Waving the Holocaust Survivor Card

I would like to share with you all a conversation I participated in yesterday on the HP. Please read this conversation and see if you can keep your blood from boiling. Read it a couple times to see all what's going on.

Point 1: In the top two posts, we see the hypocrisy of the anti-Zionist. Frequently when a Zionist brings up the Holocaust, even in the important historical context to the I/P conflict it has, he or she is accused of playing "the Holocaust card". But when the Holocaust can be used to the advantage of the anti-Zionists are more than willing to bring it up.

2: You can see the disgusting arrogance of SiberianRat who dares to predict what Holocaust survivors in general would think of the current situation. I won't try to do the same thing, other than take the middle ground and say that some would probably disagree with Israel's actions and some would agree. But that kind of arrogance of speaking for others is really contemptible.

3: Look at the last post in this thread, by "Soma". He seems to honestly think that after those survivors have been murdered by Hamas, they should blame themselves for their own murders. This kind of cognitive egocentrism seems to surpass the bonds of reality. In Soma's world, the Palestinians have never done anything wrong at any point in time. Anything that they have done is only in response to what Israel has done to them, in which case it's not wrong. Even when Hamas kills dozens of civilian Jews at a Passover seder, the blame rests squarely on the Jews themselves for forcing the Palestinians into their situation, where they have no choice but to kill Jews at a Passover seder.

This kind of thing is part of the reason why there isn't peace, and why "Palestinian supporters" aren't helping to bring it about. I think when Israelis kill, they recognize it as a necessary evil, a terrible thing they have to do in order for their people to survive. As John Adams once said, "I must study politics and war so that my sons may study mathematics and philosophy". Even a Hamas terrorist shot by the IDF is a loss of life. But the Palestinians consider killing to not be evil but rather a justified and required act of resistance. If they kill a Jew, it's the Jew's fault, they are not to blame so what they did is not wrong. And when Palestinian supporters apologize for Palestinian violence using the same psychology, it just encourages the Palestinians to continue. That is why it is so difficult to cease Palestinian violence for peace talks, they don't think violence against Israelis is wrong. So why should they stop when there are any Israelis still standing?

Anti-Semitic Comment of the Day

Talking about Israeli demographics:

But remember, there's no anti-Semitism on the HP, just legitimate criticism of Israel.

The HP's Editorial Decisions

The Huffington Post, like all newspapers, has to decide what stories it wants to run and what stories it doesn't want to run. The HP has many newspaper sources, such as Al Jazeera, the AP, the NYTimes, the Guardian, etc., and literally hundreds of bloggers whose work it publishes. Even though the bloggers only post their personal opinions, the HP's choice of which opinions to publish still reflects on the HP.

I say this because this week, the HP's editorial decisions when it comes to Israel has really been questionable. Let's take a look at what articles the HP published.

The Settlement Freeze/NonFreeze
The HP first published an article about the settlement freeze about to end. Then it published one about the settlement freeze ending. Then it published not one but two articles about entities condemning Israel for ending the freeze, one about Obama and another about the US government. That's four, count them, four, articles about the settlement freeze, which is admittedly big news but maybe not worthy of four articles in the space of three days.

Nobel Laureate Barred Entry
Zach mentioned this story yesterday but I just wanted to point out this minor story received two articles, the blog post by Maya and a news story. Double coverage because some lady couldn't get into Israel? Even Noam Chomsky's encounter with the border guard only got one article.

Segregated Sidewalks
Apparently, the Israeli court ruled against segregated sidewalks in Jerusalem, which had been put there by the religious authority.

Now, let's see what articles the HP chose not to cover.

Israeli Arabs accused of recruiting for Hamas.

Three members of Islamic Jihad were killed by Israel

Two Israelis shot at by Palestinians, one a pregnant mother.

Now, what do the articles covered by the HP all have in common? That's right, they all make Israel look bad. Building homes, barring people's entry, segregated sidewalks? What a despicable country! And what do all the articles not covered have in common? That's right, they make Israel seem like a a victim of Arab violence or planned violence. It's no wonder the HP chose to cover the former stories over the latter, it doesn't fit their agenda to make Israel into the victim, that's reserved exclusively for the Palestinians.

My Poster Creation

Elder of Ziyon and some of his friends have been making posters, and I thought I would give one a shot. Let me know if you have any suggestions. It is based on my recent revelation discussed here.

"There are No Child Suicide Bombers"

More HPer lies, published by the HP:

 

Yes, apparently the only suicide bombers are men over 18. Ignore all evidence to the contrary, please.

Update: And of course there is this immortal video. Check it to see the true face of the Palestinian cause:

And Now....Patrick McGoohan Fighting An Arab Guy

More on J-Street's Woes

We haven't talked very much about this on this blog, but J-Street has gotten in trouble recently for taking money from billionaire anti-Zionist George Soros and then lying about it. If you're interested, read more here.

More on Rape of Activists

Elder of Ziyon has more information about the raping of Western activists who head into the Palestinian territories with the intention of helping Palestinians in need. Here's an excerpt:

"The stories of rape and sexual molestation of foreign peace activists by Palestinians first appeared in the dovish Haaretz several months ago. Back in July, Avi Isacharoff asked, Are the Palestinians silencing the attempted rape of U.S. peace activist? and then he reported: PA, protest leaders hushed up attempted rape of U.S. activist. That was back in July. Incredibly, nobody noticed these ‘juicy’ stories. ...

It was not the only incident. An undated article in Hebrew, by Roni Aloni Sedovnik reported on Betrayal by the left of female peace activists who were sexually assaulted. Aloni-Sedovnik reported an additional case, the ‘severe sexual assault’ of an Israeli peace activist at Sheikh Jarrah. The victim tried to complain, but this time it was Israeli peace activists who shut her up: 

“However,  after heavy and unfair pressure from the organizers of the Sheikh Jarrah protest, she withdrew her complaint.

“As if that is not enough to make one appalled at the hypocritical morality and loss of direction, the situation became more serious recently, when the activists organizing the the demonstrations in Bil’in and Sheikh Jarah asked female demonstrators to wear ‘modest dress’ according to the code accepted in Arab villages: Hijab, Burqa or other head covering…

“How did we not hear about this? After all, the phenomenon is known in a broad group of peace activists, so what can we learn from the hushing up of this topic by the media?…

‘Peace’ groups such as Ir Amim that are demonstrating in Sheikh Jarrah and Bilin get U.S. tax deductible donations through the NIF, which supposedly advances ‘women’s rights’ and ‘democracy.’

The two cases are apparently only the tip of  the iceberg.Yehudah Belo wrote, under the dramatic headline, Female leftist activists are raped day after day, night after night about the alleged rape of Scandinavian girls: 

“I know of such rape cases from women who are not Jewish: a female European leftist activist, a female Red Cross volunteer and a young Arab woman from Yafo. I met the three of them during reserve service. I met with each of them afterwards… they told me what happens there, in the Palestinian villages, far from any observing eye.”

“It is not a matter of rape to satisfy lust. They are done systematically in order to impregnate the girl, and then to marry her, after she converts to Islam. Of course, we know about this method from girls who underwent a similar process inside Israel and escaped to Europe, but it is hard to escape from the [Palestinian] territories.  Sometimes these women,  some of whom are already older women, are not allowed to leave their homes unaccompanied, in order to prevent their escape. If someone doubts my words…please, check the statistics for entries and departures, and you will discover that a large portion of female leftist activists did not leave the country. Everyone knows about it, but nobody dares to talk about it…

“I ran into a few Norwegian girls married to Palestinians. They are not happy. Their lives were destroyed. Their families have broken off contact with them. They have no place to return to. They are deep in the raising of children and wish to die. I assume there are women in that situation in their own countries and in Israel too. Not everyone is happy, but one might think that a person who grew up in Oslo will have trouble adjusting to life in the refugee camps. She is no longer allowed to be free, to fly about the world as she wishes, or even to be a leftist activist. 

Belo pleaded with Israeli womens’ and leftist organizations to help, but so far, none has done so. 

The cause was also taken up by Israeli blogger Nimrod Avissar, in a Hebrew article called Thunderous Silence. 

These Israeli reporters and bloggers do not all fit the stereotype of right wing settler supporters. Haaretz generally is sympathetic to Palestinians and so is their reporter and analyst Avi Issacharoff. Nimrod Avissar lives in Ramat Gan, not in a settlement. The reports cannot be dismissed. When rumors about Israeli ‘war crimes’ and illegal organ transplants surfaced, they were plastered all over respected journals such as the New York Times and Time magazine, as well as Scandinavian journals, though there was probably not a word of truth to them. Judge Richard Goldstone wrote thousands of pages and made the gravest accusations based on flimsier evidence, causing an upheaval in international justice as well as media coverage. But almost nothing at all has been published in international media about these rapes. No activists took up the cause of these poor women. There were two articles about the rape issue in a respectable journal, but they were ignored. Additional material accumulated, but that too was ignored. ...

Over the years, I have heard plenty of stories, not just about Israeli or European women being raped, but about Arab Christian girls being raped, sometimes with the cooperation of, or on the initiative of, the Fatah Police. I have also seen those earnest Scandinavian Lutheran girls, recruited for the causes of ‘peace’ and dialog,’ standing in a room full of Palestinian young men. What could they have in common?? Why were there no Scandinavian young men? Draw your own conclusions. If it was ‘dialog’ and ‘solidarity’ that they sought, they came to the right place, it seems. I have also seen ominous warnings about ‘modest dress.’

Don’t the charges at least merit further investigation and publicity? After all, if the same charges were leveled at Israelis, there would be a barrage of publicity, regardless of whether they had any truth to them or not. There are numerous specious allegations that Israeli soldiers raped Palestinians. There was even a ‘study’ that ‘proved’ that Israeli soldiers (including the non-Jewish ones) do not rape Palestinians because IDF soldiers are racists. 

Surely it is time to break the silence? Won’t Women in Black or Code Pink or perhaps Gila Svirsky’s group (CWP – Coalition of women for Peace) organize a tumultuous demonstration demanding an international investigation?? It is understandable if they keep mum about these stories. But where is the army of Zionist bloggers and journalists who are supposed to publicize these issues? Where are the organizations who take money to supposedly defend Israel? Why is everyone silent?? "

I know on this blog we try to score political points against the Palestinians and their supporters, but this kind of thing takes it to the next level. This isn't even about Israel, really, it's about the Palestinian system and how they treat others.  If this is how Palestinians treat those trying to help them, I can imagine what will happen to their enemies if they ever get the upper hand. Oh, wait, I don't have to imagine.

I have friends who disagree with me about this whole conflict and believe wholeheartedly in things like meetings and interfaith dialog (not to say that I don't believe in those things, I just don't think they'll help that much). One of them just got back from Israel where she participated in one of those things. I can't believe this situation, these women go over there with the best intentions in the world and then they suffer a worse fate than they would have if they had stayed home.

Please, if you have friends like mine who believe in peace and love and reconciliation, and who intend to head over there at some point to help, tell them about this kind of thing. I know I will.  99% of the world has no idea this is happening, and they need to.

At least there should be an investigation. Surely, all progressive people will welcome an investigation into the status of women in the West Bank, which is no doubt commendable in every way. 

Won’t someone publicize this cause? Won’t someone speak out about this injustice? Won’t someone tour campuses in the United States and Scandinavia to warn the innocents before it is too late?? Won’t someone come forward and break the silence??

Mya Guarnieri's Latest Complaint

Mya "Sue Happy" Guarnieri has been absent from the Huffington Post for twenty days, and as I am sure you aware many important things have happened during that time. The settlement freeze ended, obviously, but also six Israelis were murdered by Hamas and four more were injured in other shooting incidents. Did it occur to Ms. Guarnieri to write about these things? Of course not, because not even the settlement freeze was an anti-Israel enough story for her. Fortunately, she has found recently found a topic in Israel's decision to disallow Maired Maguire from coming in.

Who is Ms. Maguire? She is a "peace activist" (aren't they all) who is distinctive because she is also a Nobel Peace Laureate. Unfortunately, she also sailed on the famous Gaza flotilla and subsequently got deported. Under Israeli law, anyone who is deported is not allowed back in for ten years. Ms. Guarnieri seems to be under the impression that Ms. Maguire's Peace Prize makes her above the law. Kind of ironic, since Ms. Guarnieri is always demanding that Israel follow international law, she seems to be willing to make an exception for Israeli law.

Also interesting is that Ms. Maguire lied. In the article she claimed "that she contacted Israeli authorities after she'd arrived Ireland. They informed Maguire that she wouldn't be barred from entering the country." But Ms. Guarneri also quoted an Interior Ministry spokesperson who said, "A few months ago [Maguire] was on the Rachel Corrie [a ship on the Freedom Flotilla]. After that she was deported. So she knows that she can't come to Israel. She says that she [checked] with the embassy before but she didn't do that." And I know it's a he said, she said, but considering the flotilla's history of lying and the ease with which something like that could be checked I am disinclined to believe Ms. Maguire.

Ms. Guarnieri and Ms. Maguire's friends claim that it was politically motivated. Don't worry if you missed it on the first time through, they repeat themselves a lot. Of course, the problem is that everyone else who is part of Ms. Maguire's group can go in and do whatever they want. This might be because they aren't...you know...criminals. But maybe Ms. Guarnieri thinks that it is just a coincidence.

One last thing before we finish, not the flawed logic of Ms. Maguire's lawyer here:

"All of her activities [in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories] were done in a peaceful and nonviolent form and all of her activities should be protected under the right to express her opinion," El-Ajou added.

Right, so again, not actively hurting people only makes one a saint when one is a pro-Palestinian activist. For the rest of us, it's considered to be the bare minimum. Just because Ms. Maguire isn't a terrorist doesn't make her above the law (as the Israeli spokesperson said) and it certainly doesn't mean that she can go wherever she wants whenever she wants. Peace prize or no.

But what really gets me is "the right to express her opinion." Israel is not stopping Ms. Maguire from expressing her opinion about anything. She is perfectly free to say whatever she wants. She just can't waltz into Israel after breaking Israeli law. The two issues are completely unrelated, and it says a lot about Ms. Maguire's case that she is resorting to the usual weak cries of "free speech." Yes, in Israel there is free speech. But there isn't free entry. Every country in the world has it, so you'd better get used to it.

Karim Sadjadpour's Questions for Ahmadinejad

[Daled Amos found a great article by Karim Sadjadpour about the state of Iran under the reign of Ahmadinejad. I for one intend to crosspost it on the HP more than a few times. Here they are, crossposted:]


Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is visiting the United Nations General Assembly in New York this week. Here are some questions that journalists should ask him:

• One of your closest spiritual advisers, Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi, recently said that democracy, freedom and human rights have no place in Islamic theology. Do you agree with Mr. Yazdi?

• According to human-rights organizations including Amnesty International, executions have increased four-fold since you became president in 2005, and Iran now executes more people per capita than any other country in the world. Iran also lifted its moratorium on stoning since you became president.And according to Reporters Without Borders, Iran is now the world’s “biggest prison for journalists.” Do you take pride in your record?
 
• Two days after the June 12, 2009, presidential election, you declared that Iran is “the most stable country in the world.” But the next day nearly three million people, according to the mayor of Tehran, took to the streets to protest the election results. Given your confidence in your popular support, would you grant the opposition a permit to protest, and would you guarantee their safety?

• According to the International Monetary Fund, Iran has one of the highest rates of brain drain in the world, with as many as 100,000 people leaving annually in search of greater economic dignity and political freedom. Economists estimate that the brain drain has accelerated during your presidency. How much does it bother you that many of Iran’s top minds are forced to reside abroad?

• Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, reportedly issued an edict earlier this year demanding that all Muslims obey him as the earthly deputy of both the Prophet Muhammad and the Twelfth Imam (whom Shiite Muslims consider a messianic figure). Do you believe that Mr. Khamenei is the representative of these prophets on Earth?

The Ethereal Standard: Freeze Edition

When you are a member of the anti-Zionist camp, it is pretty much expected that you need to blame Israel for everything that goes wrong and berate it no matter what is happening. Unfortunately, this often leads to problems with logic, and anti-Zionists often end up contradicting themselves or twisting themselves into knots. We saw a prime example of this with the ending of the settlement freeze.

Now, on the one hand many anti-Zionists on the Huffington Post railed against the renewed construction because they believed it would sink the newly resumed peace talks. This is not a particularly controversial view, in my opinion. Here is an example:

Okay, so because Israel decided to resume settlement building, they have "rejected peace" and have doomed the region to another hundred years of fighting.

The trouble, of course, is that the settlements have been under a moratorium for the past ten months, and no progress was made and no one was claiming that Abbas was "rejecting peace" when he refused to talk for three-quarters of that time. But ah! The anti-Zionists, in the form of talkbacker here, have an answer to that too!

Do you understand now how it works? When the settlement freeze is going on, it's not really a freeze and so Israel can be blamed for the failure of peace talks. But when the "psuedo freeze" ends (and not a moment before) suddenly it is retroactively a great move by Israel and oh isn't it so horrible that it ended? Now there never will be peace.

The ethereal standard moves again. When Israel is "freezing" (even though it is more of a "slowing") that is not good enough. But when Israel is not freezing, suddenly freezing would have been good enough if only they could be convinced to do it a second time. Of course, one can presume that should there be another settlement freeze this time, it will (again) not be good enough.

The more honest of the Huffington Posters have made their position clear: All the Jews must leave before there can be peace. Too bad that is not even close to a realistic point of view, but realism has never been something that is valued among AZs, in my understanding.

Jewish Boat: No Deaths? HP No Longer Interested

The Huffington Post headlined the story about a Jewish boat coming to Gaza to 'break the blockade.' It racked up a decent amount of comments but according to the HP, that's where the story ends.

Of course, real life keeps right on chugging along even after the HP has already moved on. In fact the boat was intercepted and escorted to Ashdod port. Just like 99% of the "blockade runners," the interception went completely peacefully and no one was killed or even hurt. So of course the Huffington Post couldn't care less. Can't have Israel looking peaceful now can we?

Incidentally, the boat was named "Irene." Why are these names always so boring? I know that ships like the "Rachel Corrie" are named for the propaganda value (just like the flotillas as a whole) but if I were a blockade runner I would name my ship something from Star Wars, like Milennium Falcon or Lady Luck or Wild Karrde. Sure, it doesn't have much to do with Gaza, but you'd be immortalized in geek lore for eternity!

Anti-Semitic Comment of the Day

Here you are:

To sum up: "Jewish supremacists" control the US and Palestine, and they caused the Russian Revolution. And the honest Jews are hunted down by these supremacists.

To borrow Huff-Watcher's catch phrase: Huff-Post Approved!

More Evidence Linking the Palestinians and Nazism

As I mentioned yesterday, the Palestinian leadership in the form of Hajj Amin Husseini were big fans of Hitler and Nazi Germany. But something the anti-Zionists have long claimed is that he was the exception and while he hung out with Hitler, that was all he did. But, again from the pages of Palestine Betrayed, the truth comes out:

"The long established paper Karmil (more info here) pined for the appearance of 'an Arab Hitler' who 'will awaken the Arabs and rally them behind his leadership so that they will do what needs to be done,' while Jamal Husseini invoked one of Hitler's famous refrains in inaugurating his party's youth organization...It was indeed the Husseinis, the foremost influence in Palestinian Arab politics, who displayed the greatest enthusiasm for Nazism, going so far as to model their youth organization on the lines of the Hitlerjungend (Hitler Youth) and temporarily naming it "The Nazi Scouts." Losing no time, the Mufti rushed to the German consul in Jerusalem to tell him that "the Muslims of Palestine and elsewhere were enthusiastic about the new regime in Germany and looked forward to the spread of Fascism throughout the region." In a foretaste of his actual World War II conduct, he endorsed the Nazi Jewish policy and offered to persuade Muslims worldwide to adopt similar measures."

 And then the Palestinians and their supporters wonder why the British didn't do exactly what they wanted them to do when it came time for partition!

Negotiations Need Logical Decision-Making

Hey, do you remember early in the Obama presidency when people were getting on his case for being too much like Spock from Star Trek, i.e. too cold and logical?

Really sounds a petty thing to complain about now, doesn't it? But I bring it up because it sounds like what we really need right now is some Spockish attitudes on the part of both Abbas and Netanyahu.

Netanyahu just froze the settlements for nine months. During eighty-five percent of that time period nothing was going on in the peace process. It would be therefore illogical to freeze the settlements again without getting something in return. Honestly, I don't even care what that something is. It could be barely anything. I say this not because I'm particularly in favor of more settlements, but Netanyahu needs to please the pro-settlement parts of his coalition. To bring logic back into it: Freezing the settlements again might make Abbas and Obama happy, but if it leads to a governmental collapse the talks will end anyway.

Abbas, on the other hand, really needs to stop thinking emotionally here. Yes, the settlement freeze has ended and he has threatened to walk away. But let us stop and think: What will walking away accomplish? Yes, he can probably spin it so that the outside world believes that it was Israel's fault that the talks failed. Of course, that is a fleeting gain, as no one expected the talks to succeed anyway and Israel's reputation can't get much worse.

On the other hand, walking away will not bring the Palestinians any closer to their goals. It won't bring down the fence, it won't end the occupation, it certainly won't stop the settlements, and it won't end the violence. So really, are the Palestinians going to benefit from Abbas walking away now? I hardly think so!

So it's time that both Abbas and Netanyahu stop trying to stick it to each other, and do what is logical. And yes, I'm sure that I'm not saying anything they haven't heard before. But it bares repeating, especially to those who might want to try and defend Abbas decision should he choose to walk.

Narwani Continues to Blur Journalism and Propaganda

Sharmine Narwani keeps posting on her post about the interview with Hamas and with every post we learn more about her than we do about anything else.

OK, so let's unpack this comment. First, Narwani uses loaded, Electronic Intifada copyrighted terms to describe Israeli institutions, specifically the "separation wall" and the "economic blockade". Israel refers to the barrier as a security fence because it is designed, obviously, for security, not to separate Palestinian groups. While it is entirely too much for us to expect Narwani to use the Israeli term for the barrier, an honest journalist would, as I did, use a neutral term like "barrier" to describe it, not a term loaded to support one side of the other.

Second, Narwani straight up lies when she calls the Gaza blockade an "economic" blockade. An economic blockade, by definition of the term, prevents only economic activity from entering and leaving the area. But Israel is also preventing military equipment from entering Gaza, and terrorists from leaving Gaza. But because Ms. Narwani doesn't want her dumb readers to learn that the Palestinians are occasionally violent, she'll just gloss over those aspects of the blockade and focus on the economic parts. That fits her worldview of the poor innocent suffering Gazans better.

Third, implying both of those two structures are designed to target Palestinian civilians "specifically" is again trying to remove Palestinian violence from the equation. Narwani seeks to remove all knowledge of Palestinian violence from her readership, and even if it does come up, it's "resistance". Therefore, if the Palestinians are never violent, then the measures Israel takes to stop the violence are obviously only there to target civilians. Simple, logical, and completely removed from reality.

And, of course, she echoes Meshaal's hand-wringing about the suffering of the poor Hamas militants captured by Israel, but fails to mention, as an honest journalist might, about the kidnapping and torture of Fatah members by Hamas. Again, trying to present Hamas and the Gazans as victims of injustice, not people whose actions have consequences.

It is clear from her articles and comments that Sharmine Narwani has a purpose on the Huffington Post. Her purpose is to make Hamas seem like a perfectly fine organization, with a realistic worldview and reasonable goals. All their violence is "resistance" and there really isn't that much violence to begin with. But we really should talk to Hamas, they are reasonable people with reasonable goals. This crosses the line from journalism to propaganda, Narwani is essentially making the case for Hamas, and the Huffington Post is giving her a voice on their website. This should be very problematic to any fair and impartial observer of this conflict, especially when there are no counter-voices that are saying the opposite about Hamas.

Racist Comment of the Day

Another comment from user "SiberianRat," who we have encountered before:

One would think that making blanket judgments about an entire society would be racist. I certainly would expect someone to call me out if I said the Palestinian psyche was all about murdering "Zionists". Of course he had to throw in the "goyim" comment, so much for having nothing against Jews.

Oh, and here's another to seal the deal:

They may be mere "anti-Zionists" but sooner or later anti-Jewish comments always come out.

MJ Rosenberg's Selective Outrage

Yesterday MJ Rosenberg published another article with his usual combative headline: "Netanyahu to U.S. Drop Dead." The idea is that the renewal of Israel's settlement construction (not exactly a surprise, I might add) is the equivalent of telling all of America to "drop dead."

Of course, one cannot help but wonder: Did Rosenberg say that when Abbas was being pressured by Obama to come to the table? How about when he refused to recognize Israel as a Jewish state? Or when he wouldn't make a compromise regarding the renewal of settlements? Nope. Rosenberg was nowhere to be found. I guess only Israel can tell America to "drop dead." Just another example of that good old down-to-earth unbiased HP reporting!

And then of course there is the article.

"Moreover, Israel's position is utterly hypocritical.
It is notorious for establishing conditions on negotiations. For instance, it says it won't negotiate with Hamas unless and until Hamas (1) ends all violence, (2) recognizes Israel, and (3) accepts all agreements previously agreed to by the Palestinian Authority. In the 15 years since Oslo, it placed condition after condition even on actions it had pledged to implement. One could write a book on the history of Israel's conditions on...everything."

 Sorry Mr. Rosenberg, but nice try. Hamas is not involved right now (so I don't know why he even brought them up) while in these negotiations it has been made clear that there are no preconditions. Rosenberg is simple making things up...again. But he doesn't stop there:

"Abbas, on the other hand, has one condition. It is that Israel not build on the very land they are negotiating about. And Israel says "no way.""

I see Mr. Rosenberg's head has been buried in the sand for the past eight months. Israel was not building, and Abbas wasn't talking. That sure sounds like more than one condition to me. What, does he think we're idiots, and won't notice Abbas' behavior. Hey Rosenberg! Abbas had the chance to negotiate during the settlement freeze! He didn't take it!

Historical Quotation

From the pages of Palestine Betrayed:

"Of Germany's victory the Arab world was firmly convinced, not only because the Reich possessed a large army, brave soldiers, and military leaders of genius, but also because the Almighty could never award the victory to an unjust cause"

Hajj Amin Husseini to Adolf Hitler, 1941

Do you know of any other "just causes" the Arab world is "firmly convinced" will be "victorious"? 

Anti-Semitic Comment of the Day

The original link.

"The Middle East Is Arab"

Check out this comment. Notice the eight favorites:

Remember everyone! The idea of a state that is Jewish....racist! The idea of the entire Middle East that is Arab is....totally okay! And woe to any other people who wants to live in the Middle East that are not Arabs!

And of course, who are the real invaders? Let me think about that one...

Where do Arabs originally come from? Hmm....

Sharmine Narwani on Human Rights

On Sharmine Narwani's latest interview with Hamas leader Khalid Meshaal, a Huffington Poster called her out:

How do you suppose she responded to this? With excuses, of course:

Excuse #1: Criticizing Hamas for their human rights abuses is akin to Israeli propaganda, and asking Hamas about its genocidal intentions toward Israel is a waste of time because "no intelligent person" really takes them at their word.

Excuse #2: She wants to know Hamas' views on the world rather than their views toward their own people. This is someone who claims to care about the suffering Gazans.

Excuse #3: If Hamas is mistreating their own people, it must be to "protect their position" from "external pressures." In other words, they are defending themselves, and it is someone else's fault. That's pretty standard issue apologizing for oppression if I have ever heard it, especially since I don't see how forcing Gazan women to wear religious garb is necessary to secure Hamas' rule.

Now, it would be one thing if Ms. Narwani would ever write an article that was critical of Hamas and sympathetic with the people of Gazan. But she doesn't! Oh sure, she'll write about Israel mistreating the Gazans, but never their own government. This is someone who claims to be "pro-Palestinian" of course.

This post, more than any other by Ms. Narwani, only proves her true motivations. She is just not interested in justice, nor human rights, nor even the welfare of the Palestinian people. She only wants to defend Hamas, Hezbollah, and the other "resistance movements" dedicated to killing Jews, Americans, and anyone else who gets in their way.

Holocaust Cynicism Comments of the Day

The original link.

Just Journalism's Takedown of Johann Hari

[CifWatch found an article by Just Journalism which exposes Johann Hari's distortions in an article about Gideon Levy that he published for the Independent and also the Huffington Post. Therefore, it has been crossposted here.]

Today’s interview with Gideon Levy by Johann Hari in The Independent is a perfect example of how criticism of Israel can be distorted abroad to fit the preconceptions of the foreign media. Levy’s narrow focus on the ills of his country matches perfectly with Hari’s blinkered perspective, and is therefore presented as the only valid viewpoint – the ‘truth’ about Israel.

‘Is Gideon Levy the most hated man in Israel or just the most heroic?’ asks the headline of the interview. Over the course of the five and a half thousand word article, Hari argues that he is the former, stands a good chance of being the latter and, of course, that Levy’s supposed pariah status is the result of his staunch bravery in the face of adversity.

Gideon Levy is an editor and columnist at Ha’aretz, a liberal Israeli daily newspaper. According to Hari, Levy has done ‘something very simple, and something that almost no other Israeli has done. Nearly every week for three decades, he has travelled to the Occupied Territories and described what he sees, plainly and without propaganda.’ Taken literally, this is probably true – after all, only a very small percentage of Israelis at any one time are columnists at a national newspaper, and the amount of them that have been reporting for thirty years on the trot would be smaller still.

This, however, is not what Hari means. He seeks to suggest that Levy’s concern for Palestinians, and his objections to the occupation of their land, marks him out from his fellow Israelis, who are characterised as violent and racist. According to Hari, Levy ‘patiently [documents] his country’s crimes, and [tries] to call his people back to a righteous path.’ While Levy offers Palestinians empathy, ‘so many others offer only bullets and bombs.’

But it’s not just that Israeli’s don’t care about these issues – they are, in the myopic portrayal of Israel that is conjured up in the interview, actively trying to prevent Levy from speaking out as well. Many people, according to Hari, want Levy ‘silenced’, and if the ‘attempt to deride, suppress or deny his words’ is successful, then ‘Israel itself is lost.’

The Demographic Bomb Is Dropped!

[In the style of DivestThis' BDS Journey comes a tale told of the not too distant future, in which the Palestinian Arabs have succeeded in attaining the "demographic bomb"]

The Time: January 18th, 2055. 

The Setting: The office of the UN Secretary General, Philip Flitterman of the European Union.

[UNSG Flitterman is sitting in his office making paper airplanes. Two men enter escorted by an aide. They are Marwan Barghouti Jr, President of the Palestinian Authority and his Vice President, Ismail Haniyeh Jr.]

Flitterman: Ah, gentlemen! Welcome back to the United Nations! What can I do for the Palestinians today? Do you need more money? A condemnation of Israel? Maybe another national holiday?

Barghouti: The time is here, Secretary! We have finally succeeded in our goal! Our long national nightmare of statelessness has finally come to an end!

Flitterman: Really?

Haniyeh: That's right! At 9 o'clock this morning a Palestinian mother in Ramallah gave birth to twins!

[pause]

Flitterman: So what?

Barghouti: So that means that there are now more Arabs between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea than there are Israeli Jews!

Flitterman: I don't understand.

Haniyeh: We demand that the United Nations sanction Israel until they give us our rights! And you're going to hep us do it!

Flitterman: Well sure, I'm always in favor of helping you Palestinians attain your rights! And the United Nations has had your back in the struggle for your national rights for the past century. So what do you need? And what does this have to do with twins in Ramallah?

Merely Anti-Zionist Comment of the Day

Here you are:

But remember, they don't have a problem with Jews, only "Zionists".

Khaled Meshaal on the Ground Zero Mosque

Sharmine "Dignity Rockets" Narwani has published the second half of her propaganda interview with Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal. Maybe someone who is more political science-oriented than we are can take a look at the whole thing, but I did have one section that I wanted to show:

SN: Have you been reading about the Ground Zero mosque controversy in New York city? What are your thoughts on this very sensitive debate in the United States?

KM: Naturally speaking, America has to be in harmony with its own declared values. It's not fitting or appropriate for Americans - under the guise of an anti-terrorism war - to fight Muslims by restricting them in their rituals or religious practice. One of your citizenship rights is to practice your religion. If they are American and they are Muslim American, they have the right to build a mosque as part of their citizenship rights.
In short, aside from the political differences, the freedom of practicing religious rituals and having religious freedom -- for all religions -- should be granted without having disparity or political differences brought into it.

 Yes, you are reading that correctly. Hamas is lecturing America about the importance of religious freedom. Excuse me while I go and throw up.

Quote of the Day

I found this one through The Arab Lobby by Mitchell Bard:

"Arabists also represent the most exotic and controversial vestige of the East Coast Establishment, Francis Fukuyama, a former member of the State Department's Policy Planning Staff and a renewed political philosopher, says Arabists are, 'a sociological phenomenon, an elite within an elite, who have been more systematically wrong than any other area specialists in the diplomatic corps. This is because Arabists not only take on the cause of the Arabists, but also the Arabs' tendency for self-delusion.'"

 Oh snap! By the way, if you are wondering what exactly an "Arabist" is, according to Bard it is someone in the US who favors the Arabs in matters involving the Middle East, even when it is not in America's best interests or in line with the will of the American government.

Jews vs Zionists?

Check out this comment by "Yank in France," who has crossed our path before:

He is saying that Jewish holidays affect the markets, supposedly, but that he is not attacking "Jews," only that the "Zionist influence" controls America.

Now, what I don't get is that if "Zionists" are completely different from Jews, then why would the Jewish holidays have anything to do with what "Zionists" do and don't do?

I guess we can put this down as yet another nail in the coffin of the whole "Zionists not Jews" myth.

Anti-Semitic Comment of the Day

On the flotilla thread:

the original link.

Narwani: "Israel Does Not Exist"

Sharp eyed reader BcemXaHa spotted this incredible comment by Sharmine Narwani, which I had to post:

Regardless of her reasons why, Narwani has once again proven herself to be more Palestinian than the Palestinians by refusing to accept Israel's existence. And, of course, declaring Israel guilty of 'crimes against humanity', classic lawfare.

Tribalism And the UN

This comment by Sharmine Narwani on the recent UNHCR-flotilla thread reminded me of a rather old concept:

Now, in attacking the supposedly tribalism of "Zionists" she accidentally exposes that of her own. Say what you will about Israel supporters but they have been consistent: We have always considered the United Nations to be biased against Israel....because it is!

Just look at the second sentence: You don't need to support Israel to realize that the UN is corrupt, lacking in credibility, and is obsessed with Israel. You only need to have a brain and eyes unclouded by your own tribalism. There are many organizations who take issue with the UN for many different reasons.

I could go through the many problems with the UN, but I trust that if you were interested in find out about them you could do that on your own. As for the obsession with Israel, anti-Zionists like to gleefully point out that Israel has been the target of the most UN resolutions. They like to use this to "prove" that Israel is the worst country on earth, but to an unbiased individual it only means that the UN is, in fact, obsessed with Israel. I know that I am a biased source, so do the math for yourself, numbers don't lie. The USA kills untold numbers of Iraqis and the UN barely shudders. What does that mean?

Of course, now we must turn the spotlight on Narwani and her friends. She sarcastically complains about our feelings toward the UN, but it is immediately obvious that she only defends them because they are biased in her favor. If they were biased against Hamas, for instance, she would be out on the front lines complaining and moaning that "America" and "the Zionists" were hijacking the UN for their own selfish gains.

Sorry, but I have no illusions: The UN is a useful club with which to beat Israel, but should it ever lose its bias it will be discarded at the drop of a hat. That's the way that tribalism works.

ZOG Comment of the Day

Check this out:

Nope, no anti-Semitism around here! Why do you ask?

Huff-Watch on Jerusalem Violence

Huff-Watcher has released a comprehensive article detailing the unbalanced reporting present on the HP following the recent outbreak of violence in Jerusalem. He points out that the HP a) covered up the violence that led to Sirhan's death and b) gave far more attention to his funeral (a violent Palestinian's) than to the victims of Hamas a couple weeks ago in Hebron (settlers and friends of settlers). The HP didn't publish any pictures of the setters' funeral, while they have several full-page splash pictures of Sirhan's.

Check out the whole thing.

Israel-Clinton Scandal: HuffPo Feeds the Fire

Yesterday, despite all the crazy things happening, the latest spat between Israel's government and former President Bill Clinton received top billing in the "World" section:

Notice the combative headline there: "Israeli Leaders 'Slam' Bill Clinton." Tell you what, let's take a look at the actual content of the article and I'll leave it to you to conclude the amount of "slamming" going on:

"Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, whose Yisrael Beitenu party relies heavily on immigrant support, lashed out at Clinton, slamming his remarks as "crude generalizations" and accusing him of meddling in Israel's internal affairs.

"The people of Israel are one nation and the Russian immigrants, like the other citizens of Israel, want true peace based on the recognition of Israel's right to exist as the national state of the Jewish people," Lieberman said in a statement....

But Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu sought to downplay the former president's remarks, saying in a statement Wednesday that he "regrets" the comments and that Clinton, as a friend of Israel, was well aware of the great contribution of its Russian immigrant community."

 To me, it sounds more like the Associated Press and the HP went a little bit too far with their journalistic license. Further, notice how Lieberman (aka one person) has somehow managed to become "Israeli leaders"....again. Also I should point out that this is old news in Israel, it didn't make the headlines in any of the major news sites.

So in the light of all these other Israel-related stories, is this really vitally important? Especially when it is no big deal to have a story about a "possum throwing contest?" Or are the Huffington Post editors simply stoking the fires of hatred yet again?

Anti-Semitic Comments of the Day

"Excluding Jews," huh?

The original link.

The original link.

UNHRC Releases Report

The HP covered the UN Human Rights Council's report on Israel's flotilla raid, and while I'm not a lawyer or expert on international law, I thought I would take a look at the most important parts. Let's go over them, shall we?

The first part is about whether Israel's raid on the flotilla was legal in the first place. The report cites the San Remo manual:

"A blockade must satisfy a number of legal requirements, including: notification, effective and impartial enforcement and proportionality. In particular a blockade is illegal if: (a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or
(b) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade"

So, let's take a look at these two points. First, the blockade's sole purpose is not to starve the civilian population, its purpose is to prevent weapons from coming into Gaza, so that's covered. Second, the military advantage of the blockade is preventing violence in the form of rocket attacks on Israeli civilians, while the damage is the civilians don't get the luxury goods they necessarily want. Sounds pretty proportional to me. Let's see what the UN says:

"A blockade may not continue to be enforced where it inflicts disproportionate
damage on the civilian population. The usual meaning of “damage to the civilian
population” in LOAC refers to deaths, injuries and property damage. Here the damage may
be thought of as the destruction of the civilian economy and prevention of reconstruction of
past damage. One might also note, insofar as many in Gaza face a shortage of food or the
means to buy it, that the ordinary meaning of “starvation” under LOAC is simply to cause
hunger"

The UN has changed the definition of these terms in order to condemn Israel and its raid! Usually, damage to civilians means deaths and injuries, but now we're going to have it mean damage to the economy. Usually, starvation means you die from hunger, but now starvation means you are simply hungry. This kind of double standard is crazy to see in print. Would the UN condemn any other country for damaging their opponent's economy? During World War II, we bombed the heck out of Germany's factories, manufacturing plants, and railroad lines. And making starvation to mean being hungry? Israel is at war with Hamas. They are under no obligation to keep the population of Gaza well fed all the time, they are required under international law only to prevent a humanitarian crisis. People "being hungry" is not a humanitarian crisis.

After changing the rules for what justifies a blockade, the UN can therefore condemn Israel for unfairly maintaining an illegal blockade. How just!

Turkish Journalist Confirms IDF Version of Flotilla Raid

Elder of Ziyon points us to this report on a book by a Turkish reporter that essentially confirms the IDF's version of the events that transpired when the IDF commandos boarded the Mavi Marmara. Here's some selections:

" IHH leader Bulent Yildirim stated that “soon we will see the true face of Israel”. He further added, “we will defend ourselves here. We are aware of the price we’ll have to pay. But we did take into consideration that we may have to sacrifice ourselves for the sake of humanity. We shall not retreat, and everybody will see the Israelis pull back”

Shortly after the Zodiac boats appeared, a Sikorsky helicopter began approaching the Mavi Marmara and descending over the captain’s command bridge. Once it was close, commandos started sliding down on ropes from the helicopter. Three soldiers who dropped near the command bridge were taken hostage by a group of operatives as soon as they came on board. The three hostage soldiers were taken to the lower deck.⁶ At that stage, shots were heard. Judging by the sound, Dinç assumed that plastic bullets were being used. However, he said that it wasn’t long before the soldiers began using live ammunition"

Let's see if the HP covers this story, or if the AZs on there will continue their revisionist history. 

Holocaust Denial on the HP

The David Irving thread has revealed to us the presence of the Holocaust deniers among the HPers. An unfortunate event, but nice to see that this blog is still needed.

The original link. It may be deleted now, but it's been up for at least two hours.
And the follow up:

One State Solution? Still Not Good Enough

It probably wouldn't be a surprise to anyone to know that anti-Zionists intentionally misrepresent history to give themselves an advantage. We see it from the very beginning of recorded history, when they deny Jewish history in the region, to just a few months ago, when they continue to cling to a fiction of unarmed activists being cruelly massacred on the Mavi Marmara.

But I bet you didn't know that for all their talk about a "one state solution" that it was already offered to the Palestinians...and they said no!

The White Paper of 1939 gets a lot of attention because it limited Jewish immigration to Palestine to 75,000 a year. This is notable because it means a lot of Jews who could have safely made it out of Europe were instead doomed to die at the hand of the Nazis. In that sense it has garnered much infamy among the Jews toward the British.

But I bet you didn't know that it also called for a binational state in Palestine, governed by Jews and Arabs. They felt like their obligation to create a Jewish homeland under Balfour had been fulfilled Here is the text:

'The objective of His Majesty's Government is the establishment within 10 years of an independent Palestine State in such treaty relations with the United Kingdom as will provide satisfactorily for the commercial and strategic requirements of both countries in the future. [..] The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded.'

Sure sounds a lot like what the anti-Zionists claim a "one state solution" would look like, correct? Now, it might not surprise you know that the Jews didn't accept that idea. But did you know that the Arabs also did not accept it?

The Arab Higher Committee said that it wasn't acceptable because the Jews could simply withhold participation and thus prevent the government from working, and besides that the British would still have control. They also found the immigration terms not to be good enough, they wanted 'a complete and final prohibition' on immigration and a renunciation of the idea of Palestine as a Jewish homeland. Hajj Amin Al-Husayni, the closest thing to a leader the Palestinians have ever had, turned it down completely, because "it did not place him at the helm of the future Palestinian state." [Benny Morris]

So there you have it. No Palestinians had been expelled. No one had been killed. Yet even then a "one state solution" was not good enough for the Arabs, because Jews would still be living in their homeland. And even worse, they would have representation! It was unacceptable then, how can we believe that it would be acceptable now?

Why The "Jewish State" Demand?

A lot of the Huffington Posters lately have been complaining about Israel's demand to be recognized by the Palestinians as a Jewish state. Some of them, like MJ Rosenberg, parrot Abbas and say that the Palestinains doing so will adversely affect the non-Jews living in Israel. But as I said before, if the non-Jews are going to be mistreated it won't matter what the Palestinians do. So that argument doesn't work.

Most of the other posters who take issue with the "Jewish state demand" do so because they either have a problem with the idea of a Jewish state themselves or they support the Palestinians in whatever they decide to do, no matter how illogical. I have seen one post (though I have lost it) that said that Israel is trying to sink the peace talks by demanding this recognition while knowing that the Palestinians can never accept it. Why can the Palestinians never accept it? Well, that isn't explained. But we do know that Salam Fayyad, that great peacemaker, recently came out against the idea of "two states for two peoples," so that's informative.

So why do the Israelis make this demand? Well, as I said in the Rosenberg post, it is precisely because the Palestinians don't want Israel to exist as a Jewish state. In the past the Palestinians have made two linked demands: The creation of a Palestinian state and the immediately granting of Israeli citizenship to ten million Palestinians...which will result in a second Palestinian state with a Jewish minority. Accepting Israel as Jewish state means that the Palestinians have truly made peace with Israel and will cease trying to end Jewish sovereignty there. Of course, doing this means that they will have to give up the idea of "liberating" Tel Aviv and other Israeli cities, which is precisely why it is so difficult for their politicians to do it. One would think that simply saying "We accept Israel as a Jewish state" would not such a problem, especially compared to tearing down settlements. But I guess not.

At this point you might say, "Ah ha! But Egypt and Jordan did not need to accept Israel as a Jewish state in order to make peace! Clearly this is another stumbling block thrown out by Israeli to sabotage negotiations!"

It's true, Egypt and Jordan did not need to do this. Nor has there ever, to my memory, a conflict in which one party honesty and truly wanted the other side annihilated completely. So you won't find a precedent for this demand. That doesn't mean it is completely unreasonable however. Because Egypt and Jordan did not care what Israel does within its own borders. They were perfectly willing to sign the treaty, take their land back (in the case of Egypt) and go on their merry way. But that would not be good enough for the Palestinians, as demonstrated. And so the demand is on the table, not because Israel put it there, but because the Palestinians did. Only they can take it off.

Holocaust Cynicism Comments of the Day

The HP covered David Irving's recent trip to Poland to tour the camps, and while I have only begun to peruse the thread, I can already tell we'll see a lot of these:

Original link.

And some denial:

 

Note the link from the Institute for Historical Review. 

Curious Comment of the Day

Check this out:

And you thought only the far right cared about religious stuff!

Dehumanize the Settlers

Something that the anti-Zionists love to do, with support from MJ Rosenberg, is try to dehumanize the Israeli settlers. Using terms that would be racist if they were referring to any other group of people, they try to justify Palestinian violence by depicting the settlers as the worst people ever. One user in particular has been pushing this point hard yesterday and today, and I would like to showcase some of his posts for you.

That's right! The moment you move into Arab lands, you no longer have any rights. In fact, you yourself are illegal. Once this has been established, anything the Palestinians do to the settlers is completely understandable. A chilling stripping away of everything human about the Jews living in the West Bank.

Indeed. Every settler is a terrorist. Even a mother of six who sits at home, takes care of her kids, and goes to synagogue every week. She's a terrorist. But don't you dare suggest that the Palestinians in general support terror, even when they elected Hamas to represent them! That would be racist.

It's very simple in Nwo's mind. When Israel kills Palestinians, it's Israel's fault. When Palestinians kill Israelis, it's Israel's fault. The Palestinians are faultless, they can't do anything wrong.

No matter what the settlers do wrong, they are still human, and they do not deserve to be attacked indiscriminately. This kind of rhetoric has a hard time going away even if all the settlers were gone and only the Jewish state remained. Remember, for many people, every Jew in Israel is a settler.

Twisted Morality Comment of the Day

Needs no introduction:

JPost Tears Into MJR

A reader that asked to remain anonymous pointed Zach and me to this well written but badly punctuated editorial about the IPF and MJ Rosenberg. Here are some selections from it.

"Claiming sole possession of the "pro-Israel" mantle and proclaiming a markedly pro-Palestinian agenda, Rosenberg declared, "We need to drown out the clamor produced by a minority within the pro-Israel community that tells our government not to press Israel to freeze settlements, ease the suffering in Gaza, or push hard to end the occupation that is destroying Israel's future and the Palestinians' present." Thus, in recent months the Israel Policy Forum "welcomed the shift [it perceived] in American policy toward Hamas," opposed "provocative" congressional bills directed at Iran, rushed to the defense of Chas Freeman when his very inappropriate appointment to the National Intelligence Council was challenged, lobbied against a "one-sided" congressional resolution supporting Israeli actions against the rocket-shooting Hamas terrorists in Gaza, and expressed opposition to a "loathsome" bi-partisan Congressional letter to the President encouraging support for direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. This is pro-Israel?"

"Earlier this month the Forum's policy director rewrote Middle East history in chilling Orwellian terms. Israel should return to the 1967 borders after securing peace treaties, he wrote, because "pre-1967 Israel was not terrible at all. In fact it was pretty wonderful." [Emphasis added.] "Wonderful" is barely the way to describe the murderous fedayeen raids of the 1950s, the total ban on Jewish visits to the Western Wall or Cave of the Patriarchs, the abrupt withdrawal of UN troops from Sinai in 1967, the genocidal intentions of Arab neighbors and expeditionary forces, the failure of the United States to uphold its commitments to Israel, and the preparation of mass graves in Israeli parks"

The Pollard Wheel Goes Around Again

The Huffington Post picked for its one news article per week about Israel a negative one (surprise surprise) about Israel considering the possibility of extending the settlement freeze in exchange for the release of Jonathan Pollard.

At this point I feel I should provide my two cents about Pollard. Unlike a lot of other Israel supporters, I can't say that I would be too upset if he stayed in prison for the rest of his life. Why? Because he's a criminal, and he knew the risks of breaking the law when he did it. So if this deal doesn't work out, and he stays in prison, I for one won't be shedding any tears over it.

That being said, there is another side to the story that many anti-Zionists don't particularly want to hear about: That Pollard is being singled out for unfair treatment. Alan Dershowitz talked about it in Chutzpah, that although Pollard is clearly guilty, his sentencing was not just. I'll let him take over:

"The maximum possible penalty for the crime of espionage is life imprisonment, a penalty rarely imposed even on those who spy for our enemies and never imposed on those who spy for our friends. Indeed, at the time, the average prison sentence imposed on a defendant convicted of spying for a U.S. ally, like Israel, was less than five years. But since there was always the theoretical possibility that a vindictive judge could impose life imprisonment, and since it was understood that "a substantial period of incarceration" meant something less than life, the government was actually giving something in exchange for what it got."

The judge who threw the book at Pollard said that he did so precisely because Israel is so well liked in America, that he needed to make an example of Pollard to discourage other Americans from doing the same thing. Well in that case (a) it hasn't worked, as the AZs would so gleefully like to tell you and (b) the example has at this point been made.

It is pretty clear to anyone with eyes that Pollard should not remain imprisoned, based on the precedent of other spy cases he has done his time. Especially considering how obsessed certain members of the internet community are with justice (cough cough) one would think that they would call for an end to the injustice here. I say this not because I think Pollard did the right thing or even that I like him very much, because I don't. He is a criminal, but even criminals are entitled to fair treatment under the law. And that isn't what is happening here.

Don't expect any of the anti-Zionists on the Huffington Post to care about any of that though. You can check out the thread for yourself to see what they think.

Narwani Hits the Hardline

Man, Sharmine Narwani is writing so many informative comments, it is like she is providing us with enough material for this blog all by herself! Check out the latest:

And then this one:

So let's take a look at these statements in summary:

-"I'm right. You're wrong."
-"My side is the righteous one. Your side is not."
-"We get everything we want. You get nothing. There is no room for compromise. If you don't like it, deal with it."
-"There is no partner for peace on the other side."
-"Give me what I want now, before I even think about giving you anything. Otherwise someone might get hurt."

Now, if it were someone on the Israeli side who was talking like this, what would we call them? I imagine the most common labels would be "conservative" and "hardliner." It is interesting, though not surprising, to see Ms. Narwani exposed as what she is: A pro-Palestinian hardliner. Not different in any real way from Avigdor Lieberman, she is even more hardline than Abbas. Which is saying something!

More Palestinian than the Palestinians? In a big way. According to an AWRAD poll, two-thirds of Palestinians said that adjusting "the 1967 border through agreement to equivalent exchange of land" would be at least "tolerable." Even more pointedly, nearly half (47%) would also acquiesce to "moving [Israeli] settlers to large blocs and exchanging land." Not that you would know that from listening to Sharmine Narwani, of course. She is still up on her soapbox demanding ethnic cleansing of Jews from the West Bank. Her way or the highway. I guess she learned it from the best.

Anti-Semitic Comment of the Day

The context.

The original link.

News the HP Doesn't Cover: He Said, They Said

Interesting article in Ynet yesterday about a clash between settlers, Palestinians, and the IDF.

"Palestinians from the West Bank village of Burin and settlers from the settlement of Har Brakha, near Nablus, clashed Monday.

IDF soldiers dispatched to the scene dispersed the clash, declared the area a restricted military zone and restored order.
The reason for the clash has yet to be determined. The settlers claim that a resident of Givat Ronen – the settlement adjacent to Har Bracha, was violently attacked by 10 Palestinians while tending his sheep inside the Jewish community's boundaries.

The Palestinians, however, claim that the clash erupted after settlers were spotted picking olives from the village trees. 

The IDF confirmed that a clash which included stoning erupted between settlers and Palestinians, and that troops were sent to the area and had declared it a restricted military zone."

 I'm interested in this story because it's a classic he said, she said kind of scenario. Both the settlers and the Palestinians have a history of attacking the other for little or no reason. According to the Ynet talkbackers, it's too early for olive season, but I know next to nothing about olives so I can neither confirm nor deny that argument. But on the other hand, settlers have been known to steal crops or burn Palestinian trees for reprisal reasons.

Of course, it's interesting that in both scenarios, the Palestinians are the first to use violence. Stealing olives is a pretty petty offense, all things considered, not really worth trying to kill the offender for. And you would think that with the plethora of video cameras out there, the Palestinians would have taped the evidence before going on the attack. I can understand why the one lone shepherd might not have any evidence, but I would expect the Palestinians (if they are the victims) to document the crime before taking matters into their hands.

My point for bringing this story up is it's confusing to know which side is in the right or in the wrong. Different sides say different things, and it's not always clear who is in the moral right. Just like the conflict as a whole. Worth thinking about, in my opinion.

New On the HP: Criticism Vs Discrimination

Veteran Huffington Post blogger Amitai Etzioni has recent penned an awesome article about a very common topic: Where the legitimate criticism of Israel goes too far. He cited the recent Hebron massacre as an example of where certain someones who scream to the high heavens when Israel steps out of line are suddenly nowhere to be found. Here is a selection (my emphasis):

"More astonishing is that we have heard nothing -- not even simple news reports -- in the progressive media, from NPR and New York Times to Huffington Post about the following, revealed by a Washington Post editorial: Palestinian police "rounded up scores of Hamas operatives last week [after the shooting of the settlers] but quickly released them - reminding some of former Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's duplicitous response to acts of terrorism." The editorial urges Mr. Abbas to "match intentions with actions."
A fair-minded critic does not jump on one side and turn a blind eye to the other."

Of course to those of us who have been "watching" the HP this is old news, but it is still nice to see it. And here are some HPer reactions:

What, you didn't think any of them would actually listen to him, did you?