas around the western Negev. Three landed near the Kerem Shalom crossing while trucks were waiting to deliver humanitarian supplies in Gaza; the crossing was closed, the shipments were cancelled and the trucks turned back."

Score!*


*that was sarcastic, and aimed at the faliure of the terrorists' objectives, not at the Gazans not getting their aid. Believe it or not, it is possible for me to be a Zionist and still want the Palestinians to get what they need (which isn't weapons).

What Shocking Israel News Did The BBC Report Today?

Can you guess what news from Israel the BBC reported today?

Is it...

A. Today a Palestinian admitted he planned to carry out a terror attack at the Cave of Machpelah in Hebron and stab as many Jews as he could; but was caught in possession of a knife before he could do it

B. Today a Palestinian planned to stab Jews in the Old City and was caught in possession of a knife

C. Today a Palestinian in possession of a knife and Molotov cocktail was arrested at a (darned) checkpoint

D. Last night three Palestinians were caught outside the Old City carrying knives with which they wanted to stab an Israeli policeman or soldier

E. Last night two Palestinians at the Cave of Machpelah in Hebron planned to stab Israeli settlers or soldiers and were caught carrying knives

F. On Sunday two Palestinians admitted they planned to carry out a terror attack , when they were caught carrying large knives

The answers is, of course, none of those. Now before you think I have an agenda against the BBC (hah!), it wasn't only them that didn't report any of those incidents. They were only reported in the Israeli media. The reason I singled out the BBC here is because on a news feed on Israel, sandwiched between all the reports of failed terrorist attacks was the BBC article with the headline, "Israel approves four new buildings in East Jerusalem".

It quotes Saeb Erakat as saying that Israel is "talking about peace and negotiations in a way that is totally opposed to the reality on the ground".

But Palestinians' attempts to murder Jews really says "let's talk peace".

Gaza Documentary

Part 1 of Ross Kemp's  (incidentally spoofed 4 posts down!) Middle East documentary was aired tonight, this one telling the story of Gaza, and the next one being on Israel.

Whilst on the face of it it seemed quite a balanced documentary, there were flaws, including:

-no mention or investigation of the smuggling of weapons through the tunnels into Egypt (he didn't go further than asking one man about arms, who replied - looking quite shifty -  "I don't know")

-no mention of why there is a blockade (to prevent suicide bombings) or Egypt's role in it

-no mention of the fact that Israel delivers tonnes of aid into Gaza, or that Hamas sometimes steals the aid

-not sufficient investigation into Hamas control and tyranny in Gaza (he spoke to a policeman, but didn't speak to Palestinian victims of Hamas terror, only victims of Israel's war); or why Hamas doesn't do more to help it's people

-no mention of the Hamas charter or the real reasons behind extremism (Kemp's concluding comments on the episode suggested that despair from the war is what drives extremism, but did address the comments made by a would-be suicide bomber that Islam commands martyrdom for the sake of Allah, or words to that effect.)

Whilst I am not expecting Kemp to investigate Hamas' war crimes, when a charge is made by UNRWA director John Ging that "buildings of peace" were destroyed, perhaps then would be a good time to mention at least that Israel says Hamas uses those buildings to store weapons, and launch rockets from - or else show the evidence .

However, that was only one half of the documentary, and hopefully most of the above issues will be addressed in the last episode next week.

Also, Kemp does deserve a lot of credit for his efforts in exposing the type of terrorists that Israel is dealing with.

Carter: Israel has "had an entire year without terrorism"

In a typically one sided opinion piece in the Guardian, Jimmy Carter writes: 

"Israel has long argued that it cannot negotiate with terrorists, yet has had an entire year without terrorism and still could not negotiate."

You could say, well the media never reports on the acts of terrorism that have occured over the past year in Israel, so Carter must be right, but then, I read the news and I am aware of the terrorism.    For example, there was a would-be suicide bomber who was stopped and disarmed at one of those darned checkpoints.    Just a few days after Carter's piece an Israeli was shot and murdered by a Palestinian terrorist , ironically, but perhaps inevitably, as a resident said, in an area where a security checkpoint had recently been removed.                    Meanwhile another Palestinian was caught at a checkpoint in Hebron in possession of two knives. An Israeli boy was injured by a Molotov cocktail and an Israeli girl was injured by a firebomb, both in the West Bank. Not to mention the continuous rocket attacks on Southern Israel from Gaza. And the Israeli settlers' persecution of the Palestinians continues. Oh, wait a minute. I got that the wrong way round.    What were you saying, Mr. Carter?

The Guardian, Tunnels and Swine Flu

The Guardian today published a full-page report on the tunnels linking Egypt to Gaza. The tunnels are several times referred to as a "lifeline" for the Palestinians, but there are two facts that the article gets wrong.

If you were to guess that the article makes no mention of weapons being smuggled through the tunnels... well, you'd be wrong! Here's what it has to say about that:

Hamas "monitors movements to ensure that drugs, alcohol and weapons are not imported."

In fact, Hamas smuggle weapons through the tunnels themselves.

The article also mentions that one product that is smuggled through, aniseed, is "suddenly hugely in demand as a remedy for swine flu", which is followed by a tunnel owner stating, "We have no alternative".

Really? What about the 10,000 doses of the swine flu vaccine Israel has provided to Gaza? And the 40,000 more on the way. And Israel treating Gaza swine flu suspects to try and prevent it spreading.

So whilst Israel is loosening the blockade to save the Gazans, what is Hamas' role in all this?

"Last week, Hamas police detained a swine flu patient in critical condition on his way to Israel for treatment, and he died shortly thereafter in a local hospital."

Open Letter To Self-Hating Lefty "Jewish" Organisations

In Tuesday's Times there was a full page letter/advert written by a number of Jewish organisations: Independent Jewish Voices, Jews for Justice for Palestinians, Jewish Forum for Justice and Human Rights, Jewish Socialists' Group, Jewish Writers Against the Occupation, and Scottish Jews for a Just Peace.

What do all these groups have in common? Well, I have a hunch that they don't care about justice and human rights for Israel. They also represent a very small minority of Jews. People who only call themselves Jewish when it's Israel-bashing time. I don't know why they do it, but anyway.

Here's the letter, with my thoughts:

OPEN LETTER TO GORDON BROWN ON THE GOLDSTONE REPORT:
BRITISH JEWS DO NOT SPEAK WITH ONE VOICE

Dear Prime Minister,

We appreciate your Government's stated intention to build bridges with the Jewish community in the light of responses to the Goldstone report. To achieve this, it is vital for you to recognise that British Jews do not speak with one voice on this matter.

Of course British Jews don’t speak with one voice, but if you are going to try to “buildbridges” with the Jewish community, wouldn’t it makes sense to try to do it with the MAJORITY of British Jews. i.e. the ones who actually identify with their Jewish status, and Israel’s role in that; not the ones who only call themselves Jews when they want to criticize Israel.

What are they even saying in this paragraph? That Brown can't "build bridges" with the Zionist British Jews? That the self-hating Jews are the more important and they're the ones that Brown should please?

We welcome the Goldstone Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza conflict as a key document in the upholding of international law in situations of violent conflict, and regret your Government's failure to endorse the Report and its recommendations at the United Nations General Assembly.

The Goldstone report was less about fact finding and more about vilifying Israel and excusing Hamas terrorism.

We condemn the vilification of Richard Goldstone, an internationally acclaimed jurist who has made a substantial contribution worldwide to the development and maintenance of international humanitarian law, and his distinguished co-authors.

Did they even watch this video, where an Israeli terrorism victim asks Goldstone why he left her story out of the report?

Did they know he sent a 13 year old boy to prison for protesting apartheid in South Africa? Do they still condemn the "vilification" of Goldstone after this?

We note that the preparation of the Report was severely hampered by the refusal of the Israeli authorities to respond to reasonable enquiries or to facilitate access by the mission to Gaza or the West Bank and that it was only Egypt's assistance which eventually allowed the Mission to gain access to Gaza.

Why should Israel respond to the enquiries when they’ve already presented the evidence? Is it their fault that Goldstone and his team completely ignored the evidence that was there for everyone to see?

We further note that the Report unequivocally condemns not just Israel's devastation of Gaza but also Hamas's indiscriminate rocket attacks against Israeli neighbourhoods and does not in any way deny Israel its right to legitimate self-defence.

Well, they noted wrong. The Goldstone report did not condemn Hamas even once. And by not condemning Hamas and only singling out Israel for condemnation, the implication is that terrorism is acceptable and therefore Israel cannot defend itself against it.

We fully support its recommendation that both parties conduct full investigations into the allegations of war crimes in the Report.

We believe Israel cannot afford, nor should it wish, to exempt itself from the scrutiny of the international community on these matters. We consider that it is the attempt to do so, rather than the Goldstone Report, that is damaging Israel. We therefore urge you to endorse the Report at the next available opportunity.

Wrong again. Israel rejects the report because it’s a load of lies. It is the lies that damage Israel, not Israel’s attempt to prevent the spreading of those lies. And it doesn't help when a bunch of self-hating Jews stick their noses in.

Dispatches Documentary Parody

This video isn't really a parody of Dispatches: Inside Britain's Israel Lobby, but it reminded me of it so much that I had to share it. (And it's hilarious!)
The video is actually a spoof of the Ross Kemp on Gangs documentary series.



Note the dramatic music, significant looks into the camera and grave voice tone. In particular watch at 1.24 and 2.14. The perfect example of how you can suggest conspiracy from nothing.

I've no doubt the same techniques will be used in Channel 4's upcoming documentary on Haredis in Israel.

Just When You Thought It Was Over... Channel 4 Does It Again

As if the borderline antisemitic Dispatches: Inside Britain's Israel Lobby wasn't enough, next Friday (27 November) Channel 4 will be airing a documentary that sounds possibly worse.

Their Unreported World documentary series describes itself as "Critically acclaimed foreign affairs series offering an insight into the lives of people in some of the most neglected parts of the planet - lives largely overlooked by the global news machine".

This time the episode takes place in Israel, where they investigate the growth and influence of "Jewish 'fundamentalists'" in Israel.

According to the summary of the programme, the ultra-Orthodox Haredis are accused of "creating tension within Israeli society and endangering any negotiations on a peace deal with the Palestinians."

Mea Shearim is described as a "poor, overcrowded part of the city where everyone is wearing clothes in the style of 18th-century Europe", where one nutter who is obviously going to be portrayed as representing all the Haredis says "We are the real Jews... everyone else in Israel just happens to be born Jewish."

Another Haredi says "Every 20 years we have a community that is growing at eight or nine times... It means we are growing in size and influence." Could be another nutter, or could be that his comments were taken out of context. After all what "influence" do they have? If they're anything as influential as Britain's Israel lobby it's certainly nothing to worry about. 

A reform Rabbi tells the reporter that "because Haredis are exempt from military service and heavily subsidised, they are creating huge tensions within the country." This must be the only time that people who aren't fighting in the Israeli army are the ones that are villified.

And then it just gets worse and worse. I will state the obvious here: Haredis are not perfect. No one is. Their lifestyle choices may be "extreme" but if it's not killing anyone then where's the harm? Take segregation of men and women on buses, for example. Extreme, yes, but if they want to adhere to the laws of the Torah more stringently than other Jews, by taking extra measures to prevent touching between sexes, that's their call. It's not imposing on more secular Israelis in the rest of the country.                                                   

When Haredis do something morally wrong though, such as a woman's claim in the programme that she was beaten up by a "Haredi Modesty Squad" after she left her husband, that is disgusting and inexcusable. And the vast majority of Haredis would agree with me. After all, their aim is to keep the Torah, and nowhere in the Torah does it say to beat up a woman for anything. You get psychos in every community.

However, it is clear from the summary of the programme that is goes out of its way to seek out only the bad in the Haredi community, and then portray that as the norm with complete disregard for whatever good that they do, and their contributions to Israeli society. Even their involvement in politics is portrayed as sinister. It's the Israel lobby all over again.

What I Learnt From 'Dispatches: Inside Britain's Israel Lobby'

By now everyone will be aware of the Channel 4 documentary about the Jewish (sorry, Israel) Lobby, that aired last night. To save you having to watch it I have summarised what I learnt:

The Israeli flag is creepy and when it’s waving next to the British flag it means Zionists are about to attack the British. (The Good British, not the pro-Israel British.)

It is wrong for journalists to write articles sympathetic to the dangers and threats Israel has from the Arab world. It is wrong for them to travel to Israel on trips funded by the pro-Israel lobby BICOM where they might learn something about the situation there other than that “Israel is bad”. They are only allowed to write articles that show that Israel is bad.

BICOM’s donor owns a stake in a mall in the “settlement” Maaleh Adumim. This means he is a bad man and BICOM is bad.

The lobbies are AGGRESSIVE to the media, they SCARE them and keep them “under constant attack”. The lobbies are bad.

It's ok to compare Israel with apartheid South Africa as the Guardian did and it's not antisemitic and does not cause antisemitism as The Lobby was concerned. (Although "Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions." and “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour” [my italics] are antisemitic. But that's not what the programme's doing, is it.)

CAMERA is "aggressive" against "what it calls" anti-Israel reporting. In actual fact there is no anti-Israel reporting, all media coverage of Israel is favourable (because of The Lobby). The Press Complaints Commission found “only one small fact” to be wrong in the Guardian article comparing Israel to South Africa, so it’s ok. And CAMERA is bad.

Self hating Jews who call Israel apartheid are good and right. And don’t deserve to be called self-hating even if they are. Jews who don’t call Israel apartheid, or who love or support Israel, are bad and liars. But not all Jews do love Israel, so not all Jews are bad, and therefore that statement can’t be antisemitic.

Cif Watch!! Is bad. It called the Guardian antisemitic. The Guardian isn’t, nor are it's journalists. The Guardian isn’t even anti-Israel.

No critics of Israel are antisemitic, but critics of Israel are always called antisemitic by bad Jews.

Has the BBC been compromised by the pro-Israel lobby!!?? Of course. They are not biased against Israel but are FORCED to be biased in favour of Israel and have NO CHOICE but to do and report what The Lobby tells them. Bad lobby.

Israel is powerful and the only thing Israel does is make Palestinian children die, just for the fun of it. There are no other factors involved. Israel is bad.

The BBC is BOMBARDED with emails from all over the world accusing it of bias. But it isn’t biased. Journalist Orla is undeserving of criticism. No one who says anything against Israel is deserving of criticism. Without the CHILLING ASSAULT and PRESSURE of The Lobby, Jeremy Bowen wouldn’t have been investigated for his bias. But he wasn’t biased. The BBC were FORCED to investigate Bowen, and any journalist who’s ever been investigated has been so because of The Lobby.

Complaints of bias are unjustified, there is no anti-Israel bias. Did I say that already?

Why does Simon Plosker of Honest Reporting ATTACK the BBC and WHO does he WORK FOR? The Zionist Mafia, must be. Honest Reporting is bad.

“Demonization of Israel” and “Anti-Israel bias” only exist in quotation marks.

The BBC didn’t broadcast the DEC Gaza appeal because it was bullied by Israel.

Which means that Israel wants everyone to die. Israel is bad. And anyone who is pro-Israel is bad.

This programme is not anti-Israel or antisemitic, and will not incite antisemitism either.

Guest Post: Israeli Settlements Are An Obstacle...

"I am a Jew who loves Israel. Allow me to clarify in case you find the title misleading. “Israeli settlements are an obstacle”. An obstacle to terrorism, that is.

Let’s start with some major events that occurred in the Middle East in recent years. Mahmoud Abbas has just announced his resignation in protest to his perceived lack of American support in halting Israeli settlement construction. This follows on closely from a press conference between Hilary Clinton and Benjamin Netanyahu where Clinton publicly acknowledged Netanyahu’s willingness to offer a partial settlement freeze which no Israeli government since the signing of the Oslo accords has ever had to consider as a precondition to peace talks. Not only did the left wing labour government of Rabin who signed at Oslo not offer a settlement freeze, they kept building!

Anyway, the current hot topics are the push for a complete settlement freeze and the Goldstone report which accuses Israel and Hamas of war crimes. There was Operation Cast Lead in Gaza in 2008 and prior to that, the second Lebanon War, Ariel Sharon’s coma and perhaps most significant, the unilateral disengagement from Gaza in 2005.

Now follow this closely. Taking recent years events into context the Israeli settlements that were considered an obstacle to peace in fact played a significant part in preventing more widescale violence.

Gush Katif, Netzarim and the other Israeli settlements in Gaza were protected by IDF soldiers permanently stationed there. During this period, there were murderous terrorist attacks on the Jewish communities but let’s look at the difference between then and now. Then, the IDF based in Gaza would carry our counter-terror operations which prevented the mass build up of weapons which Hamas have now acquired since the disengagement.

Israel left Gaza. Then came a spate of terrorist attacks and a huge increase in rocket and mortar attacks on Israeli Southern belt communities. Eventually, after eight years of terrorist attacks and 10,000 rockets whose frequency increased to 2,500 (a quarter of the total rockets fired since 2001) which hit southern Israel in only three years! And this led to Cast Lead in January 2009 which wreaked havoc and destruction in Gaza.

There is always the question of what if. Ariel Sharon thought that if he withdrew from Gaza then the International community would support him on other matters. Instead it culminated in operation Cast Lead and a huge drop in support and more criticism for Israel in the international arena.

But what if Israel had not disengaged? Cast Lead may have never needed to happen or at least on the scale that it did.

There is talk about Israel leaving the Golan Heights and the West Bank unilaterally. But right now we have a tense calm in these areas and the Gaza withdrawal has provided an obvious precedent should a unilateral Israeli withdrawal be considered again.

Sad to say but it will. I just hope that the Israeli government have learnt from past mistakes."

Who Is To Blame For Tunnel Deaths?

According to actress Mia Farrow, Israel is to blame.After another tunnel collapse and death over the weekend, Farrow wrote on her blog:

"The 1.5 million people living in Gaza depend on hundreds of tunnels beneath the border to get fuel and other products since Gaza has been sealed off after Hamas takeover in June 2007. But Israeli bombings are frequent and more than 130 Palestinians, many of them children have been killed while working in the tunnels."

She doesn't question why there are many children working in the tunnels that are dangerous enough without the risk of being bombed by Israel in response to rocket attacks. Nor does she mention that the rockets that Hamas fire into Israel, causing Israel to bomb the tunnels, are smuggled through those very tunnels, which is why Israel wants to stop them. Also, Israel's bombings are not at all frequent, and the vast majority of Palestinian tunnel deaths have nothing to do with Israel. Incidentally, the day after Farrow's comments, a Field Work Coordinator for the Al-Mezan Centre for Human Rights in Gaza blamed Hamas, demanding that they do more to protect the tunnel workers. He said:

"Our research on the ground has shown that a total of 120 people have died in tunnel collapses. Another seven were killed inside tunnels as a result of Israeli aerial attacks." "The government here in Gaza just wants to make money off the tunnel owners and that's it. They take money from the people but do not provide any services to them. They don't care about the conditions for the workers, whether or not it's safe or the quality of the goods coming in from Egypt."

Amnesty's Disproportionate Response

Do these "human rights" organisations do anything else but scrutinise Israel's actions and then write false reports about it? If they do, I haven't heard about it. Israel must actually be the most evil country in the world, going by those reports.

The latest says that Israel is denying the Palestinians water. Are any other people in the world denied water? Can't be, if they were, I'm sure it would have been widely publicised, wouldn't it?

Amnesty has released over 20 reports condemning Israel, since Cast Lead. Has it released this many about any other country? I doubt it. Are more Palestinians dying than any other people? Not even close. This disproportionate attention suggests Amnesty has an agenda...

Amnesty has accused Israel of only supplying between 20 and 70 litres per day to the Palestinians, but the Water Authority said that they actually receive 200 litres per day.

"The Foreign Ministry also refuted the report on Tuesday, stating that according to the existing water agreement, the Palestinians are allocated 23.6 million cubic meters of water per year, but 'in actual effect, they have access to twice as much water.'

In its statement, the Foreign Ministry said that Israel has 'extensively surpassed the obligatory quantity' of water supplied to the Palestinians, while the Palestinians have 'significantly violated their commitments under the water agreement' by neglecting the construction of sewage treatment plants despite 'foreign funding earmarked for this purpose,' as well as drilling over 250 unauthorized wells...

The Water Authority also stressed that it routinely provided the PA with more water per year than the amounts stipulated in the Oslo Accords. It also said Palestinians routinely dug illegal wells and refused to purify and reuse their sewage for agriculture. Instead, they dumped their sewage into the streams in the West Bank, causing massive pollution.

NGO Monitor's president, Prof. Gerald Steinberg, said... 'the report adopts a painfully simplistic narrative which places blame solely on Israel, to the extent that the Palestinian leadership is absolved of responsibility for the agreements signed
under the Oslo framework.'"

Robin Shepherd highlights Amnesty's anti-Israel stance as by promoting Ben White's book 'Israeli Apartheid: A Beginner’s Guide', they endorse the notion of Israel as an apartheid state, and so "it should come as no surprise that the report adopts the Palestinian narrative of the wider conflict in its entirety." Amnesty did not even consult the Israeli Water Authority (so how could they have carried out their research properly?)

Shepherd points out "how Amnesty effortlessly and unashamedly apportions blame to the 'more than 40 years of occupation'", automatically taking the Palestinian point of view. He sums up the other side of the story that was not included in the report:

“There have been more than 60 years of rejectionism and terrorism by Palestinian and Arab leaders. This has had the derivative effects of both reducing their capacity to consume water at first world levels and of depriving them of the kind of statehood (offered on several occasions by Israel) which would allow them to take greater control of their own water resources in particular and their economic development in general."

Shepherd observes that the fact that Amnesty consciously

"adopted hook, line and sinker one of of the two available narratives and simply erased the other from consideration... is not a sign of an organisation whose main priority is to promote an unbiased appraisal of an undoubtedly important humanitarian problem. It is a sign of an organisation whose underlying agenda is avowedly political and avowedly anti-Israeli."

Today's Journalism Scores: Times - 1, Guardian - 0

As everyone is aware, there have been clashes at the Temple Mount between Israeli police and Palestinians looking for trouble. The Times report mentions that "The police action... came after local Muslim leaders claimed that Jews were attempting to conquer the mosque and claim it as their own." It includes a quote from a Palestinian:

"A 22-year-old, who gave his name as Amar, said he had been detained last week for hurling stones at a passing Israeli patrol, but had returned again yesterday. 'They start this. They incite this, and then we respond and they make it look like we are the bad guys... We are protecting something very important to us, and they know that this is important, and that’s why they try to make us angry by sending their settlers there'."

and from an Israeli police officer:

“These are kids that have been whipped into a frenzy by something they believe is happening here. This is all unnecessary, and at the end of the day serves no one.”

It explains why this all started:

"Local Arabic radio stations began broadcasting at the weekend that Jews were planning to enter the site to pray, or dig under the compound and harm buildings there, prompting calls for Muslims to go and defend the site."

and gives Israel's response to the accusations:

"Israeli officials said that they had carried out archaeological excavations in the area, but that the work did not threaten existing structures. Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister, said the accusations against Israel were lies."

It even gives a bit of historical background as to why the Temple Mount is holy to Muslims and Jews, as well as stating "It is only open for Muslims to pray, though there are several hours each day that tourists, including Jews [if they can take the stoning and won't dare to pray there], can visit.", and quoting the head of the Jewish Temple Mount Institute saying "I will be tolerant to Muslim prayer on Temple Mount, but in this democratic country everyone has the right to pray in the holiest site in the world". The Guardian, meanwhile, paints this picture:

"Israeli forces stormed up into the compound behind riot shields and crowds of Palestinians fled, some taking sanctuary in the al-Aqsa mosque." "Palestinians have been increasingly concerned about right-wing Jewish settlers entering the compound and about rumours - denied by Israel - of excavations near the site."

That second quote was only added much later today, and doesn't really get across the fact the concern wasn't about "Jewish settlers entering the compound", but the rumour that they were going to "conquer" it, or that Musilms leaders on Arab radio encouraged Palestinians to riot at the mosque to defend it. One more detail was missed out by both newspapers, that the original "storming" of the compound by the Israeli police only happened when Palestinians began throwing rocks at the regular patrol that were already there. Still, the Times wins that round.

Does Anyone Really Care About The Palestinians?

It sometimes seems as though people don't really care about the Palestinians, unless there's a way to demonise Israel. For example, on the very rare occasions that Hamas is criticised, it is for their rocket attacks against Israel, but not for using their own people as human shields. Recently though, the Independent reported on something we don't hear about very often: the suffering of Palestinian refugees in other Arab countries. On the other hand, there was an article by the Daily Mail on Sunday that got quite a strange response. The article stated that:

"The Government is sending British police and intelligence officers to the West Bank to try to stop a wave of brutal torture by Palestinian security forces funded by UK taxpayers. Their mission is to set up and train a new ‘internal affairs’ department with sweeping powers to investigate abuse and bring torturers to justice."

An official from the Palestinian Authority admitted "that torture, beatings and extra-judicial killings have been rife for the past two years, with hundreds of torture allegations and at least four murders in custody" Head of the PA's human rights department said they want to "instill respect for human rights as part of the security forces’ daily behaviour and to teach them how to treat prisoners properly". Victims, most of whom were arrested for involvement with Hamas, told of their experiences of "torture, including beatings, being suspended from the ceiling and electric shocks". Now I think is a great idea. Anyone who really follows what goes on in Gaza and the West Bank knows that many Fatah and Hamas officials just have no idea how to treat their fellow human beings, let alone their brothers. They need help. We go on about Israel and human rights, but no one really talks about the way the Palestinians treat each other. These are the heartfelt comments below the article:

"If the Palestinians need help & expertise, then they should be paying us" "We're still in recession, and yet our government is behaving like the saviours of humanity spending our money on something which let's face it isn't even going to benefit anyone." "Stop wasting our money - it's none of our business!" "sort your own problems out first before sticking your nose in elsewhere." "Brown and co are sticking their noses in again where they have no right" "why cannt [sic] we concentrate on putting our own house in order?"

If Israel had been accused of torture and beatings and suspending Palestinians from the ceilings and giving them electric shocks, the world would be in uproar. (Kind of how it is now with the very exaggerated and misleading Goldstone report). As it is, it's only the Palestinians who are the accused now, and so the Palestinians and their well-being isn't our business anymore, and we shouldn't waste our money in trying to get them to stop torturing each other. Perhaps the money would be better spent on Gaza where Hamas will steal it and use it for their own purposes such as making and smuggling weapons.

Checkpoint Humiliation

A 21 year old Palestinian woman was humiliated when she was arrested at a checkpoint North of Jerusalem on Sunday. Because she stabbed an Israeli security guard in the stomach. He was moderately injured. Refuah shelema.

More Goldstone Controversy

First of all... a pro-Israel article on the Guardian! It's by Harold Evans, ex-Sunday Times editor, arguing against Goldstone, but the Guardian readers are, as expected, incensed that someone would dare to call Hamas the aggressor and Israel the defender, to refer to Israel's withdrawal from Gaza and Hamas screwing up their opportunity to make a state for their people, to mention the thousands of rockets Hamas have fired, each with the intention to murder innocent civilians, that the rockets were not universally condemned as they should have been, asking why Israel was accused of disproportionate force yet no one wondered "What is a 'proportionate' attack against an enemy dedicated to exterminating your people?", that the IDF showed great restraint and as Colonel Richard Kemp said, "did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare", that Hamas used it's people as human shields, and that Goldstone has equated killer and victim, Hamas and Israel. (In fact the report is worse than that because it excuses Hamas from terror and condemns Israel for defence.) So what is the Guardian readers' response to the truth in every statement above? CifWatch braved the comment pages to weed out the poison and antisemitism. Take a deep breath and read it. Of course for every pro-Israel article on Cif, there are many, many, many, anti-Israel ones. Simply too many for me to dissect. And they're all the same anyway. Same false accusations of deliberately targetting civilians etc etc. The more recent anti-Israel articles are of course all in support of Goldstone, including one by Goldstone himself (originally in the Jerusalem Post). In response to Goldstone's defence of his report, once again I give you: CAMERA's list of falsehoods in the report, the website on the the report, Elder of Ziyon on the IDF's report, and on inaccuracies in the Goldstone report with other commentaries as well, aaaannd.... Elder of Ziyon and Ynet's discovery (because clearly no one that voted on it actually bothered to read it) that the Goldstone report in fact does not condemn Hamas.

HRW Founder Calls It Anti-Israel

Robert Bernstein, founder of Human Rights Watch has finally come out and written an excellent article criticising it of anti-Israel bias.

"The region [Middle East] is populated by authoritarian regimes with appalling human rights records. Yet in recent years Human Rights Watch has written far more condemnations of Israel for violations of international law than of any other country in the region."

He compares Israel's 7.4 million citizens, their 80 human rights organisations, free press and democracy to the Arab nations' 350 million people, many of whom are ruled under brutal regimes.

"The plight of their citizens who would most benefit from the kind of attention a large and well-financed international human rights organization can provide is being ignored as Human Rights Watch’s Middle East division prepares report after report on Israel." "Human Rights Watch has lost critical perspective on a conflict in which Israel has been repeatedly attacked by Hamas and Hezbollah, organizations that go after Israeli citizens and use their own people as human shields. These groups are supported by the government of Iran, which has openly declared its intention not just to destroy Israel but to murder Jews everywhere. This incitement to genocide is a violation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide."

"Leaders of Human Rights Watch know that Hamas and Hezbollah chose to wage war from densely populated areas, deliberately transforming neighborhoods into battlefields. They know that more and better arms are flowing into both Gaza and Lebanon and are poised to strike again. And they know that this militancy continues to deprive Palestinians of any chance for the peaceful and productive life they deserve. Yet Israel, the repeated victim of aggression, faces the brunt of Human Rights Watch’s criticism."

Just like with the Goldstone report. The Times reports on Bernstein's article as well, but they just miss out the most important point, that:

"Human Rights Watch has written far more condemnations of Israel for violations of international law than of any other country in the region"

Instead they quote HRW as saying that "its scrutiny on Israel represents only 'a tiny fraction' of its work." If Israel is a "tiny fraction" of their work, what are the bigger "fractions" on? Iran? I don't think I ever heard HRW say anything about them. And guess how they illustrated the article... that's right, phosphorous! (again)

Conflicting Messages From The Times

In it's editorial on Friday, the Times called the Goldstone report biased and stated that it should be rejected at the United Nations "Human Rights" Council. The Times highlights the problems with the report:

"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."

It's much more than that, but at least the Times is trying to stand up for Israel's rights. But then, perhaps in an attempt to appear objective, the article states that Israel caused "more than a thousand Palestinian civilian deaths", which is simply not true. Of the 1200 killed in Gaza, about 700 have been proven to be terrorists.

"But Israel was responding to a sustained barrage of rocket attacks by Hamas after its takeover of power in Gaza. It had no choice but to respond to these provocations. Hamas, backed and supplied by Iran, has rejected all attempts to persuade it to recognise Israel, instead relentlessly pursuing the destruction of the Jewish state in the interests of an intolerant and delusional pan-Islamic ideology. Unlike Israel, it consistently engages in the cowardly practice of using civilians as human shields."

"Judge Goldstone takes Hamas to task for killing Israeli civilians and 'seeking to spread terror' through rocket attacks on southern Israel. But he reserves his strongest language for Israel’s 'disproportionate' use of force and its 'deliberate targeting' of Palestinian civilians."

"Israel adheres to standards higher than those of its enemies. Its right to self-defence is not in question: what is at issue is how it exercises that right, and whether it does so in conformity with its own moral values. In launching an inquiry, it would challenge Hamas to do the same."

But the last paragraph ignores the fact that Israel has conducted it's own investigation, proven how many terrorists were killed, that Hamas used human shields, hid themselves and weapons in populated areas, in mosques, schools, hospitals and ambulances.

Putting that aside, the article is, as usual, too little too late. Where was all that during the war? When did the Times report on the rocket attacks, or Hamas' use of human shields, their refusal to recognise Israel and objective to wipe out the Jewish state, or Israel's right to self defence?

Then, the next day, in their article on Britain abstaining from the vote, what is the accompanying picture of? Hamas terrorists? The damage caused by their rockets? Course not, it's only phosphorous. Otherwise you might think Israel are the victims in some way.

Meanwhile it's worth reading Colonel Richard Kemp's statement on the IDF, where he explains how "The IDF did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare".

Also, Goldstone was "saddened" that the resolution made no reference to Hamas' crimes. His exact words were: "There is not a single phrase condemning Hamas as we have done in the report". Well it was probably a bit difficult to find that "single phrase" in the 600 pages about Israel!

Speaking of which, another rocket was fired into Israel today, thankfully with no damage. The psychological effects of that alarm on the million Israelis in the South having to run into shelters, and the terrorists' prayer for an Israeli death as the rocket was launched, are never newsworthy though.

Finally, here is CAMERA's list of falsehoods in the Goldstone report, the website on the the report I linked in my last post, Elder of Ziyon on the IDF's report, and on inaccuracies in the Goldstone report with other commentaries as well. The UN is a joke. But we knew that already.

The Guardian Just Gets Worse And Worse

First, they give the Left's beloved terrorist-sympathiser George Galloway a column in which he goes on about poor old Iran being bullied about its nuclear weapons, and calls it a 'sophisticated state'.

Chas Newkey-Burden asks,

"In what sense is Iran “a sophisticated state”, George? In the sense that it rigs elections and then persecutes and murders peaceful protestors? In the sense that it hangs women in public squares after perfunctorily finding them guilty of adultery? The way it does the same with men because they are gay? Or maybe Iran’s sophistication is seen in how its legal system executes children and cuts the hands and feet off offenders. Perhaps it is the non-free press that so proves its sophistication, or the imprisoned bloggers? Or the large parts of the country where people wallow in darkness and squalor due to its messed-up energy and economic policies?"

Then the Guardian ignore a letter spelling out their anti-Israel bias because they hope if they ignore it it'll go away. Read the letter here on CifWatch, it's amazing.

Then they mysteriously, "accidentally" omit all the names of the Israeli Nobel Peace Prize Winners from a list of all winners, ever.

And on top of that, in their editorial about Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize (I cannot believe I just said those words), the Guardian made a reference to "Israeli-occupied Gaza", only later remembering that in fact Israel disengaged from Gaza several years ago, and replacing 'occupied' with 'blockaded'.

In other news, an excellent website has been set up by a number of bloggers, which discredits the insanely inaccurate Goldstone report on Cast Lead.

A Picture's Worth A Thousand Words

Elder of Ziyon has exposed that Human Rights' Watch 'senior military analyst' Marc Garlasco has an dark obsession - with Nazi memorabilia.

HRW's defence is that Marc is not a Nazi and there's nothing wrong with his hobby. So, according to Human Rights Watch, there's nothing wrong with that picture?! However, the issue is not so much about Marc Garlasco, however disturbing his hobby is. The issue is with Human Rights Watch; as EoZ says, "HRW's poster boy for human rights research nurses a serious obsession with, and fascination for, the worst human rights abusers in history."

NGO Monitor goes into more detail.

On top of that there is the fact that this HRW investigator, who clearly anyway has an agenda against Israel and the Jewish State's right to defend itself against those who aim to destroy it, is obsessed with souvenirs of Nazis, the very people who tried to kill all the Jews, with the Holocaust resulting in the establishment of the State of Israel.

And HRW don't seem to think there's anything wrong with that.

And that's not all. The brilliant EoZ also links to a quote from Garlasco that demonstrates his unsurprising hypocrisy when it comes to Israel, as he says on the US army in Afghanistan:

"I don't think people really appreciate the gymnastics that the US military goes through in order to make sure that they're not killing civilians... the Taliban are violating international law... You have the Taliban shielding in people's homes. And you have this small number of troops on the ground. And sometimes the only thing they can do is drop bombs.”

Daled Amos, the blog linked from EoZ, observes "Odd that the criteria that Garlasco so easily applies to the US, he refuses to use what talking about Israel."

That's still not all. Amos quotes, from an interview with Garlasco, talking about when he worked in the Pentagon for the US army:

"Garlasco says, before the invasion of Iraq, he recommended 50 air strikes aimed at high-value targets - Iraqi officials. But he says none of the targets on the list were actually killed. Instead, he says, 'a couple of hundred civilians at least' were killed."

EoZ puts it perfectly: "Perhaps we should ask HRW to investigate whether Garlasco should be charged with war crimes."

Double Checkpoint Humiliation!

A difficult day for Palestinian terrorists in the West Bank just trying to go about their daily business with dignity and freedom. First, IDF soldiers at a checkpoint near Hebron discovered a Palestinian man was carrying four knives, so he was sent for questioning. If that wasn't bad enough, another Palestinian was humiliated when he tried to stab an IDF soldier at a checkpoint near Nablus; the soldier avoided injury, and the Palestinian was turned over to security forces for interrogation. This checkpoint business really is humiliating for the Palestinians, every time they fail in an attempted terrorist attack they must feel so ashamed at getting caught and letting down their people.

Melanie Phillips Tackles The BBC

In an excellent article by Melanie Phillips, she looks at a BBC report on religious soldiers in the IDF, that seems to equate them with Islamic Jihadists. That, Phillips astutely observes,

"was open bigotry against Judaism itself. One of the most deeply offensive sections was the ‘aha!’ moment where she pointed accusingly at soldiers visiting Masada who were wearing the ritual fringed garment worn by all orthodox Jewish men as if this was a sign of their moral perfidy. To be an orthodox Jew, she was in effect saying, was to be guilty of malevolent intent towards the Palestinians: to be aggressive and warlike and fanatical, characteristics they allegedly got from the Hebrew Bible."

She concludes,

"the BBC blames, smears and demonises them -- and through them, blames, smears and demonises the religion of Judaism itself"

Suddenly the BBC's anti-Israel bias doesn't look so bad.

Guardian Balance?!

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

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

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

Seth Freedman Idolises Ex-Jewish Fatah Member

Freedman first off tries to portray ex-Jewish, Muslim convert and Fatah member Uri Davis as moderate and peaceful -

"the image he gives off is light years away from his detractors' portrayal of him as a Qur'an-bashing, fire-breathing radical."

That is despite the fact that Fatah are radicals, at least when it comes to Israel. Although, Freedman admits, Davis wants to bring about change in Israel through boycott, divestment and sanctions against it - all as part of the "anti-apartheid campaign".

Freedman gives more of an insight into Davis' mindset, telling how Davis criticises the Hagaddah as it "celebrates collective punishment". So Davis rewrote it and "kept the original skin of the text minus the ugly parts and minus God".

Whether the 'ugly parts' of 'collective punishment' he is referring to is the Egyptians' slavery of the Jews or G-d's punishment of the Egyptians, either way his Hagaddah is not going to make much sense.

Freedman ends, almost wistfullly,

"But the task ahead of him [to get more Jews to join Fatah!] is a daunting one, and how many others he can convince to follow in the wake of him and his yellow Beetle down the streets of Ramallah remains to be seen."

I don't even think my (very low) opinion of Freedman would get any lower if he converted to Islam and joined Fatah.