[H/T Elder of Ziyon]
"You say you support the Palestinians?"
"Yes."
"Which Palestinians?"
"What do you mean 'which Palestinians'? I support all Palestinians. Their oppression by Israel is the great injustice of our time. Western hypocrites ignore racism, and use false accusations of antisemitism to stop legitimate criticism. The Zionist-controlled media label resistance 'terrorism', while ignoring the state terrorism of Israel which is the root cause of all the violence in the Middle-"
"All right, stop there. You still have to choose. Do you support the Fatah leadership in the West Bank, which may be corrupt and unpleasant but is at least presiding over an economic boom and allowing some freedoms, or Hamas, which tortures its enemies and tramples on the rights of women."
"Hamas won Gaza in free elections. Palestinians must unite against the colonial enemy and the Israel Lobby in the West."
"But they cannot unite. Religious reactionaries from the extreme right - and 'the extreme right' is the correct term, by the way - who are building an Islamic emirate in Gaza and want a caliphate to cover the whole world, do not mix with democratic politicians, however imperfect they may be. You saw what happened in Gaza. The Islamists won one election, cancelled all future elections, and threw their opponents from high-rise blocks. If David Cameron threw Ed Miliband off the Post Office Tower, would you still say that he was worthy of support?"
"It is not for us to intervene in Palestinian affairs. Hamas is an issue the Palestinians must resolve themselves."
"Listen to yourself. 'It's not for us to intervene?' You and your friends intervene all the time. You close down Jewish shops, oblivious to the ghosts of Kristallnacht that thuggish policy raises from the grave. You lobby to stop Israeli academics visiting our universities, and don't worry that the last movement to ban Jewish intellectuals was-"
"I knew it, I knew it! I knew you would accuse me of antisemitism. Your kind always does. It's a dirty trick to silence legitimate debate."
"I agree it can be sometimes. But when you will not condemn Islamist movements that lift Jewish conspiracy theories direct from the screeds of European fascism, I am entitled to suspect that you suffer from a severe case of Judeophobia at the very least. Your repeated references to the 'Israel Lobby' and 'Zionist-controlled media' don't reassure me on that score either."
"I am a left-winger, how dare you accuse me of racism? I have fought racism all my life, and don't ignore the Islamophobic racism of Israel and her friends, as you do. If there are antisemitic elements in the Islamist movement, they are a rational response to Western oppression. You would hate Jews if Israelis were doing this to you."
"Dear God, where to begin with that. Do you really believe there's no racism on the left, and that extremism can be rationally explained? In any case, it's not just antisemitism you excuse, is it? You have abandoned internationalism, secularism and, most disgracefully, the struggle for the emancipation of women. Your friends in Gaza have even banned women from sucking on hookah pipes - and, let me tell you, I don't need to have a psychiatry degree to understand the male sexual hysteria that lies behind that telling prohibition. Here's a test. The Palestinian Authority is about to declare the territories an independent state. The Israelis hate the idea, what do you think?"
"I worry that a two-state solution will not be full and just. The expelled refugees must have a right of return."
"That is a recipe for war without end. Israelis will never allow millions of Palestinians to swamp their state. Your trouble is that you are a voyeur. The violence of bearded reactionaries with a Koran in one hand and a Kalashnikov in the other excites you. You prefer their thrilling intransigence to the arguments of boring men in suits in Ramallah, who are willing to compromise for a better life. You need the burning corpses of Palestinians and Jews to bring light to your empty life."
"And your trouble is you are a sly apologist for imperialism. You never condemn Israeli atrocities, but use nit-picking points of detail and clever rhetorical tricks to distract attention from crimes against humanity. You are a neo-con and a zio-Nazi, and I am never going to speak to you again."
"Don't worry, there are millions more like you out there, and I'll be having this conversation for the rest of my life. Send in the next one on your way out."
Friday, April 29, 2011
Dialogue with a Western Leftist (CrossPost)
Nick Cohen writes this conversation, and while it's not as great as it could be, I thought it was still worth reading, because it pertains very closely to what we do here.
Holocaust Cynicism Comment of the Day
I'm including the surrounding comments just so you get the idea of how out of line this comment really is:
The original link.
The original link.
Further Thoughts on Iron Dome
Professor Uzi Rubin visited the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs yesterday, and we interviewed him, so a video will probably be coming in the next couple of weeks. If you don't know who Professor Rubin is, he was one of the technicians who developed Iron Dome.
We talked with him for quite a while, and further details will be provided in the aforementioned video, but one of the questions that we asked him was "what is the cost per kill of the Iron Dome system?" Obviously, in some ways this question has a lot riding on it, since a common criticism of the Iron Dome is that it is too expensive for what it does and prolonged use of it will eventually bankrupt the country. In Professor Rubin's answer, I learned quite a bit.
First of all, we don't exactly know how much it costs because people who you ask often give you different answers. This is because the company who develops it is going to try and sell it to other countries, and might want to inflate the price. But the answer that we usually hear is around $100,000 per "kill." Now this sounds like a lot, but contrast that with other anti-missile defense systems used by the USA such as the Patriot and Arrow. Those two often run in over a million dollars per "kill," so relatively speaking Iron Dome is much cheaper.
The second part of the answer to this question relates to a cost-benefit analysis. On the one hand it appears that Israel is losing money: Hamas fires a hundred dollar rocket, Israel fires a hundred thousand dollar missile, it's Israel that has lost in that exchange. But think of it in another way: Imagine Hamas fires a five dollar rocket that hits the Ashkelon power plant and does a hundred million dollars worth of damage. Suddenly a hundred thousand dollar Iron Dome missile sounds like a much better investment, especially since one can't put a price on human life or the IDF's operational efficiency.
The problem remains, of course, that Iron Dome might still be too expensive to be effective over the long run. And for the answer to that question you'll probably have to go to someone who is more knowledgeable than I am. But consider also that there may be psychological effects that we aren't considering: Israel's citizens and military will feel safer while on the other hand Hamas won't feel like their attacks are being effective. That certainly gives Israel an advantage.
We talked with him for quite a while, and further details will be provided in the aforementioned video, but one of the questions that we asked him was "what is the cost per kill of the Iron Dome system?" Obviously, in some ways this question has a lot riding on it, since a common criticism of the Iron Dome is that it is too expensive for what it does and prolonged use of it will eventually bankrupt the country. In Professor Rubin's answer, I learned quite a bit.
First of all, we don't exactly know how much it costs because people who you ask often give you different answers. This is because the company who develops it is going to try and sell it to other countries, and might want to inflate the price. But the answer that we usually hear is around $100,000 per "kill." Now this sounds like a lot, but contrast that with other anti-missile defense systems used by the USA such as the Patriot and Arrow. Those two often run in over a million dollars per "kill," so relatively speaking Iron Dome is much cheaper.
The second part of the answer to this question relates to a cost-benefit analysis. On the one hand it appears that Israel is losing money: Hamas fires a hundred dollar rocket, Israel fires a hundred thousand dollar missile, it's Israel that has lost in that exchange. But think of it in another way: Imagine Hamas fires a five dollar rocket that hits the Ashkelon power plant and does a hundred million dollars worth of damage. Suddenly a hundred thousand dollar Iron Dome missile sounds like a much better investment, especially since one can't put a price on human life or the IDF's operational efficiency.
The problem remains, of course, that Iron Dome might still be too expensive to be effective over the long run. And for the answer to that question you'll probably have to go to someone who is more knowledgeable than I am. But consider also that there may be psychological effects that we aren't considering: Israel's citizens and military will feel safer while on the other hand Hamas won't feel like their attacks are being effective. That certainly gives Israel an advantage.
New Article on the Protocols
[The JCPA has published an interesting article on the use of the "Protocols" and other anti-Jewish conspiracy theories both in the Arab world and through history. Thought I'd crosspost it.]
The Jewish Conspiracy: A Strategic Weapon
to Demonize Jews and Delegitimize Israel
to Demonize Jews and Delegitimize Israel
Judge Hadassa Ben Itto
- We democratic countries see the masses gathered in the public square and are very sympathetic to the outcry against dictatorships and to the fight for freedom. But I am concerned with the masses in the streets and with the outcome of a brainwashing process that has been going on for such a long time. Lies have been spread around the world as a strategic weapon.
- In Cairo's Tahrir Square there were placards of Mubarak with a Star of David on his face. Lara Logan, an American journalist, was sexually molested in the middle of the square and was called a Jew, although she is not Jewish. She does not have to be Jewish. The word "Jew" has become an accepted insult in the public square.
- The Protocols of the Elders of Zion - a proven lie and forgery - is being published around the world, with new editions in Arabic almost every year, and in Persian and Turkish. The Protocols was fabricated in France in the last decade of the nineteenth century, most of the text actually plagiarized from a French book published in 1865 by an opponent of Napoleon the Third.
- In a pearl of literature written by a French lawyer, Maurice Joly, as an allegory, Machiavelli explains to Montesquieu what tools can be effectively used to take over, to dominate his country and the world. This is a detailed plan that describes in 25 dialogues, step by step, how to take over the police force, how to take over the legal system, how to plant bombs - meant to awaken the French people to what was happening in their country. Some 60 to 65 percent of The Protocols are verbatim passages from this book. Chapters were added later to make it the Jewish plan to dominate the world.
- The Protocols is not just a libel; it is a political document describing a Jewish criminal conspiracy. The Protocols was first used by the Russian czars and then by the communists. Later, it became a central theme in Nazi propaganda, and then it was handed to the Muslim world.
- There is no Jewish conspiracy to dominate the world but there is an anti-Jewish conspiracy. It starts with the Jews but it does not end with the Jews. The first airplane that was hijacked was an Israeli airplane, and now we line up in every airport for security checks, so the world should be concerned. The danger of contaminating the public discourse with lies is a danger to the whole world.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Today's Blatant HuffPo Spin
In the wake of the Hamas-Fatah reconciliation deal, the Huffington Post spin machine is whirring like crazy. As usual, this time it takes the form of picking and choosing which bits of news to cover. Let's begin with the first one, a news story that went up just now:
Oh those terrible Israelis! As usual they won't respect the wishes of the Palestinian people and of course take steps to insure that there won't be peace! Why on earth would they possible be so intransigent?
The answer, not unsurprisingly, lies outside of the Huffington Post:
And of course America was a little nervous about the new deal as well. But don't expect that to make it onto the HuffPo, though. They don't have room for any story except this one, not when there is important news like Caribbean beaches named after Princess Diana.
The answer, not unsurprisingly, lies outside of the Huffington Post:
Hypocritical Comment of the Day
Doesn't need any context:
But when Israel removes Bedouin tents from land that the Bedouins don't own or have paid for, that is "racist ethnic cleansing". Got hypocrisy?
The original link.
But when Israel removes Bedouin tents from land that the Bedouins don't own or have paid for, that is "racist ethnic cleansing". Got hypocrisy?
The original link.
"Tax Dollars" Hypocrisy in Action
Here is a perfect example of the "my tax dollars" argument in action, and how badly it fails. Let's take the first post:
Okay, so he cares about the Palestinians and is outraged at the "lack of concern" by others!
Now let's take a look at the second post in the same thread:
Wow. Changed his tune awfully fast didn't he? That's the problem with this "my tax dollars" argument: It clearly shows your audience that your devotion to morality and human rights only goes as far as your wallet. Isn't that upstanding?
Now let's take a look at the second post in the same thread:
Strawman of the Day
You can check out the link for context, but the post to which this guy is responding did not say that at all (though it was something pretty offensive):
Hm. Sounds like someone's got an issue with Jews. Though if you follow the link he tries to make the claim that no no, he's just talking about "Zionist perceptions" of Jews. Whatever.
Hm. Sounds like someone's got an issue with Jews. Though if you follow the link he tries to make the claim that no no, he's just talking about "Zionist perceptions" of Jews. Whatever.
Today's HuffPo Informative Picture Choice
As Matt has mentioned, the Huffington Post has covered a new story about a new flotilla being planned (there's no guarantee it will still happen). I thought their choice of picture was informative, though:
So on the one hand the headline is also misleading, the activists aren't Palestinians they are Turks and others. They are pro-Palestinian (not really). The Associated Press headline makes that clear, while spinning a little bit themselves:
"Pro-Palestinian activists say a planned convoy of aid ships to the Gaza Strip will be twice as big as a similar flotilla that was raided a year ago by Israeli forces, leaving nine people dead on a Turkish boat."Might have left out some key information there. But anyway I wanted to talk about the picture. I went and looked it up on Getty Images so it is in fact two Israeli Jews looking at the Mavi Marmara while it is in port at Ashdod. But I'm not sure why the Huffington Post felt it was necessary to include a picture of stereotypical Jews in an article that only tangentially had to do with the ultra-Orthodox. And this is not the first time they have done something like this. One would think that they would stick with general pictures of boats, like they have in the past. But I guess this time they felt it was necessary to remind their readers that Jews are involved.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
What Did You Learn Online Today? Video
And now, the Huffington Post Monitors proudly present, What Did You Learn Online Today?, based on "What Did You Learn In School Today?" by Tom Paxton. Music by Tom Paxton, lyrics by me and Zach, and vocals by my beautiful and talented girlfriend. I know we don't usually ask you the readers to crosspost, but we encourage you to share this video around, as I at least think it's pretty good.
Hilarious Comment of the Day
The Huffington Post covered the non-news story of a new flotilla to Gaza being put together. Naturally, all the HPers thought this was the greatest thing since sliced bread, and they didn't react too well to contradictions of their own narratives. Here's an example:
Oh my God, can you believe it? The poor suffering Gazans have to share the surfboards! Oh the humanity, can you close your eyes to their incredible pain?
That's the problem with being a Palsbarist. Palestinians make themselves out to be the number one sufferers on the planet, no one is suffering more than them. But when reality doesn't line up with that myth, as it does in this post, you see Palsbarists make ridiculous statements like that one.
the original link.
Oh my God, can you believe it? The poor suffering Gazans have to share the surfboards! Oh the humanity, can you close your eyes to their incredible pain?
That's the problem with being a Palsbarist. Palestinians make themselves out to be the number one sufferers on the planet, no one is suffering more than them. But when reality doesn't line up with that myth, as it does in this post, you see Palsbarists make ridiculous statements like that one.
the original link.
BDS Fail News of the Week: More Concerts in Israel
Tourist Israel has posted the following news about upcoming concerts in Tel Aviv:
I feel like for every artist that refuses to come to Israel there are at least seven or eight who do come and don't make a big deal out of it.
"This summer’s Pic.nic music festival taking place at the Tel Aviv Fairgrounds outdoor venue has some big name performers lined up to entertain the crowds. The festival is taking place throughout the summer and already has confirmed international superstars Moby and Jane’s Addiction who will perform.Duran Duran is also planning to come.
Moby will be coming to Israel to perform at the festival on July 12th 2011. After lying low for a while, Moby’s on the comeback trail with a new album Destroyed.
Jane’s Addiction, one of the most revered alternative rock bands of the ‘80s and ‘90s are also on the comeback trail and are expected in Tel Aviv on September 1st 2011.
The promoter of the Pic.nic festival is promising some more international acts so expect further announcements on more big names."
I feel like for every artist that refuses to come to Israel there are at least seven or eight who do come and don't make a big deal out of it.
AZ Hypocrisy: What's a Blockade?
In line with our discussion about definitions, I would like to submit that a lot of people on the Huffington Post (on both sides of this argument) don't really know what a blockade is. Dictionary.com defines a "blockade" as:
This is probably true, historically blockades have stopped everything from coming into to the country. When Germany and Britain blockaded each other during the Second World War, they stopped every ship from trying to land no matter what it's carrying.
But the problem is: Even the most hardcore Palestinian supporters have to admit, when confronted with the facts, that Gaza is not completely closed off. Goods come into Gaza pretty much every day. So then how, by the above definition, is Gaza "blockaded?" Perhaps it is something else, but it does not fit that narrow definition of a "blockade." Of course, in the end both sides will continue to use the term "blockade" to describe Israel and Egypt's enclosure of Gaza, even if it doesn't fit the term precisely, simply because it is close enough and (for the anti-Israel crowd) the propaganda value is too good to pass up, even if the facts don't always quite get where you want them to go.
"the isolating, closing off, or surrounding of a place, as a port, harbor, or city, by hostile ships or troops to prevent entrance or exit."This works, I suppose, to describe Gaza, but now let's ask a local anti-Zionist what he thinks:
But the problem is: Even the most hardcore Palestinian supporters have to admit, when confronted with the facts, that Gaza is not completely closed off. Goods come into Gaza pretty much every day. So then how, by the above definition, is Gaza "blockaded?" Perhaps it is something else, but it does not fit that narrow definition of a "blockade." Of course, in the end both sides will continue to use the term "blockade" to describe Israel and Egypt's enclosure of Gaza, even if it doesn't fit the term precisely, simply because it is close enough and (for the anti-Israel crowd) the propaganda value is too good to pass up, even if the facts don't always quite get where you want them to go.
Today's HuffPo Headline Fail
Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to present to you what might possibly be the most nonsensical Huffington Post headline I have ever read:
What? Ilan Hamili, a teen who was convicted of murder, is in a romantic relationship with the prison warden? How scandalous!
Oh wait, that's not really what happened. This girl who helped a "gang of barbarians" murder Ilan Hamili has ended up in a romantic relationship with the warden of the prison in which she is serving time. Apparently the Huffington Post decided this was newsworthy, but okay. Now the headline is pretty similar to this, but still different enough to completely misrepresent what the story is about.
I am not even going to comment on the picture, except that once again it really doesn't have anything to do with the story except that the story involves Jews.
Update: In the past few hours since I wrote this post, the headline has been changed.
Oh wait, that's not really what happened. This girl who helped a "gang of barbarians" murder Ilan Hamili has ended up in a romantic relationship with the warden of the prison in which she is serving time. Apparently the Huffington Post decided this was newsworthy, but okay. Now the headline is pretty similar to this, but still different enough to completely misrepresent what the story is about.
I am not even going to comment on the picture, except that once again it really doesn't have anything to do with the story except that the story involves Jews.
Update: In the past few hours since I wrote this post, the headline has been changed.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Perspective Comment of the Day
While Israelis are being shot and killed in the West Bank, the Huffington Post is keeping close tabs on Iran's nuclear program having computer trouble. Their second article about another cybervirus infecting Iran's program got some comments, including this well balanced one.
Remember, everyone, Palestinians shooting rockets at schoolchildren and killing one isn't terrorism, but Israel sending a computer virus to corrupt Iran's nuclear weapons program is. Got it?
The original link.
Remember, everyone, Palestinians shooting rockets at schoolchildren and killing one isn't terrorism, but Israel sending a computer virus to corrupt Iran's nuclear weapons program is. Got it?
The original link.
News the HP Doesn't Cover: Abbas Blasts Obama
In just another example of Palestinian lack of respect for the United States, PA President Abbas has lashed out at US President Obama. YnetNews reports,
Harsh criticism: Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas says Barack Obama led him on, slamming the American president's handling of the peace process in unusually blunt remarks.
Talking to Newsweek, the Palestinian leader said that President Obama was the one to suggest a full Israeli settlement freeze in the West BAnk, but later failed to pressure officials in Jerusalem to maintain the construction moratorium.
"It was Obama who suggested a full settlement freeze,” Abbas was quoted as saying. “I said ok, I accept. We both went up the tree. After that, he came down with a ladder and he removed the ladder and said to me, jump. Three times he did it.” In other comments referring to faltering peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, Abbas slammed US Special Envoy George Mitchell's mediation efforts and said he failed to convey Palestinian ideas to Israel. “Every visit by Mitchell, we talked to him and gave him some ideas. At the end we discovered that he didn’t convey any of these ideas to the Israelis. What does it mean?” Abbas said.As usual, the delay of the peace process is the fault of Israel or the United States. Definitely not the Palestinians.
The Palestinian leader also had unkind words for the US Administration's handling of the Egypt crisis and its attitude towards ousted Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. Abbas told Newsweek Obama's tough approach vis-Ã -vis Mubarak was "impolite" and unwise.
Book Review: The Accidental Empire
I just finished reading The Accidental Empire: The Untold Story of Israel's Settlements. It can also be published under the title of Occupied Territories, with the same subtitle. Anyway, I suggest that whatever your views are on this conflict, you should probably check out this book because it is not partisan and it is clear that is goal is to inform first.
And inform it does. Though I did know the general background of how the settlements began (in short: The settlers wanted them, the government didn't see any reason not to have them since the Arabs wouldn't make peace, etc). But this book really covers in depth the political machinations that revolved around the period from 1967 to 1977. Although I don't have time to talk about everything that I learned, I'll start with the difference between what were known as "Labor settlements" versus "religious settlements."
Although in 2011 we have the stereotype of the settler as either a religious fanatic who wants to conquer the West Bank in the name of his god or the pragmatic secularist who wants a cheap house, the first governments to set up the settlements were Labor (liberal) governments who knew that the 1967 lines were not sustainable and that there were certain places that they wanted to place people so as to "create facts" and to make Israel easier to defend. The most prominent example of these are in the Golan Heights, where Israel's government believed that having a buffer would be important, but it is harder to get people to go there because it does not have that same religious and historical draw of the rest.
The religious settlements, on the other hand, were completely absent for the first ten years of Israel's occupation, with the exception of Hebron. It was only after the Yom Kippur War that Likud was able to win an election (due to multiple reasons) and by that point the religious settlers had been able to consolidate their power to the point where they formed the strong lobby with which we are familiar today.
But of course it was not just the settlers that influenced the rate at which the settlements were built. Internal Israeli politics made a big difference, such as governments who felt that they could use the settlements as a political tool (much like today). But there were also factors from outside of the region: The UN resolution that declared Zionism to be racism motivated the Israelis to build settlements in a big way, since it confirmed to the right-wingers that the world was indeed against them, and told the rest that they would never have a fair shake in the UN so why bother listening. The Yom Kippur War, as mentioned, shifted Israel's perceptions against the settlements while at the same time motivated the settlers to build fast before they lost what they had. Naturally, this split the country down the middle, and has ramifications into the present.
I could probably go on but in short if you are seeking more information about this really controversial topic beyond talking points, I suggest you check out this book. Your views on the settlements probably won't change, but you'll definitely learn more about them.
And inform it does. Though I did know the general background of how the settlements began (in short: The settlers wanted them, the government didn't see any reason not to have them since the Arabs wouldn't make peace, etc). But this book really covers in depth the political machinations that revolved around the period from 1967 to 1977. Although I don't have time to talk about everything that I learned, I'll start with the difference between what were known as "Labor settlements" versus "religious settlements."
Although in 2011 we have the stereotype of the settler as either a religious fanatic who wants to conquer the West Bank in the name of his god or the pragmatic secularist who wants a cheap house, the first governments to set up the settlements were Labor (liberal) governments who knew that the 1967 lines were not sustainable and that there were certain places that they wanted to place people so as to "create facts" and to make Israel easier to defend. The most prominent example of these are in the Golan Heights, where Israel's government believed that having a buffer would be important, but it is harder to get people to go there because it does not have that same religious and historical draw of the rest.
The religious settlements, on the other hand, were completely absent for the first ten years of Israel's occupation, with the exception of Hebron. It was only after the Yom Kippur War that Likud was able to win an election (due to multiple reasons) and by that point the religious settlers had been able to consolidate their power to the point where they formed the strong lobby with which we are familiar today.
But of course it was not just the settlers that influenced the rate at which the settlements were built. Internal Israeli politics made a big difference, such as governments who felt that they could use the settlements as a political tool (much like today). But there were also factors from outside of the region: The UN resolution that declared Zionism to be racism motivated the Israelis to build settlements in a big way, since it confirmed to the right-wingers that the world was indeed against them, and told the rest that they would never have a fair shake in the UN so why bother listening. The Yom Kippur War, as mentioned, shifted Israel's perceptions against the settlements while at the same time motivated the settlers to build fast before they lost what they had. Naturally, this split the country down the middle, and has ramifications into the present.
I could probably go on but in short if you are seeking more information about this really controversial topic beyond talking points, I suggest you check out this book. Your views on the settlements probably won't change, but you'll definitely learn more about them.
News The HP Doesn't Cover: Egypt Wants War
Remember when the Egyptian uprisings were still going on, and all the anti-Israel posters were screaming at Israel for being nervous that it might lead to war? Well, do you think the Huffington Post will bother to show them this bit of news:
More than half of all Egyptians would like to see the 1979 peace treaty with Israel annulled, according to a poll conducted by the US-based Pew Research Center.
The results of the poll, released on Monday, highlight the deep unpopularity of the three-decade-old treaty, which is central to US policy in the region and was scrupulously adhered to by former President Hosni Mubarak, until his Feb. 11 ouster.No doubt, though, the Huffington Posters will tell us that this still doesn't mean Egypt wants war, and will continue to stick to their beliefs until the hour the planes start flying.
The poll also revealed that most Egyptians are optimistic about where the country is headed following the 18-day popular uprising that brought down the president, and they look forward to greater democracy in their country.
New On the HP: Bottom-Up Peace
[Dr Peter Coleman wrote an interesting and balanced article on the Huffington Post a few days ago. Check it out:]
Co-authored by Morton Deutsch
The protracted Israeli-Palestinian conflict has again reached a stalemate and negotiations between the parties have broken off. However, we believe it is urgent that the United States and the others in the Quartet (The UN, the EU and Russia) take steps to initiate a renewed movement for peace. It is urgent because the Egyptian revolution is likely to harden positions on both sides of the conflict making it unlikely that negotiations will resume unless there is an important, dramatic change. With the deadlock, we believe that the Palestinians will suffer even more than they have under Israeli occupation and the Israelis will be exposed to increasing danger from long-range missiles able to hit large population centers in Israel.
Our proposal is:
1. The United States, preferably with the other members of the Quartet, present the Geneva Accord, which was unofficially negotiated by a team of highly respected Israelis and Palestinians, as the final agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians. However the Accord must be ratified by referendum by each of the two populations. It presents a comprehensive solution to most issues (including security, border crossings, the Implementation and Verification Group (IVG), roads, water management, environmental concerns, the economy, and the division of Jerusalem) vital to ensuring the end of the conflict and the realization of the national visions of both parties.
2. Prior to the referendum, the United Nations would take responsibility to see that the details of the agreement be widely and accurately publicized through media accessible to both populations. These information sessions should begin within communities facilitating shared understanding of the current issues and the Accord. This would help buffer against the intentional use of misinformation in fostering political divisions. The UN could look to groups like the Public Conversations Project and the National Issues Forum as well as local Israeli-Palestinian dialogue groups for guidance here. In addition, a comprehensive understanding of the Accord would need to be made accessible to others as well, including other Arab-speaking countries in the region and the large Diasporas around the globe.
3. An agreement is only the start of a peace process. To help its further development as well as to incentivize the agreement, we propose that the Quartet offer a contemporary version of the Marshall Plan that would involve Israel and Palestine as well as other Arab countries (such as Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Tunisia) in a large scale economic redevelopment initiative aimed at a cooperative reconstruction of basic infrastructure, education, healthcare, housing and business and industry across the region. These activities should involve members of both communities in joint-projects aimed at improving the day-to-day existence of the general populations.
This proposal is based upon the recognition that the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority have, after many attempts, been unable to come to a final agreement. Their continued hostility is not only dangerous for both communities, but it also poses a serious threat to many other nations including the United States. The two parties are deadlocked and stalemated largely because of extremists on both sides. We believe that the general populations of Israel and the Palestinian territories would both support the Geneva Accord, or some modification of it. This would by-pass the stalemated official negotiations and place an agreement in the hands of the most important parties: the citizens on both sides.
The time to act in NOW. The recent events in Egypt, Tunisia, and elsewhere in the region present both potential danger and potential opportunity for a radical shift in the conflict dynamics in Israel-Palestine. We believe that implementation of this proposal provides the best chance for a permanent productive Israel-Palestine peace and for the democratic transformation of many of the nations in the Middle East
Morton Deutsch, PhD is E. L. Thorndike Professor Emeritus at Teachers College, Columbia University, founding director of the International Center for Cooperation and Conflict Resolution, author of The Resolution of Conflict: Constructive and Destructive Processes and co-editor of The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice.
Peter T. Coleman, PhD is on faculty at both Teachers College and the Earth Institute at Columbia University, Director of the International Center for Cooperation and Conflict Resolution, co-editor of The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice and author of the forthcoming book: The Five Percent: Finding Solutions to Seemingly Impossible Conflicts.
Co-authored by Morton Deutsch
The protracted Israeli-Palestinian conflict has again reached a stalemate and negotiations between the parties have broken off. However, we believe it is urgent that the United States and the others in the Quartet (The UN, the EU and Russia) take steps to initiate a renewed movement for peace. It is urgent because the Egyptian revolution is likely to harden positions on both sides of the conflict making it unlikely that negotiations will resume unless there is an important, dramatic change. With the deadlock, we believe that the Palestinians will suffer even more than they have under Israeli occupation and the Israelis will be exposed to increasing danger from long-range missiles able to hit large population centers in Israel.
Our proposal is:
1. The United States, preferably with the other members of the Quartet, present the Geneva Accord, which was unofficially negotiated by a team of highly respected Israelis and Palestinians, as the final agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians. However the Accord must be ratified by referendum by each of the two populations. It presents a comprehensive solution to most issues (including security, border crossings, the Implementation and Verification Group (IVG), roads, water management, environmental concerns, the economy, and the division of Jerusalem) vital to ensuring the end of the conflict and the realization of the national visions of both parties.
2. Prior to the referendum, the United Nations would take responsibility to see that the details of the agreement be widely and accurately publicized through media accessible to both populations. These information sessions should begin within communities facilitating shared understanding of the current issues and the Accord. This would help buffer against the intentional use of misinformation in fostering political divisions. The UN could look to groups like the Public Conversations Project and the National Issues Forum as well as local Israeli-Palestinian dialogue groups for guidance here. In addition, a comprehensive understanding of the Accord would need to be made accessible to others as well, including other Arab-speaking countries in the region and the large Diasporas around the globe.
3. An agreement is only the start of a peace process. To help its further development as well as to incentivize the agreement, we propose that the Quartet offer a contemporary version of the Marshall Plan that would involve Israel and Palestine as well as other Arab countries (such as Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Tunisia) in a large scale economic redevelopment initiative aimed at a cooperative reconstruction of basic infrastructure, education, healthcare, housing and business and industry across the region. These activities should involve members of both communities in joint-projects aimed at improving the day-to-day existence of the general populations.
This proposal is based upon the recognition that the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority have, after many attempts, been unable to come to a final agreement. Their continued hostility is not only dangerous for both communities, but it also poses a serious threat to many other nations including the United States. The two parties are deadlocked and stalemated largely because of extremists on both sides. We believe that the general populations of Israel and the Palestinian territories would both support the Geneva Accord, or some modification of it. This would by-pass the stalemated official negotiations and place an agreement in the hands of the most important parties: the citizens on both sides.
The time to act in NOW. The recent events in Egypt, Tunisia, and elsewhere in the region present both potential danger and potential opportunity for a radical shift in the conflict dynamics in Israel-Palestine. We believe that implementation of this proposal provides the best chance for a permanent productive Israel-Palestine peace and for the democratic transformation of many of the nations in the Middle East
Morton Deutsch, PhD is E. L. Thorndike Professor Emeritus at Teachers College, Columbia University, founding director of the International Center for Cooperation and Conflict Resolution, author of The Resolution of Conflict: Constructive and Destructive Processes and co-editor of The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice.
Peter T. Coleman, PhD is on faculty at both Teachers College and the Earth Institute at Columbia University, Director of the International Center for Cooperation and Conflict Resolution, co-editor of The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice and author of the forthcoming book: The Five Percent: Finding Solutions to Seemingly Impossible Conflicts.
Monday, April 25, 2011
Sharmine Narwani Insults User, Admits Her Biases
Sharmine "Dignity Rockets" Narwani has posed a new article about Shi'ites in the Middle East, including crackdowns upon them in places such as Bahrain. The article has some...interesting analogies about the Shi'ites but in short she is complaining about what she calls "the anti-Shia narrative." Of course, this most prominently includes not the Shi'ite people, but Iran and Hezbollah. We are less interested in the substance of this article but in the talkback thread, where there were two interesting comments made. Here is the first, when a talkbacker calls her out:
I am willing to cut her a bit of slack since this user did start the name calling, but bad behavior by one person does not justify bad behavior by another. Especially when the second is a Huffington Post blogger and moderator. Still, I'm kind of surprised that his comment was deleted.
Now here is the second. Check out the link if the context is confusing:
Notice the comment there in the last paragraph: "My only real constant is anti-zionism. Nothing positive I can see in that colonial experiment gone bad." Of course, in this there is much meaning. She is not constantly pro-human rights, pro-democracy, pro-Palestinian, pro-freedom, pro-anything! Only anti-Israel. This reeks of hypocrisy, considering the many terrible regimes that she has gotten into bed with to push this anti-Western view of the Middle East.
The second part is almost as informative as the first, seeing as how Israel is hardly the only nation in the world that can be described as a "colonial experiment." Again, how did all the Arabs get there if not through colonialism and conquest. Even if we put all of that argument aside, it's informative that Ms. Narwani now no longer pretends to be a "critic" of Israel's "policies," and admits that she has once again singled out the Jews to be denied their human rights.
Sharmine Narwani: Biased against Israel, biased against Jews. We've known it forever, but it's nice to see it confirmed.
Now here is the second. Check out the link if the context is confusing:
The second part is almost as informative as the first, seeing as how Israel is hardly the only nation in the world that can be described as a "colonial experiment." Again, how did all the Arabs get there if not through colonialism and conquest. Even if we put all of that argument aside, it's informative that Ms. Narwani now no longer pretends to be a "critic" of Israel's "policies," and admits that she has once again singled out the Jews to be denied their human rights.
Sharmine Narwani: Biased against Israel, biased against Jews. We've known it forever, but it's nice to see it confirmed.
Some McCarthyist Comments of the Day
Rabbi Shmuely Boteach posted an article about Representative Eric Cantor's disagreement with President Obama about Israel, and the Huffington Posters reacted the same way they always do: That when a Democrat is in office, disagreeing with the President is treason.
Admittedly these aren't as McCarthyist as some other comments that we have seen, but still...yawn.
A Still Obvious Obsession
The Huffington Post (finally) covered in detail the repression of protesters in Syria. It's a very informative thread, I suggest you check it out. Most of the users that I saw were wishing the protesters luck, but others felt that America should not under any circumstances get involved. Still others, as you might not be surprised to hear, couldn't stop thinking about you-know-who:
This may explain all the activity on the Israel-related threads vs the others. There are some who just can't stop thinking about Israel. Or maybe the explanation is more obvious, he just supports the Syrian regime's oppression of its own people:
Sunday, April 24, 2011
News the HP Might Cover: Palestinians Demand Right of Return
The poor suffering dispossessed Palestinians have, once again, rejected all peace proposals that don't include their manufactured "right" to destroy Israel demographically.
"The Palestinian Authority said that it would reject any peace initiative that requires Palestinians to relinquish the right of return.I give the HP a 50-50 chance of covering this story, as on the one hand a lot of HPers will agree with the PA and Hamas, but on the other hand it reveals how the Palestinians don't actually just want a state and are creating barriers to peace. We'll see, I guess.
Nabil Sha’ath, member of the PA negotiating team, said that the right of return was a basic right, which the Palestinians couldn’t give up.
We will reject any American peace plan that calls on us to give up one of our basic rights – the right of return for refugees,” Sha’ath, a former PA foreign minister who played a major role in the signing of the Oslo Accords, said.
Sha’ath noted that the Oslo Accords that were signed between Israel and the PLO cal for holding discussions on major issues like Jerusalem, refugees, borders and security.
“How can Washington plan for such a solution?” he asked, referring to the report about US President Barack Obama’s new peace initiative. “There are no contacts between Washington and the PA on this issue.”
Sha’ath claimed that members of the Quartet – the US, EU, UN and Russia – were recently forced to postpone their meeting to discuss the status of the Middle East peace talks because Washington was opposed to a pro-Palestinian statement that they were planning to issue.
The Hamas government in the Gaza Strip described the Obama initiative as an “alarm bell that jeopardizes the right of return.”
Calling on the Arab and Islamic people to support the Palestinians’ right of return, Hamas said it was strongly opposed to the new initiative.
“The right of return as a legitimate and sacred right and no one could give it up,” Hamas stressed. "
Shooting Attack in Nablus
In what feels like deja vu, I awoke and turned on my computer at 9:15 AM this Sunday morning to news of a shooting at Joseph's Tomb in Nablus, in which 1 Israeli was killed and five others wounded by Palestinian policeman. YnetNews reports:
At the moment, no Huffington Post article has covered this story, and I'm not holding my breath.
While the IDF does not think this was a terror attack and the Palestinian officers only started shooting unarmed religious Jews because they "failed to coordinate their arrival at the Tomb," I can only imagine what would have happened if the positions and victims of violence had been reversed. The outrage would have echoed from the rooftops.
"IDF and Palestinian security forces have launched an investigation into Sunday's deadly shooting near Joseph's Tomb in the West Bank city of Nablus.
One Israeli was killed and five others sustained serious to mild injuries in the shooting, which took place around 6 am. One of the initial leads in the investigation is that the group – 15 Breslov Hassidim traveling in three cars – failed to coordinate their arrival at the Tomb with the necessary authorities, and were subsequently shot by Palestinian police officers.
A military source told Ynet that the shooting was not an act of terror, adding the incident could have been prevented, had the group simply coordinated their arrival to the area in advance. Israeli and Palestinians security officials are scheduled to meet later Sunday, to coordinate the joint investigation."
At the moment, no Huffington Post article has covered this story, and I'm not holding my breath.
The Israel Security Two Step
Following up on the long list of dances that critics of Israel like to dance around the boards, the latest article by Ira Chernus reminded me of another. It's actually very simple, and is about Israel's security and position in the world.
So on the one hand Israel is strong. It has a powerful military, powerful economy, and a secure position in the world. So this is used by critics of Israel to try and make a point that because Israel is so strong, they should be the one to make concessions for peace. Palestinians are harmless, so Israel should relax the blockade of Gaza. Israel is a rich nation, so they must need not American aid, and therefore the aid should be directed toward people who do need it. And so on and so forth. Which is, in my mind, an acceptable position.
But then they also try to take on the other side, which is not that Israel is a weak nation that is about to be destroyed at any time. The examples of this are endless too: People are "waking up" about the truth of Israel. American aid is "propping them up," and should it be cut off Israel will fall apart. The BDS movement is about to wreck Israel's economy and bring them to their knees. The list goes on and on and on really.
So again, these two positions are, if not necessarily truthful, at least understandable. And I would not hold it as much against them if the people making them were at least consistent. But they are not, and will dance the two step depending on either how they are feeling or what piece of news they want to back up their position.
Notice also that this can apply to the Palestinians' too: That they are about to wipe Israel out and "retake what is theirs," or they are helpless victims who never do anything wrong. It is just that the latter takes precedence over the former by a heavy margin, so I hesitate to call this a "two step" as well.
So on the one hand Israel is strong. It has a powerful military, powerful economy, and a secure position in the world. So this is used by critics of Israel to try and make a point that because Israel is so strong, they should be the one to make concessions for peace. Palestinians are harmless, so Israel should relax the blockade of Gaza. Israel is a rich nation, so they must need not American aid, and therefore the aid should be directed toward people who do need it. And so on and so forth. Which is, in my mind, an acceptable position.
But then they also try to take on the other side, which is not that Israel is a weak nation that is about to be destroyed at any time. The examples of this are endless too: People are "waking up" about the truth of Israel. American aid is "propping them up," and should it be cut off Israel will fall apart. The BDS movement is about to wreck Israel's economy and bring them to their knees. The list goes on and on and on really.
So again, these two positions are, if not necessarily truthful, at least understandable. And I would not hold it as much against them if the people making them were at least consistent. But they are not, and will dance the two step depending on either how they are feeling or what piece of news they want to back up their position.
Notice also that this can apply to the Palestinians' too: That they are about to wipe Israel out and "retake what is theirs," or they are helpless victims who never do anything wrong. It is just that the latter takes precedence over the former by a heavy margin, so I hesitate to call this a "two step" as well.
Friday, April 22, 2011
A Tale of Two Victims: Arrigoni vs. Viflic
We've discussed at some length the brutal murder of Vittorio Arrigoni at the hands of Palestinian Islamists in Gaza, by any stretch of the imagination a tragedy, no matter what Arrigoni's political views were. But while this drama was taking place, another tragedy on the Israeli side was also happening: the wounding and killing of Daniel Viflic, a 16-year-old boy from south Israel. Let's take a look at the timeline of these two events, in chronological order.
First, Hamas targets and hits a school bus that Viflic is traveling in with a laser-guided anti-tank rocket. How does the Huffington Post cover this news?
First, Hamas targets and hits a school bus that Viflic is traveling in with a laser-guided anti-tank rocket. How does the Huffington Post cover this news?
This time at least we get to see the school bus, usually the HP just uses generic pictures of planes or streets. No mention of the 16-year-old boy critically injured by the strike in the headline, and if you read the article, far more virtual ink is spilled about the Palestinians hurt and killed in the retaliatory air strike.
A week later, Arrigoni is kidnapped and found murdered. How does the HP cover this news?
News the HP Doesn't Cover: UN Workers Hurt in Gaza Blast
Everyone knows that hurting or killing UN personnel is probably the absolute worst thing any country or group of people can possibly do. With that in mind, what are the odds of the HP covering this story, about a blast on the Gaza border
A blast was heard Friday morning in the Karni crossing area on the Gaza Strip border. Three United Nations workers were hurt and sustained light to moderate wounds.It comes as no surprise that Palestinian sources try to blame the IDF and the anti-Zionists at least will believe them hook line and sinker, but Hamas does have a proven track record of both hurting their own people with failed rocket strikes and abusing UN personnel for their own needs.
Gaza sources initially reported that the three were hurt by a shell fired by an Israeli tank force. The IDF denied striking in Gaza and said the blast was caused by the firing of a Palestinian mortar shell. IDF elements described the incident as a "failed Hamas launch."
However, a subsequent IDF inquiry suggested the explosion may have occurred after a tractor had climbed over an explosive device.
Comment of the Day
This comment isn't breaking new ground, but it is once again an example of the double standards Israel is accused of daily on the HP.
How can the United States be a democracy if it's fighting a war in Iraq?
The original link.
How can the United States be a democracy if it's fighting a war in Iraq?
The original link.
Ira Chernus and More "Myths" (Part 3)
Well we have come to the end of the week and I will take on the final alleged "myth" contained in the article by Ira Chernus, latest and greatest anti-Israel pundit to arrive on the Huffington Post. Without further ado, here it is:
But then he shifts to the other gear, and that even though Israel should be boycotted, the BDS movement has no impact on Israel's economy anyway (which is true) and so Israel should not be worried about it (hence, it's a "myth"). More about this two-step on Sunday, but he finally gets to what he really wanted to talk about, U.S.-Israel relations:
Americans read the news. They see the rockets landing. They see the children running to bomb shelters. They saw the effects of the bomb in Jerusalem and they read about the Itamar killings. They heard the story of the school bus being rocketed and they remember not so long ago when suicide bombers were blowing up Israelis every day. And maybe the difference between them and Mr. Chernus is that they don't disregard all these stories because it doesn't fit their politics or their prejudices.
Professor Chernus can moan and groan all he likes (and I have the feeling that he will) but the American people and the American government won't just look the other way while Israelis die. The American people are good people, and they know who their friends are. They remember who danced on 9/11 and aren't willing to give them so much slack next time. They stand up for their friends. If Professor Chernus doesn't like that, tough luck. Maybe he should come down from his mountain in Colorado and see for himself.
"Myth Number 3: Israel’s existence is threatened by worldwide efforts to delegitimize the Jewish state. Early in 2010, Military Intelligence Chief Amos Yadlin told the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, that the country was not “suffering from terror or from an immediate military threat” -- only to warn of a new peril: “The Palestinian Authority is encouraging the international arena to challenge Israel’s legitimacy....There are shreds of truth in it. There have always been people who saw the Jewish state, imposed on indigenous Palestinians, as illegitimate.""Well, given that you think Israel was "imposed on indigenous Palestinians," and given your characterizations of Zionism, it sure sounds like you are one of them. Without much to say on the topic of the delegitimization, he instead starts lying about the BDS movement. As this video shows, they are clearly dedicated to wiping Israel off the map, even if 99% of their supporters don't realize it. This doesn't stop Professor Chernus from declaring that it only wants to "end the occupation of Palestinian lands" and that "were Israel to start behaving by accepted international moral norms, the BDS movement would fade." Isn't that convenient, and very typical of anti-Zionists: There is no threat to Israel, and even if there were, Israel deserves it anyway.
But then he shifts to the other gear, and that even though Israel should be boycotted, the BDS movement has no impact on Israel's economy anyway (which is true) and so Israel should not be worried about it (hence, it's a "myth"). More about this two-step on Sunday, but he finally gets to what he really wanted to talk about, U.S.-Israel relations:
"But what if the American public knew the facts that Obama acknowledged [that Israel is stronger than the Palestinians]? What if every solemn reference to Israel’s “security needs” were greeted not with nodding heads, but with the eye-rolling skepticism it deserves? What if Israel’s endless excesses and excuses -- its claims that the occupation of the West Bank and the economic strangulation of Gaza are necessary “for the sake of security” -- were regularly scoffed at by most Americans?"Professor Chernus is not the first person to stride onto the Huffington Post and declare that he is a million times more informed than the stupid American peasants who dare to disagree with him, a religious studies professor, about international politics. But we have now come to the end of this article and he has provided no new information about why there is no security issue when it comes to Israel.
Americans read the news. They see the rockets landing. They see the children running to bomb shelters. They saw the effects of the bomb in Jerusalem and they read about the Itamar killings. They heard the story of the school bus being rocketed and they remember not so long ago when suicide bombers were blowing up Israelis every day. And maybe the difference between them and Mr. Chernus is that they don't disregard all these stories because it doesn't fit their politics or their prejudices.
Professor Chernus can moan and groan all he likes (and I have the feeling that he will) but the American people and the American government won't just look the other way while Israelis die. The American people are good people, and they know who their friends are. They remember who danced on 9/11 and aren't willing to give them so much slack next time. They stand up for their friends. If Professor Chernus doesn't like that, tough luck. Maybe he should come down from his mountain in Colorado and see for himself.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Mira Sucharov Really Doesn't Get It
Associate Professor of Political Science at Carleton University in Ottawa (in Canada) Mira Sucharov has arrived on the Huffington Post to take aim at that terrible, terrible Zionist institution, the March of the Living. Yes, the trip in which young Jewish teenagers visit Holocaust sites in Germany and Poland, and then travel to Israel to celebrate Israel's Independence Day. Who could have a problem with such a trip? Only a Huffington Post blogger.
The March of the Living is by Jews and for Jews. When the Holocaust was taking place, there was real concern among Jews that this would be it, that the Jewish religion was go out of the world. The Nazis even allowed the Warsaw synagogue to remain intact so it would one day be a museum of the extinct Jews. Going to Germany and Poland shows young Jews how close their heritage was to being wiped out of existence forever, and going to Israel shows them that today their heritage is more alive and thriving than ever. To go from a place where Jews were killed in the millions to a place where Jews live in the millions is the point of the experience. Do you notice how that description of the March of the Living has nothing to do with the Palestinians? Just as visitors to the United States go to see the Statue of Liberty and Independence Hall without going to Iraq and Afghanistan, Jewish teenagers going to Israel are not required to have anything to do with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
Look at Ms. Sucharov's last paragraph and you'll see my point in action.
Isn't it sad that Jews cannot celebrate the existence of their state in any way, shape or form without being required to pay penance to the poor suffering Palestinians first?
"Those who take part in the trip come away with the ability to visualize Jewish collective history in a most powerful way. But in pairing the Holocaust with contemporary Israel, the program potentially sets up a problematic linkage between Israeli policies and Jewish existential security. Parents would do well to discuss with their kids the lessons they are taking away about the Middle East....[Sucharov then discusses Israeli security issues like the West Bank and Iran]...It is a conceptual stretch to say that Israel's recent announcement of 1,600 housing units in East Jerusalem, or its continuing blockade over Gaza, or its snaking of the security barrier throughout the West Bank to protect existing settlements while Palestinians experience daily humiliation and collective punishment are necessary to maintaining the health and welfare of Israelis, and by extension, all Jews. But these are the kinds of implicit messages our youth might well take away from the trip, even if it is not the intention of the organizers."Something that Zach and I haven't discussed often enough in this blog, in my opinion, is the inability of Israel's critics on the HP and elsewhere to distinguish between Israel's existence and what it means to Jews and Israel's policies. It is not an unsurprising thing to read someone's post on the HP about the beautiful experience they had visiting the Western Wall and then a response demanding why that someone didn't also visit the West Bank and help the suffering Palestinians. The HPers consistently refuse to look at Israel outside of the context of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and so does Ms. Sucharov.
The March of the Living is by Jews and for Jews. When the Holocaust was taking place, there was real concern among Jews that this would be it, that the Jewish religion was go out of the world. The Nazis even allowed the Warsaw synagogue to remain intact so it would one day be a museum of the extinct Jews. Going to Germany and Poland shows young Jews how close their heritage was to being wiped out of existence forever, and going to Israel shows them that today their heritage is more alive and thriving than ever. To go from a place where Jews were killed in the millions to a place where Jews live in the millions is the point of the experience. Do you notice how that description of the March of the Living has nothing to do with the Palestinians? Just as visitors to the United States go to see the Statue of Liberty and Independence Hall without going to Iraq and Afghanistan, Jewish teenagers going to Israel are not required to have anything to do with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
Look at Ms. Sucharov's last paragraph and you'll see my point in action.
"But we shouldn't be stacking the deck for our kids by presenting an uncritical link between the Holocaust and contemporary Israeli approaches to peace and conflict. The volatile mix of emotion, morality and rationality so pronounced during adolescence can create especially binary thinking of "right versus wrong" and "us versus them." While trips like March of the Living provide an enormously powerful learning experience about the dangers of racism and prejudice, we would do well to ensure that our youth take away the most complex lessons they can about the sadly enduring Israeli-Palestinian conflict."Again, what are the facts of the March of the Living? The teens go to Europe and then they go to Israel. There is no indoctrination of right-wing policies as part of the trip, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict has nothing to do with the March of the Living.
Isn't it sad that Jews cannot celebrate the existence of their state in any way, shape or form without being required to pay penance to the poor suffering Palestinians first?
News the HP Doesn't Cover: No Humanitarian Crisis in Gaza
Once again, that pesky International Committee of the Red Cross keeps violating Palestinian propaganda, this time declaring there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
[H/T: Challah Hu Akbar]
"Mathilde Redmatn is the deputy director of the Red Cross in the Gaza Strip. Redmatn has had the opportunity to see with her eyes what most of us only see on television screens.Shocking surprise: Israel was right all along.
On previous assignments, Redmatn has lived in Congo and Colombia. Her activities in Gaza are completely different, she says.
"Of course the work is different everywhere, but here the fabric of life is problematic," she says. "There are two peoples, one living under closure and one living under daily rocket fire, which violates international law.
Redmatn has a lot to say about problems related to the closure Israel has placed on Gaza but she also talks about the surprising normalcy in one of the most explosive regions of the world that receives extensive media attention.
"There is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza," she explains. "If you go to the supermarket, there are products. There are restaurants and a nice beach. The problem is mainly in maintenance of infrastructure and in access to goods, concrete for example. Israel has the legitimate right to protect the civilan population, this right should be balanced with the rights of 1.5 million people living in the Gaza Strip. Despite the easing of the closure and the partial lifting of export bans in the wake of the flotilla incident, continued restrictions on the movement of people and difficulties in importing building materials hampered sustainable economic recovery and dashed any hope of leading a normal and dignified life".
[H/T: Challah Hu Akbar]
Comment of the Day
Read the last comment, posted on the HP's latest spin article favoring Abbas.
But remember, Israel and Jews are totally separate. And there is no anti-Semitism on the Huffington Post.
The original link.
But remember, Israel and Jews are totally separate. And there is no anti-Semitism on the Huffington Post.
The original link.
Opinions the HP Doesn't Publich: Nirenstein on Arrigoni
While the HPers and the Palsbarists worldwide are busily attempting to turn Vittorio Arrigoni into a martyred saint, Elder of Ziyon directs us to a different point of view.
The cruelty of the public execution of a young man who had family and friends, as it was the case with Vittorio Arrigoni's killing, is always awful. This is clear. What is not clear to the European public is that it is evident that the killers are his old Islamic Jihadists friends from Gaza. But they could have been Afghanis To understand the death of this Italian activist, one important fact must be grasped: his death was triggered by the way he mixed his life with that of his potential enemies, whom he thought were his best friends. But militant fundamentalists, or Islamists do not have stable affinities and "best friends." The only thing that counts for them is their interpretation of Quran. Hamas's Gaza, where Arrigoni was killed, is a land ruled by awful and distant laws. Arrigoni loved the Palestinians, but for them, he remained a total foreigner.If you read the Arrigoni threads, you will see a lot of HPers try to spin the incident to show that just because Hamas isn't actively kidnapping and murdering Westerners that are on their side, that shows Hamas is moderate and Israel should totally negotiate with it. It is important to remember Hamas are no angels either.
The crucial issue is this: When you go to Gaza or Afghanistan, it is important to realize that our concept of life is completely different from politically Islamic people's concept of life. To them, you can die because you are Jewish, because you are Italian, or Christian, because you are an apostate, or a corrupt Westerner... the extremist mentality, make no bones about it, cancels out friends and allies. No matter how much you have worked against the "Zionist power" or that you have called Zionists "rats," as Arrigoni did, nothing is of any worth if you break their rule -- a rule which will remain changing and unclear until the knife blade comes.
The decapitation of the American Nick Berg in Iraq in 2004 was filmed, the Jihadists said, "to give a clear message to the West;" the Italian Fabrizio Quattrocchi was executed because he was "an enemy of God, an enemy of Allah;" Vittorio Arrigoni, as his butchers say in the video, in words that scroll across the screen, because "he was spreading western immorality in Gaza," and because "Italy fights against Islamic countries;" in 2002, Daniel Pearl was killed in Karachi because he was a Jew. It has been repeated again and again that Hamas, with whom Arrigoni was on friendly terms, has condemned the crime. But in actual fact it does not matter if the assassins are members of Hamas or not. They have been, they will be, they all are controlled by Hamas. Even Al Qaida, which has a presence in Gaza, is seen by Hamas in a better or worse light, depending on the moment. But Hamas is always top dog in Gaza.
Hamas is responsible for the armed destruction of the UN recreational camp for children, which did not abide by Islamic dictates; it was responsible for arresting 150 women under the accusation of witchcraft and the execution of several of them; and it is Hamas that has introduced by law death penalty, whipping, cutting off hands and crucifixion, according to Sharia. Hamas killed the 32-year old Christian book salesman, Rami Khader Ayyad, guilty of selling Bibles. It was responsible for the captivity of Gilad Shalit. Not all those who carry out these operations, or to whom Hamas gives orders to fire Qassam missiles against Israel, are members of the terrorist organization that rules Gaza. At times Hamas even pretends to fight them.
Hamas is a movement, a party, a fundamentalist State. Its statute stipulates that it wants to destroy the Jewish State, to exterminate Jews and impose an Islamic caliphate on the entire world. Salafi fringes and those linked more to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, those influenced to a greater or lesser extent by Iran or Al Qaeda and based in the Gaza Strip, join Hamas and leave Hamas by turns. The fact that Hamas has now disowned the killers of Arrigoni is not of the slightest importance. The killers, as members of the Al Qassam Brigades, were employed by Hamas
Arrigoni was fan of political Islamism because he was an enemy of the Jews, but this did not save him from a cruel execution in front of the camera, just as many others friends or enemies of Hamas or the Islamic Jihad never understood.
So it is intellectually sad and even dangerous that a demonstration in front of the Italian Parliament blamed Israel and Italy for Arrigoni's death; or that the ISM, the pro-Palestinian NGO group to which Arrigoni belonged, attributed "moral responsibility to the State of Israel." These reactions seem to be triggered only by ideological hatred. But what is more striking still, with sincerest respect for the figure of the President of Republic, was the statement of condolences which Giorgio Napolitano rightly delivered; instead of laying the blame on Islamic fundamentalism, he asked that "a negotiated solution be found to the conflict which sees bloodshed in the region."
For us, it is inconceivable, even if you are a militant like Arrigoni, to live alongside those who fire missiles on civilians, wear belts packed with explosives and hand out sweets when an Israeli family is killed, including a three months baby, a four year old child and another of nine, in the Israeli suburb of Itamar.
With the same coherence, he could have invoked any good cause: the fight against world hunger, or child prostitution. Yet instead, Israel is being summoned to face some mysterious responsibility. But the fault is only of Islamic fundamentalism; what is the point of dragging the pained witness and victim of Hamas terrorism into the question?"
Ira Chernus and More "Myths" (Part 2)
If you haven't read the first part of my criticism of Professor of Religious Studies Ira Chernus' latest attempt at mythbusting on the Huffington Post, please check it out now because we are about to get to the second. What I like to call "One Great Strawman."
But what about the rockets, you might ask? After all, a million Israelis live within rocket range and have to run to bomb shelters often. Don't worry, Professor Chernus has an answer to that too. I am not going to quote them all but I will summarize. Feel free to fact check me in the article if you don't believe it. I would, because it's pretty unbelievable. He says in response to both rockets from Gaza and the possibility of rockets from the West Bank that:
-They only come in response to Israel breaking cease fires.
-That they are homemade and therefore harmless.
-That they are unguided and therefore harmless.
-That most of them don't land in populated areas.
-That Israel has strong weapons too!
Obviously, all of these arguments are pretty weak sauce. The point of the rockets is not to kill people, as anyone who has been halfway paying attention to this conflict ought to know. They are to traumatize and terrorize the people who live within range of them. Killing people and destroying their homes is only a side benefit. But like all Palestinian apologists, Professor Chernus attempts to write them off as "harmless" because Israel has worked so hard to protect their people. But just because Israel is well prepared for the threat, doesn't mean the threat isn't there. Professor Chernus clearly wants us to think that either there is no threat, or that if there is a threat, it's because Israel deserves it. I have a feeling that that last part is closer to the truth.
"Myth Number 2: The personal safety of every Jewish Israeli is threatened daily by the possibility of violent attack. In fact, according to Israeli government statistics, since the beginning of 2009 only one Israeli civilian (and two non-Israelis) have been killed by politically motivated attacks inside the green line (Israel’s pre-1967 border). Israelis who live inside that line go about their daily lives virtually free from such worry."Now, I'd like you to take a quick look at the exact wording of his "myth number two," mostly because of how his attempt to refute it completely falls on its face. He says that the safety of every Israeli is threatened by attacks. I don't know why he felt it necessary to throw in "Jewish" there, but maybe that's a discussion for another time. See, we can talk about whether all of us here in Israel are threatened or not, but the point is that Prof Chernus attempts to refute this by skewing numbers: He doesn't count Israelis who are wounded or traumatized by terror attacks, he doesn't count attacks on settlers, and he doesn't count terror attacks that would have succeeded but were stopped by security forces. In other words, when he attempts to prove that Israelis aren't threatened, he only proves that the attacks are not very effective. Not that the threat isn't real. To some, that might be a difference without substance but the recent attacks within Israel matter more to me than Prof Chernus' number crunching.
But what about the rockets, you might ask? After all, a million Israelis live within rocket range and have to run to bomb shelters often. Don't worry, Professor Chernus has an answer to that too. I am not going to quote them all but I will summarize. Feel free to fact check me in the article if you don't believe it. I would, because it's pretty unbelievable. He says in response to both rockets from Gaza and the possibility of rockets from the West Bank that:
-They only come in response to Israel breaking cease fires.
-That they are homemade and therefore harmless.
-That they are unguided and therefore harmless.
-That most of them don't land in populated areas.
-That Israel has strong weapons too!
Obviously, all of these arguments are pretty weak sauce. The point of the rockets is not to kill people, as anyone who has been halfway paying attention to this conflict ought to know. They are to traumatize and terrorize the people who live within range of them. Killing people and destroying their homes is only a side benefit. But like all Palestinian apologists, Professor Chernus attempts to write them off as "harmless" because Israel has worked so hard to protect their people. But just because Israel is well prepared for the threat, doesn't mean the threat isn't there. Professor Chernus clearly wants us to think that either there is no threat, or that if there is a threat, it's because Israel deserves it. I have a feeling that that last part is closer to the truth.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Merely Critical of Israel's Policies Comments of the Day
President Obama wished Israel a happy Passover, and these were two of the comments on the thread.
The original links.
The original links.
Anti-Semitic Comment of the Day
In the context of talking about Presidential elections:
Note, of course, that he does not cite where he read that Jews control the Democrats with their money. Convenient.
the original link.
Note, of course, that he does not cite where he read that Jews control the Democrats with their money. Convenient.
the original link.
Ira Chernus and More "Myths" (Part 1)
Professor of freaking Religious Studies Ira Chernus is well on his way to becoming an elder of the anti-Israel blogger stable on the Huffington Post, which is no doubt why they hired him. For some reason he doesn't like talking about anything other than what he calls "myths," i.e. beliefs that people who aren't as well educated in religious studies as he is hold about Israel. His latest article is rather long, but most is worth talking about, so I'm breaking this into two different posts.
He begins by playing the victim, as most critics of Israel are prone to do. He claims that because of "the Lobby" (citing Mearsheimer) that everyone who talks about Israel has to obey what he calls "the Three Commandments." And of course they are so unreasonable:
He begins by playing the victim, as most critics of Israel are prone to do. He claims that because of "the Lobby" (citing Mearsheimer) that everyone who talks about Israel has to obey what he calls "the Three Commandments." And of course they are so unreasonable:
"For politicians, especially at the federal level: As soon as you say the word “Israel,” you must also say the word “security” and promise that the United States will always, always, always be committed to Israel’s security.Oh boo hoo hoo. I'm sure his keyboard must be sopping from all the crocodile tears he was weeping when he wrote this. Of course, every side of this conflict believes that the media is biased against them, but let's start with the Huffington Post. For Pete's sake, it is Prof Chernus host and yet he pays no attention to the fact that it is heavily biased against Israel, both in the editorial stance and in the bloggers (of which he himself is included). And as for his first two "commandments," politicians contrasting criticism of Israel with understanding that they have security needs? They aren't saying that because of an all powerful lobby, they are saying that because it is a balanced statement. You know, the kind that politicians are supposed to make so that they seem impartial. But as usual, balance is not good enough for Prof Chernus. No sir.
"For TV talking heads and op-ed pundits: If you criticize any policies or actions of the Israeli government, you must immediately add that Israel does, of course, have very real and serious security needs that have to be addressed.
"For journalists covering the Israel-Palestine conflict for major American news outlets: You must live in Jewish Jerusalem or in Tel Aviv and take only occasional day trips into the Occupied Territories."
More Iran-Israel Double Standards
In a conversation on the Huffington Post about Iran and Stuxnet, the topic of Iran's use of child soldiers as minesweepers came up. How did one noted anti-Zionist react to this information, after some of his friends tried to deny it?
Funny how when we aren't talking about Israel, suddenly the malicious exploitation of children in war becomes a good thing.
The original link.
The original link.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
MJ Rosenberg Lies like a Rug
A couple days ago, MJ Rosenberg published an article on the Huffington Post doing what MJ Rosenberg does best: accuse Jewish conservatives of disloyalty to America and loyalty to Israel instead. The headline: Eric Cantor Runs Interference for Bibi. Here is the first paragraph.
Rosenberg then goes on to whine about how Cantor has taken sides with Netanyahu against Obama and complains how not cool this is. Again, numerous other Republican and Democratic politicians have opposed Obama's stance on Israel, but they don't make it into Rosenberg's article. Only the Jewish politician does. Convenient.
I don't have the time to go into the rest of Rosenberg's article, but it's standard Rosenberg faire: long on whining, double standards, and borderline anti-Semitic tropes, short on facts. You can read it if you want, but I promise you you won't get much out of it.
"Leave it to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA). With President Barack Obama expected to deliver a major speech outlining a new (or, at least, revised) Middle East peace strategy soon, Cantor decided it was time to invite Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to deliver a speech before a joint session of Congress." (emphasis mine)This paragraph is a lie. Even Rosenberg's link to Ha'aretz later in the article confirms that it is actually Speaker of the House John Boehner's invitation to Netanyahu, not Eric Cantor. Cantor isn't even mentioned in the Ha'aretz link.(hat tip to HPer tallen for identifying this lie).
Rosenberg then goes on to whine about how Cantor has taken sides with Netanyahu against Obama and complains how not cool this is. Again, numerous other Republican and Democratic politicians have opposed Obama's stance on Israel, but they don't make it into Rosenberg's article. Only the Jewish politician does. Convenient.
I don't have the time to go into the rest of Rosenberg's article, but it's standard Rosenberg faire: long on whining, double standards, and borderline anti-Semitic tropes, short on facts. You can read it if you want, but I promise you you won't get much out of it.
News the HP Doesn't Cover: Israel's Economy Continues to Grow
Yaacov Lozowick pointed us to this article by Ha'aretz about Israel's rapid economic growth.
"The Israeli economy is continuing to grow strongly. Gross domestic product climbed 7.8% in the fourth quarter of 2010 - on an annual basis - reported the Central Bureau of Statistics yesterday. For the second half of 2010, GDP growth was 5.8%.Again, not going to make it on to the Huffington Post, because their narrative states that Israel is about to collapse economically from BDS.
Another important indicator, the Bank of Israel's composite state-of-the-economy index for March 2011, increased by 0.5% from February. The increase indicates continued growth in domestic consumption and exports, as well as manufacturing production. March was the second consecutive month in which almost all components of the index rose.
Israeli industrial exports in the December 2010 to February 2011 period jumped 23% - in annual terms - mostly as a result of a steep rise in high-tech exports, 28.1%, the stats bureau reported. The increase in exports came despite exporters' complaints in recent months over the fall in the dollar against the shekel, reflecting the recovery of Western economies. "
HRW's Sarah Leah Witson Plays the Race Card
It sort of slipped under our nose last week, but Human Rights Watch's Sarah Leah Witson has published an article on the Huffington Post and...wait for it...criticizes Israel! What a surprise. Her main discussion in the article is supposed about racism and discrimination, but is really about Israel being mean to the Palestinians. Her article has the following three beats:
1. Take an example of an Israeli policy.
2. Accuse Israel of acting in that way because of racism and/or discrimination.
3. Ignore contrary evidence.
Elder of Ziyon has already documented her absurd claim that only settlers have nice houses, and Yisrael Medad has also proven that the "Jew only roads" is not true either, but unfortunately her article is one lie and half truth after another. I'll go through some of them here.
Some lies are small, like that "Israel has moved half a million settlers," implying that the settlers didn't choose to come and that none were born there. Some lies are large, like that the Palestinians are deprived "of the most basic needs." Naturally Ms. Leah Witson is too cool to cite her sources, unless they are newspaper articles about Israel building settlements. I guess she thinks that her big claims are too obvious to back up.
One of her most egregious distortions, though, is the following:
The half-truths continue, such as the claim that Israel prevents Palestinians from going close to settlements not because settlers often have been murdered, but because they are just so darn racist. That unhappy truth about murders is not mentioned in the article by the way, I guess Ms. Leah Witson just wants us to forget that there might be a good reason for why Israel does what it does.
1. Take an example of an Israeli policy.
2. Accuse Israel of acting in that way because of racism and/or discrimination.
3. Ignore contrary evidence.
Elder of Ziyon has already documented her absurd claim that only settlers have nice houses, and Yisrael Medad has also proven that the "Jew only roads" is not true either, but unfortunately her article is one lie and half truth after another. I'll go through some of them here.
Some lies are small, like that "Israel has moved half a million settlers," implying that the settlers didn't choose to come and that none were born there. Some lies are large, like that the Palestinians are deprived "of the most basic needs." Naturally Ms. Leah Witson is too cool to cite her sources, unless they are newspaper articles about Israel building settlements. I guess she thinks that her big claims are too obvious to back up.
One of her most egregious distortions, though, is the following:
"In the 60 percent of the West Bank known as "Area C" and in East Jerusalem, Israel maintains exclusive control over the lives of settlers and Palestinians. In these circumstances, Israel must, under international human rights law, treat the two populations equally."Now although she claims that 60% of the West Bank is Area C, she neglects to mention that only 4% of the Palestinian population lives there (thanks to califlefty for pointing this out). As for the claim that the two populations must be treated equally, she neglects to cite a source for the usual "international law" card. The only reference to equality that is related to this article that I could find in the 4th Geneva Conventions (which deals with occupied territories and populations) is Article 39, which is about employment. So I cannot help but wonder if this is one of those uncited claims which we are just supposed to believe because someone on the Huffington Post told us that.
The half-truths continue, such as the claim that Israel prevents Palestinians from going close to settlements not because settlers often have been murdered, but because they are just so darn racist. That unhappy truth about murders is not mentioned in the article by the way, I guess Ms. Leah Witson just wants us to forget that there might be a good reason for why Israel does what it does.
AZ Tactics: Definitions
In the course of discussing politics, many loaded terms are used. These include "terrorism," "murder," "collective punishment," "collateral damage," "disproportionate force," "apartheid," and so forth. Since most of these words are political and often have emotional investment, is it understandable that people will argue over what exactly they mean. That is not the kind of definition that I am talking about today.
This is an example of the kind of people who would sooner rewrite the English language than admit that they are wrong.
The other day I got into a conversation with anti-Zionist elder "CigarGod" on the topic of Palestinian incitement to violence. Here is what he said:
Obviously, the idea that Israel has an industry of indoctrinating children to hate Palestinians is ridiculous. If you look at thread, you will see that I called him out on this and he turned and ran away like a child. But we returned to the subject in a different thread, and he tried to claim that organizations like MEMRI were "equal." Finally, he resorted to the dictionary argument. Check it out:
Actually, this is not just a "definitions" argument it is also a "what do you mean you can't see the obvious" argument. Wherein an anti-Zionist puts forward half of what would normally be considered a reasonable response and then (when proven wrong) condescendingly declares that his opponent "just doesn't get it" and walks off.
In the past few days the intellectual level of the "Israel can do no right crowd" has really gone down. Mostly the conversations doesn't even get this far.
This is an example of the kind of people who would sooner rewrite the English language than admit that they are wrong.
The other day I got into a conversation with anti-Zionist elder "CigarGod" on the topic of Palestinian incitement to violence. Here is what he said:
In the past few days the intellectual level of the "Israel can do no right crowd" has really gone down. Mostly the conversations doesn't even get this far.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)