Yes, that's right. Quite a ways down, below such important stories as "Spain Breaks Up Male Prostitute Gang" and "Girl Throws Puppies Into River". Nope, no bias here, why do you ask?
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
How Did the HP Publish the Terror Attack Story?
As with all Internet newspapers, which stories get top billing on a site is extremely important. Let's take a look at where the HP placed the recent terror attack story in their "World" section (it goes without saying it's way down on the home page).
West Bank Shooting Attack: HP Bias Along For the Ride
Although as Matt has mentioned, the Huffington Post was quick to cover today's shooting attack that killed four Israeli civilians, including a pregnant woman, they were also quick to spin it like there is no tomorrow. We'll start with the most obvious:
One would think that a shooting attack would have a picture and caption with the people who were killed, or maybe of the scene of the crime. But the HP instead decided to have a picture of the security fence, a similar but ultimately unrelated issue. The original Associated Press article has a picture of a bullet-ridden car as their picture, so one must conclude it was a deliberate decision by the Huffington Post editors. Anyone care to guess why they might do that? Aside from perhaps trying to assign either blame or false equivalence in the direction of Israel?
Oh, and it goes without saying that this did not make a unique headline, even in the World section.
Aside from that there were no obvious displays of bias, despite categorizing all the settlers in Hebron as "ultranationalist." As we expected, the excuse-making started early:
There will be more to come. Count on it.
Update: Damn I'm good! The picture was just changed. But the original has been immortalized in pixels.
Oh, and it goes without saying that this did not make a unique headline, even in the World section.
Aside from that there were no obvious displays of bias, despite categorizing all the settlers in Hebron as "ultranationalist." As we expected, the excuse-making started early:
Update: Damn I'm good! The picture was just changed. But the original has been immortalized in pixels.
Worst Terror Attack in the Past Two Years: The Countdown (Updated)
I read on Haaretz, the Jerusalem Post, and the New York Times about the deliberate slaying of four Israelis near Hebron Tuesday night. I hear about it about forty five minutes ago, but I wanted to see just how long it'll take the HP to pick up the story. The HP is very inconsistent in terms of its reporting, sometimes it grabs stories immediately, sometimes it waits for several days. Check out this post again for the results of when the HP finally gets around to covering it.
The count begins at the time this post was posted.
UPDATE: And bing, about a half hour later the HP covers the story. Kudos to the editors for responding quickly to this story. Now to go see the spin they placed on it.
The count begins at the time this post was posted.
UPDATE: And bing, about a half hour later the HP covers the story. Kudos to the editors for responding quickly to this story. Now to go see the spin they placed on it.
HPers Deal with Quotes
As I was reading this recent thread about Rabbi Yosef of the Shas party, I started thinking about the HPers and dealing with what people say. As the old expression goes, "facts are stubborn things", and when faced with the facts of what individuals say, it's interesting to see how the HPers react. Let me give you two examples.
1. Helen Thomas.
You all remember Helen Thomas, the White House reporter who made an anti-Israel remark and subsequently lost her job? Of course you do. Let's take a look at what exactly she said.
Patricia Villamil
Great article, very well said. To be Pro-Palestianian is the exact things of being Pro-Israel. Both will benefit from a two state solution. The dirty work is to disentangle the ideologies they are both mistakingly seeking. End the occupation, end the settlements and Palestians will end their attacks.
Craig Vail
You had me there for a while Mr. Rosenberg until you said your interperatation of Helens' remarks were that she indeed ( meant) to say she wanted All Jews out of Israel. I disagree, had she had time to think she may have very well said " send the settlers back to Israel "
So even though Helen Thomas made no distinction between the settlers and the rest of the Israelis, the HPers are more than willing to change her words to make them seem not as bad as they actually are. Now let's look at the other side of the coin.
2. Rabbi Yosef
First, let's take a look at what Yosef actually said,
mage
He also called for the destruction of All Palestinia
No, "mage", he does NOT call for the destruction of all Palestinians. There is no possible interpretation of that comment to indicate he means all the Palestinians.
We see in these two examples the intellectual dishonesty of the anti-Zionist HPers. They are more than willing to twist easily refutable facts to make their political position stronger, and will shout you down if you challenge them. It is more clear than ever that in order to be an effective proponent of the Palestinian cause you need to have a certain willingness to skirt the truth.
1. Helen Thomas.
You all remember Helen Thomas, the White House reporter who made an anti-Israel remark and subsequently lost her job? Of course you do. Let's take a look at what exactly she said.
"Tell them [the Jews] to get the hell out of Palestine...(where should they go?) Back home, to Germany, to Poland, to the United States and everywhere else..."OK, that seems straightforward enough. But how do the HPers describe her comments?
Patricia Villamil
Great article, very well said. To be Pro-Palestianian is the exact things of being Pro-Israel. Both will benefit from a two state solution. The dirty work is to disentangle the ideologies they are both mistakingly seeking. End the occupation, end the settlements and Palestians will end their attacks.
Craig Vail
You had me there for a while Mr. Rosenberg until you said your interperatation of Helens' remarks were that she indeed ( meant) to say she wanted All Jews out of Israel. I disagree, had she had time to think she may have very well said " send the settlers back to Israel "
So even though Helen Thomas made no distinction between the settlers and the rest of the Israelis, the HPers are more than willing to change her words to make them seem not as bad as they actually are. Now let's look at the other side of the coin.
2. Rabbi Yosef
First, let's take a look at what Yosef actually said,
"Abu Mazen and all those villains, may they perish. May the Almighty strike them with the plague, them and those Palestinians, evil enemies of Israel."So, he calls for the deaths of the enemies of Israel, those Palestinians who are Israel's enemies. How do the HPers change his words?
mage
He also called for the destruction of All Palestinia
No, "mage", he does NOT call for the destruction of all Palestinians. There is no possible interpretation of that comment to indicate he means all the Palestinians.
We see in these two examples the intellectual dishonesty of the anti-Zionist HPers. They are more than willing to twist easily refutable facts to make their political position stronger, and will shout you down if you challenge them. It is more clear than ever that in order to be an effective proponent of the Palestinian cause you need to have a certain willingness to skirt the truth.
Mythbusting: Israel and 9/11
It's become a byline among the Huffington Posters that Israel is responsible for 9/11. Not directly responsible, of course (though there are a few people who think the Mossad did it), but that 9/11 was a direct result of US aid to Israel. I have often seen comments along the lines of, "Israel costs us billions per year and all we get in return is 9/11." This is incredibly misleading because it implies that if the US did not support Israel the 9/11 attacks never would have happened. This is a myth that I will put to rest right here and now.
I'll start with citing the Arabs themselves who did not feel that Osama Bin Laden was in any way motivated by Israeli actions against the Palestinians. The President of Egypt Hosni Mubarak said, "“Osama bin Laden made his explosions and then started talking about the Palestinians. He never talked about them before.” Dr. Abd Al-Hamid Al-Ansari, dean of Shar'ia and Law at Qatar University said, "In their hypocrisy, many of the [Arab] intellectuals linked September 11 with the Palestinian problem — something that completely contradicts seven years of Al-Qaida literature. Al-Qaida never linked anything to Palestine."
Even Yasser Arafat agreed: " [Bin Laden] "never helped us, he was working in another completely different area and against our interests." And we know that Arafat would not turn down help from anyone, no matter how odious they were.
So then this begs the question: What was Bin Laden motivated by? This question would better be answered in a book but quite simply he didn't like the American presence in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the Middle East. One short quote:
Even more simply, there's a reason why radical Muslims refer to America as "the Great Satan." It isn't because they simply disagree with its actions. You don't call someone with whom you disagree "Satan," because that term is the embodiment of all that is evil. Perhaps that distinction is a little too obvious for the Huffington Posters. If America cut off aid to Israel I find it difficult to believe that it would stop being "the Great Satan," unless it was never all that great to begin with. Which I doubt!
So then I can't help but wonder: Why do the Huffington Posters believe this, if it is so obviously a half-truth? Well it is common among leftists to blame America for everything bad that happens to it, but that's pretty cold for a mainstream internet community. But they also don't like to hold Muslim terrorists accountable for their own actions, so that's out as well. Maybe this works as a middle ground: They can blame America (not really) and also use the 9/11 attacks to foster their own political agenda, i.e. cutting American ties with Israel. It also works out quite nicely when you combine this theory with the Zionist Occupied Government conspiracy theory which is also common on the Huffington Post. Hey, maybe the Jews are directly responsible for 9/11 after all...
I'll start with citing the Arabs themselves who did not feel that Osama Bin Laden was in any way motivated by Israeli actions against the Palestinians. The President of Egypt Hosni Mubarak said, "“Osama bin Laden made his explosions and then started talking about the Palestinians. He never talked about them before.” Dr. Abd Al-Hamid Al-Ansari, dean of Shar'ia and Law at Qatar University said, "In their hypocrisy, many of the [Arab] intellectuals linked September 11 with the Palestinian problem — something that completely contradicts seven years of Al-Qaida literature. Al-Qaida never linked anything to Palestine."
Even Yasser Arafat agreed: " [Bin Laden] "never helped us, he was working in another completely different area and against our interests." And we know that Arafat would not turn down help from anyone, no matter how odious they were.
So then this begs the question: What was Bin Laden motivated by? This question would better be answered in a book but quite simply he didn't like the American presence in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the Middle East. One short quote:
"The latest and the greatest of these aggressions, incurred by the Muslims since the death of the Prophet (ALLAH'S BLESSING AND SALUTATIONS ON HIM) is the occupation of the land of the two Holy Places -the foundation of the house of Islam, the place of the revelation, the source of the message and the place of the noble Ka'ba, the Qiblah of all Muslims- by the armies of the American Crusaders and their allies."He likes to ramble but you get the idea. Read the whole Fatwa if you like, though I would be remiss to say that there is a lot of attacks on "the Zionists" as well, however they remain of secondary importance.
Even more simply, there's a reason why radical Muslims refer to America as "the Great Satan." It isn't because they simply disagree with its actions. You don't call someone with whom you disagree "Satan," because that term is the embodiment of all that is evil. Perhaps that distinction is a little too obvious for the Huffington Posters. If America cut off aid to Israel I find it difficult to believe that it would stop being "the Great Satan," unless it was never all that great to begin with. Which I doubt!
So then I can't help but wonder: Why do the Huffington Posters believe this, if it is so obviously a half-truth? Well it is common among leftists to blame America for everything bad that happens to it, but that's pretty cold for a mainstream internet community. But they also don't like to hold Muslim terrorists accountable for their own actions, so that's out as well. Maybe this works as a middle ground: They can blame America (not really) and also use the 9/11 attacks to foster their own political agenda, i.e. cutting American ties with Israel. It also works out quite nicely when you combine this theory with the Zionist Occupied Government conspiracy theory which is also common on the Huffington Post. Hey, maybe the Jews are directly responsible for 9/11 after all...
The HP and the Rabbi
The Huffington Post finally got around to publishing the comments of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, the "spiritual leader" of the Shas party. Yosef, who has made controversial statements quite frequently over the years, has directed his bile this time at the Palestinians. His comments are condemnable, but what is interesting to us isn't so much what he said, but what the HP said he said.
Let's take a look at the HP's very short blurb about this story, supposedly from the AP.
This is what the original YnetNews article covering the story said.
We can argue semantics, but you would have expected the HP not to simply make up parts of his statement to make them seem worse than they are.
Again, wishing for Abbas' death is bad, but it's not as bad as wishing for the destruction of all the Palestinians.
Let's take a look at the HP's very short blurb about this story, supposedly from the AP.
"JERUSALEM — An influential Israeli rabbi known for his vitriolic pronouncements against Arabs says Palestinians and their leader should "perish from this world."...Israel Army Radio quoted Ovadia Yosef Sunday as saying the Palestinians were "evil, bitter enemies of Israel" and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas should be struck with a plague. He made the remarks in a Saturday night sermon."The article then goes on to talk about the context (i.e., the comments were made when peace talks are about to begin), etc. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the article makes it sound like the rabbi is calling for "the Palestinians" to "perish from the world", as in, all of them. Now let's look at another source for comparison.
This is what the original YnetNews article covering the story said.
"During his weekly lesson, held at the synagogue near his house in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Har-Nof, the rabbi mentioned the blessing said at the Rosh Hashana feast that says, "May our enemies and adversaries be destroyed", and applied it to the current situation. "Abu Mazen (Abbas) and all those evil men – may they perish from this world. May God Almighty strike them and these Palestinians.""Now, this is a very different statement from the one the HP published. It is clear from this article that Yosef wishes for death on the "evil men" who are the enemies of the Jewish people, some of whom are undoubtedly Palestinian. There is nothing in his statement to indicate he wants all Palestinians to "be destroyed", but that is what the HP made it sound like.
We can argue semantics, but you would have expected the HP not to simply make up parts of his statement to make them seem worse than they are.
Again, wishing for Abbas' death is bad, but it's not as bad as wishing for the destruction of all the Palestinians.
Racist Comment of the Day
Posted on this thread about the Shas founder making inflammatory statements about Palestinians:
But of course, if you point out that many of the Palestinians share a desire to destroy Israel because they elected Hamas, you will be called a racist.
The original link.
But of course, if you point out that many of the Palestinians share a desire to destroy Israel because they elected Hamas, you will be called a racist.
The original link.
Comments of the Day
From a thread about a German banker getting in trouble for an anti-Semitic remark:
The original link.
The original link.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Example of a Post: The Occupier
Check out this recent post by a loyal anti-Zionist.
There are two interesting things about this post I would like to highlight.
First, the characterization of Israel as "the Occupier" with a capital o. The best way to tell if someone is misinformed on any conflict (but especially the I/P one) is seeing if the person in question puts the combatants in iron boxes. To call Israel "the Occupier" makes all of Israel, with its numerous populations, opinions, and changes, into one solitary role, an occupier. Likewise, because Israel is "the Occupier", that means the Palestinians are "the Occupied". Once the roles are clearly laid out, it is very easy for an outside observer who doesn't know that much about the history and subtleties of this conflict to pick a side. After all, the poor Palestinians are "occupied", that must mean they need help!
Second, the user "plays the race card" by having a problem with a rally's organizer being arrested after a rally he helped organize turned violent. It's amazing how quickly anti-Zionists jump from saying it's OK to prescribe the actions of individual Israelis to the whole (such as Baruch Goldstein, Rabin's assassin, and Rabbi Meir Kahane), but will call you a racist if you point out the Munich terrorists are heroes among the Palestinians. As usual, there is a double standard afoot.
There are two interesting things about this post I would like to highlight.
First, the characterization of Israel as "the Occupier" with a capital o. The best way to tell if someone is misinformed on any conflict (but especially the I/P one) is seeing if the person in question puts the combatants in iron boxes. To call Israel "the Occupier" makes all of Israel, with its numerous populations, opinions, and changes, into one solitary role, an occupier. Likewise, because Israel is "the Occupier", that means the Palestinians are "the Occupied". Once the roles are clearly laid out, it is very easy for an outside observer who doesn't know that much about the history and subtleties of this conflict to pick a side. After all, the poor Palestinians are "occupied", that must mean they need help!
Second, the user "plays the race card" by having a problem with a rally's organizer being arrested after a rally he helped organize turned violent. It's amazing how quickly anti-Zionists jump from saying it's OK to prescribe the actions of individual Israelis to the whole (such as Baruch Goldstein, Rabin's assassin, and Rabbi Meir Kahane), but will call you a racist if you point out the Munich terrorists are heroes among the Palestinians. As usual, there is a double standard afoot.
An Obvious Obsession?
Yesterday I thought I would take a look at the Huffington Posts' "World" Section because there seemed to be a disproportionate number of articles about Israel and the Palestinians as opposed to other goings-on in the world. What I found was a pretty clear focus on that one particular issue above all others, including happenings in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Africa. The chart is below, and click the link for the data.
Slightly Off-Topic: Strange Guarnieri Poem
Someone at CifWatch linked us to this poem by Mya Guarnieri about eating light bulbs.
There was a whole year I couldn't stop buying light bulbs. I don't know why. Every time I went to the grocery store, I stopped and stood in front of the light bulbs, and wondered if I needed any. I always thought I didn't. I'd better get some anyways . Just in case. Always a four pack of the 60-watts. Generic brand. Home and onto the shelf they went with all the others, and by the end of the year the closet was full.
II.
I stood staring at the light bulbs wondering what it would feel like to put one in my mouth and to slowly slowly apply more and more pressure just the right amount of pressure until it popped and shattered into my gums. I wondered how the shards would feel and how they would crunch if I chewed. It's funny, I never thought about swallowing them, but I never thought about spitting them out either.
III.
I envisioned myself chewing light bulbs on a fairly regular basis. Don't worry, I never did it, but I couldn't get the idea out of my head. Maybe that's just about right, for that time in my life. I was in my late twenties and just divorced. My ex-husband kept: the house, the dogs, all our furniture. I'd moved into a tiny second-floor studio apartment with wood floors that screamed they creaked so much.
IV.
Late at night, I paced the short length of my apartment. The gritty floors were the color of honey and the bottoms of my feet turned to ash. I wanted to make a path, so that people who lived there after me would see it and wonder about the person who'd paced so much. I held the picture in my head—two boards bent, worn, bare of tarnish. A succession of faces, their eyes tracing my steps.
V.
The person who lived below me banged on my floor, I guess because I was making so much noise with my pacing. I felt bad that I was keeping them awake, but at the same time I liked the idea that in those lonely hours someone was with me. Following my footsteps with their hands.
????????????????
Shards
I. There was a whole year I couldn't stop buying light bulbs. I don't know why. Every time I went to the grocery store, I stopped and stood in front of the light bulbs, and wondered if I needed any. I always thought I didn't. I'd better get some anyways . Just in case. Always a four pack of the 60-watts. Generic brand. Home and onto the shelf they went with all the others, and by the end of the year the closet was full.
II.
I stood staring at the light bulbs wondering what it would feel like to put one in my mouth and to slowly slowly apply more and more pressure just the right amount of pressure until it popped and shattered into my gums. I wondered how the shards would feel and how they would crunch if I chewed. It's funny, I never thought about swallowing them, but I never thought about spitting them out either.
III.
I envisioned myself chewing light bulbs on a fairly regular basis. Don't worry, I never did it, but I couldn't get the idea out of my head. Maybe that's just about right, for that time in my life. I was in my late twenties and just divorced. My ex-husband kept: the house, the dogs, all our furniture. I'd moved into a tiny second-floor studio apartment with wood floors that screamed they creaked so much.
IV.
Late at night, I paced the short length of my apartment. The gritty floors were the color of honey and the bottoms of my feet turned to ash. I wanted to make a path, so that people who lived there after me would see it and wonder about the person who'd paced so much. I held the picture in my head—two boards bent, worn, bare of tarnish. A succession of faces, their eyes tracing my steps.
V.
The person who lived below me banged on my floor, I guess because I was making so much noise with my pacing. I felt bad that I was keeping them awake, but at the same time I liked the idea that in those lonely hours someone was with me. Following my footsteps with their hands.
????????????????
Pandela of the Week
Another week on the Huffington Post means the story of yet another Pandela (aka Palestinian Manda/Gandhi/MLK) cruelly oppressed by the Zionist entity. This time there is not one but two articles about him: One by Robert Naiman and the other by Joseph Dana, both noted anti-Zionist bloggers. Oh, I'm sorry, this isn't a new Pandela, it's the same one: Abdallah Abu Rahma. So he now has had three article written about him, meanwhile stories about sexual terrorists only get one.
Anyway, what's different now is that Rahma has been convicted by Israel of incitement. Dana does the usual: Complains, covers up the actually very violent nature of the protests at B'ilin, complains some more, and so forth. Naiman on the other hand whines that the US media isn't covering the story. Wow, my heart bleeds for him. Here, let's take a look at the other side of this story:
Ultimately, this says less about this particular case than it does about Palestinian society in general, and their position in the world. The bar is set so ridiculously low that just about anyone can be a Pandela as long as he isn't a terrorist.
Just take a look at Rahma: He's a community organizer who leads peaceful (not really) demonstrations against the Israeli occupation. However, I should point out that Gandhi and Mandela were not always community organizers, they eventually came to lead the people and unite them. Has Rahma done that? Is there any kind of hint that he would do that if he could? Then what exactly has he done to earn the title of "Pandela?"
The truth, of course, is that Rahma has not done anything that dozens of Israelis have done. Peace Now holds truly peaceful demonstrations all the time. I saw one the last time I was in Israel. Is Yariv Oppenheimer an "Israeli Mandela" or an "Israeli Gandhi?" Of course not. But Mr. Oppenheimer is Israeli while Mr. Rahma is Palestinian. And that's the only difference.
Which demonstrates perfectly how low the bar is set. "Mr. Rahma! You aren't actively killing Israelis right now? Then by Palestinian standards, that makes you a Gandhi! Congratulations!" It doesn't much matter that Rahma has no power, or that his followers are maybe .00001% of Palestinian society, or that he could or would stop terrorism should it resume. Because he's a Palestinian, and not a terrorist, that makes him a Pandela.
As long as these ridiculous double standards continue, don't be surprised if nothing changes.
Anyway, what's different now is that Rahma has been convicted by Israel of incitement. Dana does the usual: Complains, covers up the actually very violent nature of the protests at B'ilin, complains some more, and so forth. Naiman on the other hand whines that the US media isn't covering the story. Wow, my heart bleeds for him. Here, let's take a look at the other side of this story:
"On the ground, the IDF company commander announces over a loudspeaker that this is a closed military zone, and presents the decree to the demonstrators. Protesters begin shouting, "with spirit and blood we'll redeem Palestine," and "soldier, murderer, the intifada will win."Now once this reality sets in, it is much harder to make the case that Rahma is really a "Gandhi." Is this truly a peaceful protest, or is it merely not as violent as suicide bombings or drive-by shootings?
At first, Israeli Left-wing activists appear at the front and begin shouting at soldiers, while two Palestinians attempt to climb onto of jeeps in order to hurt soldiers. In response, the company commander gives order and troops push back the demonstrators, hitting them with batons. Two Palestinians are injured. The shouts get louder, and suddenly the Left-wing activists move to the sides. Palestinians in the middle then begin throwing rocks at the soldiers."
Ultimately, this says less about this particular case than it does about Palestinian society in general, and their position in the world. The bar is set so ridiculously low that just about anyone can be a Pandela as long as he isn't a terrorist.
Just take a look at Rahma: He's a community organizer who leads peaceful (not really) demonstrations against the Israeli occupation. However, I should point out that Gandhi and Mandela were not always community organizers, they eventually came to lead the people and unite them. Has Rahma done that? Is there any kind of hint that he would do that if he could? Then what exactly has he done to earn the title of "Pandela?"
The truth, of course, is that Rahma has not done anything that dozens of Israelis have done. Peace Now holds truly peaceful demonstrations all the time. I saw one the last time I was in Israel. Is Yariv Oppenheimer an "Israeli Mandela" or an "Israeli Gandhi?" Of course not. But Mr. Oppenheimer is Israeli while Mr. Rahma is Palestinian. And that's the only difference.
Which demonstrates perfectly how low the bar is set. "Mr. Rahma! You aren't actively killing Israelis right now? Then by Palestinian standards, that makes you a Gandhi! Congratulations!" It doesn't much matter that Rahma has no power, or that his followers are maybe .00001% of Palestinian society, or that he could or would stop terrorism should it resume. Because he's a Palestinian, and not a terrorist, that makes him a Pandela.
As long as these ridiculous double standards continue, don't be surprised if nothing changes.
Comments of the Day
Link.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Cross-Post: CifWatch On Guarnieri
[Our old buddy Mya "Sue Happy" Guarnieri has apparently expanded her grip into the fertile soil of the Guardian's Comment is Free, thus indicating her preference to move to the one newspaper that is even more hostile to Jews and Israel than the Huffington Post. CifWatch had an excellent response to her odious article, and so I thought I would crosspost it here if you haven't seen it already.]
Mya Guarnieri’s latest CiF piece, Islamophobia: The new anti-Semitism, August 26, draws parallels between one pastor in her hometown of Gainesville, Florida - who apparently is planning to “commemorate” September 11, 2001 by publicly burning the Qur’an – to memories of the racist violence of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) she recalls from her youth. Indeed, she goes further, arguing that if this preacher carries through with this act, it would be an indictment on the intolerance of the entire country.
Mya Guarnieri’s latest CiF piece, Islamophobia: The new anti-Semitism, August 26, draws parallels between one pastor in her hometown of Gainesville, Florida - who apparently is planning to “commemorate” September 11, 2001 by publicly burning the Qur’an – to memories of the racist violence of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) she recalls from her youth. Indeed, she goes further, arguing that if this preacher carries through with this act, it would be an indictment on the intolerance of the entire country.
“Gainesville’s struggle is a mirror for the country. And so are my memories. In the past, there was antisemitism, roiling just below the surface. Now, there is Islamophobia. If Terry Jones burns copies of the Qur’an in Gainesville, he’ll leave a shameful scorch on us all.”Comparisons between the hateful rhetoric of one preacher to the KKK – a violent, white supremacist terrorist group – is, simply, bizarre. The Klan, though extremely marginal today (Their membership today, which was as high as 4 million in 1920, is no more than several thousand nationwide) has terrorized and murdered scores of African-Americans – and white supporters of integration and civil rights – dating back to 1865.
Sultan Knish: The Media's Anti-Semitic Hate Machine
[This is crossposted from Sultan Knish. I don't always agree with everything he says but this one in particular seemed on topic, so draw your own conclusions.]
The Nazi propaganda rag Der Sturmer may have gone out of publication around the time that the Fuhrer's ashes were smoldering in his bunker beneath the Wilhelmstrasse, but its motto is present today in almost every liberal newspaper in the Western world. Der Sturmer's daily invocation of "Die Juden sind unser Unglück!" or "The Jews are our misfortune!" is omnipresent in the media coverage of almost anything involving the Middle East or Islamic terrorism.
The theme is much the same now as it was then, the Jews are responsible for all our problems. The presentation is of course much more subtle, but then Der Sturmer was considered vulgar even by much of the Nazi hierarchy, which preferred the more staid Völkisch Observer. Today's papers prefer to be in the Observer mode, the Storming they leave to the "plausible deniability" blogs of an Andrew Sullivan or a Glenn Greenwald, material that they pay for, but like a lot of the Nazi hierarchy and Der Sturmer, don't necessarily want to be too closely associated with.
The ideas however are not particularly original. The Jews are to blame both for the wars and for losing them, a propaganda paradox put to good use by the Nazis. The idea that the Jews were physically responsible for 9/11 is an area that the media leaves to the fringe, but the suggestion that the Jews provoked Bin Laden's anger against America shows up in countless columns and op-ed's. One is a radical conspiracy theory, while the other is a mainstream media talking point, but in terms of consciously stoking hate, what exactly is the difference. Only that the latter is vague enough to be defensible, especially when bolstered by a few selectively chosen quotes from the man himself.
By linking Islamic terrorism to some form of Israeli provocation, and from there to the support for Israel by American Jews-- the same media which would commit seppuku rather than blame Muslims for Islamic terrorism, instead blames Jews for Islamic terrorism. The steady drumbeat of such rhetoric, which exonerates Muslims but indicts Jews, for the actions of Muslims, is brilliantly perverse. And it also puts the lie to the media's defense that it avoids attributing terrorism to Islam because it does not want to stoke bigotry. In reality, the media has no problem with using Islamic terrorism to stoke bigotry. It just has a different target in mind.
Behind the media's long ugly history of misreporting terrorism against Israel, has been that one fundamental narrative, that it is not Muslims who are responsible for Muslim terrorism, but the Jews. When a Muslim terrorist attack happens in Tel Aviv, Madrid or New York-- it turns out that the Jews are the ones to blame. It really doesn't matter whether an Israeli soldier kills a Muslim terrorist, or a Muslim terrorist kills a Jewish father of four driving home from work, it is never the Muslim that is at fault. Always the Jew. Forget about even splitting the difference. There is never any difference to split. It is always Israel's "humiliation" of Arab Muslims that is at fault for provoking their righteously murderous anger. A familiar theme that recalls Hitler's constant invocation of "German humiliation" at the hands of the Jews.
But all the talk of the Jews "humiliating" other peoples hinges on the topic of the Jews as a "Chosen Master Race". A superior people. A role that Nazis and Arab Nationalists both reserved for themselves. The theme is taken up in numerous outlets, Jonathan Cook who appears in The Guardian writes: "Israel’s apartheid system is there to maintain Jewish privilege in a Jewish state". In a Hitlerian formulation, Philip Weiss who appears at the Huffington Post claims that Jeff Greene's criticism of the Ground Zero Mosque, "how privilege and power have transformed Jewish identity". Not that Jeff Greene opposes the mosque because he is following the polls as so many other politicians have done, but because he is a Jew. The Guardian charges that Israel is an "an enclave of Israeli Jewish privilege". That kind of rhetoric should be familiar. It is what Hitler described as "The anti-Semitism of reason" which "must lead to the systematic combating and elimination of Jewish privileges".
The Nazi propaganda rag Der Sturmer may have gone out of publication around the time that the Fuhrer's ashes were smoldering in his bunker beneath the Wilhelmstrasse, but its motto is present today in almost every liberal newspaper in the Western world. Der Sturmer's daily invocation of "Die Juden sind unser Unglück!" or "The Jews are our misfortune!" is omnipresent in the media coverage of almost anything involving the Middle East or Islamic terrorism.
The ideas however are not particularly original. The Jews are to blame both for the wars and for losing them, a propaganda paradox put to good use by the Nazis. The idea that the Jews were physically responsible for 9/11 is an area that the media leaves to the fringe, but the suggestion that the Jews provoked Bin Laden's anger against America shows up in countless columns and op-ed's. One is a radical conspiracy theory, while the other is a mainstream media talking point, but in terms of consciously stoking hate, what exactly is the difference. Only that the latter is vague enough to be defensible, especially when bolstered by a few selectively chosen quotes from the man himself.
By linking Islamic terrorism to some form of Israeli provocation, and from there to the support for Israel by American Jews-- the same media which would commit seppuku rather than blame Muslims for Islamic terrorism, instead blames Jews for Islamic terrorism. The steady drumbeat of such rhetoric, which exonerates Muslims but indicts Jews, for the actions of Muslims, is brilliantly perverse. And it also puts the lie to the media's defense that it avoids attributing terrorism to Islam because it does not want to stoke bigotry. In reality, the media has no problem with using Islamic terrorism to stoke bigotry. It just has a different target in mind.
Behind the media's long ugly history of misreporting terrorism against Israel, has been that one fundamental narrative, that it is not Muslims who are responsible for Muslim terrorism, but the Jews. When a Muslim terrorist attack happens in Tel Aviv, Madrid or New York-- it turns out that the Jews are the ones to blame. It really doesn't matter whether an Israeli soldier kills a Muslim terrorist, or a Muslim terrorist kills a Jewish father of four driving home from work, it is never the Muslim that is at fault. Always the Jew. Forget about even splitting the difference. There is never any difference to split. It is always Israel's "humiliation" of Arab Muslims that is at fault for provoking their righteously murderous anger. A familiar theme that recalls Hitler's constant invocation of "German humiliation" at the hands of the Jews.
But all the talk of the Jews "humiliating" other peoples hinges on the topic of the Jews as a "Chosen Master Race". A superior people. A role that Nazis and Arab Nationalists both reserved for themselves. The theme is taken up in numerous outlets, Jonathan Cook who appears in The Guardian writes: "Israel’s apartheid system is there to maintain Jewish privilege in a Jewish state". In a Hitlerian formulation, Philip Weiss who appears at the Huffington Post claims that Jeff Greene's criticism of the Ground Zero Mosque, "how privilege and power have transformed Jewish identity". Not that Jeff Greene opposes the mosque because he is following the polls as so many other politicians have done, but because he is a Jew. The Guardian charges that Israel is an "an enclave of Israeli Jewish privilege". That kind of rhetoric should be familiar. It is what Hitler described as "The anti-Semitism of reason" which "must lead to the systematic combating and elimination of Jewish privileges".
Jamal Dajani Spins and Lies About the Peace Process
The HP has published Jamal Dajani's latest blog post "Direct Talks: Five Myths", in which he discusses the peace process and five things you may or may not know about it. However, while some of the facts he posts are true, some are just as mythical, but in the other direction. Let's go through them one at a time.
Dajani's first myth is about the fact that although this is the first time Netanyahu and Abbas are directly talking, they have been communicating through intermediaries for quite a while. This is true, and I see no reason to get into it further.
His second myth, though, is about the settlement freeze and how it's not true. Dajani writes,
For Dajani's third myth, it's the most dishonest yet. He writes,
Dajani's fourth myth is more of an opinion than fact, so all I can do is disagree with him. He writes that, "Neither Prime Minister Netanyahu nor President Abbas have the mandate to deliver a peace agreement. Netanyahu would face strident opposition from within his Likud party and fierce opposition from his own foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman who has the ability and influence to unravel his fragile coalition." History has shown us that right wing politicians are the ones who bring peace in the ME, from Begin to Sharon laying the groundwork for Camp David. As for Lieberman, it is entirely possible that if he leaves Kadima would join the coalition if it looks like peace could happen. I will remain more optimistic than Dajani.
For his last myth, Dajani claims that Netanyahu has laid out preconditions for negotiations as well. He states that,
Now, notice that Dajani provides no source for his claim that Netanyahu even has preconditions. I turned to Google, and found this YnetNews article posted August 25th in which Netanyahu confirms he has no preconditions, and this Jordan Times article that makes the trademark anti-Zionist argument that dedication to final status issues (like "no right of return") is somehow a precondition. So Mr. Dajani, if you have proof that Netanyahu has preconditions, as in, things the Palestinians have to do before Israel will negotiate with them, let's see it.
Just another article on the I/P peace process that is short on facts and long on unsubstantiated claims.
Dajani's first myth is about the fact that although this is the first time Netanyahu and Abbas are directly talking, they have been communicating through intermediaries for quite a while. This is true, and I see no reason to get into it further.
His second myth, though, is about the settlement freeze and how it's not true. Dajani writes,
"Settlement construction is "business as usual" in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Although a few projects were pushed back, construction on existing projects continues unabated. Close to half a million Israeli Jews live in more than 100 settlements built since Israel's 1967 occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. More importantly, settlers have accelerated their activities taking over Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem, in Arab neighborhoods in Sheikh Jarrah, Shu'fat, and Silwan. Furthermore, in 2010, more than 240 Palestinian homes have been destroyed in Area C of the West Bank compared to 182 in all of 2009."What Dajani writes is true (for the most part) but not relevant to the settlement freeze. For those of us paying attention to the terms of the settlement freeze, we know Netanyahu agreed to freezing new projects in the WB, not existing projects, and not east Jerusalem. The removal of illegal Palestinian buildings also has nothing to do with the settlement freeze. So to argue that the settlement freeze isn't total or complete is true (although no one is saying that) but to say it is "business as usual" is equally dishonest. Note, also, that Dajani provides no sources for his words, I guess we have to take him on faith.
For Dajani's third myth, it's the most dishonest yet. He writes,
"Israel's concern over security in the West Bank is exaggerated. Today the Palestinian Authority is policing the West Bank on behalf of the IDF. Very few Israeli deaths, only two in 2010, have been registered due to attacks in the West Bank. In comparison, far more Palestinians have been killed and injured by settlers and the IDF in 2010. Rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip have also subsided. Israel's main security concern these days is Iran."First of all, there have been five Israeli deaths in 2010, not "only two", so Dajani's lying right off the bat. Second, he does not name the amount of Palestinian deaths, because if he did, he would have to say there have been twenty Palestinian deaths in 2010, four times more than Israel's, but relatively few as well, compared to say the Afghanistan war. And, of course, he provides no context for any of those deaths. Those twenty Palestinians could have all been terrorists thwarted by the IDF (or standing around minding their own business). Without context, Dajani's tactic of "counting the bodies" misinforms rather than educates.
Dajani's fourth myth is more of an opinion than fact, so all I can do is disagree with him. He writes that, "Neither Prime Minister Netanyahu nor President Abbas have the mandate to deliver a peace agreement. Netanyahu would face strident opposition from within his Likud party and fierce opposition from his own foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman who has the ability and influence to unravel his fragile coalition." History has shown us that right wing politicians are the ones who bring peace in the ME, from Begin to Sharon laying the groundwork for Camp David. As for Lieberman, it is entirely possible that if he leaves Kadima would join the coalition if it looks like peace could happen. I will remain more optimistic than Dajani.
For his last myth, Dajani claims that Netanyahu has laid out preconditions for negotiations as well. He states that,
"In fact both he [Netanyahu] and President Mahmoud Abbas have already announced preconditions, raising expectations and laying the groundwork for failure...Among the preconditions laid out by Netanyahu for peace with the Palestinians is recognition of Israel as a Jewish state."The only precondition that Dajani deigns to mention is recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. Now, the Palestinians have not recognized Israel as a Jewish state, and Netanyahu still seems to be ready to negotiate. We'll see if that changes on Sept. 2nd, but if it doesn't, I will look forward to reading Dajani's correction and mea cupa.
Now, notice that Dajani provides no source for his claim that Netanyahu even has preconditions. I turned to Google, and found this YnetNews article posted August 25th in which Netanyahu confirms he has no preconditions, and this Jordan Times article that makes the trademark anti-Zionist argument that dedication to final status issues (like "no right of return") is somehow a precondition. So Mr. Dajani, if you have proof that Netanyahu has preconditions, as in, things the Palestinians have to do before Israel will negotiate with them, let's see it.
Just another article on the I/P peace process that is short on facts and long on unsubstantiated claims.
Thoughts on Responsibility
I've been picking at Daoud Kuttab's latest article a little over the past few days and I saw a paragraph that got me thinking:
But let us assume for a moment that Mr. Kuttab is incorrect and that this course of action is "accepted thinking." I sat back and considered whether or not that would be the right thing for Israel to do, even if peace is made or unmade based on that decision.
On the one hand, the idea of Israel saying "it's our fault" for what amounts to the entire conflict sits wrongly with me. No honest student of history would say that it is entirely Israel's fault, as the Arabs have had many opportunities to make peace and did not take them. As for the history, the creation of the refugee problem is still very much in dispute, at least regarding the events of 1948. After that there is no question: The Arab nations had no justification in keeping the Palestinians confined to refugee camps. How can Israel take responsibility for that decision? It amounts to absolving the Arabs of any blame for a conflict that they have tried very, very hard to perpetuate!
What is more troubling is that Israel is reinforcing the Palestinian narrative, which is that the Palestinians only ever react and are never responsible for anything that they do. If Israel were to take responsibility for "causing" the refugee problem, they are essentially justifying everything the Palestinians and their Arab allies have done ever since. Furthermore, they leave the door open for renewed violence against Israel by the Palestinians, as long as the Palestinians use the excuse that they are "reacting" to something Israel did. That does not sound like a lasting peace.
But on the other hand, the opposing viewpoint resonated strongly with me as well. All this really amounts to Israel saying some words. It's really not any different from the Palestinians saying, "We accept Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state." There is no on-the-ground concessions, so no one's life is put at risk, but it might make a big difference toward reconciliation. Wouldn't it be a moral imperative for Israel to swallow its pride when peace is on the line?
Furthermore, according to people like Richard Landes the honor-shame dynamic is strong among the Arabs, including the Palestinians. If Israel apologizing will help end the shame the Arabs feel for failing to destroy it, maybe some motivation for war-making would cease?
In the end I wasn't able to reach a conclusion. Maybe some of you will have stronger opinions than I did.
"On the issue of the right of return for refugees, the present Israeli government also is inflexible. Netanyahu's insistence on the Jewishness of Israel has been clarified in recent days to mean that not a single Palestinian refugee will be allowed back to the state of Israel. It has been accepted thinking that a deal in which Israel would take historical and humanitarian responsibility for causing the refugee problem, coupled with an international scheme as well as the acceptance of Israel to allow over a period of time tens of thousands of refugees (mostly from Lebanon) under the family reunification process, could be the formula that solves this contentious issue."First of all, I must ask if this is true, that it is "accepted thinking" that Israel is going to do that. I am suspicious because it has long been a tendency of Palestinian supporters to declare that "everyone thinks" a certain way on an issue, for instance that "everyone thinks Israel is a rogue state." Perhaps someone who is more informed than I might be able to step in but this is a new information for me.
But let us assume for a moment that Mr. Kuttab is incorrect and that this course of action is "accepted thinking." I sat back and considered whether or not that would be the right thing for Israel to do, even if peace is made or unmade based on that decision.
On the one hand, the idea of Israel saying "it's our fault" for what amounts to the entire conflict sits wrongly with me. No honest student of history would say that it is entirely Israel's fault, as the Arabs have had many opportunities to make peace and did not take them. As for the history, the creation of the refugee problem is still very much in dispute, at least regarding the events of 1948. After that there is no question: The Arab nations had no justification in keeping the Palestinians confined to refugee camps. How can Israel take responsibility for that decision? It amounts to absolving the Arabs of any blame for a conflict that they have tried very, very hard to perpetuate!
What is more troubling is that Israel is reinforcing the Palestinian narrative, which is that the Palestinians only ever react and are never responsible for anything that they do. If Israel were to take responsibility for "causing" the refugee problem, they are essentially justifying everything the Palestinians and their Arab allies have done ever since. Furthermore, they leave the door open for renewed violence against Israel by the Palestinians, as long as the Palestinians use the excuse that they are "reacting" to something Israel did. That does not sound like a lasting peace.
But on the other hand, the opposing viewpoint resonated strongly with me as well. All this really amounts to Israel saying some words. It's really not any different from the Palestinians saying, "We accept Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state." There is no on-the-ground concessions, so no one's life is put at risk, but it might make a big difference toward reconciliation. Wouldn't it be a moral imperative for Israel to swallow its pride when peace is on the line?
Furthermore, according to people like Richard Landes the honor-shame dynamic is strong among the Arabs, including the Palestinians. If Israel apologizing will help end the shame the Arabs feel for failing to destroy it, maybe some motivation for war-making would cease?
In the end I wasn't able to reach a conclusion. Maybe some of you will have stronger opinions than I did.
The HP's Selection Quotation of Christopher Hitchens
The Huffington Post loves Christopher Hitchens. There are many articles about his books and writings, including his struggle with cancer. Rightfully so, he's a great guy and has written many interesting things. But I wanted to talk about today is how the Huffington Post in recent weeks has selectively quoted Hitchens. What does it mean?
For example, Hitchens usually writes about religion from a viewpoint which his detractors call "evangelical atheism." But as we covered at the time, he also wrote about Israel's occupation, saying it must be ended before Israel can truly join the West. Naturally this earned him much praise from the Huffington Posters, as were the stories about him reflecting on his life and battle against cancer. Here are some examples from the latter:
If you scan the threads you will find much more like that. They really like him, and (in case anyone is misunderstanding me) he has done much to earn their love.
But then I found something weird: Hitchens wrote something on Slate about the Ground Zero Mosque in which he didn't come out against it per se but wrote rather critically about the goings-on surrounding it:
1. Why didn't they publish it?
2. What would the reaction of the Huffington Posters be to this article?
3. What other of Christopher Hitchens' writings have escaped the HP's net?
4. And finally, does the image the HPers have of Mr. Hitchens come from all of his writings, or just the ones that the HP chooses to publish? Or is that simply going too far?
Oh, and in case you were wondering, this is not the first time the HP has decided to selectively quote a public figure. Huff-Watcher noticed that they like to publish clips from The Colbert Report but "mistakenly" did not do so when Stephen Colbert took apart the founder of Wikileaks about the Afghanistan video. How interesting.
For example, Hitchens usually writes about religion from a viewpoint which his detractors call "evangelical atheism." But as we covered at the time, he also wrote about Israel's occupation, saying it must be ended before Israel can truly join the West. Naturally this earned him much praise from the Huffington Posters, as were the stories about him reflecting on his life and battle against cancer. Here are some examples from the latter:
But then I found something weird: Hitchens wrote something on Slate about the Ground Zero Mosque in which he didn't come out against it per se but wrote rather critically about the goings-on surrounding it:
"From the beginning, though, I pointed out that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf was no great bargain and that his Cordoba Initiative was full of euphemisms about Islamic jihad and Islamic theocracy. I mentioned his sinister belief that the United States was partially responsible for the assault on the World Trade Center and his refusal to take a position on the racist Hamas dictatorship in Gaza. The more one reads through his statements, the more alarming it gets...The Huffington Post loves articles about or by Christopher Hitchens. They also love stories about the Cordoba Center. But they did not publish this one. Which leads me to ask a few questions:
"Emboldened by the crass nature of the opposition to the center, its defenders have started to talk as if it represented no problem at all and as if the question were solely one of religious tolerance. It would be nice if this were true. But tolerance is one of the first and most awkward questions raised by any examination of Islamism. We are wrong to talk as if the only subject was that of terrorism. As Western Europe has already found to its cost, local Muslim leaders have a habit, once they feel strong enough, of making demands of the most intolerant kind. Sometimes it will be calls for censorship of anything "offensive" to Islam. Sometimes it will be demands for sexual segregation in schools and swimming pools. The script is becoming a very familiar one. And those who make such demands are of course usually quite careful to avoid any association with violence. They merely hint that, if their demands are not taken seriously, there just might be a teeny smidgeon of violence from some other unnamed quarter …"
1. Why didn't they publish it?
2. What would the reaction of the Huffington Posters be to this article?
3. What other of Christopher Hitchens' writings have escaped the HP's net?
4. And finally, does the image the HPers have of Mr. Hitchens come from all of his writings, or just the ones that the HP chooses to publish? Or is that simply going too far?
Oh, and in case you were wondering, this is not the first time the HP has decided to selectively quote a public figure. Huff-Watcher noticed that they like to publish clips from The Colbert Report but "mistakenly" did not do so when Stephen Colbert took apart the founder of Wikileaks about the Afghanistan video. How interesting.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Guest Post: A Little Perspective
Guest post today by bi-polar HPer "Alex Young"
Israel is far from perfect, but it's doing pretty well considering the odds against it.
Israel is far from perfect, but it's doing pretty well considering the odds against it.
Leftists Rally For Continuing the Settlement Freeze
I was reading in Ynetnews yesterday about Peace Now activists marching to try to convince the government to prolong the settlement freeze. Although the activists claim to be supporting PM Netanyahu as he enters into direct talks with Abbas and company, they disagree with FM Lieberman's recent statement about ending the settlement freeze on schedule in September.
However, I'm fascinated with the Peace Now dedication to the settlement freeze as an institution. The settlements have been frozen for months before the direct talks began, and the Palestinians still didn't want to talk to Netanyahu. It seems clear, to me anyway, that the building of the settlements doesn't have a direct correlation with the arrival of peace talks. I think the energy of these activists would be better spent identifying what exactly it is that makes the Palestinians negotiate, and work on that.
"According to Meretz Chairman Chaim Oron, "We came here to say don't play games with our fate. Continue the building freeze and enter serious negotiations towards two states for two peoples and the acceptance of the '67 borders as a territorial compromise. No posturing towards Obama justifies endangering direct talks between us the Palestinians.""Now, let me just say this up front: I agree with these activists. Now that the Palestinians have lowered themselves to talking to the Israelis, it would be extremely foolish to give them a convenient excuse to leave again. If the talks break down, in my opinion, it needs to clearly be the fault of the Palestinians, as it has been every time in the past. Israel needs to show the world it is committed to peace.
However, I'm fascinated with the Peace Now dedication to the settlement freeze as an institution. The settlements have been frozen for months before the direct talks began, and the Palestinians still didn't want to talk to Netanyahu. It seems clear, to me anyway, that the building of the settlements doesn't have a direct correlation with the arrival of peace talks. I think the energy of these activists would be better spent identifying what exactly it is that makes the Palestinians negotiate, and work on that.
Is America Islamophobic...or Anti-Semitic?
Elder of Ziyon has an exceptional article that in my opinion needs to be covered everywhere on the Judeoblogsphere, so I'm doing my small part by posting it here. Time Magazine asked the question to its readers about whether America is Islamophobic, which despite the etymological meaning of the word really means anti-Muslim. Time doesn't do much to answer this question, so Elder went to the FBI hate crime statistics page. He found the following graphs.
This first graph is hate crimes in the past ten years in the USA.
It clearly indicates the number of anti-Muslim incidents are heading down since 2006, and are comparable to incidents against other religions. But did you notice one religion wasn't in that graph? Here's why.
Now, keep in mind, Jews did not attack the World Trade Center. Jews did not attempt to blow up Times Square. We are not at war with two Jewish states and being threatened by the nukes of a third.
While I am glad that Americans are keeping their hatred in check when it comes to Muslims, these raw facts are striking. Here's some more.
These statistics are also important to keep in mind the next time an HPer tells you that Jews are perfectly safe in America and do not need an Israel.
This first graph is hate crimes in the past ten years in the USA.
It clearly indicates the number of anti-Muslim incidents are heading down since 2006, and are comparable to incidents against other religions. But did you notice one religion wasn't in that graph? Here's why.
Now, keep in mind, Jews did not attack the World Trade Center. Jews did not attempt to blow up Times Square. We are not at war with two Jewish states and being threatened by the nukes of a third.
While I am glad that Americans are keeping their hatred in check when it comes to Muslims, these raw facts are striking. Here's some more.
"In New York State, the very spot where Islamic terrorists murdered nearly 3000 people, the number of anti-Islamic crimes were a mere six in 2008. The number of anti-semitic crimes? 129."
"In liberal, tolerant California, also in 2008, there were 11 hate crimes against Muslims - less than once a month. Anti-semitic crimes? 294."Now, does this mean America is "anti-Semitic" as a nation? No. But it is clear from these facts that if America is Islamophobic, then it is anti-Semitic as well.
These statistics are also important to keep in mind the next time an HPer tells you that Jews are perfectly safe in America and do not need an Israel.
Race Card Hypocrisy
I hope you can bear with me for a minute, because I'm going to try and link two only tangentially related topics: The Cordoba Center and the Arab-Israeli conflict, seen through the viewpoints of the (principally Left) Huffington Post.
Ever since I started "watching" the Huffington Post, there has been one consensus about anti-Semitism: It is used by Jews to silence critics of Jewish people and Israel. Some have even gone so far as to say that anti-Semitism doesn't exist except as a muzzle, even if even existed at all. And so they have proceeded to try and convince their fellow posters that anti-Semitism doesn't exist. Usually they can't get that, however, so they are content with simply accusing the Jews of "silencing" all opposition by accusations of anti-Semitism. It goes without saying that this is not true.
However, now that the battle lines have been drawn on the subject of the Cordoba Center, the Huffington Posters make their place clear: They are the righteous and "true" Americans, and everyone who disagrees with them are bigots and Islamophobes. Seriously. Take a look at any thread about the "Ground Zero Mosque" and you will see exactly what I am talking about.
Of course, I should point out that it is very possible that the major opponents of the mosque are bigots and Islamophobes, but that's not the point. The point is that the label is being used to slap down any opposition to the mosque, much the same way the Jews are accused of using anti-Semitism to slap down opposition to Israel. It gets even worse when you consider that two-thirds of Americans are opposed to the Center. Are they all bigoted against Muslims? The Huffington Posters would say yes, absolutely. But they would also scoff if some were to claim that the majority of the UN was anti-Semitic because of their sustained and systematic bias against Israel.
Consider further, the example of David Harris and the AJC (among others) who didn't oppose the mosque outright but did have questions about it, such as the source of funding. Nor are they the only ones. It didn't stop MJ Rosenberg and friends from going after him with everything they had, however. Asking questions about the mosque and its leadership does not mean one hates Muslims, no more than criticizing Israeli policy means one hates Jews. Again, a double standard.
There's an even better example of this offline, from a protest in New York City. Check out this video:
The subject only had the temerity to oppose one racist comment made by one of the pro-mosque protesters and was immediately driven out of the group. Of course as someone who has been there I know that emotions run high in protests, no matter which side you are on. Still, it's a pretty sorry display.
So to conclude, it appears that from the HP perspective only one group gets to use the race card as weapon of mass delegitimization against their opponents: The HPers. And don't you forget it. If that doesn't strike you as hypocritical, I don't know what else to tell you.
Also, Soccer Dad seems to be of the mind that this phenomenon is not just limited to the Huffington Post.
Ever since I started "watching" the Huffington Post, there has been one consensus about anti-Semitism: It is used by Jews to silence critics of Jewish people and Israel. Some have even gone so far as to say that anti-Semitism doesn't exist except as a muzzle, even if even existed at all. And so they have proceeded to try and convince their fellow posters that anti-Semitism doesn't exist. Usually they can't get that, however, so they are content with simply accusing the Jews of "silencing" all opposition by accusations of anti-Semitism. It goes without saying that this is not true.
However, now that the battle lines have been drawn on the subject of the Cordoba Center, the Huffington Posters make their place clear: They are the righteous and "true" Americans, and everyone who disagrees with them are bigots and Islamophobes. Seriously. Take a look at any thread about the "Ground Zero Mosque" and you will see exactly what I am talking about.
Of course, I should point out that it is very possible that the major opponents of the mosque are bigots and Islamophobes, but that's not the point. The point is that the label is being used to slap down any opposition to the mosque, much the same way the Jews are accused of using anti-Semitism to slap down opposition to Israel. It gets even worse when you consider that two-thirds of Americans are opposed to the Center. Are they all bigoted against Muslims? The Huffington Posters would say yes, absolutely. But they would also scoff if some were to claim that the majority of the UN was anti-Semitic because of their sustained and systematic bias against Israel.
Consider further, the example of David Harris and the AJC (among others) who didn't oppose the mosque outright but did have questions about it, such as the source of funding. Nor are they the only ones. It didn't stop MJ Rosenberg and friends from going after him with everything they had, however. Asking questions about the mosque and its leadership does not mean one hates Muslims, no more than criticizing Israeli policy means one hates Jews. Again, a double standard.
There's an even better example of this offline, from a protest in New York City. Check out this video:
The subject only had the temerity to oppose one racist comment made by one of the pro-mosque protesters and was immediately driven out of the group. Of course as someone who has been there I know that emotions run high in protests, no matter which side you are on. Still, it's a pretty sorry display.
So to conclude, it appears that from the HP perspective only one group gets to use the race card as weapon of mass delegitimization against their opponents: The HPers. And don't you forget it. If that doesn't strike you as hypocritical, I don't know what else to tell you.
Also, Soccer Dad seems to be of the mind that this phenomenon is not just limited to the Huffington Post.
What Does It Mean To Be "Against Peace?"
One of the most common refrains when discussing the resolution of the Arab-Israeli situation is accusing the other side of "not wanting peace." Zionists like to say, "The Palestinians don't want peace as long as Israel continues to exist," anti-Zionists like to say, "Israel doesn't want peace for a large number of reasons, such as settlement expansion." You certainly see this same chorus going around and around on many threads about the latest peace talks.
I would like to submit that both sides are in fact correct: Israel and the Palestinians both want peace, but only on their terms. It would not be incorrect to say that Israel does not want peace....if peace means flooding their country with millions of potential enemies of the state. Nor would it be incorrect to say that the Palestinians don't want peace....if peace means no real change in the situation from the way it currently stands.
Which is precisely why the whole "I want peace and you don't!" argument is so stupid and a waste of time. There are certain things that both sides do and do not value more than peace. To say that it is only Israel who cares more about X than peace is simply ridiculous: The Palestinians have proven that they care more about East Jerusalem and the "right" of the refugees than they do about peace. And there is nothing wrong with that. For either side.
Ultimately, whether or not you agree with a certain issue (like Israel's settlements or East Jerusalem) is fundamentally different from whether or not these two groups of people want peace. Of course they want peace. But on their terms. That's precisely why resolving this conflict is so hard.
I would like to submit that both sides are in fact correct: Israel and the Palestinians both want peace, but only on their terms. It would not be incorrect to say that Israel does not want peace....if peace means flooding their country with millions of potential enemies of the state. Nor would it be incorrect to say that the Palestinians don't want peace....if peace means no real change in the situation from the way it currently stands.
Which is precisely why the whole "I want peace and you don't!" argument is so stupid and a waste of time. There are certain things that both sides do and do not value more than peace. To say that it is only Israel who cares more about X than peace is simply ridiculous: The Palestinians have proven that they care more about East Jerusalem and the "right" of the refugees than they do about peace. And there is nothing wrong with that. For either side.
Ultimately, whether or not you agree with a certain issue (like Israel's settlements or East Jerusalem) is fundamentally different from whether or not these two groups of people want peace. Of course they want peace. But on their terms. That's precisely why resolving this conflict is so hard.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Breaking News: Arabs Control America!
Seriously. A new book by Mitchell Bard of Myths and Facts fame has recently been published that declares the Arab lobby is even more powerful than Israel's, which would naturally make it one of the most powerful in Washington. He writes,
For a student of the MJ Rosenberg line of thinking, it makes just as much sense when applied to Arabs as it does to Jews. Jews have money, they give that money to politicians, they "control" those politicians through their pocketbooks. Arabs have money too, so it stands to reason that they have the same ability to influence politicians in the same way. Money is money, right?
Honestly, though, the "Arab lobby" conspiracy theory fails for the same reason that the "Jewish lobby" theory fails: That no lobby can push the American government into doing something that is truly against its own interests. There is influence, sure, and we can argue just how pervasive that influence truly is. It would be interesting, should the Huffington Post ever cover this story, the reactions of the readership.
"one of the most important distinguishing characteristics of the Arab lobby is that it has no popular support. While the Israeli lobby has hundreds of thousands of grass root members and public opinion polls consistently reveal a huge gap between support for Israel and the Arab nations-Palestinians, the Arab lobby has almost no foot soldiers or public sympathy. It's most powerful elements tend to be bureaucrats who represent only their personal views or what they believe are their institutional interests, and foreign governments that care only about their national interests, not those of the United States.Though a more appropriate term would be "Saudi lobby," instead of "Arab," since it is really the Saudis who have the money and influence, and Saudi interests don't always coincide with those of the other Arab nations.
"What they lack in human capital in terms of American advocates, they make up for with almost unlimited resources to try to buy what they usually cannot win on the merits of their arguments."
For a student of the MJ Rosenberg line of thinking, it makes just as much sense when applied to Arabs as it does to Jews. Jews have money, they give that money to politicians, they "control" those politicians through their pocketbooks. Arabs have money too, so it stands to reason that they have the same ability to influence politicians in the same way. Money is money, right?
Honestly, though, the "Arab lobby" conspiracy theory fails for the same reason that the "Jewish lobby" theory fails: That no lobby can push the American government into doing something that is truly against its own interests. There is influence, sure, and we can argue just how pervasive that influence truly is. It would be interesting, should the Huffington Post ever cover this story, the reactions of the readership.
What the Palestinians Want
Elder of Ziyon has once again come up with another example of pro-Palestinian supporters being "more Palestinian than the Palestinians", in this case referring to the so-called right of return. He identifies an article from the BBC in which the reporter interviews Syrian Palestinians who claim they do not want to return.
"The right of return for Palestinian refugees is a major sticking point in the upcoming US-sponsored Middle East peace talks, but some younger Palestinians - having never laid eyes on their ancestral homeland - say they do not actually want to go back...
With generations of Palestinians now having lived in Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East, they have established deep roots outside their ancestral homeland.
But it is rare for them to publicly admit these views.
"On the record, because it is politically incorrect to say otherwise, all of them would say 'Yes, we would return to Palestine'. But once you sit with them in private, you hear a very different point of view,"says political analyst Sami Mubayyed. "Read the whole thing.
An Interesting Comment by Daoud Kuttab
More-moderate-than-most HP blogger Daoud Kuttab has written a pretty balanced article about the upcoming talks between America, Israel and the PA. I am going to write a longer response for tomorrow but I thought I would share one interesting paragraph (my emphasis):
But in the Huffington Post community, a paragraph like that is mind-blowing. The only thing more evil than Israel itself are right-wing Israelis. Go to any thread about Netanyahu's government and you will see one of two kinds of complaints: 1) That Israel itself is evil/doesn't want peace or more commonly 2) that Netanyahu's government is evil/doesn't want peace and there is no point in trying as long as he remains in power.
This of course follows along with a general mindset in the HP where anything and anyone that is considered "conservative" is lambasted and blindly despised. So it is no surprise that conservatives in Israel are treated the same way as conservatives in the USA. I wonder if any of the talkbackers will have something to say on Mr. Kuttab's opinion.
"Conditions do exist that can result in both success and failure of the upcoming talks. On the positive side, there is a much greater chance of a resolution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict with a rightwing than with a centrist or center-left Israeli government. The centrist Kadima will surely provide a safety net if hardline members of the right wing refuse to vote for any agreement brokered by Israeli Premier Benjamin Netanyahu."Now this might not seem very controversial to those of us who have been following the political situation over there for some time. As the Vulcans say, "Only Nixon could go to China," or in layman's terms, a left-wing government of Israel would lack the support on the right to make any lasting changes for peace.
But in the Huffington Post community, a paragraph like that is mind-blowing. The only thing more evil than Israel itself are right-wing Israelis. Go to any thread about Netanyahu's government and you will see one of two kinds of complaints: 1) That Israel itself is evil/doesn't want peace or more commonly 2) that Netanyahu's government is evil/doesn't want peace and there is no point in trying as long as he remains in power.
This of course follows along with a general mindset in the HP where anything and anyone that is considered "conservative" is lambasted and blindly despised. So it is no surprise that conservatives in Israel are treated the same way as conservatives in the USA. I wonder if any of the talkbackers will have something to say on Mr. Kuttab's opinion.
Huff-Watchers Latest Work
Our friend Huff-Watcher has created another fantastic piece detailed ingrained and pervasive bias on the part of the Huffington Post in its coverage of the Lebanon tree incident. There are too many pictures for me to cross post it here but you should check it out. You'll be surprised at what you learn. I was.
Noura Erekat's Family Secrets
An anonymous contributor has pointed me to the Huffington Post blogger Noura Erekat, who is one of many bloggers who writes almost exclusively negative articles about Israel and its allies. Please go and take a look at her biography paragraph included in her page, where she is described as an attorney, activist and adjunct professor.
Now, there is something rather major missing here. Ms. Erekat is the niece of Saeb Erekat. If you are not familiar with him, you should be: He is the chief negotiator of the Palestinian Authority right now, but he used to be one of Yassir Arafat's right hand men and spokespeople. It appears that Ms. Erekat is following in his footsteps quite proudly, as you can see in this video and in her Huffington Post articles.
I am not trying to pull a guilt by association here: Just because she is a close relationship with a major Palestinian figure and her views are practically the same as his does not mean she is a propagandist. But is it not a little strange that that does not appear in her biography. Other bloggers like Daoud Kuttab and Ahmed Moor make it clear that they are Palestinians and their background is from there.
Put this another way, if there was a new pro-Israel blogger on the Huffington Post who just happened to be closely related to Avigdor Lieberman or Netanyahu, do you think the anti-Zionists wouldn't think there was something fishy going on?
Now, there is something rather major missing here. Ms. Erekat is the niece of Saeb Erekat. If you are not familiar with him, you should be: He is the chief negotiator of the Palestinian Authority right now, but he used to be one of Yassir Arafat's right hand men and spokespeople. It appears that Ms. Erekat is following in his footsteps quite proudly, as you can see in this video and in her Huffington Post articles.
I am not trying to pull a guilt by association here: Just because she is a close relationship with a major Palestinian figure and her views are practically the same as his does not mean she is a propagandist. But is it not a little strange that that does not appear in her biography. Other bloggers like Daoud Kuttab and Ahmed Moor make it clear that they are Palestinians and their background is from there.
Put this another way, if there was a new pro-Israel blogger on the Huffington Post who just happened to be closely related to Avigdor Lieberman or Netanyahu, do you think the anti-Zionists wouldn't think there was something fishy going on?
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
News the HP Doesn't Cover: Munich Massacre Edition
The Huffington Post just loves to cover stories when Israel appears to be provoking the Palestinians. All you need is Lieberman talking about settlement freezes to send the talkbackers into a frenzy of hatred and teeth gnashing.
What is clear, however, is that this obsession with the Israeli-Palestinian peace process does not cut both ways. If it did, this story would be front page news. All the major officials in the Palestinian Authority were present a ceremony glorifying the senior architect behind the Munich massacre in 1972. It is at best equivalent to Israel honoring Baruch Goldstein, so if this isn't a provocation and an indication of just how "moderate" and "peace-loving" the PA really is, I have yet to see it.
Leave it to the Huffington Post to bury this story, and bury it deep.
(Thanks to Solomonia, Elder of Ziyon and others).
What is clear, however, is that this obsession with the Israeli-Palestinian peace process does not cut both ways. If it did, this story would be front page news. All the major officials in the Palestinian Authority were present a ceremony glorifying the senior architect behind the Munich massacre in 1972. It is at best equivalent to Israel honoring Baruch Goldstein, so if this isn't a provocation and an indication of just how "moderate" and "peace-loving" the PA really is, I have yet to see it.
Leave it to the Huffington Post to bury this story, and bury it deep.
(Thanks to Solomonia, Elder of Ziyon and others).
UN Releases Report on Border Clash
The Jerusalem Post reports that the United Nations have finally released their analysis of what happened between Israel and Lebanon in the beginning of August. The most notable finding is that they concluded Israel did not cross the Blue Line, thus nerfing Lebanon's attempted justification for their actions. Unfortunately that's the only finding, at least according to the article, and no action has yet been take one way or another.
Of course the Huffington Post is still not interested, as they are much too busy spotlighting Avigdor Lieberman's latest huffing and puffing. How typical.
Of course the Huffington Post is still not interested, as they are much too busy spotlighting Avigdor Lieberman's latest huffing and puffing. How typical.
War With Iran? Ahmed Moor Tells Us Who To Blame
Over the past couple of weeks there has been much speculation about an American and/or Israeli attack on Iran. Of course this is hardly the first time the issue has been discussed but it is the first time that ol' Ahmed "Destroy Israel" Moor has weighed in on the topic. This time he doesn't even wait for the war to begin before blaming the Jews for it, in his blog post titled, "America Cannot Go To War For Israel." Usually he is more eloquent than this but in this article he really goes off the rails. Check out his first paragraph:
"The mongrel dogs of war are foaming at the bit. For years they've cowered in their damp trenches, bristling in the heat. But they're back now. They've gathered their sagging flesh and cast their milky, crusty eyes at Iran. The mongrel dogs of war are planning another war.Have you got that? The dogs of war who manipulate America into violence are the "Zionists," they are one and the same. At this point I shouldn't even need to tell you that "Zionist" has long been a code word for "Jew." Compare and contrast this with a similar piece by Juan Cole about which Yaacov Lozowick asks, "If this isn't anti-Semitism, what is?" Moor has made it clear, if there is a war, it will be the fault of the Jews. I at least wish that for once he has the courage to come right out and say it. I guess that is too much even for the Huffington Post, though.
"The Zionists Benjamin Netanyahu, Jeffrey Goldberg and George Will want young American men and women to attack Iran on behalf of Israel. These are the same men who wanted young American men to attack Iraq. But Iran is not Iraq, and many thousands of Americans will die in the next war. This will not be a cakewalk or a slam dunk. And no enwreathed children will greet Americans in the streets with lily-white flower petals."
My Thoughts On the Ground Zero Mosque (Part 3)
The more I read about the "Ground Zero Mosque" the more twisted up in knots I get, to the point where I don't know what to think about the subject any more.
At first, I was opposed to the mosque on the grounds that I stated earlier, because if reconciliation should come from somewhere, it should not have to come from the victims of the 9/11 attacks (the majority of whom were not Muslim). Then I came around to the view that no matter which way you slice it, opposing the Cordoba Center on the grounds that it is offensive to the victims of 9/11 is punishing the Muslims of New York City for something that they took no part in. I still hold that view.
As the rhetoric has increased, though, I am finding that both sides are behaving rather poorly and do not seem to be all that interested in the views of the opposition. Which when you consider the whole purpose behind the Cordoba Center, that's pretty ironic.
I guess I'll start with the anti-Mosque people. Now on the one hand they complain that they are unfair accused of Islamophobia and bigotry but then as Jon Stewart demonstrates quite clearly, more than a few then proceed to make bigoted comments of their own. There are also those like Daniel Greenfield who portray the mosque as a "conflict of civilizations," the narrative of which pits the Muslims of America against the rest of us. Not only is that just not right, but it's also a terrible way to win popular support for your side.
But the pro-mosque people aren't any better, in many ways. For starters, they continue to reframe the debate as one about religious freedom when it is not. Just take one example of a talkback on the Huffington Post: Most of the commentators there are ranting and raving against their opponents who want to "destroy freedom of religion" or "burn the Constitution" because these opponents want to forbid the construction of the Center. The trouble, of course, is that no such viewpoint exists, at least not in the mainstream. The most vocal opponents of the Center don't want the government to come down and stop them, they want to convince the Center's builders to change their minds about its location. I find this deliberate strawmanning on the part of the HPers very annoying, and it just reinforces an image I have of politics being two groups of people talking past each other while never hearing what the other has to say.
Outside of the argument, things continue to heat up. Polls are showing that two-thirds of Americans are opposed to the Cordoba Center's construction. That's too many to be explained away as, "They're all bigots!" as much as I am sure the Huffington Posters would love to play that card. Perhaps it is time that those who support the Center should start addressing these concerns instead of simply ignoring them. They might be within their rights to press ahead and build, but is that the wisest course of action?
Especially when more and more issues around the center are arising. For instance, Imam Rauf has made quite a few controversial statements. For instance, he has said that: "New York is the capital of the world, and this location close to 9/11 is iconic....sends the opposite statement to what happened on 9/11.” That last part certainly sounds moderate but it is also telling that it is the location that is what is significant to Mr. Rauf, not the Center itself.
That's when things get weird, though, because when the Governor of New York asked Mr. Rauf why he can't move the Center somewhere else, he said, "this has always been about serving Lower Manhattan." The problem, of course, is that there is no statistically significant Muslim community in Manhattan. Mr. Rauf admitted as much himself when he said, "The people who come here for jum'a [prayer] come from within the New York tri-state area. Of course, the majority work around here, but a number of them come from Uptown, Brooklyn or New Jersey, specifically to participate in the Friday prayer here and to hear my sermon." Oh, and Christopher Hitchens has more.
So here's the issue: A multimillion dollar Center is being built for what appears to be no good reason, in the sense that the Muslim community is not large enough to justify its existence. But it is also very important to the people building it that it be close to the 9/11 site. I suppose you can count me with David Harris and the AJC as unilaterally supporting the Center's construction, but there are questions surrounding this issue that need answering. But rather than tackling these concerns head on, the supports of the Center prefer to dodge it and play the race card. Which their opponents help justify, I might add.
The final annoying tendency from both sides came to my attention from an unexpected place, the Huffington Post. Ali A. Rizvi wrote an article in which he pointed out that when it comes to things like the South Park cartoons, Muslims and their allies demand that they feelings be respected and the offending video taken down. But when it comes to the Cordoba Center, the Muslims and their allies don't mind offending most of their neighbors, while the same people who didn't mind ignoring the feelings of Muslims on South Park now demand that Muslims respect theirs. Whew!
I don't know where all this is going but it certainly sounds like there is more going on than the common discussion topics. As this issue persists, those same questions are probably going to be asked again and again.
(Thanks to Daniel Greenfield for the quote links)
At first, I was opposed to the mosque on the grounds that I stated earlier, because if reconciliation should come from somewhere, it should not have to come from the victims of the 9/11 attacks (the majority of whom were not Muslim). Then I came around to the view that no matter which way you slice it, opposing the Cordoba Center on the grounds that it is offensive to the victims of 9/11 is punishing the Muslims of New York City for something that they took no part in. I still hold that view.
As the rhetoric has increased, though, I am finding that both sides are behaving rather poorly and do not seem to be all that interested in the views of the opposition. Which when you consider the whole purpose behind the Cordoba Center, that's pretty ironic.
I guess I'll start with the anti-Mosque people. Now on the one hand they complain that they are unfair accused of Islamophobia and bigotry but then as Jon Stewart demonstrates quite clearly, more than a few then proceed to make bigoted comments of their own. There are also those like Daniel Greenfield who portray the mosque as a "conflict of civilizations," the narrative of which pits the Muslims of America against the rest of us. Not only is that just not right, but it's also a terrible way to win popular support for your side.
But the pro-mosque people aren't any better, in many ways. For starters, they continue to reframe the debate as one about religious freedom when it is not. Just take one example of a talkback on the Huffington Post: Most of the commentators there are ranting and raving against their opponents who want to "destroy freedom of religion" or "burn the Constitution" because these opponents want to forbid the construction of the Center. The trouble, of course, is that no such viewpoint exists, at least not in the mainstream. The most vocal opponents of the Center don't want the government to come down and stop them, they want to convince the Center's builders to change their minds about its location. I find this deliberate strawmanning on the part of the HPers very annoying, and it just reinforces an image I have of politics being two groups of people talking past each other while never hearing what the other has to say.
Outside of the argument, things continue to heat up. Polls are showing that two-thirds of Americans are opposed to the Cordoba Center's construction. That's too many to be explained away as, "They're all bigots!" as much as I am sure the Huffington Posters would love to play that card. Perhaps it is time that those who support the Center should start addressing these concerns instead of simply ignoring them. They might be within their rights to press ahead and build, but is that the wisest course of action?
Especially when more and more issues around the center are arising. For instance, Imam Rauf has made quite a few controversial statements. For instance, he has said that: "New York is the capital of the world, and this location close to 9/11 is iconic....sends the opposite statement to what happened on 9/11.” That last part certainly sounds moderate but it is also telling that it is the location that is what is significant to Mr. Rauf, not the Center itself.
That's when things get weird, though, because when the Governor of New York asked Mr. Rauf why he can't move the Center somewhere else, he said, "this has always been about serving Lower Manhattan." The problem, of course, is that there is no statistically significant Muslim community in Manhattan. Mr. Rauf admitted as much himself when he said, "The people who come here for jum'a [prayer] come from within the New York tri-state area. Of course, the majority work around here, but a number of them come from Uptown, Brooklyn or New Jersey, specifically to participate in the Friday prayer here and to hear my sermon." Oh, and Christopher Hitchens has more.
So here's the issue: A multimillion dollar Center is being built for what appears to be no good reason, in the sense that the Muslim community is not large enough to justify its existence. But it is also very important to the people building it that it be close to the 9/11 site. I suppose you can count me with David Harris and the AJC as unilaterally supporting the Center's construction, but there are questions surrounding this issue that need answering. But rather than tackling these concerns head on, the supports of the Center prefer to dodge it and play the race card. Which their opponents help justify, I might add.
The final annoying tendency from both sides came to my attention from an unexpected place, the Huffington Post. Ali A. Rizvi wrote an article in which he pointed out that when it comes to things like the South Park cartoons, Muslims and their allies demand that they feelings be respected and the offending video taken down. But when it comes to the Cordoba Center, the Muslims and their allies don't mind offending most of their neighbors, while the same people who didn't mind ignoring the feelings of Muslims on South Park now demand that Muslims respect theirs. Whew!
I don't know where all this is going but it certainly sounds like there is more going on than the common discussion topics. As this issue persists, those same questions are probably going to be asked again and again.
(Thanks to Daniel Greenfield for the quote links)
HPer Compares Netanyahu to the Devil
I don't have the screenshot, but here's the link and the text.
walkawayfrombanks
“satan-yahoo is gonna make Hitler look like a boyscout.”
We got a nice double slam here, comparing Israel's prime minister to both Satan and Hitler. What would Godwin say?
walkawayfrombanks
“satan-yahoo is gonna make Hitler look like a boyscout.”
We got a nice double slam here, comparing Israel's prime minister to both Satan and Hitler. What would Godwin say?
Ben Cohen on Cliona Campbell
During our week off, Ben Cohen of the AJC wrote a great blogpost about Cliona Campbell, a young Irish student who volunteered for two months with the IDF. Cohen is less interested in Campbell's reasons for going and more interested in her treatment after she got back to Ireland. He writes,
Naturally, the crazy idea that Israel's supporters should be respected and given the right to express their opinions without harassment was not shared by the HPers.
lbsaltzman
To me it is strange that a citizen of a country the endured hundreds of years of occupation with empathize occupiers rather than the occupied.
Darcha
The fact of the matter is that what I see in the story is an Israeli propagandist blowing the story way past reality. I also see that the tide is truly turning in perceptions of Israel. I think the girl should be ashamed of herself. I think in the years to come, being pro-Israel will more and more be considered a shameful thing, just like being a pro-segregationist or a pro-Apartheid South African.
tallndumb
perhaps the others in ireland are letting her and the rest of the world know that sympatisers of israel are and will be made pariah. i am good with this perspective.
Go read all of Cohen's article. It's well worth the time.
"Except that right now, Cliona lives in fear. She's become an object of vilification in parts of the Irish press. Grown men have walked to up to her in the street and abused her. Browsing in a clothes store, the security guard recognized her and showered her with insults. Threats have been emailed to her."Cohen then asks a number of critical questions, questions those on the HP had some trouble answering,
"Most obviously, there's the character of those who have insulted and intimidated her. What is it about the nature of the Palestinian solidarity movement that enables a defenseless young woman to become an object of hatred? And how have those anti-Zionists who sit in the media and the academy, who would doubtless throw up their hands in horror at being associated with such thuggish behavior, contributed to the atmosphere of loathing which increasingly surrounds those who publicly support Israel? Are they in any way culpable for those spiteful individuals who email this pretty redhead to tell her that she "looks rough?"Something that we have seen happen time and again on the HP is the notion that "human rights" are the most important things in the world, except when it comes to Israel and Israel's supporters. The Palestinians, we are reminded, have rights that must be respected, and even things that the Palestinians simply want, like moving to Israel, are rephrased to be rights. But Israel does not have the right to occupy territory, to use force to stop violence, to question those traveling through its airports, or to investigate itself. And Israel's supporters cannot speak their minds without being harassed, in Campbell's case, or accused of dual loyalty, as every pro-Israel poster on the HP has at some point or another been accused of being a paid Israeli agent.
What about the painfully-obvious double standards which govern those who volunteer in that tiny strip of land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River? Why are participants in the antics of the pro-Hamas International Solidarity Movement lionized, compared to Anne Frank even, while someone like Cliona Campbell becomes an incarnation of evil?
Most of all, how is it that the well-established norms of democratic culture in Ireland can be so brutally pushed aside in order to ensure that, as Cliona puts it, "someone can't express their own political standpoint without being publicly harassed, threatened and intimidated?"
Naturally, the crazy idea that Israel's supporters should be respected and given the right to express their opinions without harassment was not shared by the HPers.
lbsaltzman
To me it is strange that a citizen of a country the endured hundreds of years of occupation with empathize occupiers rather than the occupied.
Darcha
The fact of the matter is that what I see in the story is an Israeli propagandist blowing the story way past reality. I also see that the tide is truly turning in perceptions of Israel. I think the girl should be ashamed of herself. I think in the years to come, being pro-Israel will more and more be considered a shameful thing, just like being a pro-segregationist or a pro-Apartheid South African.
tallndumb
perhaps the others in ireland are letting her and the rest of the world know that sympatisers of israel are and will be made pariah. i am good with this perspective.
Go read all of Cohen's article. It's well worth the time.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
An Anti-Zionist Exemplifies the Palestinian Mindset
Check out this comment:
It really seems to display the Palestinian mindset pretty well. "We want East Jerusalem? Oh, you don't want to give it to us? Oh well, we tried to make peace but it was hopeless!Time for more war!" It never seems to occur to either the anti-Zionists or the Palestinians that they maybe, just maybe, giving up something like East Jerusalem is worth it to create a peaceful resolution to this conflict.
I guess it just shows how much the anti-Zionists really value peace and human life. This one in particular sounds like he is just looking for an excuse to give up on peace and destroy Israel through the "one-state solution." And he is not the only one by a long shot.
I guess it just shows how much the anti-Zionists really value peace and human life. This one in particular sounds like he is just looking for an excuse to give up on peace and destroy Israel through the "one-state solution." And he is not the only one by a long shot.
News the HP Doesn't Cover: Anti-Semitic Incident in Lithuania
The Jerusalem Post covered this relatively minor anti-Semitic incident in Lithuania, which consisted of a pig's head left at the entrance of a synagogue. While the incident was not violent or destructive, it was doubtlessly intended to intimidate and provoke reactions. Again, I'm sure the perpetrators only did it because of Israel's colonies in Lithuania, and unfortunately the poor Jewish residents of Kaunas have to pay the price.
News From Europe
I found a news story I thought I would share.
I heard a story on NPR about Estonia that I thought I would share. Did you know that about one third of the people living in Estonia are actually ethnic Russians who were left behind when the Soviet Union collapsed? Discrimination there is massive, however, Russians who were living there before Estonian independence are not citizens, and therefore have no rights. There are also language issues, Estonia is trying its best to keep the Russian language out of their schools. There was even reports about "I hate Russians" t-shirts showing up in various communities. NPR quoted the President of Estonia and here's what he had to say:
It gets worse from there, about one hundred thousand Russians in Estonia have special gray passports that means they aren't citizens but they can legally live there. Many of the Russians interviewed expressed sentiments that they don't consider themselves part of Estonia. Can't say I'm surprised.
Do you think we will see many articles on the Huffington Post about how Estonia is not a democracy, has no right to exist and should be boycotted until it is destroyed? Do I even need to ask that question?
I heard a story on NPR about Estonia that I thought I would share. Did you know that about one third of the people living in Estonia are actually ethnic Russians who were left behind when the Soviet Union collapsed? Discrimination there is massive, however, Russians who were living there before Estonian independence are not citizens, and therefore have no rights. There are also language issues, Estonia is trying its best to keep the Russian language out of their schools. There was even reports about "I hate Russians" t-shirts showing up in various communities. NPR quoted the President of Estonia and here's what he had to say:
"I don't see what people are complaining about," Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves said in an interview.Heck yeah! You aren't getting beaten every day, Russians? Then stop whining!
He said that given Estonia's painful history — which saw Soviet leaders deport Estonians to Siberia and force the Russian language on Estonians left behind — ethnic Russians have been treated pretty well.
"I mean, Germans were beaten up for years and years after the end of World War II," Ilves said. "That was a very bad situation. We don't have that here."
It gets worse from there, about one hundred thousand Russians in Estonia have special gray passports that means they aren't citizens but they can legally live there. Many of the Russians interviewed expressed sentiments that they don't consider themselves part of Estonia. Can't say I'm surprised.
Do you think we will see many articles on the Huffington Post about how Estonia is not a democracy, has no right to exist and should be boycotted until it is destroyed? Do I even need to ask that question?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)