The Psycho-Analysis Of Self-Hating Jews

There is a not unusual, but extremely dangerous and harmful psychological (and some suspect, genetic) disorder among some members of the Jewish faith, known as Self-Hating Syndrome. Adam Levick at CifWatch has written a comprehensive piece looking into this phenomenon; the nature and causes of this disorder.

I'm not even being tongue-in-cheek here. Having now read a few articles about the phenomenon, I've seen just how fascinating it is to really look at it as a psychological disorder, and see how obvious it is that these self-hating Jews have serious issues. I've always just dismissed them as a bunch of weirdos, cowards who want to "fit in" with the West's majority leftist ideology, but there's so much more to it than that. I would love to see a qualified psychologist's take on it. And then watch a self-hating Jew's face as the psychologist gravely informs him of his disorder.

Levick observes, referring specifically to the Guardian's resident self-hating Jews, that:

"These Jewish writers don’t merely critique Israeli policy, but routinely engage in hyperbole, vitriol, and gross distortions.  Their rhetoric is often spewed with hate towards the Jewish state, all but ignoring the behavior of her enemies - the terrorist and reactionary movements who openly seek her annihilation.  Such commentators often infer that the democratic Jewish state (the most progressive nation, by far, in the region) is almost always in the wrong, is usually motivated by a hideous malevolence, and represents a national  movement which they, as Jews, are ashamed to be associated with."

Obviously these Jews are a very different breed to those who criticise Israel's mistakes out of care for the country. Similarly, whilst many people do give legitimate criticism of Israel, antisemites (and self-hating Jews) will express disproportionate hate towards Israel, whilst calling themselves anti-Zionists. They'll accuse Israel of crimes it didn't commit, whilst ignoring those crimes that have been done on larger scales by other nations. They'll deny Israel it's right to self-defence and existence, when every other nation has that right.

These are antisemitic Jews, though Levick finds the term "self-hating" misleading, because they actually "seem to possess a belief that they are indeed 'better Jews' for being hyper-critical of Israel, opposing their own community, and rejecting the very idea of a Jewish nation-state." Their desire to be seen as "progressive" means they move further away from identification with Israel and with the Jewish community. Levick then refers to a piece by Anthony Julius on Z Word, observing that these Jews possess "moral vanity", to assure the rest of the world of their righteousness:

"A moraliser has a good conscience and is satisfied by his own self-righteousness. He is not a self-hater; he is enfolded in self-admiration."

This is expanded on by Barry Rubin, who explains that the root of these Jews' desire to assimilate - by removing themselves from the communal interests of Israel and the Jewish religion - and to be seen as "alturistic", is plain and simple: fear. "While antisemites charge that all or almost all Jews in positions of power pursue a distinctively Jewish interest, the exact opposite is the truth". Which is why so many left-wing Jews try to prove themselves by "championing the causes of other groups even - sometimes especially - those in conflict with Jewish interests... [whilst] they hold the exact opposite attitude towards their own people, whom they are determined to show are not their own people".

It's a defence mechanism, as commenter Mitnaged puts it: 

"he is stuck in the paranoid-schizoid phase as described by Melanie Klein and is psychologically split. This stems from persecutory anxiety and the only way he can feel good about himself is by splitting off the parts of himself he sees as 'bad' and disowning them, and projecting them onto others at whom he can then point and believe himself to be 'all good'."

So really, self-hating is an accurate term to define them, in that they don't literally hate themselves, but hate the religion, Israel which is associated with it, and Jews who hold different views to them. Afraid of who they are; ashamed of their religion, people and country, self-hating Jews are proud to distance themselves from it, seeking acceptance from the Jews' enemies. Self-hating Jews will only ever be open about their Jewish status when in the same breath they distance themselves from all things Jewish.

Levick's final explanation for the phenomenon is that these Jews are really just overgrown adolescents, going through an intellectual and existential crisis; questioning the knowledge they've been taught growing up, believing themselves to be wiser than those who taught them. Julius at Z Word explains:

"He holds that the truth is to be arrived at by inverting the 'us = good' and 'other = bad' binarism. He finds virtue in opposing his own community; he takes the other point of view. He writes counter-histories of his own people. It is not enough for him to disagree, or even refute; he must expose the worst bad faith, the most ignoble motives, the grossest crimes. He must discredit."

Canadian writer David Solway, also on CifWatch compares today's self-hating Jews to century-old antisemitism, accusing Israel of "indiscriminately shedding [Palestinian] blood to feed its appetite for conquest and spoliation" as opposed to the ancient antisemitic blood libels, fabricating that Jews murdered Christian or Muslim children for religious rituals.

Solway explains that the self-hating phenomenon is a result of antisemitism, which causes "the insecure and self-doubting Jewish soul to turn about and attack itself, like an immune system gone awry." Solway depicts "a scorpion, trapped in a ring of fire, [which] coils up with the heat and appears to sting itself with its own lethal tail." This is a metaphor for self-haters:

"surrounded by the flames of enmity, misprision and commination, the self-reviling Jew shrivels back upon himself, the autonomic convulsion of an ailing and enervated soul."

Most tragically of all, Solway observes how the self-hating Jew ends up:

"doing the work of his tormentors as if in agreement with their salvos of defilement and vilification... [he] becomes the antisemite's loyal deputy, assuming liability for the world's mortal caricature of him and willing his own eclipse."

So to sum up, self-hating Jews are cowardly but smug, childish and stupid, hypocritical traitors. With psychological disorders.

On the subject of leftism and Israel, about a month ago there was an article on why leftists should be pro-Israel. Of course most leftists are actually very anti-Israel, most of them hypocrites who hold double standards when it comes to Israel.

Saturday Times Fruitcake

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rockets, Fake Graves And Powercuts

Last week several rockets were fired from Egypt in the direction of Eilat. Two of the rockets were overhit and landed in Jordan, killing one. Whilst there is no shortage of suspects of people who want to murder Israelis, Hamas hilariously blame Israel, saying it would be an excuse to bomb Gaza. Well Hamas would think that, wouldn't they. Endangering the lives of (their own) civilians for PR purposes is right up their street.

The Palestinians have found a new way of stealing Israeli land with their illegal building. In an ancient Muslim cemetry in Jerusalem, Arabs are building fake graves, with the cemetry now cutting into Independence Park.

You know how people say Israel denies the Gazans electricity? Well Gaza's power station is down for the third time in five months, due to an argument between Fatah and Hamas. I don't expect this calls for Gazans to pose for the media holding candles in daylight. If Israel's not to blame, no one cares.

UN "Peacekeepers" Stand By As Lebanon Attacks Israel

Lately it's been very difficult to say the word 'peace' in any way other than in quotation marks, as the people associated with it continue to make a mockery of the word

First "peace" activists, and now UN "peacekeepers", who watched as Lebanese soldiers today murdered an Israeli soldier and injured others in an unprovoked attack. Three Lebanese soldiers and a journalist were also killed. Follow the Muqata blog for live updates.

The Israeli soldiers were on Israeli territory - between the security fence and the internationally recognised border - carrying out routine maintenance that involved clearing bushes and trees that encroached on the area, blocking the line of sight and thus constituting a security concern. The work was done in coordination with UNFIL, who also made the Lebanese army aware it was going to take place.

After a period of fighting started by the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) - which they acknowledge, as "defending" their "sovereignity" - the Lebanese called on the IDF to suspend their fire, which they did. Soon after, the Lebanese fired at an Israeli tank; Israel responded.

The fact that the Lebanese fired not at the Israelis doing the work, but at their colleagues nearby, suggests that it was a preplanned attack, and not in retaliation to the work they were doing. 

But the most notable thing is that despite the maintenance being ongoing work that is not newsworthy,  large numbers of journalists and photographers were on the scene even before the attack - including two correspondents from Hezbollah news outlets.

Taking into account the links between the LAF and Hezbollah, EoZ highlights that Hezbollah members may have carried out the attack, dressed in the Lebanese army uniform.

UN "Peacekeepers" [in the blue berets] enjoy the show as the Lebanese fire at Israel

Of course, Israel has had problems with UNFIL before. UNFIL have been known to allow Hezbollah to hold posts near their own positions, and also treats the IDF as equivalent to Hezbollah, despite the IDF being a legitimate army and Hezbollah recognised internationally as a terrorist organisation.

In 2000, when Hezbollah abducted and murdered three Israeli soldiers, UNFIL hid video evidence they had until nearly a year later, despite Israel repeatedly asking to see it, with the UN denying it's existence - but clips being aired on Syrian and Lebanese television.  UNFIL claimed that their "objectivity" didn't allow them to disclose military information to parties in a conflict.

But obviously for UNFIL, what applies for one side doesn't apply for the other. During the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah, UNFIL openly published real-time information on the IDF's positions, weapons and operations on their website, which Hezbollah would've found very useful; whilst giving away nothing on Hezbollah's tactics.

So why wouldn't they stand and watch as Lebanon attacks Israel?

UPDATE: UNFIL confirmed the IDF was acting within the Israeli border, and that the Lebanese fired first (Lebanon also acknowledge that they fired first).

UPDATE (4/8/10): There are claims that Israel was warned not to approach, and that the LAF at first fired only warning shots. Zvi at EoZ observes in video footage of the outbreak, that immediately after UNFIL shout their "warning" to the IDF ("Down, down!") the Lebanese soldiers are aiming their guns down towards the IDF, not away from them, and that as soon as the shots ring out a cloud of dust rises just in front of the Israelis, evidently as a result of the gunfire. 

It is a almost certain that Hezbollah were involved, one indication being that they operated from a village close to the LAF post.

All evidence points to this being a pre-planned ambush, so the question remains, who exactly was behind the whole thing? Why did UNFIL not try to stop the LAF from attacking, and how involved were Hezbollah?

Update 6/8/10: The LAF are claiming that the Lebanese soldiers were following army orders to open fire on the Israelis. EoZ suggests why this could be untrue, if Hezbollah were involved:

It [LAF] wants to project an image of having full control over its soldiers; it wants to erase any indication that Hezbollah influences the army; it wants to take full credit for a decision that is wildly popular in Lebanon and it wants to contradict whatever Israel says. 

EoZ points out that if the incident comes under an international investigation, the Lebanese army should be found guilty of one or two things: "acting recklessly in violation of [UN Resolution] 1701", and/or being influenced by Hezbollah, recognised as a terrorist organisation.

And the third thing of course, would be evidence on the pre-planned nature of the attack, and on the involvement of UNFIL, the LAF, and Hezbollah.

Cameron: Sychophant Or Just Ignorant?

Last week on his trip to Turkey, British Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron said in his specch:

"The Israeli attack on the Gaza flotilla was completely unacceptable... the situation in Gaza has to change. Humanitarian goods and people must flow in both directions. Gaza cannot and must not be allowed to remain a prison camp."

Whilst this may just be a severe case of sucking-up to his Islamist hosts, it is deeply disturbing that Cameron would even go to these lengths to delegitimise Israel in the Arab world.

First he portrays Israel as the "attackers" in the flotilla incident, completely ignoring the fact that the activists attacked first, and the soldiers had to fight back in self-defence only once their lives were in danger. Worse, Cameron condemns Israel's actions in the flotilla, whilst not addressing the links between the Turkish PM Erdogan and his government, and the radical Islamic Turkish "charity", the IHH, whose members were the main cause of violence on the Mavi Marmara. Nor did he mention the links between the activists and terrorism. Or question the "moderate"* Erdogan's support for a flotilla of terrorists whose sole aim was to breach Israel's security blockade and lynch Israeli soldiers or die trying. (*Erdogan has also praised the Sudanese President and war-criminal Omar al-Bashir, which the Guardian seems to like).

Cameron also did not address why Israel needs a security blockade in the first place, why they would want to prevent the smuggling of weaopns into Gaza, and prevent would-be suicide bombers waltzing into Israel at will. How even though over 10,000 rockets have been fired into Israel from Gaza over recent years, Israel still transfers over 15,000 tonnes of humanitarian aid into the strip every week, with the amount and variety of goods increasing all the time. Despite the fact that Gilad Shalit has been held in Gaza for over four years, denied Red Cross visits, his condition unknown.

Worst of all, whether Cameron actually believes that Gaza is a "prison camp", or whether he was just saying it to appease the Turks, the assertion smacks of antisemitism and is an insult to the people who died in the camps during the Holocaust, to the survivors of the camps, and to the millions of people globally who really are suffering unjustly in prison camps or under similar conditions.

Do prison camps receive 15,000 tonnes of aid a week? Do prison camps have swimming pools, shopping malls, luxury hotels and restaurants, markets?

If anyone is making Gaza a prison camp, it's Hamas, but Cameron does not acknowledge this. How they demolish Palestinians' houses, burn down the childrens' summer camps, bomb internet cafes, ban shops from displaying mannequins or pyjamas, ban women from anything from riding motorcycles to smoking nargila, and murder anyone they see as a "collaborator" or rival.

Cameron now has some major damage control, and it will be interesting to see when he deigns to visit Israel, how he will combine the sucking-up thing with his ignorant Israel-bashing.

Meanwhile, Just Journalism's Executive Director Michael Weiss has written an extensive article examining the links between the Turkish government and the radical Islamic IHH organisation.

Al Qaeda No. 2 In Crazy Rant Which Kind Of Makes Sense

In an audiotape on an Islamist website, Al Qaeda's number 2 terrorist Ayman al-Zawahiri lets rip all his pent up feelings in a hilarious rant that rivals the infamous French Taunter's "English pig-dogs" tirade in Monty Python:

"Poor Obama comes to Kabul pledging that Taliban will not return to power... You threaten the Taliban; you are just a puppet of the tyrants"

... I blow my nose at you, sons of a silly person! 

He does makes an interesting comment though, that "These Arab Zionists are more dangerous than Jewish Zionists". At first glance, this is a load of nonsense, spoken by a psycho. None of the Arab leaders he challenges are anything close to being Zionists. And neither they nor the "Jewish Zionists" are "dangerous" in the ways which he refers to.

But his fear (which he disguises as contempt), is somewhat understandable. Why should he be scared of Jews? (whilst he's cowering in his cave). The Arab leaders he mentions aren't as obviously Islamist and terror-supporting like Ahmadinejad, so it's no wonder he's scared they're turning into Zionists, and he's worried of their betrayal!

It all makes sense when you look at it from the angle of Israel's enemies. On the one hand, there are the barbaric, mass-murdering Islamist terrorists. And on the other, are the "intellectual" types, the liberal-lefties, the Western leaders - our supposed "allies" - and self-hating Jews. These are the people we are supposed to identify with. "Normal" people. The people who fight for democracy and freedom and equal rights. 

But more and more, they are the people who are denying Israel it's right to self-defence and existence, and we are becoming increasingly alienated as age-old antisemitism reproduces itself as discrimination against Jews as a nation rather than a religion. When our friends and allies start to turn against us then it really is a dangerous time for Jews and Israel.

So even though al-Zawahiri is very deluded in his fears - Israel is the one thing the Arab world seems to agree on, in that they want to destroy it - if the Arabs were to turn into Zionists, it would indeed be disastrous for the anti-Zionists! Now the Jews on the other hand, we make up less than 1% of the world population, we're nothing to worry about!

Terrorists Caught

About a month ago, an Israeli policeman was shot dead, and two injured, in a Palestinian terror attack. It has now emerged that the terrorists were arrested, and were none other than Hamas operatives, in a smaller terror group.

They had been involved in terror activities for years, stockpiling weapons including the rifles that had been used in the attack, holding shooting training sessions, and plotting other attacks to kidnap or kill Israeli civilians or security officials, for which they bought disguises to look like religious Jews.

Members of the group had previously been jailed for terror-related activities.

Probably the most shocking part of it all is this:

"Two weeks before the attack, a leader of the cell accompanied his daughter to Hadassah Ein Kerem Hospital in Jerusalem, where she underwent surgery to remove an eye tumor. The surgery was funded by an Israeli aid organization."

But when you think about it, maybe it's not so shocking after all. Two weeks ago, EoZ linked to a story on how an Israeli reporter broadcast a news appeal to help raise funds for medical treatment for a dying Palestinian baby. 

At that time, the news was generally filled with stories of the rockets that were falling on Sderot, so the reporter Shlomi Eldar was not hopeful. But an Israeli Jew, whose son had died in the army, donated $55,000.

During the operation though, the mother confessed to Eldar that she would want her baby to carry out a suicide attack in Jerusalem. She told him "we will all sacrifice ourselves for the sake of Jerusalem. We feel we have the right to it". Eldar demanded "Then why are you fighting to save your son's life, if you say that death is a usual thing for your people?".

The woman replied:

"For us, life is nothing, not worth a thing. That is why we have so many suicide bombers. They are not afraid of death... After Mohammed gets well, I will certainly want him to be a shahid... For us a shahid is a tremendous thing."

The disregard for human life, of their own, their children, and needless to say of Jews, is obviously not so unusual for the Palestinians. But these two incidents really illustrate a sick irony, that these Palestinians want to kill Jews even when their own childrens' lives are saved by Jews. If they won't be turned by that, then what hope is there for peace?

Confirmed: British Jews Love Israel!

The Institute for Jewish Policy Research have released the findings of a survey of British Jews' attitudes to Israel. 

JPR's executive director, Jonathan Boyd concluded that:  

"Jews in Britain are pro-Israel and pro-peace. Their hawkishness on some issues is typically motivated by a clear concern for Israel's security, while their dovishness on others reflects a deep-set desire to see the country at peace".

Results that stand out include:

- 90% believe that Israel is the ‘ancestral homeland’ of the Jewish people

- 72% view the security fence/separation barrier as ‘vital for Israel’s security’

- 72% agree that the Gaza War was ‘a legitimate act of self-defence'

- 87% agree that ‘Iran represents a threat to Israel’s existence’

More from Robin Shepherd.

There are some disappointing findings, such as that 67% want to give up land to the Palestinians and that 74% are opposed to the expansion of settlements, but it is heartening to see that on the whole British Jews are clearly very supportive of Israel and of the necessary actions taken to ensure the security of Israeli citizens. 

Although the sample of 4081 people may not be representative of British Jews from every category, it does confirm one thing: that the lefty self-haters are indeed in the minority. Jewish support for Israel is as strong as ever.

Flotilla Updates

From Israel Matzav - finally there is confirmation of links between the Turkish "charity" IHH, and Turkish government officials.

And the IDF has released the English version of the videos confirming what happened in the flotilla incident, as I previously blogged:

Hoffman Exposes Anti-Israel Judge

In January 2009 during Israel's Operation Cast Lead in Gaza, seven people broke into a factory in Brighton, England, and caused £180,000 of damage, later confessing to their crime.

But this week, after their trial, they walked free. The factory was exporting military equipment to Israel, and their defence was that although they had committed a crime,it was justified as they were doing so in order to prevent the greater offence of Israeli 'war crimes'.

The judge, George Bathurst-Norman, said "You may well think that hell on earth woud not be an understatement of what the Gazans suffered in that time." He was born in Arab Jaffa and was brought out of retirement to try this case. The local MP Caroline Lucas supported the defendants, claiming that "all democratic paths had been exhausted" before they destroyed the factory. Lucas had previously blamed Israel for the Mumbai massacre, and supports boycotts of Israeli products. More on the judge's bias on EoZ blog.

Yet again Israel is denied it's right to self-defence, this time because of corruption in British courts. As Robin Shepherd puts it:

"Bigotry against the Jewish state is now so entrenched in contemporary British society that juries have begun to acquit criminals merely if they can show they acted against Israeli interests. No other defence is necessary."

Now Jonathan Hoffman has fisked the evidence, the 87 page transcript of the judge's summing-up of the case - comments he made to the jury before they decided to acquit the defendants. Through a combinaton of the omission and distortion of facts, blatant lies, and antisemitic analogies, the judge succeeded in manipulating the jury with his demonisation of Israel. Hoffman observes that Bathurst-Norman was more a member of the defence's legal team than the judge, and this is no exaggeration. Read Hoffman's brilliant piece in it's entirety; that the biased, hate-filled rantings that he examines come from a judge is almost beyond belief.

On the whole affair, Melanie Phillips concludes: 

"for a judge to abuse the task of summing up evidence to a jury by turning it into a platform for his own personal prejudice is startling even by the standards of Britain's degraded and vicious Judeophobic public discourse." 

"If the senior judiciary does not institute action against this judge for such a gross abuse of his position, we shall have to conclude that they too see nothing wrong with it - and thus have abandoned all claim to objectivity, fairness or due process in the justice system. We shall have to conclude that, for the English judiciary, there is now one law for the gentiles and another law for the Jews."

Hoffman calls for action: 

"The bottom line is simple. Judge Bathurst-Norman behaved more like the Defence Counsel than the neutral Officer of the Court that he was supposed to be. The role of a Judge - far from advancing his own political agenda - is to clarify points of law to the lay members of the Jury. Bathurst-Norman's comments reveal that he has an extreme anti-Israel agenda. This case must therefore be declared a mistrial and retired under a neutral Judge. And Bathurst-Norman should be prevented from ever presiding over such a case again."

"Please complain to the Office for Judicial Complaints here. [Use the above quotes from Hoffman and Phillips to help form your argument]. The case is R vs Robert Nicholls and others at Lewes, case number t20097131. Please also ask your MP to write to the Justice Minister and Lord Chancellor, Ken Clarke."

Flotilla Mistakes... But Not What They Think

According to retired general Giora Eiland, the IDF investigation into the Gaza flotilla incident found that:

"Mistakes were made in the various decisions taken, including within relatively senior ranks, which contributed to the result not being as we would have wished... In this inquiry we found that there were some professional mistakes regarding both the intelligence and the decision-making process".

At this point, some people will be thinking, 'go on... get to the war crimes bit', but sadly for them the mistakes that the IDF made weren't that juicy. For myself and a lot of other people though, the mistakes were glaringly obvious from within hours of the incident, once the commandos' accounts started to come out, reinforced by the IDF's video evidence. 

So what mistakes does the report accuse the navy of? Only this:

"Failing to sufficiently consider the possibility that the commandos would encounter violent resistance when attempting to keep the ships out of Gaza... [and] not cooperating sufficiently with the Mossad in gathering information ahead of the flotilla's arrival".

The commandos were not expecting, did not want, and were not prepared for a violent battle. And they certainly didn't initiate it. As we've seen from the videos, the IDF boats alongside the Mavi Marmara were attacked even before the soldiers were able to board. In fact the report explains that the only reason the soldiers had to be lowered on board from helicopters was because the boats came under attack and the ladder was cut.

They had barely landed on the ship before they were overcome, their anti-riot paintball guns useless against the mob of activists armed with knives and other weapons. Not only were the soldiers shot at first by the activists, and with their own guns that the activists took from them - starrting with only the second soldier to descend, who was shot in the stomach - but a gun and bullets were found on board that were not Israeli weapons. Eiland said the commandos "only used force when they were under immediate danger to their lives", as they were instructed, and all the evidence confirms this.

If the IDF soldiers had been more prepared from the start, more aggressive even, if they had boarded with a more offensive mentality, then perhaps the nine activists may not have died. The soldiers may have found a way to take over the ship by force, but without their own lives being endangered so that they had no choice but to shoot.

Apart from those mistakes though - made by senior officials, not the soldiers themselves - the report concludes that:

"the Navy Commando soldiers operated properly, with professionalism, bravery and resourcefulness and that the commanders exhibited correct decision making... the use of live fire was justified".

So we know that the IDF's actions on the flotilla were justified. Last week we saw Hezbollah's preparations for war: stockpiling weapons in civilian areas. And now, in an amazing CNN report, we can see Israel's preparations for war: how to minimize civilian casualties.

The report is amazing for two reasons: first, how much effort Israel puts in to minimize civilian casualties, when the enemy are so determined to do the opposite, deliberately using their people as human shields, and second, the fact that CNN reported this at all; it is very rare to get such an insight into the evil tactics of Israel's enemies, and into the morality of the IDF in having to fight these people under such difficult conditions.

The question is whether this will count for anything when the next war comes.

UPDATE: Just Journalism analysis of the way the media reported the IDF investigation. Unsurprisingly, it seems that for the Guardian and Independent, the main findings of the investigation - namely that the activists were armed and attacked first - were just side points.

CNN Fires Terrorist-Supporting Editor

CNN have been forced to fire their senior editor of Middle East affairs, Octavia Nasr, over this tweet she posted on Sunday:

"Sad to hear of the passing of Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah.. One of Hezbollah's giants I respect a lot.."

Honest Reporting wonder what it is about Fadlallah that Nasr respects - his support for Hezbollah, who comment on "the necessity for the destruction of Israel", his links to terrorism, or perhaps his Holocaust denial. 

HR also point to how on his death bed, when asked by a nurse what he needed, he answered, "for the Zionist entity to cease to exist". And one of his last acts before he died was to issue a fatwa authorising the use of suicide bomb attacks.

Whilst Nasr's Lebanese background should not have been a problem in hiring her as senior editor of Middle East affairs, her being a terrorist sympathiser is.

Nasr blogged her apology: 

"It was an error of judgment for me to write such a simplistic comment and I'm sorry because it conveyed that I supported Fadlallah's life's work. That's not the case at all." 

She then rambled on trying to explain why she does and doesn't respect Fadlallah.

This wasn't enough for CNN though, who fired her, explaining that 

"At this point, we believe that her credibility in her position as senior editor for Middle Eastern affairs has been compromised going forward".

What they mean is that, although she's been working for them for 20 years, as a pro-Palestinian, pro-Hezbollah, and very obviously anti-Israel reporter/editor, her bias wasn't obvious enough to raise questions about her loyalties and commitment to journalistic integrity - until now.

The Augean Stables blog has more on her reporting. AS also links to the Guardian's sickening obituary by Ian Williams, who really rivals Nasr's tweet in mourning the terrorist Fadlallah as a "moderate" deserving of respect. The Guardian obviously take their own standards a lot less seriously than CNN, and so would doubtlessly be more likely to promote Williams to Middle East Editor than they would to fire him for writing such a loving obituary for a terrorist.

UPDATE: Elder of Ziyon links to another fan of Fadlallah, this one Britain's ambassador to Lebanon, who wrote on her blog on the official British foreign office website, that "The world needs more men like him".

The result? The piece was removed and she wrote a very insincere "apology", almost identical to that of the CNN's Octavia Nasr. More on this from Robin Shepherd.

On the subject of Hezbollah, EoZ highlights the evidence that even whilst there currently is no war between Israel and Hezbollah, Hezbollah are committing war crimes, storing weapons near schools and hospitals in civilian villages, deliberately using the residents as human shields.

Turkey And Islamism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gaza News And Latest Flotilla Backlash

Elder of Ziyon highlights that as Israel has increased the amount and variety of aid going in to Gaza, rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel have also increased.

In other news from Gaza, terrorists have, for the second time in two months, burnt down an UNRWA childrens' summer camp, both times handcuffing the camp's guards. Last time they also left behind a note threatening to kill John Ging, UNRWA's Gaza director, and other UN officials.

Ging's reaction was to praise Hamas for their response to the incident, and to seemingly blame Israel for extremism in Gaza, indicating that it is because of the blockade. Melanie Phillips points out that 

"It is Hamas that has to be isolated and defeated if a start is to be made in slowing down the rate of extremism". 

She observes that the view of the UN, Britain, US and EU is that 

"the way to stop more extremism being generated in Gaza is to provide more aid, encouragement and legitimacy to the extremists". 

What they're doing is "supporting the extremism which makes the lives of Gaza's Arabs such a misery" - and then placing the blame on Israel.

One thing Israel can, for once, be rightly blamed for, is Turkey's $400 million loss in the tourism industry due to the holiday cancellations of about 100,000 Israelis. (*thanks to Elder of Ziyon for the link). One Turkish tourism company which expected to bring 17,000 Israelis to Turkey this year, has so far only had 200 Israeli clients, having to pay $1.1 million to hotels for cancelled reservations, and incurring a total loss of almost $2.5 million due to all the cancellations.

Well, what did they expect when their Prime Minister openly supported a ship of extremists who attacked Israeli soldiers, and then accused Israel of war crimes when the soldiers defended themselves - completely ignoring the IDF's video evidence that refutes that.

In a new Just Journalism study, they highlight just how much Israel's footage was ignored by the UK media. They discovered that the Times, Telegraph, and Financial Times gave the footage the attention and detail it merited - and through that, countering the activists' claims that the IDF attacked first. Just Journalism conclude that the Guardian and Independent "severely under-reported" the footage, and when it was mentioned, it was dismissed as Israeli propaganda. But then the Guardian and Independent usually do leave out Israel's side of the story so this comes as no surprise.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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