The Times' Idea Of "Context"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Israeli Soldiers Charged

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Financial Times: Delegitimate, Lawless, Rogue Israel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Siegman’s reference to apartheid, Roberts says 

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

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

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

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

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

Media Reaction To Dubai Assassination

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

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

Guardian Invents Evidence Against Israel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Israel Matzav observes: 

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

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

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

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

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

Israel Being Disproportionate Again

Arutz Sheva reports: 

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

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

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

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

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

There's disproportionate for you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fisking And Phosphorus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Melanie Phillips explains the truth:

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

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

Iraqi President Thanks Britain

Jalal Talabani writing for the Guardian:

"The Iraqi people now have the right to build their own freedom and are deeply grateful to British prime ministers Sir John Major, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, for their assistance.

At the time, I and other leaders of the Iraqi opposition asked Mr Blair's government to help the Iraqi people get rid of the dictatorship. And we praise the bravery and sacrifice of British troops.

We suffered under Saddam Hussein in ways that too many in the international community seem to have forgotten. His regime was a republic of fear, which slaughtered Iraqis on an industrial scale and attacked our neighbours. We are fortunate he has gone and that we have a chance to rebuild our society.

Iraq is one of the historical founts of modern civilisation. Our tragedy is that Saddam pillaged our potential for his own purposes.

Now that he is gone we have a great opportunity to overcome our isolation from decades of modernity and to rebuild our links with the international community. Our second parliamentary elections, on 7 March, will provide an opportunity to consolidate our growing democracy and further isolate those who use the bomb and the gun against the will of our own people.

We, as a people, have a great regard for and affection towards the British and we are seeking deep, broad and long-term relationships with your politicians, academics, sporting groups and businesses.

We are a potentially rich country but our legacy is a poor one. We value the ability of British business to unlock our resources through increased investment and by trading with us. Iraq is becoming increasingly open to commerce, which is a means of giving our people the better way of life that they seek and deserve.

It would also be in Britain's interest to continue its relationship with us. We are proud to be your friends and hope that you will always be our friends, working together for the common good of humanity."

I genuinely wonder, what do Tony Blair's critics say to the president of Iraq?

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.