You are currently browsing the monthly archive for September 2011.
Monthly Archive
The Palestinian Guardian (A photographic look at political advocacy parading as journalism)
September 23, 2011 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: anti-Zionism, Comment is Free, Delegitimization, Guardian, Harriet Sherwood, Observer, UDI | by Adam Levick | 10 comments
H/T Margie
So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don’t even know that fire is hot. – George Orwell
No, that’s certainly not true of all left-wing thought, but certainly the Guardian variety.
Robin Shepherd recently observed the following in response to an Observer editorial (which argued that the only possible moral position is to support Palestinian UDI) and commenting more broadly on the Guardian group’s pro-Palestinian advocacy:
Anyone but a fool can see that this is a blatant attempt to avoid direct negotiations with Israel so as to obviate the need for the kind of concessions that meaningful negotiations always entail….And anyone but…an implacable anti-Zionist can see that the whole enterprise is fraught with extreme dangers both for Israel itself and for the peace and stability of the entire region. [emphasis mine]
Indeed, whether providing moral sanction to the UK riots or glorifying Palestinian violence, the Guardian has repeatedly demonstrated that they can’t be bothered with such quotidian concerns as the real world consequences of their positions.
Here are a few images from the Guardian’s glorious Palestinian campaign for statehood, as seen on their Israel page.
The last photo, accompanying a pro-Palestinian statehood commentary at CiF, likely is just a reminder, for the really dense, of who precisely are the people standing in the way of the Palestinians’ quest for freedom and justice.
Finally, this is where I would have placed Guardian photos illustrating Israeli aspirations to live in peace – in a region free of terrorism, rejectionism, and antisemitism – except that there aren’t any such images to post. I simply can’t imagine why that would be.
Related articles
- What the Guardian won’t report about Palestinian Independence: It wouldn’t solve the refugee problem (cifwatch.com)
- The anatomy of an internet myth: Guardian helps spread bizarre rumor of Israeli villainy (cifwatch.com)
- Guardian Newspeak pro-Palestinian Headline of the Day (cifwatch.com)
- Robin Shepherd: Guardian group leads UK charge on reckless Palestinian bid for unilateral statehood (cifwatch.com)
- Guardian live blog on Abbas’s UN statehood efforts quotes Palestinian waiting to “launch third intifada” (cifwatch.com)
- Photo of a 16 month old Israeli baby injured by Palestinian rocks that the Guardian would never post (cifwatch.com)
The anatomy of an internet myth: Guardian helps spread bizarre rumor of Israeli villainy
September 23, 2011 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: anti-Zionism, Comment is Free, Delegitimization, Guardian, Mahmoud Abbas, Wafa | by Adam Levick | 7 comments
the Guardian Live Blog yesterday included the following update at 12:22 PM
First, as the Guardian didn’t provide a source for the “report” from Ma’an that Israeli police have been fining Arabs who display the Palestinian flag, and after receiving a speedy reply to my inquiry to the IDF Spokespersons Unit unequivocally denying the report, I attempted to hunt down the origins of the claim.
I couldn’t find any mention of the story at the English site of Ma’an, but did find some Tweets eluding to the Ma’an story (all without a link), including one by Rania Zabeneh, an AlJazeera journalist based in the West Bank. (This site reported that the Guardian Live Blog Update which eludes to this story had been Tweeted 52 times.)
The only other place where I could find a reference to this claim (other than a few sites which simply repeated the Guardian text verbatim) was the site of the Palestinian Mission UK, which used language quite similar to the Guardian report, and also cited, as the source, a Ma’an story, without providing a link.
They wrote:
It is reported that the Israeli authorities are imposing fines on Palestinians for flying flags on their cars in support of our campaign at the United Nations. It is not a crime to show pride in your country, nor to support the cause of freedom, with symbols that do no harm. Israel seems incapable of understanding the idea of peaceful protest at its illegal occupation. The Israeli forces would be better employed dealing with real crimes, by its own citizens – the settlers who are waging a campaign of provocative violence by attacking Palestinian villages.
As reported by MaanNews, Israeli police placed a checkpoint between Barta’a and Jenin, north of West Bank and imposed fines on Palestinians for flying flags on their cars. For the small flag they imposed 40$ fine and 68$ fine for the big one.
Finally, I was able to track down a link from this Tweet, which took me to the site of the WAFA Palestine News and Information Agency, and this story in Arabic.
WAFA is the propaganda organ of the PLO, and is under the direct control of Mahmoud Abbas. As noted by Elder of Ziyon, WAFA excels at re-writing history and denying the Jewish connection to Israel. For example, WAFA has said multiple times that there was never a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem.
Moreover, PLO control of WAFA certainly explains why the Guardian report on the alleged fining of Palestinian motorists included a perfect anti-Israel quote by the Palestinian President.
Here’s the WAFA story on the alleged event, as translated by a supporter of CiF Watch who works as a professional Arabic translator.
The Occupation Authorities Confiscate Palestinian Flags in Salfit
Salfit – September 22, 2011, Wafa
The Occupation Authorities confiscated Palestinian flags of Palestinian civilians and vehicles today, Thursday, in the town of Yasouf in the Salfit Governorate.
A security source in Salfit has told Wafa that the Occupation Army has set up a military roadblock this morning at the entrance to the town (one of the main gateways to the city of Salfit), begun searching for Palestinian flags and confiscated flags belonging to citizens.
‘Adnan Yousef, a driver from the town of Masha, said that the Occupation Police issued a thousand shekel fine to one of the drivers for having Palestinian flags in his belongings while he (i.e. the driver) was on his way to participate in one of the marches of support for President Mahmoud ‘Abbas for turning to the UN, yesterday.
First, note how the Israeli police are not just fining Palestinian motorists for displaying the flag in this story, but actually confiscating the evidently contraband national symbol. Also, note how the fines – reported elsewhere to be $40-$68 – are, in this original story, a thousand shekels ($270).
However, more importantly, it seems as if the sole “source” of the Guardian allegation against Israel was the claim of one official from the PA -controlled Palestinian security service, as relayed to the PA-controlled media.
Moreover, anyone not blinded by ideologically inspired antipathy towards Israel would immediately be skeptical of such a rumor, as it flies in the face of the most rudimentary understanding of the rights of free expression in the Jewish state – which explains, of course, why it was published in the Guardian.
Related articles
- “It’s All Netanyahu’s Fault,” the Guardian and much of the MSM Say. But Is It Really? (cifwatch.com)
- Photo of a 16 month old Israeli baby injured by Palestinian rocks that the Guardian would never post (cifwatch.com)
- Obama condemns Arab antisemitism in UN speech. The Guardian’s first reaction? Outrage. (cifwatch.com)
- Guardian Newspeak pro-Palestinian Headline of the Day (cifwatch.com)
- Guardian live blog on Abbas’s UN statehood efforts quotes Palestinian waiting to “launch third intifada” (cifwatch.com)
- Debunking the the Palestinian/Guardian narrative of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (Video) (cifwatch.com)
Guilt by Zionism: (First person account of anti-Jewish abuse in the UK)
September 22, 2011 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: anti-Zionism, Antisemitism, Cross Post, Delegitimization, Israellycool, St Andrews University | by Guest/Cross Post | 9 comments
This is a first person essay , published at Israellycool, by Chanan Reitblat, a Jewish student who (earlier in the year, as an undergrad at St. Andrews University in Scotland) was the victim of threatening and abusive behavior due to his support for Israel.
As world leaders convene at the United Nations General Assembly this week to engage issues of global importance, corrupt dictators such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad come with a more narrow-minded and nefarious purpose: to delegitimize and demonize the only viable democracy in the Middle East – Israel.
Rather than promote peace and stability, he undermines the lofty goals of the United Nations by spreading a message of bigotry, repression, and even Holocaust denial, which morally inverts the foundations of free speech. Most unfortunately, Mr. Ahmadinejad’s distorted message reverberates beyond the walls of the UN and penetrates the minds of naïve college students.
Rather than rejecting him for the pariah he is, many students and academics propagate his intolerance under the guise of “freedom of speech” and “political debate” and in turn create a university environment in which many students feel intimidated and unsafe.
As a victim of abusive and threatening behavior directed at my Jewish identity and my affiliation with the State of Israel, I have experienced firsthand the vitriol infused “political debate” that pervades even the most prominent universities.
While studying abroad in Scotland earlier this year, another student, a supposed supporter of Palestinian rights, came into my room in the middle of the night. He saw an Israeli flag hanging on my wall. The sight apparently perturbed him so much that he began screaming that I was a terrorist. He then physically desecrated my flag in a revolting manner. The following day, apparently still disturbed that “there was a Zionist in his residence hall,” he continued his incitement on Facebook to the point of advocating violence against me.
I reported the incident to the police and the student was subsequently found guilty of a racially motivated hate crime under Scottish law, which also includes hate crimes based on a person’s nationality or ethnicity, and was expelled from the university. The court sentenced him to 150 hours of unpaid community service and a fine of $600 which was later donated to survivors of the Itamar massacre.
Read the rest of the essay, here.
Related articles
- Obama condemns Arab antisemitism in UN speech. The Guardian’s first reaction? Outrage. (cifwatch.com)
- Daniel Levy’s CiF essay on Jewish voters’ concerns with US Israel policy cites influence of Jews’ media megaphone (cifwatch.com)
- Another CiF columnist accuses Jewish lobby in the U.S. of stifling debate about Israel (cifwatch.com)
- Vile anti-Zionist logic at Guardian’s Comment is Free (cifwatch.com)
Guardian readers claim leading Zionists during WWII rooted for Hitler. Comments not deleted by CiF Moderators
September 22, 2011 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: anti-Zionism, Antisemitism, Biased Moderation, Comment is Free, Delegitimization, Guardian | by Adam Levick | 20 comments
Whenever CiF fills its meager quota of essays which advance the heterodox view that Israel is actually not a ruthless villain, the righteous indignation by Guardian readers is typically fast and furious.
Today’s CiF commentary by Israeli MK Einat Wilf, “This UN bid for statehood will not help the Palestinian cause“, is no exception.
Here are a couple of responses beneath the line to Wilf’s commentary:
Leader of Zionist group in pre-state Israel wanted Hitler to win. Also, bonus antisemitic comment: Jewish groups control the U.S. government. (11 Recommends)
Another commenter advancing the view that Jews supported Hitler during the war, while adding that modern day Israeli Jews are similarly “inhumane pricks”. (7 Recommends)
As of this post, these vile comments have not been deleted by CiF Moderators.
Related articles
- Perfect illustration of Guardian’s biased moderation when dealing with Israel related reader comments (cifwatch.com)
- Unintentionally comical CiF reader comment of the day: CiF moderators are biased IN FAVOR of CiF Watch (cifwatch.com)
- Berchmans’ off-topic Israel hatred of the day: On the IDF and dead Palestinian children (cifwatch.com)
Guardian Newspeak pro-Palestinian Headline of the Day
September 22, 2011 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: anti-Zionism, Chris McGreal, Guardian, Harriet Sherwood, Mahmoud Abbas | by Adam Levick | 3 comments
H/T Margie
(Guardian Newspeak: closely based on English but with greatly reduced vocabulary by the removal or words, narratives, constructs or headlines which accurately distinguish between free societies and tyrannies or which reveals Palestinian/Arab hostility to Israel’s existence. The ultimate aim of Guardian Newspeak is to make any alternative pro-Israel thinking a “thoughtcrime”, or “crimethink”.)
The headline of this report by the Guardian’s Harriet Sherwood and Chris McGreal is something which could have been published by the state run Palestinian media:
Yes, the magnanimous Mahmoud Abbas, a man so committed to peace he’s willing to overlook the snub he received at the hands of a U.S. President who dared to condemn the very terrorism and antisemitic incitement which the Palestinian President himself foments.
Evidently, when Abbas repeatedly honors terrorists who murdered innocent Israeli civilians, refuses to recognize the existence of a Jewish state, and advances bizarre anti-Zionist conspiracy theories, it only appears, to the untrained non-Guardian eye, that he’s obstructing peace and reconciliation with Israel.
Only those well-schooled in the Guardian Left’s sophisticated, ideologically-conditioned, syntax can understand that when Palestinians praise terror, they’re really praising peace; when they refuse to recognize the existence of a Jewish state, they’re really upholding the values of tolerance and diversity; and when they propagate conspiracy theories they’re really elevating the debate.
In short: “War is Peace” Freedom is Slavery” and “Ignorance is Strength.”
Related articles
- What the Guardian won’t report about Palestinian Independence: It wouldn’t solve the refugee problem (cifwatch.com)
- Obama condemns Arab antisemitism in UN speech. The Guardian’s first reaction? Outrage. (cifwatch.com)
- Guardian live blog on Abbas’s UN statehood efforts quotes Palestinian waiting to “launch third intifada” (cifwatch.com)
- The tortured logic which informs yet another anti-Israel Guardian editorial (cifwatch.com)
- Guardian’s Chris McGreal accuses former US President of “slavishly” succumbing to pro-Israel pressure (cifwatch.com)
- “It’s All Netanyahu’s Fault,” the Guardian and much of the MSM Say. But Is It Really? (cifwatch.com)
- Harriet Sherwood’s report on ordinary Palestinians seeking statehood includes profile of Abu Ahmed: Profession, Terrorist (cifwatch.com)
Berchmans’ off-topic Israel hatred of the day: On the IDF and dead Palestinian children
September 22, 2011 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: anti-Zionism, Antisemitism, Berchmans, Biased Moderation, Comment is Free, Guardian, Simon Tisdall | by Adam Levick | 15 comments
Berchmans is a frequent commenter beneath the line at CiF, and, as we’ve noted previously, though typically a man of few words, the words he does use are usually guaranteed to be used to vilify Israel and the state’s Jewish supporters.
Berchmans recently commented beneath a commentary by the Guardian’s Simon Tisdall, “Erdogen plays Palestinian savior, but what about the Kurds?“, Sept. 21.
In response to a commenter who argued that “Turkey must compensate the Armenian people for its deliberate genocide by Turkey…the Armenians’ children are still waiting”, Berchmans, never one to let the actual topic of a CiF commentary stand in the way of expressions of hatred towards Israel, wrote:
So, to Berchmans’, the IDF’s job is to kill and inflict suffering upon innocent Palestinian children.
While such a comment is clearly hateful and off-topic, it’s also (as its not been deleted) evidently consistent with the “community standards” at Comment is Free.
Related articles
Photo of a 16 month old Israeli baby injured by Palestinian rocks that the Guardian would never post
September 22, 2011 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: Guardian, Terrorism, UDI, West Bank | by Adam Levick | 9 comments
H/T Elder of Ziyon
The Guardian’s recent report, West Bank sees rallies and clashes as Palestinians bid for statehood, Sept. 21, by Harriet Sherwood and Phoebe Greenwood, did note that Palestinians have begun committing acts of violence (against Israeli soldiers) during the marches, but characteristically only reported on the Palestinian casualties from the IDF response – conveniently failing to note the following.
A 16-month-old Israeli baby suffered light injuries when a stone struck her head in a riot between Tapuah and Migdalim junctions. She was taken to Schneider Hospital in Petah Tikva.
Three Palestinians were arrested during clashes, and an Israeli citizen was lightly injured from stones hurled at him while he was travelling near the West Bank city of Halhul.
Some rioters set tires on fire and stoned security forces, who used crowd-control measures to control the scene, including sonic cannons and tear gas.
Is there really even the slightest chance that this picture could ever find its way onto the Guardian’s Israel page?
Related articles
Obama condemns Arab antisemitism in UN speech. The Guardian’s first reaction? Outrage.
September 21, 2011 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: anti-Zionism, Antisemitism, Comment is Free, Delegitimization, Guardian, Julian Borger, UDI | by Adam Levick | 37 comments
While we try to stay clear of U.S. politics, the Guardian’s initial reaction to the speech delivered by President Barack Obama today at the UN, in the context of Palestinian efforts to unilaterally declare a state, is definitely worth commenting on.
Here are some highlights from Obama’s speech:
we believe that any lasting peace must acknowledge the very real security concerns that Israel faces every single day. Let’s be honest: Israel is surrounded by neighbors that have waged repeated wars against it. Israel’s citizens have been killed by rockets fired at their houses and suicide bombs on their buses. Israel’s children come of age knowing that throughout the region, other children are taught to hate them. Israel, a small country of less than eight million people, looks out at a world where leaders of much larger nations threaten to wipe it off of the map. The Jewish people carry the burden of centuries of exile, persecution, and the fresh memory of knowing that six million people were killed simply because of who they were.
These facts cannot be denied. The Jewish people have forged a successful state in their historic homeland. Israel deserves recognition. It deserves normal relations with its neighbors. And friends of the Palestinians do them no favors by ignoring this truth…
First out of the gate at the Guardian to condemn Obama’s condemnation of Arab antisemitism, and empathy towards Jewish and Israeli suffering, was Julian Borger, the paper’s diplomatic editor:
Wrote Borger, in a post title, “Obama plays it (electorally) safe on Israel-Palestine“:
A good measure of the emotional slant of any speech on the Israel-Palestine question is the relative weight given to Jewish and Arab suffering. By that measure, the needle on Obama’s speech was far over to one side. The president went into detail on the impact of suicide bombs and rockets, anti-Semitism in Arab schoolbooks and centuries of persecution on Jews.
As the title of the post suggests, the only thing which could possibly explain the President’s condemnation of Arab antisemitism, and Palestinian terrorism, for Borger, is U.S. domestic political pressure.
So convinced are Guardian editors, reporters, and commentators of Israeli villainy and Palestinian victimhood that anyone who contradicts this narrative must have ulterior motives, or be in the grip of powerful pro-Israel forces.
Whatever President Obama’s motivations for delivering a speech which demanded that Palestinians (and the Arab world) recognize Israel’s right to exist, and condemned the endemic Judeophobia in the Islamic world, the reaction to such a call serves as a telling political barometer.
As such, Julian Borger’s negative reaction to a U.S. President’s modest proposal that Palestinians have much to answer for in their quest for statehood should serve as a potent reminder of the visceral anti-Zionism of the Guardian left.
Related articles
- Another CiF columnist accuses Jewish lobby in the U.S. of stifling debate about Israel (cifwatch.com)
- Daniel Levy’s CiF essay on Jewish voters’ concerns with US Israel policy cites influence of Jews’ media megaphone (cifwatch.com)
- The tortured logic which informs yet another anti-Israel Guardian editorial (cifwatch.com)
- What the Guardian won’t report: Palestine will be Jew-free (cifwatch.com)
- Guardian’s Chris McGreal accuses former US President of “slavishly” succumbing to pro-Israel pressure (cifwatch.com)
- “It’s All Netanyahu’s Fault,” the Guardian and much of the MSM Say. But Is It Really? (cifwatch.com)
Guardian live blog on Abbas’s UN statehood efforts quotes Palestinian waiting to “launch third intifada”
September 21, 2011 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: anti-Zionism, Guardian, Intifada, Terrorism, UDI | by Adam Levick | 16 comments
The Guardian’s Live Blog, by Peter Walker, about UN discussions regarding Palestinian UDI added an update at 12:25 PM which included the following quote by a 28-year-old Palestinian named Bilal Quran.
So, I wondered, when precisely will Mr. Quran launch another violent Palestinian assault on my fellow Israeli citizens at cafes, bus stops, wedding halls and pizza parlors?
Luckily, this “veteran” of the 2nd Intifada – a four-year campaign of terror which resulted in the murder of over 1000 Israelis – suggests that the next glorious Palestinian revolution may have to wait.
Interesting, isn’t it?
Mr. Quran, evidently, couldn’t possibly launch another deadly Intifada against the evil Zionist occupiers until he receives free medical care from them.
Related articles
- Harriet Sherwood’s report on ordinary Palestinians seeking statehood includes profile of Abu Ahmed: Profession, Terrorist (cifwatch.com)
- Robin Shepherd: Guardian group leads UK charge on reckless Palestinian bid for unilateral statehood (cifwatch.com)
- Debunking the the Palestinian/Guardian narrative of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (Video) (cifwatch.com)
- The tortured logic which informs yet another anti-Israel Guardian editorial (cifwatch.com)
- What the Guardian won’t report about Palestinian Independence: It wouldn’t solve the refugee problem (cifwatch.com)
Daniel Levy’s CiF essay on Jewish voters’ concerns with US Israel policy cites influence of Jews’ media megaphone
September 21, 2011 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: anti-Zionism, Antisemitism, Comment is Free, Daniel Levy, Delegitimization, Guardian, J Street, John Heilemann, Philip Weiss | by Adam Levick | 11 comments
No, liberals in good standing today simply can not come out and warn explicitly of Jewish control of the media.
But, many of them no longer feel constrained by the moral impulse to avoid such calumnies, and often fashion rhetoric which implicitly warns of Jews’ undue influence on the public debate about Israel.
And, sadly, even many Jews contribute to the chorus of antisemitic narratives concerning Jewish power.
One of the most extreme examples of leftist Jews who advance classic antisemitic tropes is Philip Weiss – creator of Mondoweiss - who literally argued for a limit to the number of Jews in the media allowed to comment on Israeli-related issues, to prevent their corrosive effect on the Israeli-Palestinian debate.
The Guardian’s Jonathan Steele was a bit more subtle, by merely blaming, as the cause of Obama’s failure to stand up to Israel (in a 2010 essay) ”the pressure that pro-Israel campaigners put on the mainstream US media.”
Daniel Levy doesn’t go as far as Weiss, but recently went further than Steele in his expression of concern about the effect of Jews on the I-P debate in the U.S.
Levy is the co-founder of left-wing Israel lobbying group, J Street.
Evidence of Levy’s hard left politics can be found in his comments mocking those who “believe” that Hamas is a terrorist group, his characterization of Israel’s creation as a “mistake”, and his view that maybe Israel’s continued existence within any borders may not be desirable.
Specifically, regarding the latter, Levy said:
“Maybe, if this collective Jewish presence [in the Middle East] can only survive by the sword, then Israel really ain’t a good idea.”
Yesterday, Sept. 20, Levy published a piece at CiF, “Obama and Israel: Why leading from behind won’t work“, on the degree to which reports about President Obama’s erosion of Jewish support is accurate.
In explaining why reports of American Jews’ defection from Obama (who received 78% of the Jewish vote in 2008), due to his policies towards Israel, are exaggerated, Levy positively cites a recent essay by John Heilemann (which he describes as “excellent”) – particularly his agreement with Heilemann’s complaint of:
“the outsize attention [Jews] command and the ear-splitting volume of the collective megaphone they (Jews) wield.”
So, Levy and Heilemann evidently believe that the only reason, it seems, that a good percentage of American Jews are concerned about U.S. policy on the I-P Conflict is due to Jews’ disproportionate influence on the media. (See a good take down of Heilemann’s logic, at Pajamas Media)
Can someone please explain to me how such words don’t conjure the political narrative about the “injurious” influence of Jews historically found on the far right?
Is this what the Jewish hard left in the U.S. has resorted to?
It’s as if, in the mind of people such as Levy and Heilemann, merely wearing the liberal uniform should axiomatically render charges of antisemitism against them as absurd.
Sorry, but nothing could be further from the truth. Their political orientation does not grant them such moral impunity.
In fact, while antisemitism of course exists on the right (particularly in some far-right parties in Europe), the central address of antisemitism, and their enablers, in the “respectable” Anglo, Western world – as this blog continually demonstrates – is the media institution which happens to fancy itself the “world’s leading liberal voice.”
Related articles
- Vile anti-Zionist logic at Guardian’s Comment is Free (cifwatch.com)
- +972 and a revealing Twitter exchange between CiF Watch and a radical left Israeli Jew (cifwatch.com)
- The tortured logic which informs yet another anti-Israel Guardian editorial (cifwatch.com)
- Another CiF columnist accuses Jewish lobby in the U.S. of stifling debate about Israel (cifwatch.com)
Debunking the the Palestinian/Guardian narrative of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (Video)
September 20, 2011 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: anti-Zionism, Antisemitism, BDS, Benjamin Netanyahu, Comment is Free, Delegitimization, Guardian, Palestinian National Authority | by Adam Levick | 35 comments
H/T Chana
Related articles
“It’s All Netanyahu’s Fault,” the Guardian and much of the MSM Say. But Is It Really?
September 20, 2011 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: Benjamin Netanyahu, Elan Miller, Guardian, Guest Post, Israeli settlement, Palestine Liberation Organization, Palestine Papers, Saeb Erekat, Terrorism, WikiLeaks | by Guest/Cross Post | 14 comments
A guest post by Elan Miller, who blogs at Destination Israel.
Over the last few weeks and months, a spurious lie has been spreading. Nothing new, perhaps, lies are told the whole time. But this one is a particularly important lie, and it needs quashing with immediate effect.
The lie goes as follows. The Palestinian people want to live in peace. They want to live in peace, alongside Israel. They want to live in peace, alongside Israel, the Jewish state. They want to live in peace, alongside Israel, the Jewish state, but Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is an extremist and prevents them from doing so. Benjamin Netanyahu and his cohorts, the lie goes, are the sole reason why the peace process appears to be dead in the water.
To understand the claim better, we must go back some time. Earlier this year, Wikileaks collaborated with the Guardian to reveal hundreds of secret documents online. The Guardian went through the archives and found an astonishing incident. In an article entitled, “Israel spurned Palestinian offer of ‘biggest Yerushalayim in history”, we are told that “Leaked papers reveal [Palestinian] negotiators proposed concessions on East Jerusalem settlements, Sheikh Jarrah and Old City holy sites” and that Palestinian chief negotiator, Saeb Erekat said the following: “It is no secret that … we are offering you the biggest Yerushalayim [the Hebrew word for Jerusalem] in history.” The Guardian had a field day with this quote, using it as proof that the Palestinians were ready to make mass concessions. What was not mentioned in the headline, or in the analysis articles, was that Erekat went on to say, “But we must talk about the concept of al-Quds [Jerusalem in Arabic].”
The Guardian is quick to inform us that an “unprecedented offer” was made “on the East Jerusalem settlements”, carefully picking and mixing quotes that painted a story of Palestinian negotiators adopting a conciliatory approach, going so far as to propose “that Israel annex all Jewish settlements in Jerusalem except Har Homa.” Put like this, it sounded very much like the Israelis were acting unreasonably, wantonly even.
In the ensuing debacle, Israel was roundly criticised for deliberately missing an opportunity to forge a real, lasting peace with the Palestinians. Had this been the end of the story, I would no doubt have not been writing about Palestinian lies, but about Israeli ones.
But the story does not end there. There is much that the Guardian neglected tell us in its editorials or headlines. For while Israel was indeed offered concessions by Palestinian negotiators, they were rendered obsolete and utterly invalidated when placed in the context of the greater plan put forward. Deep in the article, toward the end, we are told that Israel’s negotiator, was “recorded as dismissing the offer out of hand because the Palestinians had refused to concede Har Homa, as well as the settlements at Ma’ale Adumim, near Jerusalem, and Ariel, deeper in the West Bank.” Intriguingly, we are told that “Israel’s position was fully supported by the Bush administration.” Whatever one might say about the Bush administration, is worthy of note that the Israeli position was fully supported. No reservations were expressed. It was clear as day to the Americans that an offer on Jerusalem offset by a situation in which Ma’ale Adumim and Ariel would have to be ceded by the Israelis to Palestinian control was wholly unacceptable.
Not only this, but we might bear in mind recent statements made by Maen Rashid Areikat, the Palestine Liberation Organization’s ambassador to the U.S., who said that the future Palestine should be free of Jews. After the firestorm that followed, Areikat then incriminated himself further when reiterating his position to the left-leaning Huffington Post stating that “Israeli soldiers and settlers — ‘persons who are amid an occupation, who are in my land illegally’ — would be rejected from the new Palestinian state.” So, not only would Israel have to give Ariel and Ma’ale Adumim over to the Palestinians, but in excess of 56,000 people would be forcibly ejected from their homes and compelled to find a new place to live. Is it any wonder that Israel rejected such a proposition? The peace process is dead in the water, but not for lack of Israel trying. It is dead in the water because the Palestinian leadership has led us so far up a futile and fruitless path that there is nowhere else to turn but to yet more ridiculous measures. By acting like a petulant child, not only is the Palestinian leadership dismissing Israel’s concerns and requirements, but it is effectively sabotaging the demands and needs of its own people, too.
For almost two decades now, there has been an implicit understanding that negotiations will take place based on the cease-fire line of 1949 commonly known as the “1967 borders”. This line was never intended to constitute a border. How it came to be regarded as sacred has been one of the greatest deceptions of our time. So when President Obama states that Israel will need to find a solution based on this line, this is a massive break with previous agreements and understandings. Instead of focusing on the abominable racial incitement and insidious accusations of land theft being propagated by the Palestinians, a blind eye is turn to such indiscretions and the heat is turned on Israel for having the gall to demand that tens of thousands of people not be uprooted from their homes.
It is revealing that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas saw fit to select Latifa Abu Hmeid, the mother of several terrorists involved in multiple attacks on Israeli civilians, to be the ambassador for the Palestinian independence bid. Abbas might be a moderate relative to his predecessor Yassir Arafat, but there can be no doubt that he is absolutely not moderate. In choosing such a person to endorse the bid, we are told everything we need to know about his vision and aspirations.
It would be bad enough if this was an aberration from the norm. But it’s not. Previously, Abbas has overseen the dedication of a town square near Ramallah to another Palestinian national icon, Dalal Al Mughrabi, the terrorist who killed 37 people, including 13 children, after hijacking an Israeli bus in 1979. At least two schools and numerous summer camps are amongst the recipients of having the dubious honour of being named after this murderer. Such are the heroes of the Palestinian people.
Even more disturbingly, you might have missed such enthralling television as this, in which little children are shown dressing up as suicide bombers and clutching mock AK-47 rifles. Similarly, another odious clip depicts a little girl facing the screen telling viewers that Israel “stole” all the land, and “changed the names”. It’s bad enough that the current generation make unreasonable demands of Israel. Much, much worse is that the current generation are being indoctrinated before our eyes, being led to believe that Israel – in its totality – has no right to exist at all.
So. Do the Palestinian people want to live in peace? To be fair, I imagine the answer is that many do. Most people in the world do. But do the Palestinian people want to live peace alongside Israel? Well, no, not if repeated attempts to portray the residents of Tel Aviv, Haifa, west Jerusalem and other internationally undisputed Israel-controlled areas as land thieves and aliens are anything to go by. As long as the entire Jewish state is repeatedly deemed illegal and a travesty of justice, then it follows that the Palestinians are not prepared to accept an Israeli state alongside it. As long as such agitation reigns unchecked, what hope is there for peace?
It would take someone with all the vision of a Cyclops to believe that Netanyahu is responsible for Abbas’s endorsement and glorification of terror and his subsequent refusal to engage in negotiations. Benjamin Netanyahu’s fault? Israel wilfully spurning opportunities to make peace? Palestinians forced to a final resort? Hardly. Don’t believe the lie, no matter how many times you hear it.
Related articles
Guardian again airbrushes Raed Salah’s extremism, antisemitism, and terrorist affiliations
September 20, 2011 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: Al-Aqsa Mosque, anti-Zionism, Antisemitism, Conal Urquhart, Delegitimization, Guardian, Islamic Movement in Israel, Raed Salah | by Adam Levick | 8 comments
There seems to be no limit to the lengths Guardian reporters, editors, and commentators will go to hide undeniable evidence of Palestinian extremism.
During the space of about a week, in late June and early July, the Guardian devoted seven separate pieces (news items, commentaries and letters) defending the antisemitic radical preacher, Raed Salah, and demonizing his opponents, after Salah was detained by UK Authorities out of concern that his extremist views could promote violence and threaten public order.
Today, the Guardian’s Alan Travis, “Theresa May defends decision to exclude Palestinian activist from UK, Sept. 20th, again excludes any information which would indicate precisely why the UK acted as they did.
Writes Travis:
The home secretary, Theresa May, has defended her decision to exclude the Palestinian political activist Sheikh Raed Salah from Britain..[emphasis mine]
Of course, characterizing Salah as merely a “political activist” represents yet another example of the Guardian’s ongoing attempt to white wash Salah’s record.
To sum up the cut and dry case against Salah:
He endorsed classic anti-Semitic conspiracy theories about 9/11, reportedly advanced the Medieval blood libel against Jews, acknowledged providing funds to Hamas, has often used his authority as leader of the Islamic Movment’s Northern division to incite thousands of his followers to riot (and begin a Third Intifada) under the pretense that the Al-Aksa was in danger of being destroyed by Israeli authorities.
And, as an interview in 2003 made clear, Salah’s views on the rights of women and gays (and the virtues of Jihad) represents a classic example of his religiously inspired extremism.
More broadly, The Islamic Movement, which he leads, has clear goals of indoctrinating Israeli Arabs with his Islamist ideology (an effort the Movement calls da’wa).
In short, Raed Salah is an Islamic extremist – and an unrepentant antisemite, misogynist and homophobe - who associates with terrorist movements and encourages his followers to engage in violence.
In a June 29th apologia of Salah by the Guardian’s Conal Urquhart, titled “Britain accused of collaborating with Israel on Salah arrest” – a title which would suggest that Israel is some sort of rogue terrorist state for which any bi-lateral cooperation is “collaboration” – dismissed the case against Salah, thusly:
Salah is despised by Israel’s right wing and his arrest was used as an opportunity by one member of the Knesset to launch his own “Raed Salah bill”. Alex Miller of the Israel Our Home party said the bill would prevent people such as Salah, convicted of aiding a terrorist organisation, from using government-funded institutions. [emphasis mine]
Yes, it’s simply chilling that the Israeli “right wing” would deny government funding to those who incite hatred and violence and aid terrorist
organizations committed to Israel’s destruction.
To the Guardian, even efforts by Israel to defend itself from violent, religious fanatics with proven ties to terrorism is a sign of its intolerance and illiberalism.
Related articles
- Mondoweiss or David Duke? Raed Salah’s defenders reach a new low. (cifwatch.com)
- Sheikh Raed Salah: The Indictments (cifwatch.com)
- Harriet Sherwood, and the Guardian’s continuing ideologically inspired sins of omission (cifwatch.com)
- Raed Salah Week continues at the Guardian, offering the sage analysis of Noam Chomsky (cifwatch.com)
- The Guardian: Fuelling Denials of Antisemitism (cifwatch.com)
- American Nazi “Prophecy”, Raed Salah, and Dr Daud Abdullah: Deja Vu? (cifwatch.com)

























Antisemitism: the real issue in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict that dare not speak its name
September 24, 2011 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: anti-Zionism, Antisemitism, Delegitimization, Greg Sheridan, Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Terrorism, The Australian | by Adam Levick | 4 comments
This was written by Greg Sheridan, the foreign editor of The Australian
The taxi driver was English, an English Jew who had found a better life in Israel – better pay, less anti-Semitism, safer streets, an easy air commute to his daughter in England, but close to other relatives in Israel, and lots and lots of sunshine.
That day, a Roger Whittaker song was playing on the taxi radio. This Israel, I thought, there’s something beautiful here.
Let me offer you a couple of other images.
On the BBC website, a British journalist, neither Jewish nor Israeli, recounts this experience in Cairo:
Here’s a third image, this time from outside the Middle East. An acquaintance of mine, an American woman, neither Israeli nor Jewish, nor in any way connected with the Middle East, was helping to run an outreach program in southern Thailand involving Muslim and Buddhist students.
At the end, one of the Muslim students said to her words along the lines of: thank you, that was very nice. Much better than I expected. And the final sentence: “I’d never met a Zionist before.”
The key issue in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, and in the wider Israeli-Arab dispute, is the issue that dare not speak its name, the pervasive and profound anti-Semitism that permeates the contemporary Islamic world, especially the Middle East.
This is the real barrier to peace, and people who are concerned with peace will try to ameliorate it.
It is analytically false, historically untrue and conceptually impossible that all this anti-Semitism has arisen from Israel’s sins, real and imagined.
As Richard Cohen pointed out in The Washington Post last week, when Anwar Sadat was a young army officer in 1953, he was interviewed by Al-Musawwar magazine and asked what he would say to Adolf Hitler. His reply? “My dear Hitler, I admire you from the bottom of my heart”.
Read the rest of the essay, here.
Related articles
Share this:
Like this: