Eyewitness Accounts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Video Evidence Of "Peace Activists'" Attack

The IDF has released more video evidence of the "peace activists'" attack on the soldiers. 

This is the chilling moment when they realise they're facing live fire.

This one shows the soldiers being attacked before they've even boarded the ship.

Even Seth Freedman, who has previously shown himself to be quite the ignorant self-hater, says Israel is not to blame in this incident:

"there is not an army on earth that would not allow its soldiers to respond with force to neutralise a life-threatening attack on their fellow troops... all the kneejerk Israel-hating in the world won't absolve the activist aggressors from their share of guilt for the horrific events that unfolded today".

He generously states,

"When Israel's wrongs are brought to light, they deserve condemnation as much as those of the Palestinians, but that does not mean automatically that in any situation the default position ought to be Israel is guilty until proven innocent."

Meanwhile CiF Watch takes apart the Guardian's editorial and article on those "peace activist" "eyewitnesses".

And the Washington Times sees the truth.

Flotilla: Media Reaction

The Guardian’s editorial today is predictably biased, comparing Israel to Somali pirates, commenting “no Nato warships will in fact be heading for Israel. Perhaps they should be”; and calling Israel a pariah state because of its military action. Israel is the only state in the world called pariah for defending itself. 

The Guardian seems to mock the idea that Israel was met with “pre-planned violence” (their quotations), and then contradicts that by blaming Israel wholly for supposedly placing “themselves in a situation where they lost control and provoked a riot, the Israeli navy [saying] they were forced to open fire to avoid being lynched”. 

Just Journalism observes further contradictory statements in the Guardian’s article: 

“On the one hand, The Guardian portrayed such violence as inevitable, saying, ‘What did the commandos expect pro-Palestinian activists to do once they boarded the ships – invite them aboard for a cup of tea with the captain on the bridge?’ However, immediately after this, the piece cast doubt on whether Israeli commandos had, in fact, faced any real threat, saying of a Greek man, purportedly shot by Israel, ‘Presumably he, too, was threatening the lives of Israeli naval commandos.’"

In answer to the Guardian’s question – what did the commandos expect the activists to do – well, I would suggest they followed the example of the passengers on the five other ships that Israel took control of, without the need for force. Surrender, and not try to foolishly start a war with the Israeli army. From literally miles away the activists knew exactly what would happen. They deliberately refused to go to Ashdod because they wanted a confrontation; they intended to inflict maximum damage on the soldiers with the weapons they had at their disposal – kill if they could – knowing that Israel would have no choice but to retaliate forcefully to prevent their own soldiers from being killed. All as part of their battle in seeking to delegitimize Israel and deny it’s right to defend itself.

The Guardian then gets even more ridiculous with this statement: 

“There was nothing on board those ships that constituted a threat to Israel's security, so Binyamin Netanyahu's argument that his troops were acting in self-defence has no validity. They should not have been there in the first place.”

Well, to quote Jonathan Hoffman from his speech made in support of Israel’s right to self-defence,  

“Israel had every right to board the Mavi Marmara ship. Israel cannot allow unknown goods and people to enter Gaza. Gaza is controlled by Hamas, a terrorist regime that calls for the murder of Jews, the 'obliteration' of Israel and its replacement with an Islamist theocracy. In the past, Israel has intercepted weapons-laden boats headed for Gaza’s coast. No government allows unidentified people and goods to flout their border regulations and enter their countries freely. If these activists behaved similarly at passport and security control in the U.S. or any other nation’s shores, ignoring their official protocol and violently attacking security personnel, they would also have been stopped and arrested.”

The Guardian’s hatred for Israel is so strong that they believe Israel should just allow a ship potentially carrying weapons and terrorists into Gaza; and call for an end to the blockade, as Nick Clegg did knowing this would be dangerous to Israeli citizens, essentially dismissing all Israel’s security concerns as paranoia – and then express sympathy with the political isolation and pressure on “Hamas by insisting it recognise Israel before it is allowed to join a national unity government with Fatah.” How do they expect there to be peace whilst Hamas is bent on Israel's destruction?

On BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, the presenter John Humphrys echoes the Guardian editorial to Israeli ambassador Ron Prosor, asking:

“how would you react if you were sailing on a ship with old people and children on it, in international waters, perfectly legally, and out of the sky in the middle of the night a grouped of armed men landed on your ship – what would you do, welcome them in for a cup of tea?”

If I were on a ship with old people and children on it, I’d make damn sure not to breach a military maritime blockade. I wouldn’t ignore their numerous warning to divert to Ashdod. And if I did ignore them, I wouldn’t lie in wait to start a fight with them, because hopefully I’d have the sense to know they’re not looking to start a fight with me. But that’s just me. I just happen to value life. 

Humphrys then rivals the Guardian for most ridiculous comment of the day when he says “an iron bar is not the same as a machine gun... it’s not a weapon... a knife is not a weapon”. He says the incident was Israel acting disproportionately to “the slightest threat”. Well, really, the threat wasn’t even slight, because iron bars and knives aren’t weapons and are totally harmless, don’t you know. Just like those Hamas “homemade” rockets that have been falling today and for the last 9 years.

More reaction from the blogs on my side-bar, and live blogging again from The Muqata.

Flotilla Clash: Can You Handle The Truth?

Probably not.

It's been quite a grim day, but this article did give me a laugh.

Anti-Israel protestors demonstrated in Manchester and "surged the BBC's entrance, smashing its front doors. One man climbed to the top of the building to plant a Palestinian flag and there were at least three arrests."

"Talat Ali, 40, organizer from the Palestine Solidarity Campaign said: "This is a peaceful demonstration... we are not happy with the biased news given by the BBC".

Yet again we see that the people in these Palestinian rights and "peace" organisations don't really know the meaning of the word.

As for the BBC's reporting, from what I've seen they have been reluctant to embellish on the "peace activists'" attack, instead choosing (like all the other media outlets) to focus on Israel's reaction - even commenting on some footage that it shows an activist "fighting back" when it actually showed a soldier being attacked as soon as he had landed. To be fair though, the BBC - as it should - did give airtime to spokespersons from both sides, and showed footage of the battle - footage that doesn't lie; not only what the IDF filmed. 

I can only assume it is the BBC airing this footage that bothers these protestors, as it clearly shows IDF soldiers being brutally attacked before they retaliated, thus disproving claims that the IDF boarded with the intention to kill, and so enraging those who want to portray Israel as a terrorist state. They just can't handle the truth.

Guest Post: Flotilla - A Puppet Pulled By Many Strings

One of the main points in the flotilla incident that is causing such widespread outrage is that it was an aid ship where the battle took place. If it had been a ship of self-proclaimed terrorists the reaction probably would have been the same – although this scenario is unlikely, as terrorists usually like to hide among civilians in civilian clothing... how many of the “civilians” and “peace activists” on the ship were actually terrorists? Apart from the attackers who attempted to lynch and murder Israeli soldiers, we know the name of one – Raed Salach, head of the Islamic Movement in Israel.

But no one talks about that; instead, the running line is that Israel attacked an innocent humanitarian aid ship. Yet they completely ignored Israel's warning against breaching the maritime blockade, knowing that this would result in confrontation. A confrontation started by themselves, as Israel was not prepared for, and did not want to engage in a battle.

Israel allows over 15,000 tonnes of humanitarian aid into Gaza on a weekly basis. Yes, there are restrictions on certain materials such as metal which can be used for Kassam rockets, and concrete to build bunkers for Hamas terrorists. Israel had clearly stated that they were wiling to transfer all of the permitted aid if the flotilla were to simply dock at the Ashdod port without incident. 

So this was not just about the delivery of humanitarian aid. This was about making a political statement. Each organisation with links to the flotilla had plenty to gain from provoking an Israeli reaction. 

It is on the largest ship, the ‘Mavi Marmara’ which had 600 people on board and was sent by the Turkish humanitarian relief fund, where the main clashes occurred. The IHH is a radical Islamic organisation and although it runs legitimate aid programmes across the world, it also provides logistical, economical and moral support to the Global Jihad, Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. It should be noted that the Turkish Prime Minister has been very vocal in his support for the flotilla and there have been indications that Turkey’s ruling party may be jumping on the bandwagon with its loud support for the Gaza flotilla and its huge outcry afterwards in an attempt to boost its standings within the Islamic world, and especially in Turkey where its ratings have taken a slump in the polls. 

Hamas, of course will be milking this political stunt for all its worth and will be very encouraged by the international condemnation which have already started with the call for a lifting of the blockade.  

Foreign Secretary of the UK William Hague:

"The closure (of access to Gaza) is unacceptable and counter-productive. There can be no better response from the international community to this tragedy than to achieve urgently a durable resolution to the Gaza crisis.

"I call on the Government of Israel to open the crossings to allow unfettered access for aid to Gaza, and address the serious concerns about the deterioration in the humanitarian and economic situation and about the effect on a generation of young Palestinians."

And then we of course have the nasty left wing “peace” organization, Free Gaza.

Free Gaza spokesperson Audrey Bomse, has admitted that the main purpose of the Flotilla was to make a political statement and break the blockade – not about delivering humanitarian aid. She claimed that she gave “legal training to everybody on nonviolent resistance” and then plays dumb and claims not to “know anything about the knives and axes or anything”. When pressed on the claims of live fire she says there is “absolutely no evidence of live fire” and that “you see the Israelis coming out of the helicopters shooting”. That’s kind of contradicted by the video footage that is being broadcast by the media worldwide that seems to show Israeli soldiers because beaten with iron bars the second they set down on the boat.

And this video released by the IDF spokesperson show in detail that the weaponry even included stun grenades and fire bombs. 

It is quite evident from this bloody mess that the Palestinian cause has been hijacked by so- called aid organisations and hostile parties in certain Governments to further their own political or ideological agendas. Even the international media are questioning the naivety and stubbornness of these aid organisations' unnecessary and fatal actions. They had only one intention in ignoring Israel’s warning – to initiate the battle – and knew there would be only one outcome – casualties of people who sought martyrdom anyway, resulting in international condemnation of Israel once more daring to act in self-defence, and a PR win for the Palestinian and Arab world.

"Peace Activists" Attack IDF

Late last night, the IDF boarded a fleet of "aid" ships that were aiming to break the naval blockade of Gaza. Israel had given several warnings not to do so, and told the group to dock at the port of Ashdod, where the supplies would go under security checks and then be taken to Gaza by land.

They refused.

Israel boarded with the intention of leading the ships to Ashdod themselves. According to reports, backed by video evidence, on one ship where the violence took place, the “peace activists” lay in wait for the IDF to board, then attacked the soldiers with axes, knives, chairs, metal bars, chains, tools and even guns - both their own, and that they had taken from IDF troops. It was only once the "peace activists" had started shooting at Israeli soldiers that the IDF opened fire. 9 activists were killed in the fighting. 

It is notable that the IDF managed to take control of the other 5 ships without having to use force. This would refute claims that the IDF acted aggressively first, and not in self-defence. This was a lynching attempt; a life-threatening situation where soldiers were shot at, stabbed, severely beaten, thrown overboard and down stairs, and a helicopter almost brought down.

As for those “aid” groups who organised the campaign, unsurprisingly almost all of them have links to terrorist organisations and/or have spoken out themselves in support of terror against Israeli civilians, most notably the radical Islamic organisation/humanitarian relief fund, the Turkish IHH, with it’s support of Hamas.

Elder of Ziyon meanwhile, lists instances of where ‘Free Gaza’ has shown itself to be more in support of Hamas than of the Palestinian civilians.

Of course the Guardian’s article on the ‘Free Gaza’ movement fails to mention any of this. 

And that, I suspect, is a sign of how the reporting will be over the next few hours, days and weeks, with facts about the radical and antisemitic "aid" groups, and the nature of their attack on the IDF soldiers - who did what any other country would have done - being omitted and so stirring up another worldwide anti-Israel and antisemitic frenzy.

The next question is, will the US and the new UK government get caught up in it, or will they look at the whole picture?

Updates: More information from Honest Reporting.

Live blogging at Muqata, including more video evidence of the attack.

Reuters misidentifies injured Israeli soldier in picture as pro-Palestinian activist.

BBC report: shows the footage of an Israeli soldier landing on the deck and immediately being beaten with a metal bar by an activist. Narration over the video? "Activist fights back". Never mind the evidence staring us in the face, if the Arabs say that Israel attacked first, it must be true.

Witness account: describes how Israel exercised restraint on board the ship, until they had no choice but to open fire when their lives were endangered by the attackers - sorry, "peace activists".

Nick Clegg And Human Rights

Soon after David Cameron became Prime Minister, his deputy, Nick Clegg has already demonstrated how close we could be to disaster if he was PM instead of Cameron.

Whilst the Conservatives have pledged to replace the Human Rights Act with a new Bill of Rights, Nick Clegg has spoken out on his support of the Act - specifically that a terror suspect and al-Qaeda operative should not be deported to Pakistan in case he would be "mistreated" by the authorities there. This is despite the fact that the Immigration Commission has stated that he "poses a serious threat to the national security of the United Kingdom and that... it is conducive to the public good that he should be deported."

As Telegraph writer Nile Gardiner says, "Clegg's left-wing instincts are completely wrong on this issue, and the PM [Cameron] must act before British lives are lost as a result of the Liberals' political posturing." 

Yet again an example of how lefties seem to apply the idea of "human rights" more to terrorists than to the civilians they target as their victims. Twisted, but hardly a surprising attitude from Nick Clegg, who has ruled out military action against Iran, and wants Israel disarmed.

Guest Post: Can't Take a Joke - Part 2

Oh great, now it’s well known Scottish comedian Frankie Boyle who accused the BBC (yes that BBC) of being “cowardly” and “cravenly afraid of giving offence” after they censored him for his Israel jokes.

Here they are: 

“I’ve been studying Israeli Army Martial Arts. I now know 16 ways to kick a Palestinian woman in the back. 

People think that the Middle East is very complex but I have an analogy that sums it up quite well. If you imagine that Palestine is a big cake, well…that cake is being punched to pieces by a very angry Jew.” 

You know, the jokes aren’t nice but I’m sure a lot of us might let them slide or at least not come out with the harshest condemnations because we know that for comedians, no subject is off the board to poke fun at. Frankie Boyle is no exception, in fact, there is no limit to how low a level he will stoop to get a laugh and that includes jokes about Jews, Arabs, politicians, terrorists and disabled people - no one is spared!

But it is more the content of his letter to the BBC Trust ranting at the ‘injustice’ caused by the censoring of his antisemitic / anti-Israel jokes that causes us real offense: 

“I think the problem here is that the show’s producers will have thought that Israel, an aggressive, terrorist state with a nuclear arsenal was an appropriate target for satire. The Trust’s ruling is essentially a note from their line managers. It says that if you imagine that a state busily going about the destruction of an entire people is fair game, you are mistaken. Israel is out of bounds.“

Yes, he just openly called Israel an Aggressive, Terrorist State with a Nuclear Arsenal!!! I swear to the ordinary reader you would think he was talking about Iran (“we will wipe Israel off the map”) or North Korea! How is that okay? Then he says that we are destroying an entire people as though it’s our 9-5 day to day jobs.

He then continues: 

“The BBC refused to broadcast a humanitarian appeal in 2009 to help residents of Gaza rebuild their homes. It’s tragic for such a great institution but it is now cravenly afraid of giving offence and vulnerable to any kind of well drilled lobbying.” 

Yup the great Israel lobby, that powerful beast which leaves news organisations such as the BBC and The Guardian quaking in their boots should they dare mention a single negative word in the same sentence as the word ‘Israel’ or ‘Jew’. Really? The BBC is afraid of the pro-Israel lobby? Well that didn’t stop them writing a hundred articles condemning Israel in the past year since the defensive war, Cast Lead.

And then of course it leads to apartheid: 

“The situation in Palestine seems to be, in essence, apartheid. I grew up with the anti apartheid thing being a huge focus of debate. It really seemed to matter to everybody that other human beings were being treated in that way. We didn’t just talk about it, we did things, I remember boycotts and marches and demos all being held because we couldn’t bear that people were being treated like that." 

Yes it’s just like South-Africa was! Arabs can’t live in Israel (there are 1 million in Israel alone), they can’t vote (there are three Arab parties in the Israeli Knesset - Hadash, Balad and United Arab List), they cant buy homes in Israel (Arabs live in every city in Israel) and they can’t work in Israel (Arabs own shops, restaurants and drive taxis just like Jews do).

But where is this Israel-hatred from Frankie Boyle stemming from? A documentary of course! 

“A few years ago I watched a documentary about life in Palestine. There’s a section where a UN dignitary of some kind comes to do a photo opportunity outside a new hospital. The staff know that it communicates nothing of the real desperation of their position, so they trick her into a side ward on her way out. She ends up in a room with a child who the doctors explain is in a critical condition because they don’t have the supplies to keep treating him. She flounders, awkwardly caught in the bleak reality of the room, mouthing platitudes over a dying boy. 

The filmmaker asks one of the doctors what they think the stunt will have achieved. He is suddenly angry, perhaps having just felt at first hand something he knew in the abstract. The indifference of the world. ‘She will do nothing,’ he says to the filmmaker. Then he looks into the camera and says, ‘Neither will you’." 

There may be truth in the above paragraphs but it definitely does not paint the whole picture. How can there be a new hospital and not enough medicine to treat patients? That’s a contradictory statement right there. Even in Gaza, within the UN programmes and medical supplies allowed in on a daily basis, the only reason for a shortage of aid is when it is stolen by the Hamas terrorist regime.

Frankie Boyle counts the renowned self hating, liberal, extreme left leaning Noam Chomsky as a major influence - “Everybody should read him, and quickly” and another self hater Gilad Atzmon counts himself as big fan of Boyle’s stance.

I do not know much about the documentary that Frankie Boyle saw to convince him that Israel is the enemy but I do believe that when you have an empty hole in your head and you allow it to be filled with the hate spewing bile that comes from a Noam Chomsky book and a likely biased documentary, in addition to being ignorant and not being objective or bothering to find out the whole truth and reasoning behind a story - then of course you’re going to become anti-Israel.

The sad thing is that there are too many people who allow the media to feed them a pile of hate-based lies about Israel and aren’t pro-active enough to find out the truth.

Shame on you Frankie Boyle, but not a surprising outcome.

Vote Conservative! - Update - Says Simon Cowell!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Guest Post: Can't Take A Joke?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

The Western Wall = Occupied?

In what is one of the most absurd, ridiculous, I-don't-know-whether-to-laugh-or-cry, Israel-related stories that I've read (and I've read a lot); the UK's Advertising Standards Authority has banned an Israeli Government Tourist Office poster for depicting pictures of....

.... wait for it....

.... Jerusalem.

Specifically, the Temple Mount and the Kotel [Western Wall], as they are considered to be in East Jerusalem, what people call "the occupied territories"; and the ASA doesn't want people to assume that those places are actually part of the State of Israel, as that would be misleading, apparently.

My spoof story was barely an exaggeration.

The Kotel is at the centre of Judaism, physically, spiritually, emotionally, historically. It is not "occupied". The Kotel is Jerusalem; Jerusalem is Israel. The ASA may as well have said that Israel does not exist and the name on the posters should be replaced with "Palestine".

In another twisted story today, Just Journalism report on the Guardian's denial of and indifference to the Iranian nuclear threat. You would have thought that you'd have to be one or the other - either in denial of, or indifferent to - but the Guardian is a special newspaper that manages to be both at the same time. The really twisted part is that the Guardian is evidently more concerned about a potential Israeli strike to neutralise Iran, than about Iran's threats to destroy Israel. I call indifference, rather than denial or ignorance. Only someone in a coma wouldn't be able to confirm Ahmadinejad's words to "wipe Israel off the map". Only someone antisemitic wouldn't be concerned about it.

In good news, though, Britain's Charity Commission is investigating whether War On Want - you know, one of those "pro-peace" organisations that hates Israel and supports terrorists (a bit like those "human rights" organisations that only care about Palestinian, not Israeli rights) - breached regulations during an aggressive protest at a supermarket. More from Chas Newkey-Burden .

Holocaust, Antisemitism And Nuclear Weapons

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

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

President Shimon Peres added,

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

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

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

Times: Human Rights Watch Corruption Revealed

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

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

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

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

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

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

Foreman highlights that

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

A human-rights expert told Foreman that he was

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

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

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

The article mentions tha

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

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

There's more:

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

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

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

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

Although those may be things he regrets now,

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

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

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

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

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