Both Zach and I are on break the next week, so we'll be mostly offline. New posts should resume consistently next Sunday, but be sure to let us know if there is anything newsworthy in the meanwhile.
If you want to read something more substantial, check out James Zogby's latest article. In it he uses the celebration of Christmas in Bethlehem as yet another diving board with which to smear Israel. Still, at least he isn't abusing Holocaust memories this time.
Sunday, December 26, 2010
The Huffington Post Continues Pro-Hamas Bias
Yesterday the Huffington Post published a new article about Hamas, their first in quite a while:
Remember now that the last time the Huffington Post published a "Hamas speaks" article, it was when they said they would respect a referendum on a peace deal. Now contrast this with articles the Huffington Post does not publish about Hamas: When a rocket hits near Ashkelon, when Hamas abuses children, and when they declared they would never recognize Israel. Update: According to this Ynet article, more than 30 rockets and mortars have been fired into Israel from Gaza in the last week alone, and Israel has responded in turn. And yet the only news from there we get on the Huffington Post is Hamas saying they are committed to a cease fire? What a joke.
What is also interesting is that on the same day as Hamas declared this, they also said that "Israel has two choices: Death or leaving Palestinian lands." This did not make it to the Huffington Post, however.
It has now become clear that the Huffington Post is choosing only to publish articles that make Hamas appear to be peaceful or moderate, while covering up articles that undermine that image. At least, as much as they reasonably could. I don't know why the Huffington Post would be biased like this, but the facts speak for themselves.
What is also interesting is that on the same day as Hamas declared this, they also said that "Israel has two choices: Death or leaving Palestinian lands." This did not make it to the Huffington Post, however.
It has now become clear that the Huffington Post is choosing only to publish articles that make Hamas appear to be peaceful or moderate, while covering up articles that undermine that image. At least, as much as they reasonably could. I don't know why the Huffington Post would be biased like this, but the facts speak for themselves.
Saturday, December 25, 2010
Merry Christmas!
It's December 25th and that means we're wishing all of our Christian readers a merry Christmas! Enjoy the holiday and thanks for reading.
Friday, December 24, 2010
Today's Biased HP Story
When you open up the Huffington Post today you might find a story about cruel Israel murdering a Palestinian shepherd. What you might not be surprised to hear is that it didn't go down like it appears in the headline:
Now go back and read the article. There are two contradictory stories contained within: The Palestinians say that the man was walking with a herd of goats when he was killed for no apparent reasons. But the Israelis say there were in fact two men who were both shot after warning shots had been fired. So what happened to the other man? But what's especially interesting is that even though there are two contradictory testimonies, the Huffington Post staff immediately believed the Palestinians over the Israelis, as you can see in both the headline and the picture. Apparently a killed shepherd makes for a much sexier story than yet another shootout on the Gaza border.
What you also might not be surprised to hear is that the anti-Zionist Huffington Posters, who were as skeptical as Dawkins when on the Christine Logan thread, now immediately believed whatever the Palestinians said without question:
So much for nobly seeking the truth, huh?
Now go back and read the article. There are two contradictory stories contained within: The Palestinians say that the man was walking with a herd of goats when he was killed for no apparent reasons. But the Israelis say there were in fact two men who were both shot after warning shots had been fired. So what happened to the other man? But what's especially interesting is that even though there are two contradictory testimonies, the Huffington Post staff immediately believed the Palestinians over the Israelis, as you can see in both the headline and the picture. Apparently a killed shepherd makes for a much sexier story than yet another shootout on the Gaza border.
What you also might not be surprised to hear is that the anti-Zionist Huffington Posters, who were as skeptical as Dawkins when on the Christine Logan thread, now immediately believed whatever the Palestinians said without question:
So much for nobly seeking the truth, huh?
MJ Rosenberg on Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia
MJ Rosenberg, fresh off a borderline anti-Semitic article of his own, has decided to preach about anti-Semitism and Islamophobia in America. We'll go through the article at length, but here's his thesis: There is no anti-Semitism in America, except from the right. There is plenty of Islamophobia, but it's the Jews' fault. Ready? Here we go.
This article, unlike most of Rosenberg's posts which are highly focused, is fairly rambling and disconnected. It starts with a complaint about how right-wing columnists such as Abigail Esman will criticize leftist anti-Semitic statements, like the ones from Helen Thomas, Rick Sanchez and Oliver Stone, but not rightist anti-Semitic statements like the ones from Mel Gibson and Glenn Beck. Here's Rosenberg's statement:
This article, unlike most of Rosenberg's posts which are highly focused, is fairly rambling and disconnected. It starts with a complaint about how right-wing columnists such as Abigail Esman will criticize leftist anti-Semitic statements, like the ones from Helen Thomas, Rick Sanchez and Oliver Stone, but not rightist anti-Semitic statements like the ones from Mel Gibson and Glenn Beck. Here's Rosenberg's statement:
"Esman cites by name the trinity of Helen Thomas, Rick Sanchez and (Jewish film maker) Oliver Stone as evidence. Naturally, the 90-year-old Thomas is Esman's marquee example of anti-Semitism even though her offensive remarks were not made on television or radio but to a rabbi with a camcorder at a White House party. (It was almost surely a set-up by a right-wing "pro-Israel" Israel activist with an agenda.)
On the other hand, Esman does not even mention Glenn Beck, whose reach dwarfs anything the Thomas/Sanchez/Stone trio can even dream about. It was Beck who devoted a full week on his program, watched by millions, to raw, old-fashioned anti-Semitism."I have two points to make about these paragraphs. Number one, MJ Rosenberg himself made no comment on Helen Thomas' second statement that caused Wayne State to pull her award, the one about "Zionists running the White House, banks," etc. He might have not commented because it's too similar to his own writings, but whatever. That statement, made to an audience on a podium, could not possibly be considered a "set up". Rosenberg is being hypocritical, because while Esman criticized Thomas but not Beck, he criticized Beck but not Thomas. They are two sides of the same coin. Second, if you follow the link about Glenn Beck's anti-Semitism, it is all about anti-Semitic myths used by Beck to attack George Soros. Some of the myths include "media control" and "government control". What's funny about that is that if you switch Soros for "the Israel lobby", you would think you were reading MJ Rosenberg. Again, two sides of the same coin, Rosenberg criticizes right-wingers of doing what he himself does.
Comment of the Day
Ready for perhaps the largest departure from reality I have ever seen on the Huffington Post?
The original link.
The original link.
Whitewashing Comment of the Day
Posted on the most recent settlement building thread:
Yes, why are the poor Palestinians suffering so? They've never done anything wrong! Why are the Jews taking out their desire for revenge for the Holocaust on the poor innocent Palestinians?
The original link.
Yes, why are the poor Palestinians suffering so? They've never done anything wrong! Why are the Jews taking out their desire for revenge for the Holocaust on the poor innocent Palestinians?
The original link.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
News the HP Doesn't Cover: Greek Priest Blames the Jews
Something the Huffington Posters like to tell us Jews is that anti-Semitism doesn't exist anymore (usually right before they say something anti-Semitic). Humanity has moved on, and we HPers are above such concepts as racism and homophobia. This argument usually leads to why Israel does not need to exist, and shouldn't exist The problem is, of course, that the rest of the world doesn't necessarily feel the same way. For example, we've got this Greek cleric:
The news shows that anti-Semitic hate myths don't just go away. They get repackaged and resold, but the same prejudices remain.
"A high-level priest on the morning show of the largest television station in Greece blamed world Jewry for Greece's financial problems on Tuesday. The Metropolite of Piraeus Seraphim also blamed world Jewry for other ills in the country during his appearance on Mega TV.
Mixing Freemasons with Jewish bankers such as Baron Rothschild and world , the Metropolite said that there is a conspiracy to enslave Greece and Christian Orthodoxy. He also accused international Zionism of trying to destroy the family unit by promoting one-parent families and same-sex marriages.
Thirteen minutes into the program the Greek host asked the Metropolite, "Why do you disagree with Hitler's policies? If they are doing all this, wasn't he right in burning them?"
The Metropolite answered, "Adolf Hitler was an instrument of world Zionism and was financed from the renowned Rothschild family with the sole purpose of convincing the Jews to leave the shores of Europe and go to Israel to establish the new Empire."
Jews such as "Rockefeller, Rothschild and Soros control the international banking system that controls globalization," the Metropolite also said. "The concepts that this priest, the "Metropolite," discusses, "Zionists" controlling international banks and governments, conspiring with Hitler, oppressing the Palestinians because they are just so evil, are all concepts we hear not infrequently on the Huffington Post. These concepts are thinly disguised anti-Semitism, which always confuses me. The vast majority of posters on the Huffington Post aren't stupid. They may be naive, close-minded, vicious, anti-Semitic, etc., but they aren't dumb. So why do they seem to honestly believe that if you change "Jew" to "Zionist" in a blatantly anti-Semitic statement like "the Zionists control the banks", the statement no longer becomes anti-Semitic? It really doesn't make sense to me.
The news shows that anti-Semitic hate myths don't just go away. They get repackaged and resold, but the same prejudices remain.
Today's Settlement Article
The Huffington Post really loves its articles about Israeli settlements! Here is the screenshot of its latest and greatest. Please be sure to note the picture:
This is only one example of many articles that basically provide no information besides "Settlements are being built! Get mad about it!" Considering that the Huffington Post is supposed to be condensing the most important news stories from around the world, one would think that they are supposed to be selective. But I guess every article about the settlements, no matter how irrelevant, makes it to the final print.
Dual Loyalty Comment of the Day
On the Jonathan Pollard thread:
What anti-Semitic myths can you find in this one short comment alone? Dual loyalty, government control, Jews are all racists. But hey, there's a solution. Let's just expel them from our shores!
But remember, there's no anti-Semitism on the Huffington Post. Only legitimate criticism of Israel.
The original link. and here's another comment by the same user.
What anti-Semitic myths can you find in this one short comment alone? Dual loyalty, government control, Jews are all racists. But hey, there's a solution. Let's just expel them from our shores!
But remember, there's no anti-Semitism on the Huffington Post. Only legitimate criticism of Israel.
The original link. and here's another comment by the same user.
Comments of the Day
The latest Jonathan Pollard thread is a gift that keeps on giving. First we have some anti-Semitism:
And then some McCarthyism:
Pollard Mythbusting
In light of the recent Pollard thread I thought I would provide some facts, courtesy of the Jewish Virtual Library:
"Immediately upon Pollard’s arrest, Israel apologized and explained that the operation was unauthorized. “It is Israel’s policy to refrain from any intelligence activity related to the United States,” an official government statement declared, “in view of the close and special relationship of friendship” between the two countries. Prime Minister Shimon Peres stated: “Spying on the United States stands in total contradiction to our policy.
"Immediately upon Pollard’s arrest, Israel apologized and explained that the operation was unauthorized. “It is Israel’s policy to refrain from any intelligence activity related to the United States,” an official government statement declared, “in view of the close and special relationship of friendship” between the two countries. Prime Minister Shimon Peres stated: “Spying on the United States stands in total contradiction to our policy.
The United States and Israel worked together to investigate the Pollard affair. The Israeli inquiry revealed that Pollard was not working for Israeli military intelligence or the Mossad. He was directed by a small, independent scientific intelligence unit. Pollard initiated the contact with the Israelis.
A subcommittee of the Knesset’s Defense and Foreign Affairs Committee on Intelligence and Security Services concluded: “Beyond all doubt...the operational echelons (namely: the Scientific Liaison Unit headed by Rafael Eitan) decided to recruit and handle Pollard without any check or consultation with the political echelon or receiving its direct or indirect approval.” The Knesset committee took the government to task for not properly supervising the scientific unit.
As promised to the U.S. government, the spy unit that directed Pollard was disbanded, his handlers punished and the stolen documents returned. The last point was crucial to the U.S. Department of Justice’s case against Pollard.
Pollard denied spying “against” the United States. He said he provided only information he believed was vital to Israeli security and was being withheld by the Pentagon. This included data on Soviet arms shipments to Syria, Iraqi and Syrian chemical weapons, the Pakistani atomic bomb project and Libyan air defense systems. Because the information he took is classified, we can't verify if this is true.
His life sentence was the most severe prison term ever given for spying for an ally. It also was far greater than the average term imposed for spying for the Soviet Union and other enemies of the United States. Many convicted spies, however, have been given life sentences, including Aldrich Ames, Robert Hanssen, and John Walker."
The original link has footnotes if you need it.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
News the HP Doesn't Cover: Rocket Hits NEAR Ashkelon
One of the many myths about the Arab-Israeli conflict that the Huffington Post likes to encourage is the idea that the rockets fired from Gaza are "bottle rockets" and don't actually hurt anyone. Is it any surprise then that they failed to publish this news from Israel?
"A Qassam rocket exploded near a kindergarten in a kibbutz within the Ashkelon Coast Regional Council on Tuesday morning just as dozens of parents were bringing their children to school.
A 14-year-old girl was lightly injured by shrapnel and glass fragments. She was evacuated to the Barzilai Medical Center in Ashkelon. Several people suffered from shock, including a young boy and a gas-truck driver.
The Qassam exploded at around 8 am on, just seconds after the 'code red' siren was sounded. Residents rushed to take cover. The injured 14-year-old was in her home, not far from the kindergarten, and was preparing to leave for school."Just another war crime committed by the Palestinians.
A Tale of Two Traitors
As I have said before, I don't have much sympathy for Jonathan Pollard. He broke the law, he knew the risks going in, and he got the short end of the stick. That's the way the cookie crumbles sometimes. But as I have also said before, the Huffington Post seems to have a kind of obsession with him, as indicated by yet another article about Israel considering asking America to release him.
Now the reaction to the Pollard story was just about what we'd expect:
You get the idea. By the way there are already more comments on that thread than on the Christine Logan one, and more than a few of them were baying for Pollard's blood.
Now let's take a look at another conversation, this time about Israeli MK Hanin Zoabi, who if you recall was an active member on the Hamas-supporting flotilla in which IDF soldiers were violently attacked. Check out the discussion between BcemXAHA and lonngfello, among others:
Notice how now that it is Israel who is being betrayed the crime is distorted into a mere "protest" or "exercising of free speech," not aiding and abetting enemies of the state, which is exactly what Zoabi did. Say what you will about Pollard but at least he spied for an ally. Let's also not forget both Mr. Kaufman and his readership's hysterical reaction to a thread made by another MK toward Ahmed Tibi. On its own it might be understandable. When placed in comparison with the multiple threats made against Pollard, it strikes me as rather hypocritical.
What is also interesting is that among the anti-Zionist crowd how easily the charge or "treason" changes. According to them anyone who helps Israel is a traitor, whether they really do favor Israel over their home country, while anyone who helps the Palestinians is not, even if they helped in an attack on Israeli soldiers. Just look at the rhetoric in the above conversation: Zoabi doesn't support Hamas, she merely believes in "human rights." Guess what fellas, I'm sure that Pollard was probably doing what he thought was right, and I could cloak his crime in all kinds of weasel words if I wanted to. But it would still be a crime, and he would still be a traitor. Just like Zoabi.
Now the reaction to the Pollard story was just about what we'd expect:
Now let's take a look at another conversation, this time about Israeli MK Hanin Zoabi, who if you recall was an active member on the Hamas-supporting flotilla in which IDF soldiers were violently attacked. Check out the discussion between BcemXAHA and lonngfello, among others:
What is also interesting is that among the anti-Zionist crowd how easily the charge or "treason" changes. According to them anyone who helps Israel is a traitor, whether they really do favor Israel over their home country, while anyone who helps the Palestinians is not, even if they helped in an attack on Israeli soldiers. Just look at the rhetoric in the above conversation: Zoabi doesn't support Hamas, she merely believes in "human rights." Guess what fellas, I'm sure that Pollard was probably doing what he thought was right, and I could cloak his crime in all kinds of weasel words if I wanted to. But it would still be a crime, and he would still be a traitor. Just like Zoabi.
More on Israel and Judaism
The contemptible Max Blumenthal has written another article for the Huffington Post, and while I only got a chance to skim it, it's partially about how pro-Israel people are stirring up anti-Muslim hatreds in the US and Europe. That's not very relevant to this example of a post, but that's where it was posted in:
Remember, everyone, Israel and Judaism are totally separate. Unless you need to draw comparisons between radical Islam and Judaism. In which case, Israel is the epitome of Judaism.
Remember, everyone, Israel and Judaism are totally separate. Unless you need to draw comparisons between radical Islam and Judaism. In which case, Israel is the epitome of Judaism.
Ami Kaufman Lights a Fire
I do not believe that Ami Kaufman is a self-hating Jew. Nor do I believe that he is a traitor to Israel, an anti-Zionist or any of of the usual expletives that are supposedly thrown toward Jews who dare to step outside of AIPAC's party line. Based on his posting history, it is clear that Mr. Kaufman is what we might call a "J Streeter," in other words someone who criticizes Israel only because he wants it to be better than it is. We also know that he is no blind ideologue, in the past he has strongly criticized the Palestinians and their supporters when discussing the 2002 Ramallah lynching and the one state solution. Which in some way makes his latest article on the Huffington Post all the more troubling. Not because of the article itself, but of the reaction that it received.
Racism is a problem in Israel. There, I said it, you cannot say that I did not. And it seems like recently it has been amplified, most notably in the "racist rabbis" declaration and their current government's issues with illegal immigrants. This bothers Mr. Kaufman quite a lot and he decided that it would be the subject of his latest article. The trouble is that it is difficult to tell where his honest opinion and ends and the dramatics begin; his article is loaded with emotional "gotchas" like:
Now do you think that the Huffington Posters reacted the same way? Of course not:
Now do you think when Mr. Kaufman sat down to write this article, do you think he thought: "I want to convince my audience that Israel is an undemocratic theocratic racist terrorist apartheid state?" Probably not, and yet that is exactly the response that his article receives. Not measured criticism. Not understanding that this upswing of racism is a problem that must be solved. Just blind rage.
In many ways this article and responses demonstrate quite well the problem faced by pro-Israel Jews that we are and I assume Mr. Kaufman is. When we don't criticize Israel, we are accused of being "blind, brainwashed religious zealots who are blindly obedient to Israel and/or AIPAC." But when we do criticize Israel, our words are used a springboard for those who hate Israel to stand upon and preach their rhetoric. So what are we to do? Which path should we take? Talk about a true no win scenario.
If Mr. Kaufman reads these posts and realizes the response that his criticisms of Israel receives, and he chooses to write less of them because he doesn't like how his words are being used, who loses in the long run? Of course, I am assuming that Mr. Kaufman would disapprove of comments like those above.
Click the link below to read some more of the comments from the thread.
Racism is a problem in Israel. There, I said it, you cannot say that I did not. And it seems like recently it has been amplified, most notably in the "racist rabbis" declaration and their current government's issues with illegal immigrants. This bothers Mr. Kaufman quite a lot and he decided that it would be the subject of his latest article. The trouble is that it is difficult to tell where his honest opinion and ends and the dramatics begin; his article is loaded with emotional "gotchas" like:
"I can't get away from it. Every place I go, everything I read, everything I watch -- it's always there. The racism is always there....This isn't the place I grew up in. Where is that place? Where did it go?...I'm actually really, really scared."We know from Mr. Kaufman's other writings that he can sometimes be dramatic. Now, I don't live in Israel so I don't know whether it is really as bad as Mr. Kaufman is making it sound. But clearly this issue is affecting him deeply and he needed to get it out there. But I am sure that when he wrote it he was of the mind that this was an issue that Israel needed to deal with pronto, for the purpose of making Israel a better society.
Now do you think that the Huffington Posters reacted the same way? Of course not:
In many ways this article and responses demonstrate quite well the problem faced by pro-Israel Jews that we are and I assume Mr. Kaufman is. When we don't criticize Israel, we are accused of being "blind, brainwashed religious zealots who are blindly obedient to Israel and/or AIPAC." But when we do criticize Israel, our words are used a springboard for those who hate Israel to stand upon and preach their rhetoric. So what are we to do? Which path should we take? Talk about a true no win scenario.
If Mr. Kaufman reads these posts and realizes the response that his criticisms of Israel receives, and he chooses to write less of them because he doesn't like how his words are being used, who loses in the long run? Of course, I am assuming that Mr. Kaufman would disapprove of comments like those above.
Click the link below to read some more of the comments from the thread.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
News the HP Doesn't Cover: Hamas Child Abuse
One of the HP's most popular articles recently is this one about Israel arresting Palestinian minors for stone throwing. Naturally, there was a lot of hand-wringing and decrying about terrible Israel abusing the poor Palestinians. So what do you think the chances are of the HP mentioning this revelation:
[H/T: Elder of Ziyon]
"Today [Hamas] arrested of a minor child Mohammed Abu Harbeed (13 years old) and other children, and tortured and beat them with batons and blindfolded them in the cold, for raising the banners of the Fatah movement.
A Fatah spokesman said that 'these practices are incompatible with the principles of national and moral traditions and customs, and with human rights and international covenants and instruments, which provide for the protection of the rights of children, as well as inconsistent with the teachings of our religion."
Richard Landes Takes Down Bradley Burston
[This is a crosspost of Richard Landes "Does Burston really think it's legitimate to view BDS as Tikkun Olam?" from the Augean Stables. Bradley Burston recent wrote another blog post on Ha'aretz and the Huffington Post that slipped under our radar but Professor Landes didn't miss it. Be warned, it's super long.]
A good friend sent me the following piece by Bradley Burston with the comment: “It expresses how I feel.” I find it so pervasively flawed that I have difficulty taking it seriously. But if my friend can (and he’s one of the smartest people I know), then I have to, and it does raise, however poorly, a whole range of key issues. So, with great reluctance (because there are more interesting texts to sink one’s teeth into), I fisk below.
First, a brief introductory note: One of the key contentions of Burston and the people he likes (J-Street, Jewish Voices for Peace, Young Jews for Peace, etc.) is that a) they love Israel and b) they know the best way to peace which, since Israel won’t take that path, they must force upon her. Now all these groups locate along the “left” political spectrum differently. NIF disapproves of BDS but funds groups who do; J-Street disapproves of BDS even if they associate with people who do; Jewish Voices for Peace and Emily Schaeffer (below) support BDS in many forms.
Whatever the details, each of these groups believes that they must pressure Israel to leave the occupied territories out of a combination of moral passion – the Israel they love should set a moral example to the world – and peaceful intentions – they know their formula for peace will work.
Now some people, myself included, see the situation very differently. On moral matters, howevermuch we may share concerns about the occupation and dominion over another people harms both Palestinians and Israelis, we have difficulty with a moral equivalence, that ends up as a moral inversion, with the profound condescension and bigotry it involves in its abysmally low standards for the Palestinians, and the inversely exacting standards to which it holds Israel. The result – people, Jews! – for whom Israel is the new Nazi. And even as such people are morally reckless in their accusations of Israel, they echo and reinforce genocidal hatreds among the most base of the enemies of the Jews.
On the practical level, many of us feel that while making concessions and apologizing is a splendid way to begin a process of reconciliation, that only works in cases where the other side also seeks resolution, and responds in kind. In some cases, conflicts are not only unresponsive to such an approach, but literally allergic: rather than a peace process it produces a war process. Indeed, given how often and consistently Palestinian (and more broadly Arab) leaders have seized upon Israeli concessions to press for more and on Israeli confessions to reaffirm a demonizing narrative, it’s dubious that under the best of circumstances, Palestinian political players would respond to an Israeli withdrawal to the ’67 borders with a shift to peace.
On the contrary, any such move most likely will strengthen those in the Palestinian camp who argue that any withdrawal should be part of a “Phased plan” to destroy Israel and use any and every pretext to keep the war alive. Any observer who dismisses even this possibility – the favorite line is either, “you’re paranoid,” or “oh, you think they only understand violence.” – is either in ignorance or denial of the discourse that prevails in Palestinian political culture today.
A good friend sent me the following piece by Bradley Burston with the comment: “It expresses how I feel.” I find it so pervasively flawed that I have difficulty taking it seriously. But if my friend can (and he’s one of the smartest people I know), then I have to, and it does raise, however poorly, a whole range of key issues. So, with great reluctance (because there are more interesting texts to sink one’s teeth into), I fisk below.
First, a brief introductory note: One of the key contentions of Burston and the people he likes (J-Street, Jewish Voices for Peace, Young Jews for Peace, etc.) is that a) they love Israel and b) they know the best way to peace which, since Israel won’t take that path, they must force upon her. Now all these groups locate along the “left” political spectrum differently. NIF disapproves of BDS but funds groups who do; J-Street disapproves of BDS even if they associate with people who do; Jewish Voices for Peace and Emily Schaeffer (below) support BDS in many forms.
Whatever the details, each of these groups believes that they must pressure Israel to leave the occupied territories out of a combination of moral passion – the Israel they love should set a moral example to the world – and peaceful intentions – they know their formula for peace will work.
Now some people, myself included, see the situation very differently. On moral matters, howevermuch we may share concerns about the occupation and dominion over another people harms both Palestinians and Israelis, we have difficulty with a moral equivalence, that ends up as a moral inversion, with the profound condescension and bigotry it involves in its abysmally low standards for the Palestinians, and the inversely exacting standards to which it holds Israel. The result – people, Jews! – for whom Israel is the new Nazi. And even as such people are morally reckless in their accusations of Israel, they echo and reinforce genocidal hatreds among the most base of the enemies of the Jews.
On the practical level, many of us feel that while making concessions and apologizing is a splendid way to begin a process of reconciliation, that only works in cases where the other side also seeks resolution, and responds in kind. In some cases, conflicts are not only unresponsive to such an approach, but literally allergic: rather than a peace process it produces a war process. Indeed, given how often and consistently Palestinian (and more broadly Arab) leaders have seized upon Israeli concessions to press for more and on Israeli confessions to reaffirm a demonizing narrative, it’s dubious that under the best of circumstances, Palestinian political players would respond to an Israeli withdrawal to the ’67 borders with a shift to peace.
On the contrary, any such move most likely will strengthen those in the Palestinian camp who argue that any withdrawal should be part of a “Phased plan” to destroy Israel and use any and every pretext to keep the war alive. Any observer who dismisses even this possibility – the favorite line is either, “you’re paranoid,” or “oh, you think they only understand violence.” – is either in ignorance or denial of the discourse that prevails in Palestinian political culture today.
Huffington Poster Reactions to Christine Logan
This might be another example of a case of the ethereal standard, but on the other hand it may not be close enough to make the cut. Anyway, remember how when Israel is accused of wrongdoing the facts go right out the window? We have commented in the past how many Huffington Post talkbackers still cling to their narrative of a "massacre" on the Gaza flotilla, even after the Huffington Post itself posted the videos of the not-so-peaceful "peace activists" attacking the soldiers. This continued even among Huffington Post bloggers.
But now the Christine Logan story has come out. And now that it looks like someone who isn't an Israeli Jew has killed an American, suddenly everyone turns into Sherlock freaking Holmes. For example:
Can you imagine any of them being that suspicious if, say, it were IDF soldiers who were being accused instead of two Arab men? Of course, it goes without saying that more than a few Huffington Posters immediately said (or implied) that they believed the woman was lying. Why would she lie? Who knows, but that's what they think:
Isn't it funny how the same people who are willing to instantly believe anything at face value as long as it makes Israel look bad now are reading the article with a fine tooth comb after cranking their levels of suspicion to the maximum? It's not like anyone is accusing their precious Palestinian friends of committing the crime, either.
Anyway, just to conclude, here are a couple of posters who even though the eyewitness said the crime was done by two Arabs, thinks we should considering blaming Jews just to be on the safe side:
Welcome to the Huffington Post.
But now the Christine Logan story has come out. And now that it looks like someone who isn't an Israeli Jew has killed an American, suddenly everyone turns into Sherlock freaking Holmes. For example:
Anyway, just to conclude, here are a couple of posters who even though the eyewitness said the crime was done by two Arabs, thinks we should considering blaming Jews just to be on the safe side:
Twitter Knows What's Up
I was looking at MJ Rosenberg's Twitter feed recently to see if he bothered to mention Christine Logan's murder, but I noticed this:
Yes, MJ Rosenberg, "pro-Israel" writer, is similar to Electronic Intifada. Twitter knows what MJ's deal is.
Yes, MJ Rosenberg, "pro-Israel" writer, is similar to Electronic Intifada. Twitter knows what MJ's deal is.
Monday, December 20, 2010
24 Hours Later, Huffington Post Buries Logan
The Huffington Post begrudgingly covered the murder of American tourist Christine Logan, but then did everything possible to de-emphasize and bury its own article. Take a look past the fold at where you would have to look on the morning of Monday Dec. 20th, less than 24 hours after the story was first published.
New on the HP: Pro-Israel Blog Posts
In an unexpected move by the Huffington Post, several pro-Israel blog posts have been published.
One of the ones that received headline level attention is Ben Cohen's article about (gasp!) the Palestinian Authority taking responsibility for the success of failure of the peace process. It's really good stuff, and you can tell it's good because the HPers posting on the threat are shrill and deflecting onto bad things Israel has done.
The second post is by Alan Dershowitz, and he highlights the recent statement by a Hamas leader that confirms the IDF's numbers of combatants killed in Cast Lead. As usual for a Dershowitz thread, most of the disagreeing posts are ad hominem attacks against Dershowitz and just a few Hamas defenders.
Other blog posts include two by Carlos Strenger, one advocating for the two-state solution and another warning the Palestinians not to "repeat the mistakes of 1947"
Even when it's once in a blue moon, it's nice to see official pro-Israel voices on the Huffington Post.
One of the ones that received headline level attention is Ben Cohen's article about (gasp!) the Palestinian Authority taking responsibility for the success of failure of the peace process. It's really good stuff, and you can tell it's good because the HPers posting on the threat are shrill and deflecting onto bad things Israel has done.
The second post is by Alan Dershowitz, and he highlights the recent statement by a Hamas leader that confirms the IDF's numbers of combatants killed in Cast Lead. As usual for a Dershowitz thread, most of the disagreeing posts are ad hominem attacks against Dershowitz and just a few Hamas defenders.
Other blog posts include two by Carlos Strenger, one advocating for the two-state solution and another warning the Palestinians not to "repeat the mistakes of 1947"
Even when it's once in a blue moon, it's nice to see official pro-Israel voices on the Huffington Post.
What Sort of Comment Gets 18 Favorites?
The kind that compares Israel to Nazi Germany:
But I guess this is just more "legitimate criticism" of "Israel's policies?"
The original link.
The original link.
Today's Attacks On A HP Blogger
See if you can figure who is the target of these latest insults:
Anyone want to try telling Sharmine Narwani that she needs to take a class or to be more honest? See how long your comment lasts.
The original link #1
The original link #2
The original link #1
The original link #2
Why Don't Jews Move To Israel?
There was a discussion the other day in which many things were said, and I may report on it in greater depth later but right now I wanted to highlight a couple of posts echoing what we have often heard on the topic of Israel and the Jewish people:
I'm going to leave unspoken the usual insulting tendency of non-Jews to try to speak for Jews and ascribe them motivations that they don't have. It's a common tactic of anti-Zionist Huffington Posters to try and speak for large groups of people, usually the Palestinians, so that is hardly a new phenomenon.
What I wanted to discuss instead is to answer their question: why don't more world Jews move to Israel? According to the Huffington Posters it is because they simply don't like Israel or Zionism (and in fact they refuse to live in Israel) but I think it is safe to say that this probably is not the case, merely based on the relationship that world Jewry has to Israel.
Let's begin by talking about how many Jews do live in Israel. More than three million Jews have immigrated there since the 1910s and more continue to arrive. Let us also not forget about the expulsions of Jews from Arab lands. I guess they didn't do much refusing, Anbreen? Furthermore, Israel is home to 42% of Jews in the world, with America at 45% and dropping fast. Within ten years Israel will be the country home to the most Jews. So to say that Israel and Jews have nothing to do with each other is ridiculous, as we all know.
Now back to the original question: Why don't more Jews go to Israel? Well, use your imagination for a minute (for Jews reading this it might be easier). You are considering leaving your life in America for a new country. That means leaving behind your family, your friends, your job, possibly your romantic partners, and the only home you have ever known. It means starting all over in a new place where you don't know anyone and you don't even speak the language. Believe it or not, people don't just do that, historically speaking. Especially when the life they have at home is comfortable.
When you look at the history of the Jews (or just the history of people in general), they don't pack up and leave their homes unless they have a very good reason. This good reason can be positive: They believe that where they are going is vastly better than where they are, which is why immigrants came and continue to come to America. It can also be negative: They are being forced out by unfriendly neighbors or by economic troubles, like the Jews being expelled from Europe/the Middle East and the Irish potato famine.
Leaving aside the whole issue with logistics, another question must be asked: Is American (or European, etc) Jewry worth preserving? By which I meant to say that there was a form of Jewish living that took place in Europe before the arrival of Hitler, the same way there is a form of Jewish living in America. Many Jews were saddened not only by the deaths of Jews in Europe but by the destruction of that aspect of the Jewish world which existed for so long. Similarly, American Jews have built many great institutions in America which have now become part of that Jewish experience. For American Jews to leave America would mean not only America but Jewry on the whole would be lessened for it, even while Israel is strengthened. The question I guess is whether the Jewish people still want to preserve that international aspect of Jewishness, even while other Jews seek to gather in their homeland.
These are deep questions for the question people, but no matter which way you want to slice it is still ridiculous that enemies of the Jewish people should seek to use the desire of American Jews to preserve Judaism in America to against the Jewish people elsewhere. But I think we know by now that there is little that Israel's enemies won't try to use against her.
What I wanted to discuss instead is to answer their question: why don't more world Jews move to Israel? According to the Huffington Posters it is because they simply don't like Israel or Zionism (and in fact they refuse to live in Israel) but I think it is safe to say that this probably is not the case, merely based on the relationship that world Jewry has to Israel.
Let's begin by talking about how many Jews do live in Israel. More than three million Jews have immigrated there since the 1910s and more continue to arrive. Let us also not forget about the expulsions of Jews from Arab lands. I guess they didn't do much refusing, Anbreen? Furthermore, Israel is home to 42% of Jews in the world, with America at 45% and dropping fast. Within ten years Israel will be the country home to the most Jews. So to say that Israel and Jews have nothing to do with each other is ridiculous, as we all know.
Now back to the original question: Why don't more Jews go to Israel? Well, use your imagination for a minute (for Jews reading this it might be easier). You are considering leaving your life in America for a new country. That means leaving behind your family, your friends, your job, possibly your romantic partners, and the only home you have ever known. It means starting all over in a new place where you don't know anyone and you don't even speak the language. Believe it or not, people don't just do that, historically speaking. Especially when the life they have at home is comfortable.
When you look at the history of the Jews (or just the history of people in general), they don't pack up and leave their homes unless they have a very good reason. This good reason can be positive: They believe that where they are going is vastly better than where they are, which is why immigrants came and continue to come to America. It can also be negative: They are being forced out by unfriendly neighbors or by economic troubles, like the Jews being expelled from Europe/the Middle East and the Irish potato famine.
Leaving aside the whole issue with logistics, another question must be asked: Is American (or European, etc) Jewry worth preserving? By which I meant to say that there was a form of Jewish living that took place in Europe before the arrival of Hitler, the same way there is a form of Jewish living in America. Many Jews were saddened not only by the deaths of Jews in Europe but by the destruction of that aspect of the Jewish world which existed for so long. Similarly, American Jews have built many great institutions in America which have now become part of that Jewish experience. For American Jews to leave America would mean not only America but Jewry on the whole would be lessened for it, even while Israel is strengthened. The question I guess is whether the Jewish people still want to preserve that international aspect of Jewishness, even while other Jews seek to gather in their homeland.
These are deep questions for the question people, but no matter which way you want to slice it is still ridiculous that enemies of the Jewish people should seek to use the desire of American Jews to preserve Judaism in America to against the Jewish people elsewhere. But I think we know by now that there is little that Israel's enemies won't try to use against her.
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Huffington Post Buries Christine Logan Story?
As Matt mentioned earlier a story has come out of Jerusalem about an American tourist named Christine Logan murdered by two Arab men. The Huffington Post covered it but it only has appeared in one place:
That's right, the freaking "Travel" section. Not in the main page and not in the World section. And seeing as how the average number of comments per story in the Travel section is about 200, with the vast majority having 0, I can't help but wonder if this was an intentional cover up.
You know what stories do appear in the "World" Section? Stories about Rachel Corrie, another American who died in the Middle East. So why is Christine Logan being treated differently from Rachel Corrie and Furkan Dogan? Could it be because it was not Israeli Jews that killed her?
Of course, this is all a recent development, and it is possible that the Huffington Post will move the story in the coming hours. We'll have to see.
Update: It has now made it to the main page but is very far down, past the user comments sidebar. By the way, it has now been up for most of the day but only has around ten comments, so it is probably safe to conclude most people have not seen it.
You know what stories do appear in the "World" Section? Stories about Rachel Corrie, another American who died in the Middle East. So why is Christine Logan being treated differently from Rachel Corrie and Furkan Dogan? Could it be because it was not Israeli Jews that killed her?
Of course, this is all a recent development, and it is possible that the Huffington Post will move the story in the coming hours. We'll have to see.
Update: It has now made it to the main page but is very far down, past the user comments sidebar. By the way, it has now been up for most of the day but only has around ten comments, so it is probably safe to conclude most people have not seen it.
News the HP Has Not Yet Covered: Tourists Attacked in Jerusalem
I call this news "News the Huffington Post has not yet covered" because I can't imagine them not covering it, but at the same time they have not posted it yet. Anyway, the news is that an American tourist and her Israeli friend were attacked in Jerusalem by, apparently, knife-wielding Arabs. One was murdered, and the other left for dead but recovered in a hospital.
Updated: I was wrong about the nature of the victims, Bryan corrected me.
Updated: And the HP did in fact cover this story, as I hoped they would.
""I pulled out a small knife from my pocket – a women's knife – and we began heading back. I saw that they (Arabs) weren't around, and I told her, 'Wait a second, I'll check to see where we are.' Suddenly I heard a noise. It happened so quickly – they came and attacked us. One of them pulled out a very long knife – like a bread knife with a sharpened edge," Wilson added.
"I was very scared, but my friend became hysterical. I told her to be quiet, but she told them, 'Take the money, take everything,' and they took everything. One of them took the Star of David necklace off my neck like a gentleman, and then they stabbed me 12 times. They came to kill. Nobody walks around with a knife like that for no reason. He stabbed me, but I sensed the knife did not penetrate my heart. I pretended to be dead; I thought they were waiting for someone else to come so I waited a few minutes and then threw myself onto a slope, my hands tied behind my back, and there was something covering my mouth," Wilson recalled."If the HP doesn't report this, that's confirmation of everything we've been saying about them.
Updated: I was wrong about the nature of the victims, Bryan corrected me.
Updated: And the HP did in fact cover this story, as I hoped they would.
Ironic Comment of the Day
In a conversation about the merits of "pro-Israel" vs. "pro-Palestinian" posters, this pro-Palestinian poster weighs in:
The irony, of course, is that "building an apartheid state based on the premise that we are going to be wiped off the map" is exactly what the Palestinians are doing. The Palestinians are constantly trying to keep their land Jew-free (under the guise of 'land theft') and enacting sharia law, which is the next best thing to apartheid, all while crying "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide".
Do you think this user was even aware of that while he or she was writing the comment?
The irony, of course, is that "building an apartheid state based on the premise that we are going to be wiped off the map" is exactly what the Palestinians are doing. The Palestinians are constantly trying to keep their land Jew-free (under the guise of 'land theft') and enacting sharia law, which is the next best thing to apartheid, all while crying "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide".
Do you think this user was even aware of that while he or she was writing the comment?
My Letter to the Huffington Post
To Whom It May Concern,
Hello, my name is Matt and I have been a loyal reader of the Huffington Post for two years now. I enjoy the HP's variety of articles, and in particular the World and Sports sections. I personally think you should cover the successes of the New England Patriots in more detail, but that's not why I'm writing to you today.
I was reading a blog post by MJ Rosenberg and I became very concerned about the ideas written "in between the lines" of the post. Rosenberg wrote about a recent bill passed through Congress condemning the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state, but the focus of the blog post was on AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. I'm sure I don't need to tell you what AIPAC is, but I should point out that AIPAC members and lobbyists are all Americans. Something to keep in mind going forward.
What was truly disturbing about Rosenberg's post came towards the end, when he wrote his thesis statement:
When I read this quote, I interpret it the following way: "The US government 'dances' for Israel because of Jewish money.'" Rosenberg does not say who exactly the "fat cats" are in his blog post, but it is not very much of a stretch to go from fat cats to AIPAC, and from AIPAC to Jewish. After all, AIPAC supports the Jewish state and its supporters are mostly (but not entirely) Jewish. For me (and for other posters, as I will describe below), the message was abundantly clear.
This idea of Jewish money controlling governments is a blantantly anti-Semitic trope that has been around at least since the publishing of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the anti-Semitic forgery that claimed a conspiracy of Jewish leaders were working to take over the world through government and media control. Jews controlling America was a favorite idea of Henry Ford, whose book The International Jew described what Rosenberg described, Jewish power through money. In more modern times, the concept of the Zionist-Occupied Government, as in, a government completely controlled by "Zionists," not Jews, has grown out of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, with the use of the term 'Zionist' as a fig leaf instead of Jew. Needless to say, these ideas being published in a mainstream influential newspaper such as the Huffington Post, however thinly disguised, is extremely disturbing to me.
I would like to call your attention to Rosenberg's readership. I have taken screenshots of a number of comments made in the comments section of Rosenberg's post, and you can see the conclusions that the other users have drawn from the post. The screenshots are attached and the descriptions are below.
Pic1: In this conversation, two users talk about who really control Washington. Washington itself, not US foreign policy, not US Middle East policy, Washington D.C. Who, you ask? They won't say, but it's "foreign interests". Which country could that be? It's probably not Canada!
Pic2: The user warns of Israel supporters working against the interests of the United States. This idea that people who support Israel are traitors is a theme that will come up later.
Pic4: This post showcases numerous anti-Semitic concepts, such as AIPAC "tentacles" and Israeli control of the media. The user "Rianna" also writes AIPAC is a "Jewish lobby", making her more honest than Rosenberg.
Pic5: This user calls for Americans to take back control of their government and questions the loyalty of 'dual citizens' and Israel supporters.
Pic6: This conversation calls for any Americans who support foreign entities to be denounced as traitors. And which two Americans can these users think of? Two Jewish Republican Congressmen, Eric Cantor and Howard Berman. I'm sure out of all the Congresspeople who voted for the bill, it was just a coincidence those two were picked.
Pic7: This user claims America is being controlled by "foreign operatives".
So as you can see, the talkbackers have taken MJ Rosenberg's message to heart and are seeing AIPAC and Israel supporters as traitors to America and cunning manipulators. It is only a matter of time before they make the jump from Israel supporters to Zionists or Jews in general, and Rosenberg is moving them along in that direction. Is this really the message you want the Huffington Post to espouse? Do you want the Huffington Post to be the mouthpiece for age-old anti-Semitic myths, covered with a thin veneer of anti-Zionism? If not, I encourage you to act accordingly and remove MJ Rosenberg from your blogger pool.
I look forward to discussing this more with you and I thank you for your time. Please contact me if you have any questions or comments.
Matt
Hello, my name is Matt and I have been a loyal reader of the Huffington Post for two years now. I enjoy the HP's variety of articles, and in particular the World and Sports sections. I personally think you should cover the successes of the New England Patriots in more detail, but that's not why I'm writing to you today.
I was reading a blog post by MJ Rosenberg and I became very concerned about the ideas written "in between the lines" of the post. Rosenberg wrote about a recent bill passed through Congress condemning the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state, but the focus of the blog post was on AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. I'm sure I don't need to tell you what AIPAC is, but I should point out that AIPAC members and lobbyists are all Americans. Something to keep in mind going forward.
What was truly disturbing about Rosenberg's post came towards the end, when he wrote his thesis statement:
"But, for now, the bottom line is money. The U.S. government dances to Israel's tune because it is afraid to risk campaign contributions from a few dozen fat cats. That is the whole story."Since that is "the whole story" I hope you don't mind me quoting Rosenberg out of context. Please go and read the comment in context if you feel the need.
When I read this quote, I interpret it the following way: "The US government 'dances' for Israel because of Jewish money.'" Rosenberg does not say who exactly the "fat cats" are in his blog post, but it is not very much of a stretch to go from fat cats to AIPAC, and from AIPAC to Jewish. After all, AIPAC supports the Jewish state and its supporters are mostly (but not entirely) Jewish. For me (and for other posters, as I will describe below), the message was abundantly clear.
This idea of Jewish money controlling governments is a blantantly anti-Semitic trope that has been around at least since the publishing of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the anti-Semitic forgery that claimed a conspiracy of Jewish leaders were working to take over the world through government and media control. Jews controlling America was a favorite idea of Henry Ford, whose book The International Jew described what Rosenberg described, Jewish power through money. In more modern times, the concept of the Zionist-Occupied Government, as in, a government completely controlled by "Zionists," not Jews, has grown out of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, with the use of the term 'Zionist' as a fig leaf instead of Jew. Needless to say, these ideas being published in a mainstream influential newspaper such as the Huffington Post, however thinly disguised, is extremely disturbing to me.
I would like to call your attention to Rosenberg's readership. I have taken screenshots of a number of comments made in the comments section of Rosenberg's post, and you can see the conclusions that the other users have drawn from the post. The screenshots are attached and the descriptions are below.
Pic1: In this conversation, two users talk about who really control Washington. Washington itself, not US foreign policy, not US Middle East policy, Washington D.C. Who, you ask? They won't say, but it's "foreign interests". Which country could that be? It's probably not Canada!
Pic2: The user warns of Israel supporters working against the interests of the United States. This idea that people who support Israel are traitors is a theme that will come up later.
Pic4: This post showcases numerous anti-Semitic concepts, such as AIPAC "tentacles" and Israeli control of the media. The user "Rianna" also writes AIPAC is a "Jewish lobby", making her more honest than Rosenberg.
Pic5: This user calls for Americans to take back control of their government and questions the loyalty of 'dual citizens' and Israel supporters.
Pic6: This conversation calls for any Americans who support foreign entities to be denounced as traitors. And which two Americans can these users think of? Two Jewish Republican Congressmen, Eric Cantor and Howard Berman. I'm sure out of all the Congresspeople who voted for the bill, it was just a coincidence those two were picked.
Pic7: This user claims America is being controlled by "foreign operatives".
So as you can see, the talkbackers have taken MJ Rosenberg's message to heart and are seeing AIPAC and Israel supporters as traitors to America and cunning manipulators. It is only a matter of time before they make the jump from Israel supporters to Zionists or Jews in general, and Rosenberg is moving them along in that direction. Is this really the message you want the Huffington Post to espouse? Do you want the Huffington Post to be the mouthpiece for age-old anti-Semitic myths, covered with a thin veneer of anti-Zionism? If not, I encourage you to act accordingly and remove MJ Rosenberg from your blogger pool.
I look forward to discussing this more with you and I thank you for your time. Please contact me if you have any questions or comments.
Matt
"Israel Is the Civilized Country"
The ethereal standard has come out yet again on the Huffington Post talkback threads, this time in a conversation between me and one of my favorite Palestinian supporters: Amyrxx. I say one of my favorites because most of the time he is intelligent, decent and doesn't rely on spamming talking points. But even he wasn't above slipping up when he made the following comment. Focus on the last paragraph:
Isn't that amazing? For once we have a Palestinian supporter coming right out and telling the truth: That Israel is "the civilized country," and is not even on the same level morally as the Palestinians. So then why do the Palestinians, who are not even close to Israel morally, receiving so much support on the Huffington Post and elsewhere? Do they just love the bad guys?
What's far more likely is the ethereal standard is in place again: When we judge Israel as to whether or not it is moral, it is held to one standard. When we want to judge Israel and find it akin to apartheid South Africa or Nazi Germany, it is held to another. Isn't it amazing how that works out? Say what you will about pro-Israel posters on the HP, but they don't pull crap like this.
What's far more likely is the ethereal standard is in place again: When we judge Israel as to whether or not it is moral, it is held to one standard. When we want to judge Israel and find it akin to apartheid South Africa or Nazi Germany, it is held to another. Isn't it amazing how that works out? Say what you will about pro-Israel posters on the HP, but they don't pull crap like this.
Anti-Semitic Comment of the Day
On a moderate HP blog post advocating for the two state solution, poster Woody Stemms tells us what he really thinks:
Yes, that's right. Jewish values are things like mass murder, conquest, and slavery, and those have never changed.
The original link.
Yes, that's right. Jewish values are things like mass murder, conquest, and slavery, and those have never changed.
The original link.
Friday, December 17, 2010
News the HP Doesn't Cover: Bon Jovi Coming to Israel
In more news about Israel becoming completely isolated from the world community and universally ostracized, Bon Jovi has started their intention of playing their first concert in Israel.
"The 80's metal band Bon Jovi are planning to perform at a concert in Israel, lead singer Jon Bon Jovi told the host during an interview on CNN's Larry King Live that aired last week.Should be a great time.
The band's concert is expect to take place sometime in 2011 as part of their world tour in support of their 11th album, The Circle."
MJ Rosenberg Brings Out the Anti-Semites
Our old buddy MJ Rosenberg has published his first blog post in quite a while, and I can't say I missed him. In this post, he's going with what he knows best, complaining about AIPAC and its hold over America, sorry I mean America's government, sorry I mean some Senators and Congresspeople. Maybe at some point Zach or I will have time to do a full fisking of his work, but I wanted to at least show you the parting thought:
Anyway, here's one of Rosenberg's readers pursuing his thoughts to their logical conclusion:
Shall we count the anti-Semitic tropes in this post? We've got AIPAC tentacles controlling our political system, the Jewish lobby enslaving congressman (at least Rianna comes out and tells the truth about who is in AIPAC), and of course, media control by "pro Israelis".
But you know what? I honestly can't blame Rianna. If I was a loyal MJ Rosenberg reader, I could draw no other conclusion from his writings. There's really no other explanation.
Rosenberg, of course, would be shocked to hear his readers are starting to believe anti-Semitic ideas. And while he responds to pro-Israel posts in the thread, he can't be bothered to respond to this one.
"But, for now, the bottom line is money. The U.S. government dances to Israel's tune because it is afraid to risk campaign contributions from a few dozen fat cats. That is the whole story."Yes. The US government "dances" for Israel because of...money. And where is the money coming from? MJ doesn't say, but you know who he means. Wink, wink.
Anyway, here's one of Rosenberg's readers pursuing his thoughts to their logical conclusion:
But you know what? I honestly can't blame Rianna. If I was a loyal MJ Rosenberg reader, I could draw no other conclusion from his writings. There's really no other explanation.
Rosenberg, of course, would be shocked to hear his readers are starting to believe anti-Semitic ideas. And while he responds to pro-Israel posts in the thread, he can't be bothered to respond to this one.
Palsbara in Force
Something that the posters on the Huffington Post all loath are "Israel firsters," people who will go onto every Israel thread and spin the facts to make Israel look good. These kind of people are pathetic propagandists and are transparent in their attempt to shill for their cause.
The problem, of course, is that there are a lot more "Palestinian firsters" on the HP, but they suffer no criticism for their actions. Let me give you an example.
The Huffington Post covered the story of a Roman statue discovered in Ashkelon. What did the HPers have to say about it?
The problem, of course, is that there are a lot more "Palestinian firsters" on the HP, but they suffer no criticism for their actions. Let me give you an example.
The Huffington Post covered the story of a Roman statue discovered in Ashkelon. What did the HPers have to say about it?
Comment of the Day
Check out this comment of the day. It is amazing precisely because it makes absolutely no sense:
Okay let's take a look:
Comparisons with Nazi Germany is always a standard issue line of rhetoric, and I am going to assume that it is Nazi-era Germany that he is referring to and not the Germany of today. That being said, why would he choose manners as the method of comparison? I mean, when people think of Nazi Germany the adjective that leaps to mind is probably not "unmannered." So what is going on?
Then of course there is the issue of what exactly Israel is doing to the Palestinians. He is claiming that they are being "driven into the sea" except that they would need to go through Israel to reach the sea, which doesn't make sense. Oh but then he makes it clear that they are not really being driven into the sea but instead into "extinction." Well that's nothing new either except oh wait in the last sentence he says that we should not be contributing to Israel while they are "building settlements." So what is really the issue? Is it the extinction of the Palestinians or is it building settlements? Would it be acceptable for us to contribute to Israel while they were killing Palestinians but not while building homes for Jewish families?
And then of course there is the ridiculous notion (that we don't see all that often) that America and the Allies defeated Germany and the Axis in the Second World War just because they didn't like how Jews were being treated. Or in the words of this poster, "persecuted." Yes, that's all the Axis powers ever did to the Jews. Persecute them.
Seriously, it's like someone took a bunch of anti-Israel phrases and talking points, threw them into a blender and vomited them back up onto a Huffington Post talkback. Unless this user has a first language that isn't English, there is no excuse for this kind of nonsensical muddle. He's an embarrassment to his cause. That is, more than the rest of them.
And, of course, note the 15 favorites.
Comparisons with Nazi Germany is always a standard issue line of rhetoric, and I am going to assume that it is Nazi-era Germany that he is referring to and not the Germany of today. That being said, why would he choose manners as the method of comparison? I mean, when people think of Nazi Germany the adjective that leaps to mind is probably not "unmannered." So what is going on?
Then of course there is the issue of what exactly Israel is doing to the Palestinians. He is claiming that they are being "driven into the sea" except that they would need to go through Israel to reach the sea, which doesn't make sense. Oh but then he makes it clear that they are not really being driven into the sea but instead into "extinction." Well that's nothing new either except oh wait in the last sentence he says that we should not be contributing to Israel while they are "building settlements." So what is really the issue? Is it the extinction of the Palestinians or is it building settlements? Would it be acceptable for us to contribute to Israel while they were killing Palestinians but not while building homes for Jewish families?
And then of course there is the ridiculous notion (that we don't see all that often) that America and the Allies defeated Germany and the Axis in the Second World War just because they didn't like how Jews were being treated. Or in the words of this poster, "persecuted." Yes, that's all the Axis powers ever did to the Jews. Persecute them.
Seriously, it's like someone took a bunch of anti-Israel phrases and talking points, threw them into a blender and vomited them back up onto a Huffington Post talkback. Unless this user has a first language that isn't English, there is no excuse for this kind of nonsensical muddle. He's an embarrassment to his cause. That is, more than the rest of them.
And, of course, note the 15 favorites.
More Biased Moderation?
Reader "vividblu" has done an excellent job in documenting what appears to be a series case of moderation bias in the recent Huffington Post thread about Israeli arrests of Palestinian minors, which now has over 2,000 comments by the way. He has come to the conclusion that 19 out of 20 deleted comments at the time he wrote to us were written by pro-Israel users, specifically WBMD, StCuth, CrankyCrackPot, MyOpinion2, AndyTheLawyer, TheLonelyGod, enderM, CyrusTrance, Tallen, and Aziat. The one comment deleted from an anti-Israel user was written by persianadvocate.
We will now attempt to document this using screenshots. Please note the discrepancy between comments that remain and those that were deleted.
Let us begin with a comment by skialethia that recieved two responses, both of which were deleted. Again, click to zoom in if you need to:
Now I am the user with the pinkish text box, and though I don't remember exactly what I said it was something along the lines of: "When you hit 14 it is dishonest to continue to call yourself a 'little kid.' You can criticize Israel's arrest policy as well as the Palestinian use of child soldiers but let's be honest here for a minute." If you go into thread and click around you will find that the responders to the posts sometimes quote what is said as well, and even if you can't you can usually tell by the responses what the user was saying.
Here is another post by alchemy which was defended by someone with Huffington Post moderation powers, and took some posts near it along for the ride:
And before we cut here are a couple more, sorry for the bad quality but I think you can tell what is going on. First link, second link, I suggest you click on them because if you expand the thread you will find more clearly pro-Israel comments were deleted.:
We will now attempt to document this using screenshots. Please note the discrepancy between comments that remain and those that were deleted.
Let us begin with a comment by skialethia that recieved two responses, both of which were deleted. Again, click to zoom in if you need to:
Here is another post by alchemy which was defended by someone with Huffington Post moderation powers, and took some posts near it along for the ride:
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Narwani Demands Humanization for Some
HP blogger Nancy Kanwisher has gone and spoken to Palestinians in the West Bank and posted her experience on the HP here. I didn't get to watch any of the videos, but what's interesting about Kanwisher's article is that while she advocates the value of speaking to both sides, she only speaks to the Palestinians. Anyway, old "Dignity Rockets" Narwani came in to sing Kanwisher's praises, and posted this interesting comment. Read the first paragraph.
Yes, pro-Israel types "can't bear" to see the Palestinians as humans. Good for Kanwisher and Narwani to reveal the humanity of the Palestinians, and suck it, Zionists!
Of course, Narwani herself can't see the humanity of the other side, the Israeli settlers. Remember this post, which we blogged about three months ago?
"The settlers are armed, crazy and dangerous." "They are not innocent civilians."
I guess the Palestinians are humans, but the settlers aren't. Hypocritical Sharmine Narwani.
Yes, pro-Israel types "can't bear" to see the Palestinians as humans. Good for Kanwisher and Narwani to reveal the humanity of the Palestinians, and suck it, Zionists!
Of course, Narwani herself can't see the humanity of the other side, the Israeli settlers. Remember this post, which we blogged about three months ago?
"The settlers are armed, crazy and dangerous." "They are not innocent civilians."
I guess the Palestinians are humans, but the settlers aren't. Hypocritical Sharmine Narwani.
Comment of the Day
On a new thread about Israel refusing to let in Palestinian firefighters to a thank you dinner (the HP's "bash Israel" news article of the day):
the original link.
the original link.
HP Bias in Pictures
On the Huffington Post, even good news for the Palestinians is always bad news for Israel.
The Huffington Post recently covered this news story about tourism in Bethlehem reaching record levels. There is no doubt this story is good for the Palestinians, and Israel, and Christianity. But how did the HP choose to illustrate the story?
Yes, it's a picture of the security fence. Instead of having a picture of, say, Christians celebrating in the streets of Bethlehem, or Bethlehem from a distance, the HP just has to throw in a dig at Israel. Nice to know the content of the articles published won't change the HP's message.
The Huffington Post recently covered this news story about tourism in Bethlehem reaching record levels. There is no doubt this story is good for the Palestinians, and Israel, and Christianity. But how did the HP choose to illustrate the story?
Yes, it's a picture of the security fence. Instead of having a picture of, say, Christians celebrating in the streets of Bethlehem, or Bethlehem from a distance, the HP just has to throw in a dig at Israel. Nice to know the content of the articles published won't change the HP's message.
AZ Hypocrisy: Israelis Vs Jews
We are all very familiar with the endless refrain by Israel's critics that they are unfairly maligned as anti-Semitic when they really are not. I don't think I am breaking new ground when I tell you that. What goes along with this is another refrain that "Israel" and "Jews" are totally, totally different and anyone who tries to equate them are dishonest Zionists who only do so for the purposes of trying to shield criticism of Israel.
Here are a couple of examples of this from the "minor arrests" thread:
Yeah, have you got that? This issue has nothing to do with Jews and everything to do with Israel, its government, and the way it handles the situation with the Palestinians! And don't you forget it!
Except, of course, until it becomes convenient to use Israel's Jewishness against it. Then Jews have quite a lot to do with the situation. Check out another comment from the same thread, further up the page:
Yeah! There are Israelis and Palestinians! Jews and Arabs have nothing to do with it! That is, until we need to play the race card against Israel! Or when we need to defend anti-Semitism against Jews in the diaspora! Then it is totally okay to equate Israelis with Jews!
Isn't hypocrisy grand?
Here are a couple of examples of this from the "minor arrests" thread:
Yeah, have you got that? This issue has nothing to do with Jews and everything to do with Israel, its government, and the way it handles the situation with the Palestinians! And don't you forget it!
Except, of course, until it becomes convenient to use Israel's Jewishness against it. Then Jews have quite a lot to do with the situation. Check out another comment from the same thread, further up the page:
Isn't hypocrisy grand?
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Huffington Post Spins To Slander Israel (Again)
Remember those commercials which say that "we all do dumb things?" It was for insurance or somesuch? Anyway, countries do dumb things as well, it is just that usually it doesn't make front page news in the Huffington Posts' "World" section. That is, unless that country is Israel.
So what happened this time is that Palestinian firefighters were invited to attend an Israeli ceremony honoring them for their efforts, but due to what appears to be a technical error they did not receive security permits to cross from the West Bank into Israel. How did the Huffington Post headline this story? Palestinian Firefighters Barred from Israeli Fete. This headline is not even close to true: They were invited to the fete, but they were barred from entering the country. In fact because the Palestinians could not come the event was canceled and postponed to a later date. Is that the behavior of a country that wanted specifically to exclude the Palestinians? Now, let's take a look at how was interviewed in the Huffington Posts' version of this story:
I shouldn't even need to tell you this, but naturally the Huffington Post readership assumed that not only was it an intentional snub but it was done because Israel is ungrateful/hateful/evil, etc. I would criticize them for not reading the article, but it seems this time the article and headline was spun a fair amount as well.
So what happened this time is that Palestinian firefighters were invited to attend an Israeli ceremony honoring them for their efforts, but due to what appears to be a technical error they did not receive security permits to cross from the West Bank into Israel. How did the Huffington Post headline this story? Palestinian Firefighters Barred from Israeli Fete. This headline is not even close to true: They were invited to the fete, but they were barred from entering the country. In fact because the Palestinians could not come the event was canceled and postponed to a later date. Is that the behavior of a country that wanted specifically to exclude the Palestinians? Now, let's take a look at how was interviewed in the Huffington Posts' version of this story:
"It's a theater of the absurd. This is a regular day-to-day practice of the occupation, and it exposes its ugly face," [Israeli lawmaker Ahmed] Tibi told The Associated Press.Wow the PA was interviewed? And here I was thinking the Palestinian side of the story never gets told in the American mainstream media! Contrast this with the Ynet news version, in which it is made clear that it was a mistake that will be recified.
Palestinian Authority spokesman Ghassan Khatib said the incident reflected Israel's mindset.
"The Israeli approach toward the Palestinians is about control rather than security," Khatib said.
Rizek, the Palestinian fire service commander, appeared resigned to the reality.
"They (the military) told me there is a mistake and that they didn't mean it," Rizek said. "I am not upset. I can understand there is something wrong. I don't know what it is, but I don't think they meant it."
I shouldn't even need to tell you this, but naturally the Huffington Post readership assumed that not only was it an intentional snub but it was done because Israel is ungrateful/hateful/evil, etc. I would criticize them for not reading the article, but it seems this time the article and headline was spun a fair amount as well.
More News the HP Doesn't Cover: Hamas Won't Recognize Israel
The Huffington Post is dedicated to its mission of depicting Hamas as reasonable and tolerant, while making Israel out to evil and rogue. Is it any wonder, then, that they missed this story?
"During the rally, Palestinian Prime Minister in Gaza Ismail Haniyeh addressed the crowds and declared: "We will not recognize Israel."
Haniyeh urged the Palestinian Authority to put an end to all negotiations and security cooperation with the Jewish state. He added the group would accept "a Palestinian state with full sovereignty in the 1967 borders, with Jerusalem as its capital.""Typical Palestinian rhetoric. Demanding a state for themselves, but refusing to accept the possibility of a state for the Jews. Note also that they demand all of Jerusalem for Palestine's capital, not simply east Jerusalem as some HPers claim. Contrast this story with one that the Huffington Post did cover, but in which Hamas said that they would be open for peace. It seems that when Hamas says something that makes themselves appear moderate, the Huffington Post will pass it along. When Hamas says something that undermines that image, the Huffington Post is no longer interested.
Refuting The "My Tax Dollars" Argument
In the world of discussion that is in the internet, it is common to find users who have a single-minded devotion to slander Israel while invoking the language of human rights. Pro-Israel users often call into question their motivations for doing so: Why would someone who only cares about human rights and not bashing Israel just ignore human rights violations in all around the world? In response to this, we have all seen anti-Zionists and critics of Israel use the "my tax dollars argument." I thought that I would share an example of that from the recent Huffington Post thread. Take a look at the second paragraph:
Now here is the thing about using the "tax dollars" argument from the anti-Zionist perspective: It works very well, in the sense that it can be used to shield against accusations of an inordinate interest in the Jewish state. It is not bulletproof, of course, because US tax dollars support many nations that behave far worse than Israel (including the Palestinians). This argument is a good way for anti-Zionists to justify their one-sided hatred and focus on Israel whilst ignoring the brutality and heinous crimes happening everywhere else in the world, such as in the Sudan and the Congo. However, there are two major problems with it, and those who use it must take care.
The first problem is the unspoken implication that you (i.e. the person making the argument) are really just approaching these issues from a position of moral selfishness. "It's okay with me that people are murdered by the hundreds of thousands in the Congo," you are saying, "just so long as I personally don't feel responsible for it." Notice also that it means that it would also be acceptable for Israel to continue "oppressing" the Palestinians as long as US aid is ended. It makes it pretty much impossible for anyone pursuing this line of argument to try and take a higher moral position from his or her opponent, which is a problem for Palestinian supporters, who usually rely on faux morality in order to overcome their opponents' arguments. It is difficult for someone of any moral standing to declare that it is more than okay for genocide, apartheid, etc to happen just so long as he or she is not paying for it. That's not the viewpoint of a "pro-Palestinian" individual (or really a "pro-anything" individual), it is the opinion of a morally lazy and selfish individual. A truly pro-Palestinian person would defend the Palestinians and their cause whether the US was involved or not. I guess that is where you separate the sheep from the goats.
The second problem with using the "my tax dollars argument" is that once you start using it you need to stick with it lest your hypocrisy be exposed. Let me explain what I mean using the "international law" example: You cannot on the one hand criticize Israel for using your tax dollars to do bad things and on the other criticize Israel for breaking international law. You have just said that you don't care about countries who break international law (like Sudan) just as long as you don't feel personally responsible for their actions. By declaring that it is really the tax dollars that are bothering you, you are also saying that it is okay for Israel to break the law so long as you aren't funding it. That doesn't make you someone who cares about international law, in fact it makes you the opposite: Someone who couldn't care less about international law except when using it as a talking point. To what end? To stop Israel from using his or her tax dollars, i.e., to stop feeling personally responsible for the bad things that happen between the two sides. Not to end the violations of international law.
This problem spreads from international law to all the other arguments that anti-Zionists use to justify their one-sided condemnation of Israel. "I care about human rights!" No you don't, you just don't want to feel responsible for human rights violations. "I care about the welfare of the Palestinian children!" No you don't, you just don't want to pay for their mistreatment. "I care about peace between the two sides!" No you don't, they can fight each other til doomsday and as long as you aren't paying you couldn't care less. "I care about justice!" No, you just don't want to feel guilty. And so it goes. That is what is being said every time that someone uses the "my tax dollars argument," because the flip side is that without the tax dollars you wouldn't care at all.
People who use the "my tax dollars argument" actually put themselves in a double bind: They are forced to concede that they either only care about the tax dollars (which makes them liars when they pretend to care about human rights and international law) or that they are flip-flopping between whatever talking point fits the conversation (which only further calls their true motivations into question). Of course there is a way out of this logic trap: All you need to say that is that you care about international law, human rights, etc anyway but the fact that Israel is being financed through American tax dollars makes it particularly galling. That is all right, but then you must also be equally aggressive toward other US-backed regimes that mistreat international law and human rights, which include the Palestinains. Of course that should be easy for you since your real motivation is misuse of your taxes and international law, not simply bashing Israel...right? However as we have have seen anti-Zionists rarely keep their criticisms balanced for very long.
This is why I suggest that pro-Israel users keep an eye on comments like the one quoted above where the anti-Zionists claim to be motivated by the "my tax dollars" argument, because they never stick with it.
The first problem is the unspoken implication that you (i.e. the person making the argument) are really just approaching these issues from a position of moral selfishness. "It's okay with me that people are murdered by the hundreds of thousands in the Congo," you are saying, "just so long as I personally don't feel responsible for it." Notice also that it means that it would also be acceptable for Israel to continue "oppressing" the Palestinians as long as US aid is ended. It makes it pretty much impossible for anyone pursuing this line of argument to try and take a higher moral position from his or her opponent, which is a problem for Palestinian supporters, who usually rely on faux morality in order to overcome their opponents' arguments. It is difficult for someone of any moral standing to declare that it is more than okay for genocide, apartheid, etc to happen just so long as he or she is not paying for it. That's not the viewpoint of a "pro-Palestinian" individual (or really a "pro-anything" individual), it is the opinion of a morally lazy and selfish individual. A truly pro-Palestinian person would defend the Palestinians and their cause whether the US was involved or not. I guess that is where you separate the sheep from the goats.
The second problem with using the "my tax dollars argument" is that once you start using it you need to stick with it lest your hypocrisy be exposed. Let me explain what I mean using the "international law" example: You cannot on the one hand criticize Israel for using your tax dollars to do bad things and on the other criticize Israel for breaking international law. You have just said that you don't care about countries who break international law (like Sudan) just as long as you don't feel personally responsible for their actions. By declaring that it is really the tax dollars that are bothering you, you are also saying that it is okay for Israel to break the law so long as you aren't funding it. That doesn't make you someone who cares about international law, in fact it makes you the opposite: Someone who couldn't care less about international law except when using it as a talking point. To what end? To stop Israel from using his or her tax dollars, i.e., to stop feeling personally responsible for the bad things that happen between the two sides. Not to end the violations of international law.
This problem spreads from international law to all the other arguments that anti-Zionists use to justify their one-sided condemnation of Israel. "I care about human rights!" No you don't, you just don't want to feel responsible for human rights violations. "I care about the welfare of the Palestinian children!" No you don't, you just don't want to pay for their mistreatment. "I care about peace between the two sides!" No you don't, they can fight each other til doomsday and as long as you aren't paying you couldn't care less. "I care about justice!" No, you just don't want to feel guilty. And so it goes. That is what is being said every time that someone uses the "my tax dollars argument," because the flip side is that without the tax dollars you wouldn't care at all.
People who use the "my tax dollars argument" actually put themselves in a double bind: They are forced to concede that they either only care about the tax dollars (which makes them liars when they pretend to care about human rights and international law) or that they are flip-flopping between whatever talking point fits the conversation (which only further calls their true motivations into question). Of course there is a way out of this logic trap: All you need to say that is that you care about international law, human rights, etc anyway but the fact that Israel is being financed through American tax dollars makes it particularly galling. That is all right, but then you must also be equally aggressive toward other US-backed regimes that mistreat international law and human rights, which include the Palestinains. Of course that should be easy for you since your real motivation is misuse of your taxes and international law, not simply bashing Israel...right? However as we have have seen anti-Zionists rarely keep their criticisms balanced for very long.
This is why I suggest that pro-Israel users keep an eye on comments like the one quoted above where the anti-Zionists claim to be motivated by the "my tax dollars" argument, because they never stick with it.
Cross-Post: YidWithLid On the Media
[This is a crosspost of an article written by YidWithLid on the way that the media is spinning the end of the dealing on the settlement freeze. We already saw this on the Huffington Post in an editorial by Doug Noll in which he declared that Israel "rejected" America's offers and that is why the settlement freeze ended. More blog posts followed that one.]
After tough negotiations, last week the United States government announced that they would no longer try to force Israel to extend its settlement freeze. Almost unanimously the media placed the blame for the impasse on Israel.
After tough negotiations, last week the United States government announced that they would no longer try to force Israel to extend its settlement freeze. Almost unanimously the media placed the blame for the impasse on Israel.
Clinton's speech came three days after the administration acknowledged its inability to persuade Israel to halt construction of Jewish settlements in disputed areas for 90 days. The failure embarrassed the White House, which had offered Israel various incentives, and left the administration scrambling for a new way to coax the two sides to the negotiating table.(LA Times 12/11)Politico described the situation by comparing Israel to North Korea and its relationship to China
Israel offered a ten month freeze to help the US out of a problem caused by our President's naivete, the Palestinians ignored the freeze until it was too late, and any extension of the freeze was sabotaged by Hilary Clinton's bait an switch tactics and a refusal to put things in writing.But as usual the media doesn't really care about telling the truth. Allow me to explain:
News the HP Doesn't Cover: EU Won't Recognize Palestine
By now this news is a couple of days old but still worth sharing: The European Union rejected recognition of a Palestinian state, saying that it is not the right time for such a move. Of course the Huffington Post did not cover the recognition of Palestine by Argentina or Brazil either so it is hardly a surprise. Even so, I'd like to see how the readership would have reacted.
Anti-Semitic Comment of the Day
The original link.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Anti-Semitic Comment of the Day
On the HP's coverage of a B'Tselem report criticizing Israel's policy towards Palestinian child stone-throwers:
What? No, there's no anti-Semitism on the HP, just anti-Zionism! Everyone knows that!
The original link.
And posted here.
And here. And here.
HPW: Israel Arrests of Palestinian Youths
The Huffington Post covered B'Tselem's release of a report criticizing Israel's treatment of Palestinian children convicted of throwing rocks. Throwing rocks at civilians, a practice not allowed in any civilized country, is apparently allowed in Israel, so much so that if Israel takes action to stop the perpetrators, the HPers will release a torrent of hatred the likes of which I have not seen in quite a while. It helped that the thread was unmoderated, but still, there were some new faces expressing old hatreds.
Without further ado, the posts:
Without further ado, the posts:
HuffPoWatch User Profile: RubalKhali
RubalKhali is mostly known for spamming anti-Israel talking points, usually in the form of long quotes that may or may not be legitimate. He does occassionally make more offensive comments and is also a big fan of the "Hasbara" insult. He has over four thousand comments so I couldn't even get close to them all but this post will serve as a depository for new ones as they come in. Click below to read the comments:
Comment of the Day
Remember, everyone, Israel and Judaism are two totally separate things, unless you need to justify anti-Semitic attacks on non-Israeli Jews.
the original link.
Monday, December 13, 2010
The HP Throws Chum In the Water
Apparently B'tselem has released a report criticizing Israel for arresting Palestinian children and teens and holding them in administrative detention. You probably would have to read Israel's papers for a while to find this because it didn't make headlines on Ynet, Jpost, or even Ha'aretz (and that's saying something). One would think that this is because it is not particularly major news. But of course, because the Huffington Post cannot let even one day pass without a major Israel-related article headlined in its "World" section, it gave the story a massive spotlight. And to show you how the comments are going, I think I will provide another study in contrasts. As of 5pm last night:
Barely a hundred comments between the five of them. And how did the Israel article turn out?
Like we said, an obvious obsession.
A couple of other quick things: Click on this story, it was posted at the very top of the Huffington Posts' world section at the time I am writing this. Go on. You know you want to.
Also what did make a headline in Israel was a story about how the police are accused of strip-searching young girls unnecessarily. One would think the Huffington Post would jump on this seeing as how it makes Israel look bad, but maybe they think Arab children who throw stones aren't as important as Jewish girls in Israel.
A couple of other quick things: Click on this story, it was posted at the very top of the Huffington Posts' world section at the time I am writing this. Go on. You know you want to.
Also what did make a headline in Israel was a story about how the police are accused of strip-searching young girls unnecessarily. One would think the Huffington Post would jump on this seeing as how it makes Israel look bad, but maybe they think Arab children who throw stones aren't as important as Jewish girls in Israel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)