Jan 6 2013

“I am going to start an Intifada.”

The narrative regarding the deadly terrorist attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya on Sept. 11, 2012, which the MSM and the Guardian advanced, but which soon was proved to be completely erroneous, suggested that an obscure anti-Muslim film – which, it was claimed, was produced by an Israeli Jew – triggered a “spontaneous” protest outside the embassy, leading to an assault which left four people dead, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens.

It soon became apparent that the film – which was actually created by a Coptic Christian – had absolutely nothing to do with the attack.

It is now known that the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was a premeditated act of terrorism committed by al Qaeda-linked terrorists.

On September 28, 2000, an Israeli Jew was blamed for inciting what would become known as the Al-Aqsa Intifada – a brutal five-year campaign of Palestinian terrorism, directed largely against Jewish civilians, which claimed over 1,100 innocent lives and injured thousands more.

The Intifada was defined by the hideous tactic of suicide bombing, in which the Palestinian terrorists detonated explosive belts in crowded public places (in order to maximize the loss of life), sending thousands of pieces of shrapnel tearing into human limbs and organs.

On March 27, 2002, a Palestinian suicide bomber named Abdel-Basset Odeh murdered 30 people at a Seder meal at the Park Hotel in Netanya, including several Holocaust survivors

Most who truly understand the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict would have known already that Yasser Arafat started the Second Intifada, but the latest admission by Arafat’s widow, Suha, about the origins of the Intifada – which she similarly acknowledged last year - serves to completely discredit those who continue denying the obvious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yIlszDfp94

Suha Arafat in an interview in December on Dubai TV, said the following:

“Yasser Arafat had made a decision to launch the Intifada. Immediately after the failure of the Camp David [negotiations], I met him in Paris upon his return, in July 2001 [sic]. Camp David has failed, and he said to me: “You should remain in Paris.” I asked him why, and he said: “Because I am going to start an Intifada. They want me to betray the Palestinian cause. They want me to give up on our principles, and I will not do so. I do not want Zahwa’s friends in the future to say that Yasser Arafat abandoned the Palestinian cause and principles. I might be martyred, but I shall bequeath our historical heritage to Zahwa [Arafat's daughter] and to the children of Palestine.”

Click on image to go to video

Here’s permanent content on the Guardian’s Israel page, ‘The Arab-Israel conflict‘:

The photo story consists of 22 photos illustrating the history of the conflict.

Here’s the photo representing the Second Intifada. (Note the caption)

Click to Enlarge

Here’s a photo and caption from a 2006 Guardian piece titled ‘Ariel Sharon: A life in pictures‘.

Indeed, among the more common erroneous narratives advanced by the mainstream media (and, of course, the Guardian) is that Ariel Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount, the holiest site in Judaism, “sparked” the Second Intifada and that the Intifada began organically – lies repeated so often that causal observers could be forgiven for believing them.

However, commentators of good faith can no longer make such a claim.

Arguing that an Israeli Jew sparked the Second Intifada, however, often serves a broader polemical objective: to deny Palestinian terrorists, and their leaders, moral responsibility for the five-year war of terror against Israeli civilians, and its injurious political consequences, in a manner consistent with an anti-Zionist narrative which rarely assigns such moral agency to the Palestinians under any circumstances.

The claim that, in 2000, Jews incited Palestinians to kill Jews, like so much of what passes for conventional wisdom about the conflict, is a total lie.

Yasir Arafat’s Timeline of Terror (CAMERA)

Dec 3 2012

Paul Harris misleads on Israel’s commitment to freeze settlements under 2002 ‘Roadmap’

Paul Harris’s Dec. 1 Guardian piece, ‘Clinton and Hague attack Israel decision to build new settlements‘, reported on Netanyahu’s decision to approve the planning process for construction of 3,000 homes on land East of Jerusalem.

Harris, in an effort to contextualize Israeli plans to proceed with new construction, included the following claim, near the end of his report:

“Israel agreed to freeze settlement construction under the Roadmap For Peace plan in 2002. But it has failed to comply with that commitment despite repeated and widespread international condemnation.”

Harris’s claim is, at best, highly misleading.

Originally, Israel, under Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, specifically rejected the elements of the Road Map (proposed by President Bush in 2002) which required Israel to halt settlement construction – a fact widely reported in the media at the time.

However, even when Israel announced, later than month, that they accepted, in principle, the goals of road map, they added a list of reservations. One of these reservations stipulated that, while they would “discuss” the issue of a settlement freeze and removing illegal outposts, any such Israeli concessions would be contingent upon the Palestinians combating terror, putting an end to incitement and educating their people for peace.

Specifically, regarding the “settlement freeze”, the Israelis also explicitly asserted their continued right to settlement development within the existing communities - a partial freeze measure, again, only to commence when the Palestinians began fighting terror and working to end incitement.

In 2004 the 2nd Intifada was still raging, and there was indication that the Palestinian requirement was being fulfilled.

So, the settlement freeze was part of a larger ‘road map’, implemented by a U.S. President no longer in office, was only partial to begin with and was contingent upon reciprocal Palestinian behavior in honoring their commitment to end terror – a relevant factor given that the Intifada didn’t end until February, 2005.

It’s also odd of Harris to cite a peace proposal from 2002, the terms of which were, at best, unclear, in light of President Obama’s more recent request, in 2009, which Netanyahu agreed to, for a 10 month freeze in construction to advance the peace process.

So, Harris’s claim, that Israel agreed to the freeze, and that they failed to comply with it, is, at best, extremely misleading.

…

One final note: A Sky News report published on Dec. 1, more than an hour before Harris’s piece was originally published at the Guardian, includes some of the same exact language about Israel’s alleged failure to abide by an agreement to freeze construction in 2002:

Sky News, 17:05, Saturday December 1, 2012:

“Israel agreed to freeze settlement construction under the Roadmap for Peace plan in 2002 but has failed to comply with that commitment.”

Paul Harris at the Guardian, 18.28, Saturday 1 December 2012:

Israel agreed to freeze settlement construction under the Roadmap For Peace plan in 2002. But it has failed to comply with that commitment…

Is it a coincidence that both Harris and the (uncredited) Sky News report used the precise same 22 words in a row in similar stories filed within an hour and half of one another?

Perhaps.

Jan 23 2011

Ian Williams: the Epitome of the Guardian World View

This week I read with interest the Hansard report of a recent debate in the British Parliament on the subject of anti-Semitism. One of the many pertinent subjects raised was that of the prevention of the spread of racial hatred via the internet and newspapers which those MPs taking part rightly consider to be an important priority. Hopefully, the Right Honourable John Mann (one of an increasingly rare breed of politicians who really do live up to the prefix) and his colleagues will be able to make speedy headway on this subject. But, until then, I suspect that we will have to put up with many more articles such as the one by Ian Williams which appeared on CiF on January 21^st.

Leaving aside the article’s subject matter (Williams wants Obama to ‘call Israeli settlements illegal’, but of course does not trouble himself with the question ‘and then what?’), it is interesting and revealing to examine the methods Williams uses to persuade the reader to accept his case.

First, he sets out his disputable quasi-legal case according to which all settlements are illegal, with no nuance, no mention of alternative legal opinions and with wilful disregard of history. The point is, of course, to try to make it seem as though the ‘decent’ world thinks as one and Israelis are out of step with that ‘decent’ world.

Secondly, he establishes an identikit image of Israelis by assigning them stereotypical traits. They show ‘defiance’ even in the face of American bribes and can be likened to common criminals.

“It is as if you have caught someone stealing your car and the police decide to overlook technical issues like the law and ownership and instead tell you to negotiate with the thief to get occasional access to the back seat.”

Next, Williams goes on to invoke the age-old anti-Semitic trope of Jewish power in the form of the omnipotent ‘Israel lobby’.

“Of course, Obama has other problems, such as the economy and healthcare, and on the Middle East must face not only a rabidly pro-Israeli Republican party but also a majority of his own party that would sign up to a resolution declaring the moon to be made of blue cheese if the Israeli lobby demanded it.”

‘Rabidly pro-Israeli’ has very interesting connotations, implying both irrational and unusual behavior which presents a danger (it is common practice to put down rabid animals because of the threat they present to humans) and also the fact that such behavior is the result of infection by an outside force – a pathogen.

Continue reading →

Jan 18 2011

Guardian cartoonist Martin Rowson, and Israel’s immutable sin

The Guardian’s Readers’ Editor, Chris Elliott – of “facts are tricky things” fame – recently posted a meditation on political cartoons, and what he sees as the fine line between caricature and stereotype.

Says Elliott:

Opinions may differ as to whether a cartoon or caricature has hit the mark, but the tone of the argument changes when it is tangled with the language of race or religion. Or both. I occasionally receive complaints from readers who believe a cartoon or caricature has tipped over the edge into being racially or religiously offensive.

Elliott then quotes cartoonist Martin Rowson – see CiF Watch posts, here and here:

“It’s an extremely difficult area, and one where the caricaturist has to tread extremely carefully. That said, offence is also often in the eye of the beholder, and I can’t now count the number of times a caricature of, say, Ariel Sharon has elicited the response that this is ‘the most foully antisemitic cartoon since the closure of Der Stürmer’. Well, that one can be unravelled quite easily, as the kneejerk ‘antisemite’ instant response to any criticism of Israel.”

Interestingly, Elliott disagrees with Rowson’s complaint about Jews’ “kneejerk” responses:

I don’t agree with Rowson that all the complaints of antisemitism are kneejerk; they are often not about the criticism itself but the wrapping of such criticism in antisemitic language or imagery.

Here’s one by Rowson entitled, “Mindless in Gaza”, of a grotesque Ariel Sharon from 2oo1:

Continue reading →

Dec 30 2010

(Updated) UK comedian’s observations in the Guardian reveal more than his style of humor

H/T Pretzelberg

Imagine you’re a comedian, and you want to tell a political joke. But, as politics is such a sensitive topic, you want to take care not to alienate your fans. What do you do? Well, you’ll likely decide to use, as the object of your mockery, a safe target – someone beyond the pale, like a totalitarian dictator or egotistical tyrant. Kim Jong-il, Omar al-Bashir, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad come to mind.

The Guardian’s Culture Guide, on Dec. 18, which contained celebrity end-of-year lists, included this one, on “Reasons to be cheerful” by British comedian Mark Steel, who wrote his as a poem. The last zinger included this gem:

A single malt’s aroma,
An ‘Mmm donuts’ from Homer,
Ariel Sharon still in a coma

It’s quite interesting that, of all the despots, dictators, and madmen he could have employed in the service of his humorous observations, he chose to mock the comatose former Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon.

The joke is more than tasteless. It speaks volumes about the prejudices of Guardian readers – about which, Mark Steel was clearly very much aware.

UPDATE:

My thanks to a reader who linked to an article Steel wrote on his website, in which he referred to Israel as, “a nation which acts with such contempt for humanity.“ Steele’s humor at Ariel Sharon’s expense was clearly not a fluke.

Dec 13 2010

Israel’s fight for survival and the comfort of Mick Davis

I was sharing a ride with a Jewish colleague during the height of the 2nd Intifada in 2002 – a terror war against the Jewish state that would claim over 1100 Israeli lives – and discussing the increase of anti-Semitic acts around the world triggered by the conflict when she exclaimed, “Ariel Sharon is causing anti-Semitism.”

Of course, what she was talking about was the upsurge in anti-Semitic violence directed towards Jews in the European diaspora while Israel was fighting Operation Defensive Shield. My colleague eventually apologized for her remarks - as, perhaps, it occurred to her how insensitive she sounded – but that visual is still emblazoned in my mind: A Jew living quite comfortably in safety and affluence in the United States bemoaning the defensive actions of the world’s only Jewish state in a war against foes openly committed to her destruction.

I recalled that conversation when I first learned that Mick Davis, head of the UJIA (United Jewish Israel Appeal), the leading fund-raising organization in Britain for Israel, said the following:

“I think the government of Israel …have to recognise that their actions directly impact on me as a Jew living in London. When they do good things it is good for me, when they do bad things, it’s bad for me.”

While it was heartening to see the support Jonathan Hoffman’s letter in the JC (lambasting Davis) received by at least some in the British Jewish community, the broader problem of diaspora Jewry’s “discomfort” when confronted with the messy business of defending Israel goes beyond Mick Davis. Davis represents a large number of Jews who, as Melanie Phillips, noted,

“…instead of truthfully identifying the cause of the conflict as Arab intransigence and… hatred…parrot the Israel-bashers’ false claim that the impasse is really Israel’s fault.”

The moral elitism that many well-meaning diaspora Jews feel represents a stubborn refusal to acknowledge that no amount of Israeli good will or sechel (intellect) – of which, such Jews see themselves as possessing in massive quantities – by Israel’s leaders can magically bring peace in the Middle East. For many well-off Jews outside of Israel, it has become un-PC to acknowledge [regarding Hamas, Hezbollah, and other radical Islamist groups] that we are dealing with a dramatically different culture than ours – an ideology that doesn’t share our views about tolerance, pluralism, and peace.

Beyond Davis, there is a broader point to be made about a Western Jewish world that has become (largely) so well-off – enjoys so much freedom, comfort, and safety in the nations where they reside, that they have lost the sense of what it means to have to struggle for your existence, to have to take up arms and fight for your life, your family, your community, your nation – for the right to live freely as Jews in a part of the world that is still hostile to such modest aims.

No matter how openly hostile Israel’s enemies are to her existence, no matter how serious and complex the myriad of threats that they face are, such a disconnect results in an inability to empathize with such fears – the very real concerns of Jews whose lives aren’t as easy as their own.

This dynamic – this glaring lack of empathy – was on full display when, during Israel’s Operation Cast Lead, a press release was issued by the new left-wing Israel lobby group, J Street, scolding Israel for its behavior and claiming that:

“Only diplomacy and negotiations can end the rockets and terror.”

I was then, and remain to this day, truly baffled how any adult with even the most rudimentary understanding of the democratic world’s experience in the last century battling totalitarian and terrorist movements can seriously make such a claim. And – as a new Israeli who now must burden the real-world consequences of such facile notions about war, peace, diplomacy, and the right to self-defense – I nervously ponder the degree to which such ideas have planted roots and taken hold within diaspora Jewish communities across the world.

A Jewish writer, Jay Michaelson, wrote an essay for The Forward last year expressing his diminishing ”love” for Israel, and his increasing reluctance to mount a defense against her critics. Michaelson – mirroring in many ways the lament of Mick Davis – complained that defending Israel within his political circles had become an extremely risky endeavor. He said:

”In my social circles, supporting Israel is like supporting segregation, apartheid…the war in Iraq, or George Bush …It’s gotten so bad, I don’t mention Israel in certain conversations anymore, and no longer defend it when it’s lumped in with South Africa and China by my friends.”

Yet, he went on to admit that he knows it is:

”…a sign of weakness of will on my part…this is wrong of me, I know.”

He, remarkably, concluded by acknowledging:

“I still support the State of Israel, its right to exist and the rest. Most important, it is still, in part, my home…. But as an outsider, I no longer want to feel entangled by their decisions and implicated in their consequences. B’seder: It’s your choice to make… but count me out.”

As Jonathan Hoffman said:

“If Israel ’s policies make Davis uncomfortable at the golf club, let him acquire the knowledge and pride to defend a democracy under fire. If he is unwilling, he is not fit to be a communal leader and should resign.”

Mr. Davis, some things in life are worth fighting for – even if it means losing a bit of comfort and security.

Perhaps you need reminding that if, indeed, you lose friends as a result of such a principled stance, well, you may want to consider the possibility that such folks weren’t really your friends to begin with.