Comment of the Day

Interpret as you will:

 The original link.

Michael Lucas and the Huffington Post

Sunday on the Huffington Post was an educational experience for me, as after "watching" the Huffington Post for over a year I thought it would run out of ways it could possibly surprise me. After publishing a news article on Sunday, though, the HP surpassed itself.

The Huffington Post published an article about a man named Michael Lucas. I did not know who Michael Lucas was, but the HP article, which was copied without editing from a blog called The Village Voice, informed me who he is. Both articles describe Lucas as "conservative" and talk about how he "single-handledly" shut down an anti-Israel event at a NYC LGBT center. Lucas lobbied hard for the center to not host the event, and the event was eventually canceled.

Now, as always, I did a little more digging about Lucas. The HP article admits he is gay and a porn star. He strongly supports Israel and opposes radical Islam, both from a gay rights perspective. His Wikipedia page points out that he is a strong advocate for the gay rights movement, sponsors public awareness of the dangers of unprotected sex, supports same-sex marriage and supports the pornography industry (obviously). So the question that leaps to my mind is why is the Huffington Post calling Lucas "conservative"? He seems to fit the image of a liberal in every aspect save his affinity for Israel, which as we all know even if the HP doesn't like to admit it lots of liberals share. Just goes to show, you can be the most liberal person on the face of the Earth, but if you support Israel, you might as well have clocked in at Fox News and tattooed an elephant on your forehead from the perspective of the Huffington Post.

Beyond that, of course, the Huffington Post and the Village Voice spin the facts of the event to make it seem like the mean old Zionists are shutting down dissent. Here's a quote from the article,

"By the end of the week, Lucas became known for flexing his political muscle: He intimidated New York's LGBT Center into canceling its hosting of another group's Israeli Apartheid Week event scheduled for next month. And it took him only a few hours of emails and phone calls, plus a little more than $1,000, to do so."

 As always, it's not the choice of the LGBT center to cancel their own event. No, they, like the Palestinians, are just victims of Zionists and are not responsible for their own actions.  Here's how a more objective news source, the Jerusalem Post, phrased their description of the event.

"On Tuesday, Lucas issued a press release threatening to boycott the center if it took part in Israeli Apartheid Week, a seven-day series of lectures and protests organized by pro- Palestinian supporters that compares Israel’s treatment of Arabs and Palestinians to minority-rule in South Africa.

Lucas told the Post that an Israeli friend had drawn his attention to the planned LGBT center event. He said in his Tuesday statement that “I’m preparing to organize a boycott that would certainly involve some of the center’s most generous donors.”

 After Lucas issued his statements, the LGBT center announced on the same day that it would not host the March 5 event called Party to End Apartheid, and would bar the group that had planned the gathering from meeting on its premises."

Headline of the HP article: "Michael Lucas: The Zionist Porn Impresario Waves His Political Muscle in the Left's Face".
Headline of the Jerusalem Post article: "NY gay center pulls plug on Israel-Apartheid event".

Isn't it about time the HP gave up the pretense of being a newspaper?

Today's Attacks On David Harris

David Harris wrote a new article which (again) only tangentially related to Israel and (again) was criticizing the hypocrisy of world leaders' reactions to the uprisings around the Middle East. However, this did not protect him from assuming his usual role of punching bag for the Huffington Post talkbackers:

 And here's Sharmine Narwani, trolling as she does on practically every David Harris thread:

Since this is becoming such a trend, I'm giving Davis Harris his own label. As the Huffington Post blogger who probably takes the most flak out of any of them, he deserves it.

Example of a Post: Darn Dirty Traitors

It's a common point for critics of the Palestinians to make that there is no equivalent of J Street or B'tselem among the Palestinians. The larger point is that self-criticism among the Palestinians is not nearly as accepted and encouraged as it is among Israelis or Americans, if it even exists at all. We didn't need Walid Husayin to remind us of that. Though there is some criticism among the Palestinians, it seems like all of it is directed against "the other," whether that be Hamas (or by the PA for those in Gaza), Israel or America. Criticizing the government and asking it to take a different path is less acceptable.

Now let's see how an anti-Zionist reacts to this criticism, when it is brought up by our own StCuthbert:

From this comment we learn many things.

1. That if the Palestinians are jailed, imprisoned, shot, or otherwise forced into silence, it is very acceptable. Because you see any Palestinian who has the temerity to criticize his own government is guilty of treason and deserves whatever he gets. So therefore it is perfectly all right to not only revoke the human right of free speech and free assembly but also the most basic rights of living in a free society. Those same rights violations which the anti-Zionists never stop complaining is being implemented by Israel they are perfectly happy to ignore this time. This is yet another example of human rights hypocrisy.

2. Not surprisingly, he gets the definition of treason wrong. A definition I read included "actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." How frightening for the Palestinians that any dissension toward the way their society is run is labeled as "collaborating" with Israel. Of course we know that both militant groups governing the Palestinian society have never tolerated any kind of disagreement with their actions and are more than willing to end the life of anyone who tries it. The ugly truth is that the Palestinian society is not open to self-criticism of any kind, and that this user is simply making excuses for Palestinian misdeeds.


3. Notice also the use of "the occupation." Criticizing your fellow people "during an occupation," is treason, with the unspoken assumption that if the Palestinians weren't occupied than it would not longer be okay for their own government to oppress them. But of course as I said earlier, treason is most notably defined as helping an enemy in a time of war. Which means that as long as the Palestinians are fighting someone it would be acceptable to deny them their human rights. This kind of logic has been used by all kinds of tyrants to keep a hold on their power. For our purposes, this indicates yet again that from the perspective of the anti-Zionists the occupation justifies everything. And always will as long as it exists.

4. And finally, this kind of argument coming from an anti-Zionist is just hilarious. Because you see, Israel is at war not only with one nation, but with twenty, not counting non-state actors. Two of which are lurking just outside their borders biding their time until they can attack again. Yet literally every time Israel does something that even looks like it might be infringing upon free speech the Huffington Post crowd screams and screams. To the point where leaking military documents qualifies. And yet if a pro-Israel blogger on the Huffington Post were to declare that anyone who criticizes Israel is a "traitor" and should be treated as one, the comments would run in the tens of thousands. We'll put this one down to yet another anti-Israel double standard.

Every time I think the anti-Zionists on the Huffington Post can't surprise me, they say something new. It's really quite amazing.

Bigoted Comment of the Day

Every once in a while I got fishing on the HP for bigoted comments and try to get the HPers to expose their inner views that don't always come out. Sometimes, I get a hit. The first comment, by me, is sarcastic. The second comment, from an anti-Zionist, is not.

Just another "enlightened anti-Zionist" on the HP expressing bigotry towards a nation of people.

Terror Justification Comment of the Day

Check out this comment, posted after a Zionist HPer pointed out the Palestinians have committed "misdeeds".

Key sentence: "when invaded and colonized by foreigners, there are no 'misdeeds'". In the world of the Huffington Post, being "colonized" gives you a blank check to commit horrific acts. Just another example of putting morality aside for politics.

the original link.

Signs of Changing Times: UN Edition

Before the AOL takeover, if there was one international body that was sacred on the Huffington Post, it was the UN. The UN was great, it had lots of legitimacy from its supposed status of "spokesperson for the world" while at the same time had a rabid obsession with all things Israel (much like the Huffington Post itself). But now, we're starting to see little pokes at the UN's legitimacy by HP bloggers.

First was David Harris, who is perhaps second only to Alan Dershowitz in the amount of hatred he receives whenever he publishes a blog post. He criticized the UNSC for being more concerned with Israeli settlements than dozens of people (at the time) being killed in protests throughout the Middle East. An obvious criticism that should be found in any mainstream news site, but a surprise to find on the Huffington Post.

But then there was Alan Elsner, who states essentially the same thing: the UN is totally hypocritical and has no credibility when it comes to human rights. He follows up Harris' op ed by pointing out that when the UNSC finally got around to addressing the revolts in Libya, in which hundreds of people have been killed, it presented only a statement, not a resolution, and did not even call for an investigation into the violence the way it did for the Israeli flotilla raid. This is a great example, it shows how the UNSC is more concerned about nine people killed by Israel than hundreds of people killed by Libya.

Are these two blog posts a sign of changing times at the HP, at least when it comes to the relationship between the UN and Israel? I for one hope so.

Not Even J Street Is Polarized Enough for the HuffPo

Yep, you heard that correctly. Ira Chernus, professor of religious studies at the University of Colorado, has penned a new article criticizing J Street for not criticizing Israel enough at its upcoming national conference. To refresh your memory, this is the same man who opened one of his earlier articles by addressing "apologists for Israel’s occupation of Palestine." Anyway, here is his main gripe:

"The narrative of Israel as a brave but insecure little nation, constantly forced to fight for survival. As long as that narrative frames American public conversation about Israel, nothing J Street or anyone else does to change U.S. policy will make much difference."

In short, Professor Chernus is upset that many Americans and Israelis still perceive Israel as being under threat from external enemies, to the point where they let that influence their politics and the way that they approach peace negotiations. Prof Chernus believes that because these Americans are so foolish as to actually believe that Israel's enemies want to destroy them, they become too willing to give a pass to Israel's policies in the territories, that he doesn't like.

First off, let's take a look at the counter-narrative, which he calls "obvious facts."

"Israel is by far the Middle East's strongest military power; no nation in the region has even the slightest chance of defeating Israel, as it has shown in every war since 1948; while we're bombarded with fears about a fantasy of a single Iranian nuclear weapon, Israel's 100 to 200 nukes are ignored; Palestinian violence against Israel has virtually ceased, since both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas are enforcing a nonviolent approach to the conflict."

I appreciate that Professor Chernus provided such straight forward and specific points. It helps him make his argument better, and it also helps me refute them.
-Sure, Israel has a strong military. But having the strongest military in the world didn't protect America from the 9/11 attacks or other terrorist activities. And would Prof Chernus really say that Americans shouldn't be worried about attacks of that sort?
-Ditto with the "defeating Israel" argument. Hamas doesn't need to defeat Israel in combat in order to destroy daily life there and win many battles. It's very difficult for any military to counter Qassam rockets and other guerrilla tactics of that sort, yet Prof Chernus would ask us just to ignore them as "not a significant threat." Easy for him to say, Colorado is pretty far out of rocket range.
-The Iranian nuclear weapon argument is interesting. He dismisses it as a "fantasy," and then changes the subject back to Israel. Does that mean he doesn't think that a nuclear weapon in the hands of Iran could pose an existential threat to Israel? Or does it mean that he just doesn't care, since it undermines his narrative?
-And his last point is simply ridiculous: There is no proof whatsoever that either Hamas or the PA has a "nonviolent approach" to anything. They simply know that remaining peaceful at this time works to their advantage, and that is why they keep the peace. If the Palestinian leadership was really turning over a new life when it comes to violence, they would have said so.

Later down the article, Professor Chernus gets to his main point, "pathological fear."

Contrasting News Stories

Let us begin by documenting a story that the Huffington Post covered two days ago:

Of course the house wasn't really in a cage, as the article attests it is surrounded by settlements but there is a passage in and out. If you read the article is a pretty standard anti-settlement piece which is so common on the Huffington Post, even the Palestinians admit that this situation is "unusual."

Now let's contrast this with two stories from the past week of insults toward America coming from the Middle East. The first of course is the attack coming from the PLO after the UN resolution veto:

"The United States of America's use of the veto to prevent the passage of a UN resolution condemning Israel's settlement policy confirms that it is not an honest broker, and it is no longer able to carry out its responsibilities as a sponsor of any future Palestinian - Israeli negotiations."

Gee, that sure sounds like the kind of message that is often repeated by the Huffington Posters doesn't it? Anyway, the other is of more insults toward President Obama coming from an Israeli...Arab member of the Knesset:

"“After the exposure of lies from the US, we must say frankly to Obama: You no longer scare us and you can go to hell,” Sarsour wrote.

“Obama cannot be trusted. We knew his promises were lies. The time has come to spit in the face of the Americans.”

And it's not like the Huffington Post doesn't actively watch for any insults coming from the Middle East toward America. After all, they were all over it when it looked like Israel might be critical of our President. It's all very telling isn't it?

Is There An Echo In Here?

Or is it just me?

Comment of the Day

The original link.

Anti-Zionists and Cognitive Dissonance

We have already discussed cognitive dissonance before, but in case you forget in short it's the holding of two contradictory beliefs at the same time. Two new articles on the Huffington Post have brought into the forefront two great examples of this.

Example #1: Israel is not a democracy and people are not allowed to criticize it.
Leaving aside the democracy double standard that is so very common among mere "critics" of Israel, many talkerbackers and even bloggers declare that Israel does not tolerate dissent and is not a free society. When they find a story that might back up this belief, they are quite happy to declare it as the "truth" they have always known but couldn't prove:

"Israel is certainly in a race to the bottom abandoning democracy for fascism as quickly as they can."

"It makes sense they're from the former Soviet Union. Why repress after repression? One of those cycles that needs to get broken."

"As even a cursory analysis reveals, Israel is not a democracy. At best, it is an ethnocracy."

The trouble is that there are also stories that disprove it, such as recently when author Ian McEwan accepted a prize in Jerusalem and then used the platform to criticize Israel's settlement policy. No one put him in jail, no one shot him. As for as I can tell no one even criticized him for it. And this time the Huffington Posters were full of praise to Mr. McEwan for "speaking truth to power." But none of them had anything to say about the fact that Israel was able to listen to criticism right in the heart of their society, and even applauded him when he was done. Troublesome facts that don't fit the worldview of "fascist Israel" were swept under the rug, never to be seen again. Which brings me to my next example:

Example #2: Every critic of Israel is called anti-Semitic, no matter what they said or how they said it. Which in turn means Israel can't be criticized.

We'll start again on the Ian McEwan thread, were there were at least five posts expecting him to be called "anti-Semitic," because that's what happens when you criticize Israel, as everyone knows. The only trouble is that no one did, not on the thread and not as far as I can tell in the media and wider world. Don't expect this to penetrate the minds of the anti-Zionists, though, because they have their beliefs and nothing will dissuade them otherwise.

Contrast this with the Huffington Post's most recent Helen Thomas-related news article, in which the myth of the "anti-Semitic label" returns in a big way:

"It's funny we can say anything about anybody but when it comes to Israel it is hands off. She gave us her honest opinion, something that many journalists and reporters will never do. And please, enough of the Anti-Semit­ic rhetoric."

Many people will hold these two contradictory worldviews at the same time, and yet never see any kind of problem there. They will simply ignore the Ian McEwan story, or make up some kind of excuse why Israel and the "Zionists" let him get away with it that time.

Our last one is a bit more political.

Merely Critical of Israel's Policies Comment of the Day

Just another example of how the HPers are always merely critical of Israel's policies and never go farther than that:

Note the four favorites.

The original link.

Example of a Post: Invaders and Locals

Last week I talked about the issue at the heart of liberalism: the battle between human rights and anti-imperialism. In that post, we discussed how the very idea of human rights is an imperialistic idea, and how expecting non-Westerners to obey human rights laws is an example of imperialism. For today's example of a post, I'd like to showcase an example of an "enlightened HP liberal" who throws out human rights in favor of anti-imperialism, once again.

So when Jews come to Palestine to live and work and build the state promised them by the British government, they are "invaders." And therefore, it is only proper that the Palestinian Arabs should resist "invasion". How can anyone possibly disagree with that?

Except that in any other context, that logic is incredibly racist. If you protest the arrival of Muslim immigrants into Europe and characterized it as an invasion, you will undoubtedly be called a racist. If you take an anti-immigration stance in the United States, you're a "right-winger" and also a racist. The Nazis (Godwin's law, I know) considered Jews, Communists, Roma, etc. to be invaders on their ethnically pure German state. Everyone who thinks this way is considered to be an enemy of the left, except the Palestinian Arabs. Why? Because of anti-imperialism. Since the Palestinian Arabs aren't white, the way Americans, Europeans and Germans are, the anti-Israel left won't criticize their racism and will instead step up to defend it.

The anti-Israel leftists on the HP have completely compromised their moral values in a desperate attempt to remain political correct and anti-imperial. They will echo the Palestinian call for an ethnically pure state, something that would horrify them if white people made an identical call. They will uphold child killers as a "product of Israeli occupation" and "resistance fighters" but will depict IDF soldiers who fought knife-wielding jihadists as "murderers." This notion of anti-imperialism is poisoning the heart of a great political movement, and I hope it's not too late for those still suckered by this on the left to wake up and reclaim their morals.

Responding to MJ Rosenberg's Latest Article

MJ Rosenberg has written a pretty reasonable and balanced article, which gave me quite a lot to think about. I actually appreciated such a difference in tone and approach, so I suggest you give it a read before we get down to it.

This time Mr. Rosenberg forgoes complaining about "The Lobby," and instead repeats his other most common talking point: End the occupation. But they can't just end the occupation. I'm going to selectively quote him a bit but I think you will get a pretty good impression of what he's saying:

"For Israel, that means that Israel can accept the terms of the Arab League Initiative (incorporating United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338) and trade the occupied lands for full peace and normalization of relations with the entire Arab world....[But last time] they withdrew only to have their own land beyond the border shelled by militants who seized control as the IDF troops left for home. That is true and it might indeed happen again if the Israeli occupation is ended as a result of a popular uprising.
"But Gaza is only an applicable precedent if Israel leaves without negotiating the terms of its departure. Israel left Gaza when Palestinians made the price of staying too high but, rather than negotiating its way out, it just left....Fortunately, both the Israelis and the Palestinians already have worked out detailed plans to ensure mutual security following an Israeli withdrawal. In fact, the Palestinian Authority already utilizes those plans to maintain West Bank security and, with Israeli help, prevents attacks on Israel from territories its control."

So first he says just withdraw! But then he says don't just withdraw, make sure the Palestinians are okay with it first. But then he says that they have already figured that out so Israel should just withdrawal or else the consequences will be terrible. Though on the one hand it seems like Mr. Rosenberg is bouncing all over the place about what Israel should or should not be doing, I pretty much get what he is saying: That Israel's leaders are not looking ahead to see possible consequences of their intransigence today.

His statements on unilateral actions on Israel's part is also interesting, seeing as how he supports unilateral actions by the Palestinians without thinking much about their consequences. My guess is that he was somehow looking for a way to blame Israel for what happened in Gaza and took the opportunity to throw some digs at Sharon.

Anyway, the problem with his reasoning is that it falls into the same trap that many of Israel's critics (well intentioned or otherwise) make: That Israel is the only one with the power to make changes. But how they can negotiate a withdrawal if the PA won't even talk to them without a settlement freeze? And why would Israel leave without a promise of peace or recognizing her right to exist. Mr. Rosenberg addresses this problem by citing the age-old Arab Peace Initiative. This has two problems: 1) We have already discussed, 2) many of the regimes that signed on to the API are the same ones being overthrown or being threatened with revolution. Not to mention the fact that groups like Hamas and Hezbollah didn't endorse it, so it's not like Israel will do this and gain the magical rainbow-like peace they've been seeking for decades. It's unfortunate that Mr. Rosenberg did not address these problems as I would like to hear what he had to say.

Getting back to the article, Mr. Rosenberg descends into ranting a bit about why Israel isn't as smart as he is, which is unfortunate but not entirely unexpected. And then there is this:

"No, it is up to Israel to defend Israel. And that means ending the occupation, on terms worked out with the Palestinians, rather than allowing it to end in violence that could cross the border and threaten the survival of Israel itself."

It's worth mentioning again, the last time Israel ended the occupation of the West Bank things didn't get better, they became much much worse. And it was because they weakened themselves and made themselves vulnerable for what they believed was a good cause: the cause of peace. And now they aren't so willing to do it again. Mr. Rosenberg would be much more persuasive if he addressed these fears, rather than just taking the usual road of threatening that Israel comply or else. If I wanted to hear threats, I would listen to Ahmadinejad.

Huff Watch on Lara Logan and the HP

A couple days late, but still well worth reading, our friend Huff-Watcher takes apart the Huffington Post's coverage of Lara Logan's attack in Cairo. You need to check it out, it's amazing what the HP will bury.

Another Anti-Zionist Drops His Guard

This is a very interesting post. Because he says that he is not anti-Zionist, that means he is not against Israel's existence. But he is anti-Israeli, while "pro-humanity." Which means that he considers Israelis not to be human, and they must be removed for the sake of humanity. I feel like I have heard this rhetoric somewhere before, but I can't remember where....

The original link.

More Biased Moderation

Check this out:

Two insults toward me remain up for multiple hours and receive multiple favorites. Yet my response was deleted. And if you were wondering, my comment said simply "You won't silence me with insults so you should stop trying." Although I don't have a screengrab to demonstrate this the context would seem to confirm it. How ironic that although I won't let insults silence me the Huffington Post moderators were more than willing to step in and do the job themselves.

The original link.

Renewed Call For Violence

The "peaceful" anti-Zionist in action.

The original link.

Attack on HP Blogger Comment of the Day

David Harris published a great op ed on the US veto, and this comment was published. Read the first sentence.

Try calling Sharmine Narwani or Daoub Kuttab "a lazy and dishonest mouthpiece" and see how long your comment stays up.

"Non-Violent" Palestinian Protests

I saw a recent argument that I wanted to talk about briefly. Zionists and anti-Zionists have recently clashed on the Huffington Post's boards over the argument that the Palestinians have never used non-violence as a means of getting what they want. Here are a couple examples of how Israel's critics respond to this accusation:

In the past the BDS movement is also commonly framed as "non-violent protest." The trouble, of course, is that although boycotts and UN resolutions are not violence (in the sense that no one gets hurt) they are also not protests. Why? Because the goal behind them is to force Israel to do what the boycotters/resolution-writers want, regardless of whether or not Israel wants to. The BDS movement freely admits this, and so it takes an interesting twist of the facts to try and frame the BDS movement as a "protest." A protest, after all, is merely a way of sending a message of disapproval about a particular policy or event. If a group of protesters suddenly jumped the blockades and charged the police, it has stopped being a protest and has become something else entirely.

The other common example of non-violent Palestinian protests is in Bilin, for instance:

Of course the fact that the Bi'lin protests are not, in fact, non-violent. Bummer. Looks like the anti-Zionists will need to keep searching for that "non-violent resistance" they are always talking about, but never can prove exists.

Nadia Hijab Weighs In On Obama Veto

As Matt mentioned yesterday, the Huffington Post bloggers have come out in force to complain about the veto of a UN resolution. The most recent is written by Nadia Hijab of Al-Shabaka, the Palestinian Policy Network. So you know, another unbiased and objective analyst of Middle East politics. This is her third article for the Huffington Post, all of which have been critical of Israel, and this time she is speaking about President Obama and why he did what he did. She begins by discussing "coercion:"

"When the strongest UN member state asks the weakest not-yet-state to do something, coercion is a good word to describe it -- particularly as the Ramallah-based Palestinian Authority depends on U.S. aid for its existence."

It's funny how when Obama chews out Israel for doing something wrong, it's not coercion but "correct American policy." And her complaint about the U.S. aid is hilarious, seeing as how that's then number one complaint that the anti-Zionists have toward American-Israel relations. Once again I imagine that if the situations were reversed and it were Israel who was proposing a resolution only to be vetoed, Ms. Hijab would be singing a very different tune. Which makes me wonder whether it is the "coercion" with which she takes issue, or if it is the target of American pressure. By the way, the Palestinians didn't back down so I'm not sure why she's complaining about it.

She goes on to repeat the Big Lie of "the illegal settlements being illegal because they are," and then reacts in horror and disgust at the revelation that President Obama is not taking the side of the Palestinians:

"By contrast, in speaking of "continued" settlement as illegitimate, the Obama administration seems only to condemn new construction, not passing any opinion on the massive and destructive construction of the past 44 years....No wonder that Palestinian negotiators were unable to get Obama's special envoy George Mitchell to agree to recognize the pre-1967 armistice lines as the borders of a Palestinian state, as revealed in the Palestine Papers."

Ding ding ding! Give that woman a banana! She figured it out: America has always felt that ethnically cleansing hundreds of thousands of people is not on the table. President Obama is not the first to take this position: Secretary Clinton explained that they do not support continued construction, President Bush differentiated between "legal" settlements and "illegal" outposts. Like many Palestinians, it seems that Ms. Hijab feels that all the settlements are illegal and therefore should be removed, period. Which is exactly why the PA pushed forward with a resolution saying exactly that. America doesn't like unilateral action by the Palestinians, and so they tried to get the PA to back down, and then they vetoed the resolution when they wouldn't. Ditto with the map: America doesn't want to put their stamp on something that big without the two sides agreeing to it first. This shouldn't be an issue, except to a "Palestine's way or the highway" point of view.

So why did Obama do this? Well according to Ms. Hijab, it's because of the Great Zionist Conspiracy:

"Obama would have incurred the wrath of American Jews and Christians who support Israel right or wrong even if the U.S. administration had simply abstained on the resolution. No U.S. politician can afford to be defined as anti-Israel, particularly not one working for reelection -- even though he's just offered Israel the most generous aid package ever."

This paragraph could have been lifted directly from an MJ Rosenberg blog post, and we've written responses to it so many times over that I hardly see the point in doing so again. It's just an interesting strawman that when a perception of President Obama is being "pushed," actions that he has taken that don't fit the image are ignored (for example, the "slamming" of Israel that I linked to above), while images that do are pushed to the forefront.

But I guess it just goes to show the mindset of many Palestinian supporters, even educated and well spoken ones like Ms. Hijab: American presidents can't be 'balanced' (aka on our side) because the Zionists control them above all else. Not because taking out side might not be in America's best interests, and not because taking our side might compromise American values. There is no introspection at all about whether the UN resolution was a good idea or really worked toward the peace between the two sides. It might have been beneficial to Ms. Hijab if she had stopped and thought about that question for a bit before she put pen to paper.

She then attacks Abbas a little bit for "caving," and then proposes her Big Solution (tm):

"The lessons the Palestinian Authority should draw are simple: Declare the Oslo process at an end and re-constitute effective sources of Palestinian power. The first steps would involve healing the Fatah-Hamas split and reviving truly representative and democratic Palestinian institutions with the Palestine Liberation Organization at their head. It will not be easy but it must be done. Egypt and Tunisia have shown that if leaders cannot fulfill the aspirations of their people, the people will take it upon themselves to demand change they can believe in."

Two questions.
1) What happens if the Palestinian people don't want the PLO at the head of their government?
2) What happens if the Palestinian people choose more war with Israel instead of pursuing peace? Will we see Ms. Hijab writing in the Huffington Post about how Israel is now justified in defending itself against Palestinian aggression? And that America was right to veto that resolution?

I guess that was more than two questions. Also, I made it to the end of this post without making any puns about her name! Woohoo!

HP Headline Bias for Today

Yesterday the Huffington Post published a news story about Israel and Google Street View. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm desperate to find out more information about Israel-Google relations. Anyway, here's the headline for the article and the article itself. Read the headline and the first paragraph.

So the headline suggests that Israel is actively worried that Google Street View could be used for terror attacks. But the article's first paragraph tells the exact opposite, that Israel is moving forward towards integration of Google Street View in its cities. Rather than illustrate Israel's movement towards Google, the headline gives the impression Israel is being it's (HP depicted) usual paranoid victim self.

Subtle, but clear, HP bias.

Another Anti-Semitic Comment of the Day

There was a blog post published recently about our old buddy Helen Thomas, and it inspired comments such as this one:

Jewish stereotypes, clear as crystal and HuffPost approved.

HP Blogger Stable Opposes Veto

As you may or may not have heard, the US recently vetoed a UN Security Council resolution that declared Israeli settlements in Jerusalem and the West Bank illegal. The different interests and factors coming into this vote and subsequent veto are very complicated and intricate, and it seemed to me anyway that the Huffington Post would be a great place to hear about the veto from different points of view. Unfortunately, the Huffington Post's editors and bloggers had just one message which they expressed over and over again: Veto is bad, the UN resolution is good.

We got Daoud Kuttab, who declared the vote is "on the wrong side of history" and the US is allowing Israel to get away with "illegal" settlements. We got Jon Rainwater, who argues that the UN resolution was a great opportunity for the US to show it is a "champion of human rights. We got Evelyn Leopold, who has decided that the US is now "isolated" because of its support of Israel. David Harris weighed in a little later, pointing out how this proves yet again that the UN is biased, but didn't go into much detail about the UN resolution itself.

For those of you who are interested in hearing the other side (and make no mistake, there is another side), I recommend this article by Elliot Abrams, which describes all the competing interests around the UN vote and how the US administration mishandled it.

Example of a Post: Who's the Victim?

Notorious "asaJew" anti-Zionist lbsaltzman showcases a fascinating and contemptible point of view in this conversation, which I would like to analyze with you.

So let's take a look at the I/P conflict through lbsaltzman's eyes for a second (you need to turn off your brain and/or morals). The Palestinians have been suffering for a long time at the hands of the Israelis. This is the fault of the Israelis, or the Israeli government, for choosing Palestinian suffering over peace. The Israeli government could have peace, but they choose occupation instead. Why? Not sure, I guess because they are pure evil. OK, let's move on to the Israelis. Israelis are suffering as well and have been for a long time (I guess we can be grateful that saltzman acknowledges the residents of Sderot are suffering, most anti-Zionists will dismiss it out of hand). This is also the fault of the Israeli government, because they chose war over peace. The Palestinians that are pulling the trigger to send the rockets are forced into a life of terrorism by the Israeli government...somehow.

You can see in this conversation the racist double standard at the heart of most HP discussions about whose fault the conflict is. Israelis are responsible for the consequences of their actions. If Israel maintains the occupation, it is Israel's fault that the Palestinians "fight back". But the Palestinians aren't responsible for their own actions. Their suffering happens in a vacuum, the Israelis just inflict suffering on them for no reason. If Israel constructs a checkpoint, the fact that several suicide bombers used that junction to get into Israel and kill Israeli civilians is forgotten. The only thing that matters is that the checkpoint is there, Palestinians are suffering, and isn't that terrible. It doesn't matter what the Palestinians do to Israel, if Israel inflicts suffering on the Palestinians, it is Israel's fault and Israel's fault alone.

You would think the "enlightened liberals" of the Huffington Post would treat the Palestinians like adults. I guess not. 

Anti-Semitic, Race Baiting Comment of the Day

Published in Daoud Kuttab's opinion piece on the US veto:

At least he's honest that he has a problem with "Jewish Americans" and not "Zionists". Good thing he proved his liberal credentials with his user name "wallstbull" otherwise we might think he's an anti-Semite.

The original link.

News the HP Doesn't Cover: Israel's First Openly Gay Judge

YnetNews covered the news of the appointment of Dori Spivak to the Tel Aviv Labor Court as a judge. Spivak is the first openly gay man appointed to such a high position in the Israeli judicial system. Israel, like the US, is still struggling with making sure gay people are full members of society, but this appointment is good news for the gay community in Israel and really the world. There is no doubt in my mind, though, that the Huffington Post won't feel the need to inform their readership about this event.

HPW User Profile: FreeAmerican7

FreeAmerican7 is a classic anti-Semite and troll who based on his writings looks like he'd be more at home on Stormfront than on the Huffington Post. Most of his comments are rambling, full of CAPITAL LETTERS and exclamation points!!!!! And a great many of them are about how Jews Israelis and "Zionists" control America. He hardly writes about anything else so one can conclude that a great many of his 63 fans approve of what he has to say.

Here are samples from his first one hundred comments. I didn't keep going because he repeats himself so much. I should also point out that he is rarely criticized by other Huffington Posters, and when he is it is by the usual pro-Israel crowd who we know and recognize.

Link
"trapped indeed!
and by an octopus whose tentacles won't let go until the complete anihilatio­n of the prey = USA!"


Link
“In effect; the US was like the JUDGE in a US court who is NOT happy (wink wink) about the RAPE CASE in front of him/her (and shows sadness for the pains suffered by the victim who was raped) but could only free the RAPIST since that JUDGE is "in bed" with the RAPIST.
The US should have recused itself (NOT VOTING & NOT ABSTAINING­) due to NOT ONLY
"Conflict of Interest" but due to the fact that the US is an
UNDERLING of Israel... sort of......
an Israeli COLONY comprising of 50 STATES.. we might as well start calling
New York by its new name : Judea
Florida by its new name : Samaria
etc.......­......”    

Link
“Germany (one out of 14 Countries) voted YES because Israel does NOT control Germany; nor the 13.
The US being the ONE & ONLY country that voted NO is
ONE MORE PROOF that Israel controls the US via its AGENTS/SPI
­ES/UNDERLI­NGS in the
US Congress/S­enate/Stat­e Dept/Justi­ce Dept/Homel­and Security/e­tc...
To LIBERATE the USA from the ABSOLUTE CONTROL of the Foreign Country (Israel) ;
we the people must VOTE OUT all POLITICIAN­S (Democrats and Republican­s) who are more Israelis than Americans; if they are Americans at all!”                    
                      

Huffington Poster Rage!

The recent veto of the anti-settlements resolution has made the Huffington Posters blood boil. And they direct their rage not only toward Israel and the Jews but toward President Obama, who dared to do something they didn't like. For example:

But remember, these are the same people who will call you an "Israel firster" for disagreeing with President Obama about something.

The original link.

Comment of the Day

Most of the petty sniping and insults that gets directed at me and other pro-Israel users isn't worth sharing, but I thought this one was, especially it comes from noted Jew-hater "RubalKhali."

The original link.

HP Bias in Pictures Part 4

This was the heading of the "World" section of the Huffington Post on Saturday at around 11 in the morning:

Yes, 84 people dead in Libya nets 100 comments. US vetoing a resolution about Jews building homes net over 1,300. The Huffington Post knows what gets its users riled up.

News the HP Doesn't Cover: Obama Slaps Down Abbas

On Friday, President Obama let Abbas have it:

"US President Barack Obama warned the Palestinians of "repercussions" if they pushed for a United Nations Security Council vote against Jewish settlements, a Palestinian official said Friday.
"President Obama threatened on Thursday night to take measures against the Palestinian Authority if it insists on going to the Security Council to condemn Israeli settlement activity, and demand that it be stopped," the senior Palestinian official told AFP.

However, despite Obama's warning, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on Friday turned down Washington's request to withdraw a UN Security Council resolution demanding Israel halt settlement expansion."

This is classic Palestinian tactics, work against the US and then complain when the US doesn't keep doing what they want. Glad to know my President didn't let them get away with it this time.

A Huffington Post Mad Lib

[You may remember "Mad Libs" from when you were a kid. I haven't seen any here in Israel so maybe Israelis won't be familiar. Anyway, they are a game that you play where you fill in blanks in a page of writing to make a humorous story. What I seem to provide here is a ready made Huffington Post blog post, all you need to do is fill in the blanks and you're ready for publication!]

Time is running out for peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis. If they do not make peace now then it is likely that there will never be peace and more drastic measures such as  ____________ and ____________ may be come necessary.

The actions of ____________ in ____________ this week only prove further that the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis is the root cause of all the instability and problems in the Middle East, as well as the _______________ in _______________. And the latest news shows that the way things are going cannot last and things must be changed.

But unfortunately peace can't be made because Israel alone is pursuing policies of ____________ and ___________. And who can expect the Palestinians to do anything in order to make peace when such unjust ____________ is happening right on their ____________? Israel's ____________ government under the clearly inflexible Prime Minister ______________ has never shown a willingness to make peace with the Palestinians.

Therefore what I propose is simple: Israel must ends its policy of ____________ immediately. If they do not then the window will be closed and they will be forced to choose between being an apartheid state or a state for all its citizens, which will mean the loss of its Jewish character. Some may say that unilateral action by Israel could lead to more Palestinian _____________, but they just don't understand that Palestinian ____________ is only in response to Israel's _____________. So if only Israel will stop ______________ then the Palestinians will stop ____________ as well.

But Israel won't so now I call on all ______________ like me to demand that they do, whether they want to or not. Join with me in calling for an end to the occupation and in hoping that it doesn't blow up in our faces again like the last two times. Because as long as ______________ continues to exist, there won't ever be peace. And we have to do this right freaking now, or else ____________ will happen and there won't ever be a chance for peace ever again. Thank you for reading, and look forward to my column next week when I say the exact same thing.

Reference 1
Reference 2
Reference 3
Reference 4

Quote of the Day

"What's in their hands? Money, banking, the means to bribe, blackmail, exthort, connive and dissemble. Every major human weakness has it's apex in Israel, Porn, politics, power and religion. Enough! Reform or be have reform forced on you from the outside."

The original link.

New On the HP: Obama Vetoes Anti-Israel Resolution

We knew that this had been coming for a while, as the Huffington Post has posted at least six blog posts about it. But all the whining by the HP bloggers didn't do the job: Obama vetoed the anti-settlement UN resolution after the Palestinians rejected his offer not to in exchange for concessions from them.

Here is something else interesting that did not make it into the Huffington Post article.

"Meanwhile, the Fatah movement organized a rally in Ramallah to support the Palestinian anti-settlement push and slam the US. The demonstration features racist elements, as protestors carried signs referring to Obama by his skin color, reading "Washington – the black hands support occupation and colonial thinking.""

Who are the racists again? Anyway, the Huffington Posters, having been raised on a steady diet of MJ Rosenberg, knew exactly who to blame for this unhappy course of events: The "Jewish lobby."

And that's only a small section. At the time I'm writing this there are about 500 comments, most of which are screaming in helpless rage. Always funny.

Changing Times at the HP?

I'm not sure what is going on with the Huffington Post. Things are changing there, and though it may be too soon to hope that it will be a permanent change, I am allowing myself to be cautiously optimistic. The changes I am referring to, of course, has been a massive upswing in pro-Israel and anti-anti-Israel blog posts in the "World" section, even in the last couple of days. All are worth reading in their entirety, but here are some excerpts.

The first is by Richard Grenell, a veteran US spokesperson who wrote another article about the anti-settlements UN resolution coming up. He castigates US ambassador Susan Rice for reacting poorly to the handling of the resolution:

"Over the last several days Rice has been negotiating with Lebanon, the UN Security Council's Arab Group representative, to find settlement language acceptable to both sides. But after offering her compromises, Rice agreed to language saying the U.S. "does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity" and that the settlements are "a serious obstacle to the peace process." The agreement sharply diverges from previous U.S. government statements insisting that the Israelis and the Palestinians negotiate directly to decide for themselves what issues are obstacles to peace. Shouldn't we spend what little political capital we have left pressuring both sides to sit down face to face?"

Mr. Greener gets it. This resolution is not an attempt to uphold international law or fight for human rights, it's an attempt to get the outside world to solve the problems of the Palestinians for them. 

Next is Lanny Davis, a lawyer, who has also written many articles for the Huffington Post. He talks about how Israel and the demonstrators have much in common:

"But it is a simple, indisputable fact that what the demonstrators in Tunisia and Tahrir Square demanded are the values that have governed Israel since its founding over 60 years ago -- freedom of the press and assembly, guarantees of due process and the rule of law, civil rights, human rights, women's rights and, most important, equal protection under the law for all Israeli citizens -- including the more than 1 million Palestinian Arabs who have the same rights as Jewish citizens."

Oh snap! And then finally is Danny Ayalon, Israel's Deputy Foreign Minister and HPM follower on Twitter (not to toot my own horn or anything). His article is pretty standard fare from what we have seen in the past, that the Arab protests prove that it is not Israel that is making them mad but their own crappy lives. There is also an amusing anecdote about the Mossad vultures and sharks, which never gets old.

Anyway, this is annoying the anti-Zionists on the Huffington Post to no end, so I hope that the editors keep up their efforts to promote a balanced discussion! Don't say we don't praise the HP when it deserves it.

ZOG Comments of the Day

On a recent news article about Hezbollah threatening Israel:

Just more hatred copy pasted out of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and published on the Huffington Post.

The original links.

Lara Friedman: Nothing New To Say

You would really think that the Huffington Post has run out of anti-Israel organizations from which to draw Huffington Post bloggers. They've got Electronic Intifada, Americans Against the Wall, the Popular Struggle Coordination Committee, the U.S. Campaign to End the Occupation, J Street, the BDS movement, and on and on and on. But apparently no, they needed one more. And who else to bring in but Peace Now, in the form of Lara Friedman, who has written two articles in the past three days (both anti-Israel, of course). The first one is an attack on David Harris, which you can check out if you'd like to, but I'm more interested in the second.

This article is your very standard boilerplate anti-occupation piece. Like all the others, it demands that Israel "cease its addiction to occupation and settlements," as if nothing bad would ever happen should Israel unilaterally pull out like they did in Gaza. Ms. Friedman is smart enough to tie in her article to the events happening in Egypt, but just like all the other Huffington Post bloggers before her, also demonstrates that no recent developments before or since would have changed her mind about this issue. She waves away Israel's worries that the West Bank might become another launching pad for terrorism with this paragraph:

"The occupation grew more entrenched with each passing year. Its champions -- in Israel and the U.S. -- doggedly defended it as necessary for Israel's security and insisted it could be sustained in perpetuity.
They were wrong. They are still wrong."

...That's it. And I can understand about the second part, but I don't see the first. Israel has ended the occupation of Gaza, and Gaza has become more dangerous, not less. And yes, I'm sure Ms. Friedman would have an excuse for that as well, but I don't see how saying "they're wrong," is a particularly convincing argument. All three governments (Israel, the PA, and America) appear to recognize that should Israel leave there will be a power vacuum which will lead to (a) more infighting between the Palestinians and (b) more violence toward Israel. Which isn't good for anyone. But of course Ms. Friedman lives in America where she doesn't need to deal with the consequences of her beliefs should they be put into action. Like I said, this article doesn't contain anything we haven't seen before. But I did want to share this paragraph as well:

"The absence of accountable governments in the Middle East these past decades has allowed Israel to operate under the delusion that its policies vis-à-vis the Palestinians need not have any bearing on its relations with its neighbors. These governments, in effect, acted as enablers as Israel's self-destructive addiction to occupation and settlements deepened."

I hate to be the one to break this to Ms. Friedman, but the Arab countries don't care about the Palestinians. They never have. Let's not kid ourselves here. If they cared they would grant them citizenship and let them leave the refugee camps to which they are confined. Or at the very least give some of those trillions of petrodollars to UNRWA. To paraphrase Yaacov Lozowick "The Palestinians were a club with which to threaten Israel. Having been cast aside, they were found to be useful again."  Nor does Israel's policies toward the Palestinians necessarily need to affect their relationship with other nations. Egypt and Jordan both made peace with Israel while it was occupying the WB and Gaza, let us not forget.

The truth is that "The Occupation" is a convenient excuse both for the Arab nations and Israel's enemies not to make peace with Israel and to explain their tunnel vision toward it. Like I have said before: It takes two to tango. Egypt and Jordan found that when they were ready for peace with Israel, Israel was ready for peace with them. The days of unilateral action are over. Ms. Friedman better get used to it.

News the HP Doesn't Cover: Israel's Economy

Yaacov Lozowick has a piece about Israel's now booming economy.

"The Israeli economy easily outstripped forecasts in last year's final quarter, achieving annualized growth of a stellar 7.8 percent. While growth rates in other developed countries range from vanishingly small to around 3 percent, Israeli gross domestic product grew 4.5 percent last year, the Central Bureau of Statistics said yesterday."

It's no surprise that the Huffington Post won't publish this news, since it contradicts the message of an Israel about to be brought down at any second by the BDS movement. 

Sharmine Narwani On Jews

On the surface this comment doesn't seem too bad. Of course there is the denial of Jewish history and the absurd implication that Arabs and not Jews are the "indigenous" population. But when you dig deeper it is actually much worse. You see because the Palestinians have made it clear that Jews cannot become Palestinians. And let us not forget either that 99.99% of the "indigenous" Jews (i.e. the Mizrahi Jews from the Middle East) are living in Israel and are Israelis.

So what "Dignity Rockets" is really saying is that all the Jews in Israel are foreigners, which is all the Jews in the region. It's the same thing as what Helen Thomas was saying, but cloaked behind weasel words and ridiculous implications that there are "Jewish Palestinians."

The original link.

HPW: Rahm Emanuel Attacked In Anti-Semitic Flier

As Matt has mentioned, there was an article recently about an insulting flier toward Chicago mayoral candidate Rahm Emanuel that contained anti-Semitic expletives. You should check out the story if you would like more information. Anyway, there wasn't very many posts on the thread (perhaps because it was in the "Chicago" section of the Huffington Post), and quite a few abusive ones were deleted before we had the chance to grab them. But most of what we found this time was people claiming that he had made the flier up himself to play the victim, conspiracy theories that he served in the IDF and was an Israeli citizen, and complaining that "you can't criticize Jews without being called an anti-Semite."

Click below to read the comments. Again, these are not necessarily anti-Semitic, but we thought they were worth sharing.

Miles Mogulescu Misses It

The Huffington Post blogger Miles Mogulescu wrote a very uplifting blog post that was recently published in the Huffington Post's "World" section. The first two paragraphs (as well as the title) give you a pretty good impression of what the article is about:

"Death to America! Death to Israel! Those are the placards and chants many Americans associate with popular demonstrations in the Muslim world.
"I spent the end of last week home sick and got to watch Egypt's extraordinary democratic revolution unfold in the streets of Cairo via satellite TV on CNN, MSNBC and Al Jazeera English. There were plenty of placards and chants calling for democracy and justice in Egypt -- the most popular "Mubarak, Go, Go". But there was not a single placard or chant of "Death to America!" or "Death to Israel"."

Now, I'm going to take Mr. Mogulescu's word for it that he was paying close attention to the broadcasts and of course that he is being honest with us. But if both of those are true then the blame can perhaps be placed on the news media for missing it, because there was a lot of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic sentiment there. (Thanks to Huffington Post talkbacker "Marcus047" for the links.)

Of course I suppose technically Mr. Mogulescu is correct: There was no chanting "Death to Israel," it was more implied. Still, this didn't make it to the news media so I can't entirely blame him for it. On the other hand...a little cross referencing before this article went to print wouldn't have hurt anyone.

Opinions the HP Doesn't Publish: Americans on Israel

The 2011 Gallup poll about American views of other countries is out and the results are not surprising, or at least not surprising for those of us who see the world outside of the Huffington Post. Here are some of the countries and their results.

Great Britain: 88% favorable, 7% unfavorable
Israel: 68% favorable, 27% unfavorable
The PA: 19% favorable, 70% unfavorable
Iran: 11% favorable, 85% unfavorable

After months of things like the flotilla raid and Cast Lead, American support for Israel is still extremely high. No wonder the HP doesn't want to let its readership know how far from main stream society they are.

[H/T: Challah Hu Akbar]

MJ Rosenberg Lies, Whines

Everyone's favorite "pro-Israel" Huffington Post blogger MJ Rosenberg is back to complain about Obama promising to veto a UN resolution condemning Israeli settlements. (By the way, if my counting is right this is now the sixth op-ed the Huffington Post has published on this topic) On this issue, Rosenberg really shows his lack of perspective and uncaring attitude towards the country he claims to support. Let's dissect it, shall we?

Rosenberg starts out with posting some actual facts (a rarity for him) about the UN resolution in question and a statement by US Deputy Secretary of State Steinberg about it. Steinberg stated, "We have made very clear that we do not think the Security Council is the right place to engage on these issues." That sounds reasonable, right? Not for Mr. Rosenberg!

Rosenberg responds,

"Opposition to Israeli settlements is perhaps the only issue on which the entire Arab and Muslim world is united. Iraqis and Afghanis, Syrians and Egyptians, Indonesians and Pakistanis don't agree on much, but they do agree on that. They also agree that the U.S. policy on settlements demonstrates flagrant disregard for human rights in the Muslim world (at least when Israel is the human rights violator)...Accordingly, a U.S. decision to support the condemnation of settlements would send a clear message to the Arab and Muslim world that we understand what is happening in the Middle East and that we share at least some of its peoples' concerns."

Comment of the Day

Rahm Emanuel experienced some anti-Semitic fliers against him during his campaign for Mayor of Chicago, the HP covered it, and a user posted this:

Ah, anti-Semite rage. It's so nice to see.

More News The HP Doesn't Cover

As I have mentioned before, the Huffington Post loves stories about the upcoming UN Security Council Resolution planning to condemn Israeli settlements. Yet strangely enough they seem to have missed this one, which was found by Elder of Ziyon.

"The U.S. informed Arab governments Tuesday that it will support a U.N. Security Council statement reaffirming that the 15-nation body "does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity," a move aimed at avoiding the prospect of having to veto a stronger Palestinian resolution calling the settlements illegal.

But the Palestinian's rejected the American offer following a meeting late Wednesdy of Arab representatives and said it is planning to press for a vote on its resolution Friday, according officials familar with the issue. The decision to reject the American offer raised the prospects that the Obama adminstration may cast its first ever veto in the U.N. Security Council."

How interesting. 

Comment of the Day

The original link.

CiFWatch on Guarnieri

Our buddy Mya Guarnieri has posted another op ed, this time for Al Jazeera and about the new Knesset bill to deny government funding to pro-BDS groups. CiFWatch takes her apart. Check it out.

Dan Rather on "A Precarious Peace"

Legendary journalist Dan Rather has posted an op-ed piece on the Huffington Post that made it to the sidebar in the front page. It is mostly about increased cooperation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority which has led to peace, in everything but name. He describes how this has made the lives of Palestinians in the West Bank much better:

"I recently traveled there for the first time in a decade and so much had changed. Cities once racked with violence like Ramallah, Hebron and Jericho are now bustling. Peaceful. Vibrant. Where Israeli bullets and Palestinian rocks used to fly, the biggest danger I felt was getting trampled by herds of shoppers or struck by taxis racing to their next fare."

The rest of the article describes in more detail about the Palestinian Security Forces working with Israel to maintain the calm, and Mr. Rather uses terms that would upset either side: Israel as "America's closest ally in the region," the PA soldiers used to merely "resist Israeli occupation," but Hamas wants to "wipe Israel off the map." So overall pretty balanced. Mr. Rather finishes up by pointing out that though things are peaceful now, the Palestinian people are still not happy with the situation. They have to wait at checkpoints still and they are concerned that the PA security might be collaborating with Israel against their own people. (This is in contrast with the Huffington Posters, who are sure of it. Clearly they know the situation of the Palestinians better than the Palestinians themselves). Here's Mr. Rather's conclusion, though I suggest you read the whole thing:

"There's no doubt that Israel is under constant threat from its neighbors and that its leaders would be remiss in not obsessing over this fact. But the question that must be asked -- especially in the context of what's happening in Egypt -- is whether long-term stability is being sacrificed for short-term security. Will the West Bank -- and Israel -- be truly secure as long as its residents continue to feel their destiny is being determined by outside influences?"

But of course this is the Huffington Post, so even the most balanced article receives jeers for not being anti-Israel enough, including personal attacks on Mr. Rather:

And here's another just for the heck of it:

Okay one more:

(Someone want to try to tell Sharmine Narwani to "shut her pie hole up for good?") The thread doesn't have many comments, but more are sure to come.

News the HP Doesn't Cover: Free Mjali

This was news on Monday, but we've given the Huffington Post two days time just in case they took their time getting around to publishing it. Elder of Ziyon covered this story, published in the New York Times, about the Jordanian minister of justice lobbying with "dozens" of protesters to get a certain prisoner released.

"In an unprecedented move, Jordan's new justice minister on Monday joined dozens of protesters demanding the early release of a Jordanian soldier who killed seven Israeli school girls in 1997.
Minister Hussein Mjali previously served as the defense lawyer of army Corp. Ahmed Daqamseh who shot dead the girls during an outing near Jordan's border with Israel.
Monday's protest outside Mjali's office was organized by Daqamseh's family. Mjali joined the protesters, saying he was participating in his capacity as the soldier's former lawyer. "I'm committed to be here with you as his lawyer," Mjali told the cheering group.
Israeli Embassy spokeswoman Merav Horsandi said it "is difficult for us to comprehend how there are people who support the release of a cold-blooded murderer of young children."
She said an early release would contradict the spirit of the 1994 peace treaty between the two countries. "Israel cannot imagine a situation in which such a vile murderer will be set free by the Jordan," she added.
The corporal was sentenced to life in prison, which translates into a 25-year sentence in Jordan. It's unlikely he will win early release."

Just as unlikely as the Huffington Post ever covering this story. 

Twisted Logic Comment of the Day

Check this comment out. Ignore the usual petty insults:

Because Israel killed civilians, they must have not cared about killing civilians, despite all evidence to the contrary. And if they don't give in to the cynical use of human shields by Hamas, they must be bloodthirsty murderers. Clearly, the anti-Zionists operate on a different level of logic than the rest of us. It's a good thing they weren't advising the leaders of the Allies during World War 2, otherwise we'd all be speaking German right now.

News the HP Doesn't Cover: Fake PP Edition

CifWatch shares with us that the Guardian has finally come clean: They misconstrued Tzipi Livni's quote when they were publishing the Palestine Papers. Let's hear it from them:

A quote by Tzipi Livni, Israel’s former foreign minister, within a panel that formed part of the Palestine papers, was cut in a way that may have given a misleading impression. The quote appeared as: “The Israel policy is to take more and more land day after day and that at the end of the day we’ll say that it is impossible, we already have the land and cannot create the state.” [emphasis Adam Levick's]

 Seeing as how much we know the Huffington Post loves to cover the Palestine Papers, think this one will make it in?

HPer Quotes Pat Buchanan

The only thing the leftists on the Huffington Post do more than bash Israel is bash conservatives. As Mya Guarnieri showed us, being called a "right-winger" is considered an insult over there. But every once in a while, the HPers show us their priorities: when given the choice between bashing Israel or bashing a conservative, they will choose Israel.

How fascinating it is that the far leftists of the HP and the far right Pat Buchanan just happen to have the exact same rhetoric. For actually thinking, moral people this might cause some personal reflection, but I doubt that will happen for the HPers.