Hijacking of Language: "Genocide"

Zach and I have talked at length about how anti-Zionists will twist and change the meaning of words to better attack Israel. You can take a look at the Anti-Zionist Dictionary, and two other hijacking of languages articles here and here. Here's one more. I encountered a new language hijack two days ago and I wanted to share it all with you. Here is my conversation:

 

So I addressed the inherent contradiction at the heart of the two anti-Zionist arguments of "The Palestinians are being exterminated (so slowly it's impossible to prove)" and "The Palestinian population is about to swallow Israel whole, ha ha!". How did the anti-Zionists respond? By changing the definition of genocide.

Genocide according to Wikipedia is, "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group". According to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide: "Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

There is a notion of "cultural genocide"  but not only does its definition remain intentionally unclear, but it is a separate term from "normal" genocide. 

Once again, when reality doesn't line up with the talking points used to attack Israel, the HPers prefer to try to change reality rather than their minds.

News the HP Doesn't Cover...Ever

With the latest news story about three Palestinians wounded by Qassam rockets fired from Gaza, I think it is time to do a recap of some of the Palestinian victims of Gazan rockets, compiled by Elder of Ziyon:

-Malak Karfaneh, a baby, was killed when a rocket fell short.
-Ibtihal Abu Daher was killed when a Palestinian rocket inadvertently hit her house.
-"A rocket apparently fired by Palestinians on Friday struck a house in the Gaza Strip, killing two Palestinian sisters aged five and 13, Palestinian medics said."
-"Ever since the Palestinians began to manufacture and launch locally produced missiles, about four years ago, most of the casualties they have inflicted - dead and wounded - have been Palestinian, and not Israeli."

So to all of you anti-Zionists who like to pretend that the rockets fired by Hamas are "firecrackers" and "bottle rockets:" Now you know that they have killed Arabs. So you can stop pretending.

Europeans vs. Americans

Something that Zach and I have long speculated but never confirmed is our suspicion that most of the really hateful anti-Zionists on the HP are Europeans, or at least not Americans. We know the Huffington Post attracts mostly Americans to the site as a whole, but that's because it's an American site mostly about American politics and celebrity gossip. But just from the spelling of their posts and the few personal details they divulge, I've gotten the impression many if not most of the anti-Israel posters are European. Which brings me to this conversation I had with Darcha (someone I know is European):

So Darcha admits most of the haters are Europeans, but check out his reasoning. Because Europeans have "freer access to real information." I guess the logical conclusion to that statement is that American information isn't free or unrestricted, it must be controlled by Jewish interests. What a brand new conspiracy theory.

But beyond that Elders of Zion talking point, I'm sure it's just a coincidence that many Europeans happen to hate Israel and their continent also has a history of anti-Semitism dating back to the Roman Empire and includes such greatest hits as the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Holocaust and Stalin's purges. I'm sure that while Jews in Malmo, Sweden don't feel safe to practice their religion freely and neo-Nazis still move freely in some Eastern European countries, European problems with Israel come from purely rational discourse and fact-checking. America, on the other hand, only supports Israel because Americans are fooled by Jews but America is the most Jewish friendly country in history with a vibrant Jewish culture and presence in national life.

I'm not saying all Europeans are anti-Israel and Europeans that are anti-Israel are all anti-Semites, but the relationship between past European anti-Semitism and current European anti-Israel sentiment is a real thing. And claiming that it is entirely based on "free information" is simply not acknowledging the truth. Isn't it amazing how anti-Zionists will try to twist reality so that they are angels?

Ira Chernus and "Myths"

The last time we heard from Professor Ira Chernus, he was complaining about how even J Street just doesn't understand that there is no threat to Israel except the ones in the collective heads of Jews around the world. This time he is back to tell us pretty much the same thing, except this time skewing some news reports to try and back up his claims.

He begins by discussing the latest round of rocket fire and the bombing and the stabbings, of which we are all familiar. He then quotes a Ha'aretz article that says that Israel may have started this particular round of firing in and out of Gaza:

"Hamas does not seem to want large-scale clashes yet. The organization actually has good reasons to believe that Israel is the one heating up the southern front. It began with a bombardment a few weeks ago that disrupted the transfer of a large amount of money from Egypt to the Gaza Strip, continued with the interrogation of engineer and Hamas member Dirar Abu Sisi in Israel, and ended with last week's bombing of a Hamas training base in which two Hamas militants were killed."

What? Hold on for a second. Let me highlight this one sentence for you:

"continued with the interrogation of engineer and Hamas member Dirar Abu Sisi in Israel"

Hamas member? Engineer? Are we talking about the same Dirar Abu Sisi? This guy?:

Remember how when the Huffington Post originally covered that story everyone was screaming about those evil Jews kidnapping an innocent family man? And now all of the sudden here is Professor Chernus, freely admitting that he is a member of Hamas and therefore an enemy of Israel. In fact there are reports that he may even know where Gild Shalit is. Any time the Huffington Post editors would like to inform their audience about these latest developments, that would be just fantastic.

As for the rockets, they were also being fired at Israel back on March 6th, and February 24th, not counting shots fired at IDF units across the border. Yet this is left out of Prof Chernus' narrative, probably because he wants us to look at a very narrow window of time so that we blame Israel for the continuing back and forth and not the terrorist groups that operate unhindered in Gaza. And given that the whole point of his article is that people believe "myths," the fact that he is trying to replace them with myths of his own strikes me as rather hypocritical.

News the HP Doesn't Cover: British FM Edition

Breaking news from Britain today:

British Foreign Secretary William Hague said Wednesday that his government’s belief in Israel’s right to exist was not up for “discussion or compromise.” 

“Britain, this British government and this foreign secretary will stand for a secure future for Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people, alongside of course a viable and sovereign Palestinian state,” Hague told a London conference marking 60 years of British-Israeli diplomatic ties. 

“Britain’s support for Israel was there at the very start. We are steadfast in our support for it today. Our belief in Israel’s right to exist is not an issue of discussion or compromise.”

The British government is “firmly opposed” to any body that seeks to delegitimize or Israel or boycott it as a method of protest, Hague added. 

The foreign secretary vowed that Britain would “continue to stand up” for Israel’s right to defend itself, adding that he saw it as “vital that in exercising the right to self- defense, Israel takes every possible step to avoid loss of innocent life.”

Now, if this doesn't seem like a big enough story for the Huffington Post, I remind you that the statements of British officials are of great interest to the editors...when it suits them. That being said, it's also kind of sad that people even need to be told that Israel's right to exist is not up for debate. But I guess that's what happens when you have people like Ahmed Moor around.

Anti-Semitic Comment of the Day

Posted on the West Bank annexation thread:

Thanks to those HPers who are brave enough to let us know what they really think. Note the 8 favorites.

Another Day, Another Dishonest HP Headline

I came on the Huffington Post yesterday morning and was greeted with this screaming headline:

Holy smokes! Israel is about to annex the West Bank?! Those crazy Zionists, they can't do this! RAGE!!

But, of course, if you read the article, the proposal is much more reasonable. The Israeli government stated that IF the Palestinians seek world recognition of a Palestinian state, Israel will annex the main settlement blocks and leave it at that. As usual, this is an Israeli response to a Palestinian action but the HP chose to emphasize the Israeli response rather than the Palestinian action.

And the HP used the same "smirking Netanyahu" picture as they did for the military retaliation thread Zach mentioned yesterday. Clearly no one burned the midnight oil covering this article.

More Anti-Zionist Honesty

Posted on a thread about tensions in Gaza:

Oh noes! Yes, that is outrageous! So let me go on over to the breaking news story and find out what it says:

"Israel is considering annexing major West Bank settlement blocs if the Palestinians unilaterally seek world recognition of a state, an Israeli official said Tuesday"

...

Now, it would be one thing if this was the first time a critic of Israel had done something like this. I would have chalked it to down to over enthusiasm or just a lack of critical attention. But anti-Zionists pull crap like this all the time. And I know that I am not the most objective observer, but I don't see pro-Israel posters declaring something to be true and then posting a link that contains the opposite. If anyone would like to find an example, please demonstrate it.

The best part is, the Huffington Post itself did the same thing with its headline, as Matt is about to share.

Comment of the Day

Jews are the enemies of America? Where have we heard that one before? Unless maybe he's referring to "Zionists."

The original link.

Alon Ben-Meir Gets Back on the Soapbox

In an ideological sequel to his previous freak out, Alon Ben-Meir has returned to the Huffington Post ready to waggle his finger like there is no tomorrow. His article is entitled "The Blind Leading the Blind" and in short is about how every Jew on the planet except for him is an utter moron:

"American Jews must open their eyes -- and help Israel to do the same -- to witness the unpleasant realities of the region and the state, and to recognize that they will not disappear simply because they are wished away. Israel and world Jewry today are acting like a reckless gambler, unnecessarily risking the future even though Israel already has the chips it needs to realize all its dreams -- if both sides could only open their eyes and grasp them."

Oh my gosh I know! If only everyone was as smart as Mr. Ben-Meir then everything would be just fantastic, wouldn't it? Seriously, compare this article with his other one and you will see that it is pretty much the same thing: Mr. Ben-Meir cannot understand why people don't agree with his ideas about where Israel should be headed. He also dips into armchair psychology. Let's take a look:

"The psyche of a people with a history under almost constant siege has served as the key unifying agent between Israel and the American Jewish community. The narrative of the Jewish people surrounded by hostile enemies, and needing the constant support and vigilance of its brethren to survive, is indeed a powerful one... Israel was supposed to change all this. The Zionist ideology was about Jews not cowering in fear of those who would threaten them, but rather about binding together in strength...But the sense of vulnerability within Israel, and among Jews worldwide, has become so deeply engrained [sic] that it is hard to recover..."

There seems to be some contradictions here. On the one hand Jews are only imagining that they are under threat because they need to. But on the other hand Israel is under threat, but only because American Jews are blind and not smart like Mr. Ben-Meir. And the whole point of Israel's existence is for the Jews to gather together in strength. But if they gather in strength too well then they aren't flexible enough to make the changes that Mr. Ben-Meir feel is necessary...sigh. The contradictions continue:

"Instead, Israel -- and the United States -- is even more isolated than it was before, and the mediation and influence of the United States, Israel's most critical benefactor and ally, is being questioned as never before....However, those who point to a supposedly all-powerful Jewish lobby as the key source of the Administration's concerns are mistaken....American Jews make up only 2.2 percent of the United States -- support for Israel is an American interest, certainly not strictly a Jewish one."

So on the one hand relations between Israel and America are deteriorating, because of the right-wing attitudes of American Jews. But on the other support for Israel is not only in America's interests but is supported by the vast majority of Americans. So don't get on anyone's case about a Jewish lobby. But what the Jews say are still important, to the point where they are leading Israel toward disaster (as mentioned in the first paragraph).

To sum up, it's your usual Ben-Meir article. Lecturing everyone else for not being as smart as he is and not seeing that voting Kadima endlessly will lead to peace, while jumping from one issue to another. Though I have liked his writings in the past, this time he fails to convince.

News the HP Doesn't Cover: Child Rape Edition

There is a new story coming out of Israel, which is pretty ugly. Check it out:

"Four Palestinians residing in Israel illegally have been arrested for allegedly raping and severely abusing an 11-year-old boy from central Israel several times. The four, aged 23-27, are also suspected of indecent acts. 

"Meanwhile, residents of the suspects' Palestinian village were shocked to hear the news. "This just doesn't make any sense. He is religious and very respectable person in our village," a relative of one of the suspects said.

"I find it hard to believe he took part in the rape of a child. He is married with four kids of his own, how could he have raped a child?"

Right of course. Because religious people have never hurt children. And neither have married people. Der!

If this doesn't seem like a big enough story for the Huffington Post, let me remind you that they have covered sex crime cases in Israel...but only as long as they can spin it so that Israel looks like a racist society. No doubt if they did cover this story, the readership would be doing exactly that.

Update: The four were let go when the police discovered the boy was lying.  

Anti-Semitic Comment of the Day

On a very moderated thread:

And the Huffington Post hits a new low.

The original link.

Comment of the Day

In a statement that set the HPers off into crazy spins, Senators McCain and Lieberman came out in support of President Obama's decision to use military force in Libya. The story had nothing to do with Israel or Jews, but sometimes when Lieberman is the headliner a couple comments come up. Sure enough, I wasn't even finished with the first page of comments when I came across this fellow:

Even when articles have nothing to do with Israel, the HPers keep on bringing it up. They must have some kind of fixation.

How the HuffPo Bloggers Reacted to the Bombing

We've given it a few days, so I think that it is reasonable to report on the reaction of the Huffington Post blogosphere to the bombing and rocket attacks that occurred in Israel last week. Ready? Here we go:

Brad Hirschfield:

"People can find the resolve to pursue an escalation of violence, a commitment not only to locating the criminals who committed this act, but to military action whose scale and purpose is to make committing such acts of terror less attractive to those who commit them. I actually believe that response is totally justifiable. This is a war and that is a part of all wars. But while that response is justifiable, it may not be wise and it takes resolve to make that distinction -- to choose what is wise over what is justifiable."

 Anav Silverman:

"One thing for sure is clear. Israel will have to respond to this wave of terror. Over 70 missile attacks, 45 people injured, a family murdered and hundreds of civilians in shock, cannot be ignored or silently accepted. When Israel does react, the international community and mainstream media will be quick to condemn the state as cruel and unreasonably aggressive. This is really the only consistent response that we can expect from the world, while we attempt to maintain a normal semblance of life, teaching and educating a future generation in Israel to love and not to fear."


MJ Rosenberg:


"Israel's best chance of surviving these dramatic changes is by resolving the conflict with the Palestinians. In fact, it is Israel's only chance. The Palestinians need an agreement with Israel every bit as much as Israel does. Palestinian youth in both Gaza and the West Bank are not immune to the revolutionary stirrings other Arabs are feeling. In fact, as the only stateless Arabs, they feel more strongly about their predicament than their brethren. Without a state, soon, they too will rise up against the regimes that offer nothing but hopelessness. The bottom line is that the status quo cannot hold. We are on the brink of an explosion, one that will jeopardize the lives of Israelis and Palestinians and America's interests in the Middle East, starting with our military personnel. President Obama is the one person who can turn this situation around. History will not forgive him if, in the name of political expediency, he looks away."

That's it. Feel free to click on the links as well to see the reactions of the Huffington Posters. Here's a spoiler: they are no longer respectful of the deceased, if they ever were.

More American Troops Behaving Badly

The war in Afghanistan continues. Bad things are happening there. Some of which the Huffington Post covers. When they do, it is always very informative.  Yesterday there was a story about a "Kill Team" in Afghanistan who go around and kill anyone they find. Civilians, militants, whoever. A story which has never occurred in the history of Israel, for the record.

The reaction of the Huffington Posters was very informative. In general, they took on two trends. Here is the first:

There were many who pointed out that though war is ugly, most American troops are not like the ones in the article. Which I believe is the truth. Here is the other reaction:

That war is bad. Again, not very surprising. But I also thought that comments like these were interesting:

What the soldiers did was unquestionably bad, but they "defame the reputation" of the other soldiers and of their country. I cannot help but wonder if it were Israeli soldiers who were the subject of the article whether Israel's society would be given so much slack.

Notice also that there were some terms that did not appear in the thread.

-"International law."
-"UN Resolutions."
-"Genocide."
-"Ethnic cleansing."
-"War crimes" (One person called Obama a war criminal once, but I think he was trolling)
-"Apartheid."

This thread combined with the Jerusalem bombing article from last week only confirms what I had already thought: That although the readership of the Huffington Post is liberal to left-wing, they are not extremists or completely detached from reality. This also seems to indicate that our anti-Zionist friends are not in fact motivated by leftist politics at all, or else they'd be out there screaming about "the imperialists" killing "the brown people" as well. I know that we call them "Palsbarists" only as a joke, but I do wonder sometimes...

Feelinantisemitic

There is a new pro-Palestinian user called "FeelinPalestinian." We know that he is pro-Palestinian because it says it right there in his user name. And even though he has only around 50 comments or so, he has already posted something blatantly anti-Semitic:

But remember, if you are ever under the impression that "pro-Palestinian" people can sometimes be motivated by a hatred of Jews instead of a love of Palestinians, you're just being paranoid.

The original link.

More HuffPo Picture Bias

Check out the latest headline in the Huffington Post about the exchange of fire between Israel and Gaza:

There are, at this point, many pictures of rockets being fired from Gaza at Israel. The Huffington Post even used one in an article a few days ago. But please notice how this time, even though Israel is "warning" the Gazans to back off, the picture is of Netanyahu smirking like William Shatner. As if he can't wait to get in there and start bombing Palestinians.

Not surprisingly, the anti-Zionists reacted exactly the way the HuffPo editors primed them to:

Comment of the Day

Pretty standard faire anti-Israel rant, but hey gotta publish new content so here you go:

For what it's worth, this post is anti-Semitic because it fits under the EU's definition of anti-Semitism, specifically the section about comparing Israel to Nazi Germany.

An Anecdote

I had the honor of speaking with one of Costa Rica's ambassadors to Israel the other day and I asked him some questions about the peace process between the Israelis and the Palestinians. He told me that Costa  Rica is very interested in the goings on over here, and they want to help the two sides sort things out. I asked him how interested the Costa Rican people were in this issue, and he said not very much, except  for the small Palestinian population there and the even smaller Jewish one.

I asked him what Costa Rica has been discussing lately with the two sides. He told me that at one point they tried to convince the Palestinians that they don't need an army, since Costa Rica doesn't have an army either. "How did that go?" I asked. "Not very well," he said.

But most interesting to me was that I asked him what role, if any, oil prices played on Costa Rica's international relations, particularly voting at the UN. He said that although people love to talk about oil and make it seem like a bigger deal than it actually is, Arab oil prices do not affect Costa Rica's economy all that much, since they get most of their oil from Venezuela and other nearby South American countries.

However, he told me, the Arab countries lean on Costa Rica in other ways. For instance he told me a story that when Israel first took over Jerusalem and declared it their capital, Costa Rica recognized it as such. However, they eventually changed their mind, and it wasn't because of oil prices. He told me that the Costa Rican ambassador at the time got tired of being snubbed the Arab delegations not being invited to their parties (that's a slight paraphrase). So eventually Costa Rica gave in and moved their embassy out of Jerusalem.

Who would have imagined that world politics would be so much like high school?

Guest Post by Muti

Sometimes pro-Israel HPers post good stuff, and Zach and I want to highlight well written posts. Here is one by muti on the UN and the ICJ that does a good job of summarizing the amount of anti-Israel bias present in both of those organizations.

The UN, among its many faults, is hopelessly biased against Israel and the more that is said, the better.

Informative News from Argentina

Coming from Elder of Ziyon, we have an extremely informative story coming out of Argentina. YnetNews writes,

During secret talks with Iran, the Argentinean government offered to "forget" the bombings of the Israeli embassy and the Jewish community center in the capital Buenos Aires in the 1990s in exchange for improved ties between the two countries.

The Argentine weekly Perfil reported Saturday that the negotiations were aimed at increasing the trade volume between Argentina and the Islamic Republic, which is currently estimated at $1.2 billion a year.

According to the report, Cristina Kirchner's government offered to suspend the investigation of the bombings, which are believed to have been orchestrated by Iran.

It was further reported that a memo sent by Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stated that "Argentina is no longer interested in solving the mystery of these two attacks and would rather improve its economic relations with Iran."

Perfil said Argentinean Foreign Minister Hector Timerman asked Syrian President Bashar Assad and Foreign Minister Walid Moallem to relay the offer to Tehran. The three met at the Syrian city of Haleb on January 23, the weekly said.

In September Kirchner told the UN that Argentina would continue the investigation and demanded that Iran hand over those responsible for the attacks.

In the 1992 embassy bombing, 29 people were killed and 242 were injured. In the bombing at the AMIA Jewish community center in 1994, 85 people were killed and more than 300 were injured. No one has been indicted despite the fact that Israel and the US have been assisting in the investigation.

While this news is very disappointing, we can see here the hole it pokes in the anti-Zionist theory of "international community knows best." There is little doubt that the "right, just" course would be for Argentina to fully pursue the investigations described in the article, but Argentina isn't doing that. They are blatantly dropping the investigations for purely selfish interests, improving relations with Iran. This article is proof that countries will do what is best for them 99% of the time, not what is "just" or "right". Just because lots of countries vote against Israel in the UN does not mean that voting for Israel is the "just or right" thing to do any more than dropping this investigation is the "just or right" thing.

News the HP Doesn't Follow Up On

The Huffington Post lept on the news that the University of Johannesburg in South Africa was cutting ties with Ben-Gurion University in Israel, writing that the university was "acting on calls from hundreds of South African academics and intellectuals for an academic boycott." You can read the whole article for more information, but that's the basics. With that in mind, what are the chances the HP will publish this article?

"The University of Johannesburg said Friday that it does not support an academic boycott of Israel, two days after the university’s senate voted to allow ties with the Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (BGU) to lapse in April.
In a statement on Friday, Prof. Ihron Rensburg, vice-chancellor and principal of the University of Johannesburg (UJ) said “I need to make this quite clear. UJ is not part of an academic boycott of Israel. UJ holds the view that given the current situation in the Middle East the formal institutional agreement between UJ and BGU is an insurmountable obstacle to either institution facilitating a wider dialogue between Israeli and Palestinian academics.”
The statement continued, “it has never been UJ’s intention to sever all ties with BGU, although it may have been the intention of some UJ staff members.
Rather, the UJ Senate voted to bring an end to the formal institutional agreement between the two universities which at this particular time, in the Senate’s view, creates an obstacle to cooperation between academics in Israel and Palestine.”

So if I'm reading this right, the University of Johannesburg just wanted to remove a formal academic agreement between itself and BGU in order to facilitate a wider dialog about the I/P conflict, not for an academic boycott. Any chance of the HP covering this followup?

Opinions the HP Doesn't Publish: PA Incitement Continues

Pajamas Media published an interesting article about anti-Israel rhetoric coming from the PA and how it won't end anytime soon. The author's case is that the PA receives millions of euros from the EU, among other places, and a lot of that money is used for violence and terror, but since no one cares apparently what the PA does with the money, why should the PA stop?

"Calling for Mahmoud Abbas — president of the PA, chairman of the PLO, and head of Fatah — to condemn the terrorist attack in Itamar and to end incitement is meaningless.

Fatah, the main party in the PLO, is committed to violence. The Sixth Fatah Conference (2009) affirmed all forms of resistance, including armed struggle. Resistance to Israeli “occupation,” as Palestinians see it, is not only legitimate but honored.
Although there is no evidence that the PA, PLO, and Fatah are actively involved in terrorist activities, they support anti-Israel incitement and “popular resistance.” Local gangs and “sleeper cells” acting on their own and even loosely affiliated with Fatah/al Aksa Brigades carry out terrorist attacks, but — unlike their role under Yassir Arafat — are not officially sanctioned by the PA.
While international funding to Palestinian and pro-Palestinian organizations may not be used directly to fund terrorism by donor law, these funds are used in the war of words against Israel with devastating success.
Said Abbas: “We do not wish to turn to armed struggle, because our [lack of] capabilities and the international atmosphere do not allow for it.” Appealing to Palestinian leadership to abjure incitement and violence, therefore, is absurd when that is part of their agenda. They could not stop violence or recognize Israel’s right to exist even if they wanted to. It’s in the PLO charter."

Read the whole thing. The second page has a lot of hard data about how much money comes into the PA and what it is used for.

[H/T Solomonia

HP Bias in Pictures Part 6

Zach mentioned this point last Thursday, but I felt the Huffington Post's choice of pictures was egregious enough to justify discussing some more.

When Arabs are hurt/killed/mistreated, the HP has pictures like these ones:

Look at the poor suffering Palestinians! How can you not feel bad for them?

When Jews oops I mean Israelis are hurt/killed/injured

We get generic, zoomed out pictures that have nothing to do whatsoever with the article itself. This kind of play on reader's emotions is as effective as it is transparently biased. The editors on the Huffington Post should be ashamed of themselves.

How Did Your Favorite HuffPo Blogger Respond?

At this point there has only been a couple of blog posts written about the recent bus bombing in Jerusalem, one of which is by a pro-Israel blogger. But I knew that quite a few Huffington Post bloggers use Twitter, and because it is instantaneous we have a unique look into the heads of those who choose to use it (which for the record is not very many). Here are a break down of three Huffington Post bloggers and the subject matter of their tweets in the 24 hours after the bomb attack. Max Blumenthal, Sharmine Narwani, and a few others did not post anything on Twitter.

Hypocritical Posts of the Day

On the Jerusalem bus bombing thread, some HPers played their usual game of demanding proof of who committed the attack. One poster laid down these two hilariously hypocritical posts:

You can't make this stuff up.

Example of a Post: Confirmation Bias

This post from the recent airstrikes in Gaza thread is a perfect example of confirmation bias:

Clearly this user entered the conversation believing fully that Israel is "looking to create a Greater Israel," somehow. And so he makes the point that these airstrikes are happening while America is "engaged in other military campaigns," such as Libya. This is amusing for two reasons.

The first, most obviously, is that these strikes are in response to Hamas rocket fire. So really, wouldn't it be Hamas that was attempting to be more aggressive while the world was distracted?

And secondly, Israel and Gaza have been shooting at each other ever since 2006. And America has been fighting Afghanistan since before then. So really, at any point you wanted you could say that Israel was acting under the cover of America's wars, and it would "prove" your unsubstantiated beliefs. It also doesn't help that the Huffington Post doesn't publish every example of fighting from over there, not that I would reasonably expect them to.

Still, this is a very informative example of how people truly see what they want to see, to help them back up their beliefs.

HPW: Moshe Katsav Charged

The verdict was finally handed down on the trial of former Israeli President Moshe Katsav, sentenced to seven years of prison on rape charges. While most of the comments were positive about Israel's judicial system (or complaining about why Bush/Clinton haven't met justice in the same way), others were remarkably hateful for such a relatively uncontroversial article. They are compiled below.

A Glimmer of Light in the Darkness

Now that it has been a few days since the bus bombing thread, I wanted to share something that I noticed. Although the usual anti-Israel crowd was out there being their usual hateful, assholic selves, I noticed that many normal users who we don't see on the thread were there willing to stand up for the victims of this terrorist attack. And in fact the top favorited comments on the thread were sympathetic to Israel and unsympathetic to the Palestinians. Check it out:

Maybe when the chips are really down, the Huffington Post crowd is not as anti-Israel as the haters want us all to think.

Victim Playing of the Day

Now, many anti-Zionists think that Israel is already acting like the Nazis. But as in this case, it doesn't really matter what Israel does. All you need to do is imagine that they might do something bad and start condemning them. It's not like any of your fellow Israel haters will stop and think about what you're saying. As long as it feels good to you and to them to feel sorry for yourselves, go for it.

The original link.

Anti-Semitic Comment of the Day

The Huffington Post covered the news that Israel's former President Katsav has been sentenced to seven years in prison for rape. While the comments on the thread weren't too bad, there were a couple of hateful ones. Like this sarcastic one:

Comments like this are not particularly hateful, but they illustrate the kind of mindset present on the Huffington Post towards Israel and Jews.

AZ Fail: Legality Edition

This is now the second amusing post that I have found recently, that indicates how thoroughly the anti-Zionists will forgo common sense if it means they can hate Israel that much more. Read it carefully.

Yeah! America passed these laws that said they won't give military assistance to countries that have nuclear weapons and didn't sign the treaty! Yeah! And then they went ahead and gave military assistance to Israel anyway! Yeah!

So clearly, it's Israel who is violation of American laws! Yeah!

No, it doesn't make sense to me either. Should Israel have turned down the aid because they wouldn't want America to break its own rules? This one isn't the brightest bulb in the box, I suppose.

The original link.

More Huffington Post Headline Bias

Just when I think Huffington Post bias can't get any more egregious, there comes yet another example. Check out this story:

So once again, even when it is terrorists being killed, the picture is of the grieving, suffering Palestinians and doesn't your heart just break for them.

But when five unarmed Israelis are knifed to death, what does the Huffington Post use for its picture?

That's right. Because we can't have people feeling sorry for the grieving, tearful Israelis. That just isn't the way things are done on the Huffington Post. And all that weren't enough for you, let's take a look at the first paragraph of the aforementioned rocketing article.

"JERUSALEM — A bomb exploded at a crowded bus stop Wednesday in central Jerusalem, wounding at least 25 people in what appeared to be the first militant attack in the city in several years."

In fact there is nothing in the article at all about Gaza or about rockets. So either the Huffington Post has not the slightest clue how to run an internet newspaper, or they decided to run irrelevant (and biased) headlines and pictures to the article.

If you'd like to ask them why they did that, email at info@huffingtonpost.com. See what they have to say.

"Merely Critical of Israel" Comment of the Day

The original link.

How Sharmine Narwani Reacts to a Bus Bombing

After thirty Israelis were wounded and maimed, and one killed, in a bombing on a civilian target in Jerusalem yesterday, Huffington Post blogger Sharmine "Dignity Rockets" Narwani poured out her grief for the suffering of Israeli civilians.

Ha ha! Just kidding! Of course she didn't!

(Sorry about the formatting)

But what was awesome about this is that immediately like fifteen Huffington Posters proceeded to tear her a new one. No doubt she will go running to the mods crying about how they are being so mean to her and request that none of them reply to her ever again. Here are some examples:

Update: Here are the rest of the examples of pro-Israel posters responding to her. Remember to click to zoom in:

Now click on the link to the comment above and contrast with the status of the thread right now. Most of the above screengrabbed comments are gone. Not "deleted," with the notification that comment was there but is no longer. Just...gone.

Why? Or rather...why is the offensive comment by Narwani allowed to remain while perfectly acceptable reactions to her hateful remarks stifled by the moderators? Wouldn't we all like to know.

How Huffington Posters React to a Bus Bombing

Remember, this is on a fully moderated thread, with more than 100 comments pending:

If the Huffington Post had been around during the Second Intifada, I'm sure we would have seen hundreds of comments like these.

The original link.

HP Countdown: Bus Bombing Edition

The Huffington Post has been following the latest exchange of fire with determined interest...for some reason. It is not 3:30 in the afternoon here in Israel, which makes it about 9:30 in the morning in America. Let us how long it takes (if ever) they cover this story:

"An explosion rocked a public bus on Wednesday afternoon outside the International Convention Center, just opposite the central station in Jerusalem.

At least 18 people were wounded in the incident, according to local media. The casualties were being evacuated to the Hadassah Hospital in Ein Karem."

For those of you playing morality by numbers, 18 people is also as many wounded as when Israel hit Gaza a few days ago, which the Huffington Post covered. But no doubt if they do cover it, the Huffington Posters will try to convince us that there is no evidence it was done by Palestinians, and maybe it was some disgruntled Belgians instead.

UPDATE: The HP covers this story within five minutes of this blog post going up, a very impressive feat.

SECOND UPDATE: The denial begins:

What if We Had Recognized Israel?

[H/T JCPA's Daily Alert]

What if Arabs had recognized the State of Israel in 1948?

By ABDULATEEF AL-MULHIM | ARAB NEWS

I HAVE been exposed to Palestinians since I was in first grade in Al-Hassa, Saudi Arabia They were my favorite teachers. They were the most dedicated and the most intelligent among all my instructors, from elementary to high school.

When I was attending New York-based SUNY Maritime college (1975-1979), I read a lot of books about Palestinians, Arabs and the Israelis. I have read every article about the many chances the Palestinians had and missed to solve their problem, especially the Camp David agreement between Egypt and Israel.

I have seen and read about the lives of the Palestinians in the US and other places. They are very successful in every field. And at the same time I saw the Arab countries at the bottom of the list in education and development. And I always ask the question: What if the Palestinians and the Arabs accepted the presence of Israel on May 14, 1948 and recognized its right to exist? Would the Arab world have been more stable, more democratic and more advanced?

If Israel was recognized in 1948, then the Palestinians would have been able to free themselves from the hollow promises of some Arab dictators who kept telling them that the refugees would be back in their homes and all Arab lands will be liberated and Israel will be sent to the bottom of the sea. Some Arab leaders used the Palestinians for their own agenda to suppress their own people and to stay in power.

Comments of the Day

Edited slightly for spacing:

I really would love to know how these people reach their conclusions. Because I'm pretty sure they aren't morons, and I don't think they are anti-Semites either. So maybe one of them can explain it to me.

The original link.

Conversation of the Day

I was reading an op ed on the Huffington Post about President Obama's legacy in regards to civilian deaths in Afghanistan. The article discussed the amount of civilians killed in the past two years (over 2,000) and what that means. Nothing to do with Israel, right? That's what I thought.

 

Sigh.

the original link.

More Airstrikes? More HuffPo Bias

I opened up the World section of the Huffington Post yesterday and what did I see?

Yep, that's right. The eeeevil Israeli are bombing Gaza again just because they like killing so darn much. Won't someone stop their warmongering ways!

But then you click on the article and you find:

"GAZA, March 21 (Reuters) - Israel launched air strikes in the Gaza Strip on Monday, wounding at least 19 people, after militants fired mortar shells and rockets into the Jewish state, witnesses and militant groups said."

What the article leaves out completely is that there were over 50 mortars and rockets fired, which made Monday's attack one of the heaviest in months. They also neglected to mention that two Israeli were wounded in this attack as well.

And, of course, the initial attacks by the Palestinian is not given a headline on the Huffington Post, while Israel's response is. More classic Huffington Post bias.

Opinions the HP Doesn't Publish: Anti-Semitism 2.0

I read an interesting article yesterday about "the new anti-Semitism" or "Anti-Semitism 2.0" as the article itself was called. The ideas presented in the article come from an unlikely source: a Jordanian Palestinian journalist named Mudar Zahran. In essence, Zahran talks about how global delegitimization and fixation on Israel is real and how that single-minded obsession hurts Israel, the Palestinians, and the world. Here's a sampling, but I recommend the whole thing:

The concept of the "evil Jew" has made a well-disguised comeback: Criticizing Israel and Zionis, is now deemed a legitimate option to cursing Jews and Judaism. Not only is it open, socially acceptable and legal, but it can actually bring prosperity and popularity. This new form of anti-Semitism 2.0 is well-covered-up, harder to trace and poses a much deeper danger to the modern way of life of the civilized world than the earlier crude form of it, as it slowly and gradually works on delegitimizing Jews to the point where it eventually becomes acceptable to target Jews, first verbally, then physically -- all done in a cosmopolitan style where the anti-Semites are well-groomed speakers and headline writers in jackets and ties; and not just Arab, but American and European, from "sanitized" news coverage of the most bloodthirsty radicals, to charges against Israel in which facts are distorted, selectively omitted or simply untrue, as in former President Jimmy Carter's book on Israel.
Why would a Palestinian be writing this? The answer is simple: The Palestinians have been used as fuel for the new form of anti-Semitism; this has hurt the Palestinians and exposed them to unprecedented and purposely media-ignored abuse by Arab governments, including some of those who claim love for the Palestinians, yet in fact only bear hatred to Jews. This has resulted in Palestinian cries for justice, equality, freedom and even basic human rights being ignored while the world getting consumed with delegitimizing Israel from either ignorance or malice.
Worse, just as the old form of anti-Semitism has proven itself a threat as poisonous to its supporters, as it was to the Jews, the new form of anti-Semitism 2.0 could prove itself the same -- all the more likely as we see the world tolerating Iran's nuclear ambitions not necessarily out of love for the Mullah's regime, but instead because of mental fixation against Israel.

"Media bias against Israel dies not harm only Israelis; it comes at very dear price to us, the Palestinians. In July of 2010, for example, a seasoned journalist Robert Fisk interviewed a group of right-wing ultra-conservative East Bank-Jordanians who were calling on King Abdullah of Jordan to strip the Palestinian majority of their citizenship and property. The group, mostly made up of retired Jordanian servicemen and journalists were also calling for ending the peace treaty with Israel and "establishing it as an enemy state." Despite my attempts to contact Mr. Fisk –-along with another Jordanian-Palestinian journalist---to warn him of the people he was going to meet, he nonetheless, published an article entitled, "Why Is Jordan Occupied by Palestinians?" -- Which was mainly a manifesto for those with whom he had met. They then publicized the article as a global media victory for themselves, and drove the Palestinians of Jordan into even deeper fear for their own safety in a country where they are already oppressed by security agencies; virtually barred from any government or local authority positions, excluded from state universities, despite paying "a university tax", as well as other taxes and tariffs --which their fellow Jordanians of Bedouins heritage are exempted from-- and regularly and openly insulted by the government-run Jordanian media calling for them to be expelled."

 Pretty interesting stuff.

[H/T Martin Kramer via Twitter]

Anti-Zionist Fail: Reading the Article Edition

It is a common tactic on the part of the anti-Zionists to strawman, i.e. reply to what they wish other posters had said instead of what they had actually said. Here is a perfect example from Alan Dershowitz's latest article, which is about Israel having the right to attack Iran's nuclear reactions now that they have intercepted a ship carrying weapons to Gaza:

So the first thing I wanted to point out is "KevinPA"'s second sentence, which is that Mr. Dershowitz blamed Iran for the killings in Itamar. Did he? Let's take a look at the only part in the article in which the Itamar killings were mentioned:

"Moreover, the recent killings in Itamar of a family including three children, demonstrate how weapons are used by Israel's enemies against civilians in violation of the laws of war. Even babies are targeted by those armed by Iran. Hamas praised the murders."

 So it sure didn't sound to me like Mr. Dershowitz was blaming Iran for these killings. The same people who committed the murders are likely armed by Iran, and they do target babies. But now I want you to go and look at the comments again. Notice how they each received at least ten favorites. Which means that at least ten people read the comments, thought "Wow, he did that? Yeah! That's really stupid," favorited it, and moved in. None of them even bothered to read the article very carefully otherwise they would have known that KevinPA was not correct. It's like some kind of crazy groupthink in which everyone believes what the other is saying without a second thought. I'm not just imagining this, it is right there in black and white.

How to Make an HPer Support the Iraq War

Remember a few years ago, before President Obama was in power, when the Iraq war was one of the most decisive issues on our national stage? Every liberal in the United States worth his or her salt opposed it, as well as the United Nations and numerous countries around the world. You can read all about the opposition to it here. According to that link, 54 countries condemned the invasion and argued that war required a United Nations mandate as one of the reasons for their condemnation. So what can one do to make an HPer argue the Iraq war wasn't a terrible idea? Simple, make it relate to Israel.

I was discussing United Nations bias against Israel with loyal blog reader Tony Andrews and we had an interesting conversation. I'll show you the beginning below, and you can read the rest at this link.

 

When Tony is confronted with the fact that Saddam's regime received a fraction on the UN condemnations Israel has received, he points out that Saddam's regime was deposed in a war. When I asked him if he therefore supported the war, since the war was caused by the UN resolutions and Saddam was in violation of UN resolutions, he dodged the question and argued that Bush used those UN resolutions as justification for the war.

So here's the contradiction at the heart of this issue: the HPers want to punish Israel for violating UN resolutions, and some of the more radical ones want military action to be used against Israel to enforce the resolutions. However, if you want military action to be used against Israel, you must also support the war in Iraq for the same reasons. But if you oppose the war in Iraq and argue it happened for other, less justified reasons such as oil or whatever, you cannot then make the case that Saddam's UN violations justified the war and therefore Israel's violations justify actions against Israel.

Note, also, that Tony did not address the fact that even before Saddam's regime was destroyed Israel received six times as many UN resolutions against it as Iraq did.

Sarah Palin Goes to Israel

However you feel about Sarah Palin, it is worth checking out her recent trip over here and meeting with Netanyahu. The Huffington Post gave her trip an article in their "World" section, and it has netted over 1,000 comments so far. The reaction of the Huffington Posters was more or less the same: Making fun of Sarah Palin:

It is nice on occasion to be reminded about exactly where the Huffington Posters stand, especially when it comes to Israel.

More News The HP Doesn't Cover: Japan Hospital Edition

Some news the Huffington Post doesn't cover:

"The field hospital Israel is establishing in Japan is the first to be set up by any nation offering outside assistance, Israel’s Ambassador to Japan Nissim Ben Shitrit said Monday, and the Japanese are extremely appreciative.

Ben Shitrit said the hospital was being established at Minamisanriko, a fishing city 290 miles north of Tokyo, that was utterly overwhelmed by the quake and tsunami and where some 10,000 people are dead or missing. A five-strong Israeli team “is setting up the surgery right now,” the ambassador said. “They are evaluating the needs today, so that a larger team can be dispatched.”

He confirmed Israel was also providing tons of aid assistance – including mattresses, blankets, coats, gloves and chemical toilets -- for some of the half-a-million people who are homeless, many of whom are now living in public facilities.

“I don’t know how or why it is that our field hospital is the first,” the ambassador said. “Maybe we moved faster. Maybe it’s because of our experience.”"

Though I am sure that if the HP did, the readership would respond with their usual cynicism and griping, lest a stray positive thought about Israel threaten to enter their minds.

[h/t JustmeFi via Twitter]

The Quotable Sharmine Narwani Video

In the wake of last week's very informative statements by Sharmine "Dignity Rockets" Narwani, I thought I would make a video detailing some of what she has to say. Feel free to spread it around:

News the HP Doesn't Cover: Another European Survey

A BBC study has been published recently in which Europeans surveyed talked about how they don't really like Israel that much. They like it more than North Korea and Libya, but obviously that's not saying very much. The anti-Zionists on the Huffington Post have enjoyed throwing this survey around as proof that Israel is as terrible as they have always said it is.

However, another survey has come out by a German think tank which agrees with the BBC's results, but expands upon them.

The European Jewish Congress (EJC) has called a poll conducted by a German think-tank on European attitudes towards Jews and Israel “deeply disturbing”. The Friedrich Ebert Foundation, a think-tank associated with Germany’s Social Democratic Party, found extremely worrying attitudes amongst a host of Europeans.

Perhaps the most remarkable finding in the survey was when asked to respond to the statement that “Israel is conducting a war of extermination against the Palestinians,” 63% of the study’s participants in Poland agreed with the statement, while in Germany 47.7% expressed agreement.
The study – “Intolerance, Prejudice, Discrimination: A European Report” – questioned roughly 1,000 people in Great Britain, Holland, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Hungary, Poland and France.

The researchers also asked respondents whether they agreed with the statement “Jews try to take advantage of having been victims during the Nazi era.” 72.2% of Poles, 49.8% of Germans and 68.1% of Hungarians replied in the affirmative.

 Only the most virulent anti-Zionists believe that Israel is exterminating Palestinians and there is little doubt that accusing Jews of milking their victim status after the Holocaust is anti-Semitic. Is it possible, therefore, that European dislike of Israel may stem from anti-Semitism which has been part of European culture at some level or another for centuries? This survey seems to indicate that.

Americans Who Love Jews

Rabbi Justus N. Baird wrote an article about how much Americans love Jews. The article itself is interesting in its own respect: Rabbi Baird talks about how Jews have been "trained" to think that people hate them and so he wonders what will happen when they find out that they don't, which in turns is not to say that some people don't hate them...anyway, what we're interested in is the comments, once again.

First off, there were those who tried to conflate Jews and Israel, only this time they weren't "Zionists:"
And then there were those who did the usual playing of the victim/conspiracy theories that we usually see solely on Israel threads:

Very informative, isn't it?

Brent Sasley's Attempt at Moral Equivalence

I have always found Huffington Post blogger Brent Sasley to be a pretty balanced guy. He's written articles about how the occupation of the West Bank should end, but not unilaterally, among other things. And his latest article is balanced too, except that this time I think he tries too hard for balance.

He begins by speaking out against the Itamar Massacre, but then I think what he has to say next is very interesting:

"But the event also represents a descent into madness and inhumanity in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that, at least for me, underscores inevitable and deep pessimism about the peace process. The conflict is shot through with immorality by this point."

Okay, so a Palestinian brutally murders almost an entire Israeli family, and Mr. Sasley says that this shows the conflict to be "shot through with immorality." No doubt he thinks he is being balanced, but really what he is saying here is that there is no moral difference between those who butcher families and those who build homes for Jews or throw rocks. It is very, very common for outside observers of these two sides to demonstrate how even handed they are by "condemning violence on both sides." But in the past few days, there is nothing to compare.

Mr. Sasley continues in his article by attempting to contrast Israel's building of settlements and "price tagging" by the settlers as somehow equivalent to the Palestinian attempts to blame the victims and/or "the occupation" for the murder of the Fogel family. Obviously, the actions of the settlers are bad, but as I feel I often need to remind people, no one is ever killed in these "price tag" operations. There is no comparison in this situation, or ever. And I don't think Mr. Sasley is being entirely fair when he tries to convince us that there is "enough to blame on both sides." Here is how he concludes:

"Our humanity shines through when we restrain what might be our natural reactions (dependent on our position on the ideological-political spectrum) and instead acknowledge the pain and torment on an individual level. If we can't do that, what possible hope is there for any broader resolution of the conflict?"

Let us see if he will write something similar should there be another scrap which results in Palestinian civilian casualties.

MJ Rosenberg Tries to Pull A Fast One

In the thread of his latest article, MJ Rosenberg has published a comment. Read it quickly and see what your reaction is:

He contrasts a recent terrorist attack with what sounds like another "horrific slaughter" and demands to know why every other pro-Israel person except for him hasn't spoken about it. I don't know about you, but my reaction was "What? There has been more fighting in Gaza? Let me find out more information."

It turns out that his link is to an op-ed by Gideon Levy published more than two years ago. And the subject is none other than Cast Lead, which was discussed a million times when it actually happened and pretty much ever since.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems pretty dishonest for Mr. Rosenberg to try and contrast something that happened so long ago with another event that happened last week. His overall point might be reasonable, but in execution he comes off sounding like a scam artist who was hoping no one would read his link.

Who Do They Dislike More?

If you haven't already heard this, I'm going to inform you. Sarah Palin is going to visit Israel. And no, I will not be trying to see her while she's here. What I'm really interested in, though, was that the Huffington Post covered the story in its "Politics" section, and so I got to wondering: Who do they Huffington Posters dislike more, Israel or Sarah Palin?

Turns out it's Sarah Palin:

The thread is still pretty new, there are less than one hundred comments. Still, I thought it was kind of funny.