Amnesty's Disproportionate Response

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shepherd observes that the fact that Amnesty consciously

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

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

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

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

and from an Israeli police officer:

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

It explains why this all started:

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

and gives Israel's response to the accusations:

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

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

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

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

Does Anyone Really Care About The Palestinians?

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

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

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

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

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

Checkpoint Humiliation

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

More Goldstone Controversy

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

HRW Founder Calls It Anti-Israel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conflicting Messages From The Times

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Guardian Just Gets Worse And Worse

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

Chas Newkey-Burden asks,

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

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

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

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

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

A Picture's Worth A Thousand Words

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

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

NGO Monitor goes into more detail.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Double Checkpoint Humiliation!

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

Melanie Phillips Tackles The BBC

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

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

She concludes,

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

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

Guardian Balance?!

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

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

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

Seth Freedman Idolises Ex-Jewish Fatah Member

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

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

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

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

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

Freedman ends, almost wistfullly,

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

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

Guardian Finds Yet ANOTHER Self Hating Jew!

Read Cif Watch and Robin Shepherd's takes on this self-hating Israeli Jew's typically biased Guardian comment piece. The Guardian is like a beacon to these people! Or maybe it's the other way round. This piece the Guardian found on an Israeli blog, but they have now given Meron Rapoport his own profile page, where no doubt further anti-Israel articles will soon be cropping up. Here the Guardian drools over him being "winner of the Napoli International Prize for Journalism for a inquiry about the stealing of olive trees from their Palestinian owners." (After a google check, that seems to be the only time the 'prize' has ever been won, or even mentioned.) But of course, his 'prize' would hardly be for balanced or insightful journalism; the Guardian doesn't seem to like objective journalists.

Guardian: Only Bad Israelis Are Good Israelis

We keep hearing about these human rights groups and activists, and then it always turns out they don't really care about humans' rights at all - at least, not Israel's rights.

They, according to Antony Lerman of the Guardian, are the only ones

"that have the moral authority and objective expertise to call the government to account for any human rights abuses suffered by Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza at the hands of Israeli officials or settlers."

Except that they have no moral authority and certainly no objective expertise whatsoever!

Lerman says that "Breaking the Silence is the organisation of veteran Israeli soldiers that interviewed those who participated in Operation Cast Lead in Gaza."

But some of the soldiers who testifed were found not to have even been in Gaza, but were just saying what they had heard.
Lerman goes on,

"If you make these groups the enemy, you are setting your face against the kind of essential truth-telling and openness that must underpin the trust both sides need to have in each other if a just peace is to be achieved and sustained."

Aside from the fact that Breaking the Silence is not about finding the truth, but about demonising Israel; what about the truth-telling and openness on the other side? All we ever hear about is Israel's war crimes and atrocities, it's time we knew the truth about the other side, that Soldiers Speak Out were given the same attention as Breaking the Silence.
And then, worst of all, Lerman claims

"Their very aims are to strengthen democracy and the rule of law. These groups are now an integral part of a kaleidoscopic array of voluntary organisations that make up a vibrant global Jewish civil society."

So what makes us Jews "civil" are Palestinian rights groups that deliberately set out to demonise Israel with no conclusive evidence. It's the same as saying not all Jews are bad, only the ones that love Israel.

Lerman accuses "Netanyahu's demonising of human [Palestinian] rights groups [of doing] disservice to a proud Jewish history."

In what world is he living that anti-Israel, antisemitic, pro-Palestinian rights groups are part of our proud Jewish history?! Only self haters would be proud of that! The headline even calls those groups "Israel's priceless assets"!
But Jews who are proud to be Jewish, and proud of Israel, would be proud of groups like Soldiers Speak Out, that tell the truth; and Magen David Adom, that with no political agenda treats both Israelis and Palestinians.

Send The Guardian Your Letters

The Guardian has printed a selection of letters today that are quite hostile to Israel, and need to be addressed. June Forsyth Kenagy from New York asks,

"how on earth can you promote a new Middle East agreement that is only between the US and Israel? Therein lies the root of the problem: not only a lack of respect for the human rights of Palestinians, but utter failure to treat them as equals."

June is confused and someone has to explain to her that Hamas don't want peace, and will not negotiate because the only thing they want is Israel's destruction. Cathal Rabbitte from Switzerland says,

"Israel won't recognise Hamas, refuses to discuss East Jerusalem, does not accept the 1949 ceasefire line as Israel's border, and expects 450,000 settlers to be integrated into an expanded Israel. There doesn't appear to be anything to talk about."

Again, very confused, and needs to know that on the contrary it is Hamas who refuse to recognise Israel. And Israel does recognise Hamas - for what it is, a terrorist organisation that seeks Israel's destruction. Israel has done enough talking, it's now time for Hamas and Fatah to say what they want. (But we already know what that is - and it isn't peace.) Tim Llewellyn from London says,

"So Israel is going to be asked to reduce, very minimally and temporarily, its illegal acquisition of Palestinian land, while Iran is going to be subjected to possibly wounding disciplinary action for its legal uranium enrichment programme."

I'm not sure what one has to do with the other, but whilst Israel's aim there doesn't threaten the existence of the Palestinians, Iran has explicitly stated it's aim to "wipe Israel off the map". Legality shouldn't come into it! Unless ,of course, you are more concerned about some shacks being built than the possibility of Israel being nuked. (Which does seem to be the case among Guardian readers and lefties.) It is typical of the Guardian to only print this one-sided selection of letters, so I urge anyone reading this to send in your own letters to letters@guardian.co.uk, referencing the relevant letters above from 27th August, and include your full name, full address and phone number (the last two won't be printed).

Guardian's Extreme Anti-Israel Bias

Two weeks ago, I blogged about an example of the Guardian's hypocrisy in it's news reporting, and I speculated (naively, but I'm still learning!) that perhaps it wasn't the reporter's bias, but the Guardian's editors'. Then I saw an anti-Israel comment piece by someone whose name rang a bell - Peter Beaumont, and it turned out that it was his bias that really stood out to me in that article I looked at. So I browsed through his history of articles to see just how biased the Guardian's 'foreign affairs editor' is. Working backwards, his last Israel-Palestinian article praised the ex-Jewish Fatah member whose aim is to "save Palestine". Then comes Human Rights Watch' 'white flag deaths' report (the one I blogged about); then a comment piece criticising Netanyahu (well, he's not likely to praise him, is he?). After that is an article, picture gallery, and audio slideshow on "Life in Gaza after the Israeli invasion", where of course the only people affected are innocent civilians, because Hamas = terrorists is probably just a myth according to Beaumont. Before that is an article on how the Gaza tunnels are needed for economical reasons, as though weapons are never smuggled through them. Then another on how one man makes his living "from the devastation of Gaza". The one before that is about how the sea gives Gazans a place to breathe (ignoring the fact that many of the (many) open spaces in Gaza are used as terrorist training camps), describing the restricted sense of freedom by the sea that is of course only caused by Israel, because in the fantasy Gaza where Beaumont visits, there is no Hamas beating people up on the beaches for frivolity. He also somehow manages to make it sound as though the "segments of polystyrene, tan globes of pungent horse dung, bags and plastic bottles" on the beach are Israel's fault, when actually Hamas are a bit too preoccupied with plotting the destruction of the Zionists to worry about litter in Gaza. Before that are numerous articles on accusations against Israel of war crimes, including Breaking the Silence's "testimonies" but not the IDF's own investigations or Soldiers Speak Out testimonies. And it goes on and on, and gets even worse as he reported on the Israeli election and on Cast Lead. There were some "neutral" articles I skipped, because I was only looking for ones that specifically showed Israel or the Palestinians in either a positive or negative light. The articles I mention above are from a period of six months, and of all the articles written by Beaumont, the Guardian's foreign affairs editor, in that time, there is not one that is sympathetic to Israelis, shows them in a positive light, or gives Israel's point of view. (Unless it's self-haters', it goes without saying)

The Guardian Finds A New Recruit!

Actually, it turns out he isn't a new recruit. Neve Gordon is a professor at Ben Gurion University in the Negev. (But hopefully not for long - a petition has been started in an attempt to get him fired). He's created a lot of outrage over an op-ed he wrote for the LA Times calling to boycott Israel, and the Guardian of course loved the article and borrowed it. I naively thought that perhaps the Guardian had just discovered a new self-hating Jew for their Comment And Antisemitism Is Free blog, but turns out he's been writing for them already for a while! And what was the last thing he wrote for them before this? About how poor old Hamas-and-terror-supporting, Israel-hating, Palestinian-not-peace activist Ezra Nawi is to be "jailed for caring" (sob). He stated then that Nawi's "'crime' was trying to stop a military bulldozer from destroying the homes of Palestinians" - actually his crime was punching a police officer in the face in an attempt to stop the demolition of illegal Palestinian houses. Gordon also somehow manages to make it sound as though to be a human rights activist, you must only support the Palestinian cause and that Israeli victims are not deserving of human rights activism. But that's only to be expected of someone who (indirectly) supports Hamas. His boycott article is hardly even worth reading, as he is calling on the boycott as a way to end Israel's "apartheid regime". Agin he refers to the Israeli "peace camp", by which he means anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian activists - because if you want peace you can't support Israel can you? Look at the evil warmongers of Sderot, how they've been taunting Hamas with their mere existence and provoking Hamas into defending themselves with thousands of rockets. No, according to Gordon, Hamas are the ones who want peace, and Israel is to blame for everything, therefore boycotting Israel is the solution.

Even More Checkpoint Humiliation

This morning, Israeli soldiers once again humiliated a Palestinian at a checkpoint, in Hebron. The Palestinian tried to stab the soldiers so they shot him in the legs. IDF medics then treated the terrorist at the scene, and had him transferred to Shaarei Tzedek hospital in Jerusalem.

More Checkpoint Humiliation

At a checkpoint in Samaria on monday, three Arabs were humiliated and arrested after police discovered weapons in their car. We must get rid of the checkpoints already, otherwise how will terrorists be allowed to move freely through the country without this constant humiliation?!