You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Benjamin Netanyahu’ tag.
Simon Tisdall
The Guardian is well-known for providing space for proponents of radical Islam who advance politics which are decidedly racist and politically reactionary.
However, Simon Tisdall’s defense last year of Sudan’s President Omar al-Bashir - charged with genocide for launching attacks on the black non-Arab population of Darfur which resulted in up to 400,000 dead (much like Noam Chomsky’s defense Mao and Pol Pot) – is an exquisite example of where the extreme left becomes indistinguishable from the extreme right.
The money quote from Tisdall (in his Dec. 27, 2010 essay) pertained to his complaint that al-Bashar has been “ostracised by western governments, [and] makes an easy target. America always needs bogeymen and Bashir fits the bill: big, bothersome, bad-tempered, black, Arab and Muslim.”
That final sentence should be placed in a museum of intellectual thought as a representation of the far left’s capacity to synthesize anti-Americanism, post-colonialism and a perverse understanding of anti-racism in order to defend the morally indefensible.
Tisdall’s appalling defense of al-Bashar provides the moral context by which to judge his recent “analysis” of Israeli politics, in ”Gilad Shalit swap has split opinion on Benjamin Netanyahu“, Oct. 18.
Of course, bashing the Israeli right is something of a sport at the Guardian, and Tisdall’s piece certainly doesn’t break any new ground.
Tisdall criticizes Bibi’s lack of strategic vision which, he observes, manifests itself in the Israeli Prime Minister’s failure to “use resulting momentum [of the Shalit deal] to bridge the impasse over the blockade of Gaza or kickstart stalled peace negotiations.”
I read over that passage a few times and still don’t quite understand what it means, or, specifically, how precisely Israel’s decision to set free 1027 terrorists in exchange for Gilad Shalit relates to a blockade of Gaza necessitated by Hamas’s little habit of importing deadly weapons from Iran to use against Israeli civilians.
Even more unclear is how Tisdall’s squares his complaint that Bibi has failed to use the Shalit swap to “kickstart stalled peace negotiations” with his subsequent complaint, in the following passage, that “the deal has further weakened the Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas in relation to his more militant rivals.”
So, which one is it?
Is Bibi’s sin his failure to use the momentum of the Shalit deal to “kickstart the stalled peace negotiations” or, rather, his decision to sign off on the Shalit deal in the first place, which, Tisdall simultaneously argues, “further weakened the Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas in relation to his more militant rivals.”
Either Bibi’s decision on the Shalit deal weakened Abbas and the peace process or his decision created new opportunities to “kickstart stalled peace negotiations” which he failed to capitalize on. Logically, the two suppositions are inherently contradictory.
As further proof of Bibi’s villainy, he quotes a former U.S. Defense Secretary complaining that ”Netanyahu is not only [an] ungrateful [ally], but [is] also endangering his country by refusing to grapple with Israel’s growing isolation and with the demographic challenges it faces if it keeps control of the West Bank.”
Tisdall, like so many other experts in the West obsessively critical of Israel, frames his hyper-criticism as a form of paternalistic tough love – saving Israelis from their own worse destructive impulses. Jews, crippled as they are by irrational fears and a lack of strategic thinking, are unable to see clearly what is painfully obvious in the salons of New York and London.
The failure of Israel to overcome the animosity of Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran is merely owed to an appalling lack of Jewish sechel.
If only Israeli Jews will relent in their stubborn refusal to accept the collective wisdom of the intellectuals, poets, artists and journalist sages of our day, peace would be just around the corner.
Tisdall opened his surreal defense of Sudan’s genocidal madman, in 2010, by complaining:
“Bashing Omar al-Bashir is a popular pastime in progressive circles”
And, bashing and demonizing Israeli leaders has become something approaching a secular religion among Guardian left circles.
Related articles
- Guardian publishes letters arguing Shalit’s release (in exchange for 1027 terrorists) is unfair to Hamas (cifwatch.com)
- Gilad Shalit swap has split opinion on Binyamin Netanyahu | Simon Tisdall (guardian.co.uk)
- Lost in anti-Zionist translation? Guardian’s McGreal repeats mistranslated answers of Shalit in Arab interview (cifwatch.com)
- Guardian’s Middle East Editor, Ian Black, equates Gilad Shalit with Palestinian terrorists (cifwatch.com)
- Guardian readers view release of Shalit for 1027 terrorists as evidence of Israeli racism! (cifwatch.com)
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
A Guest Post by AKUS
Obama’s May 19 pre-AIPAC speech at the U.S. State Department was not as bad for Israel as many have suggested, though I do believe it showed his naiveté about Islam and the Arabs once again. He wasted most of the time he spent on outreach to the Arab world (e.g., offering to forgive $1 billion in debt to Egypt) with his switch to the most delicate issues of the I/P conflict, which drowned out all the rest. It seems clear that a majority of Israelis would actually agree with his statement that:
The fact is, a growing number of Palestinians live west of the Jordan River. Technology will make it harder for Israel to defend itself. A region undergoing profound change will lead to populism in which millions of people -– not just one or two leaders — must believe peace is possible. The international community is tired of an endless process that never produces an outcome. The dream of a Jewish and democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation.
It is also noteworthy that Obama carefully did NOT use the term “1967 borders” but “1967 lines” (repeated in front of AIPAC), terms lazily overlooked in most of the reporting of his speech:
We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.
For example, the Guardian, using one of its reliable Israeli flacks, Carlo Strenger, had the following which illustrates the careless use of the word “borders” by Israelis:
Barack Obama has passed the buck on Palestine
His coalition partners are at least as right-leaning: engaging with the Palestinians on the basis of the 1967 borders and a compromise on Jerusalem would lead to an open rebellion by his own party, and the dissolution of his coalition. Add to this that Netanyahu genuinely believes that the 1967 borders are indefensible, and you see that all he can do is continue stalling the peace process as he has since he came to power in 2009.
On the other hand, the Washington Post was careful to characterize the Green Line as the boundaries in place on the eve of the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. Note that the WP correctly refers to “boundaries”, not “borders”, and does not reference the Palestinians or Palestine in this context – because they were not part of the 1967 context.
Reports of Saeb Erekat’s comments indicate that he, too, referred to the “1967 lines”, not “1967 borders”, even as he rejected negotiations with Netanyahu. It is ironical that the even the Guardian reported that Erekat accurately referred to “1967 lines” while Strenger carelessly referred to “1967 borders”. Nevertheless, despite Erekat’s usage, the Guardian posted a report that included Erekat’s statement with a link that used the term “1967 borders”:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/21/netanyahu-rejects-obama-1967-borders
Erekat said Netanyahu’s statements make it clear the Israeli leader is not a partner for peace, suggesting there is no point in returning to negotiations.
“I don’t think we can talk about a peace process with a man who says the 1967 lines are an illusion, that Jerusalem will be the capital of Israel, undivided, and he does not want a single [Palestinian] refugee to go back,” Erekat said. “What is left to negotiate?”
(Erekat’s comment is also available on many other web sites and it seems clear that he used the word “lines”, not “borders”).
Netanyahu’s response to Obama was firm, but polite. He, too, carefully referred to the “1967 lines” not “1967 borders”. He did not lecture the President, and he did not turn his back on him or the USA. Of course, the Palestinians, reliably, did both especially after Obama’s AIPAC speech today, in which he “corrected” some of his earlier statements and which is well worth reading in full. Hamas, in particular, has once again made its intentions clear in a manner which even Obama cannot overlook: Hamas: Obama will fail in forcing us to recognize Israel (Ha’aretz, May 22nd, 2011) . However, even though Obama admitted on May 19th that “Palestinians have walked away from talks” he seems unable to accept that if there is a word for “compromise” in the Arab lexicon it is not often taken out of the closet and used in public.
Bibi also pointed out that, like it or not, just as Obama referred to Arab demographic changes on the West Bank, the right-wing in Israel has accomplished certain “facts on the ground” which will have to be taken into account in any border agreements that might finally emerge:
The first is that while Israel is prepared to make generous compromises for peace, it cannot go back to the 1967 lines, because these lines are indefensible, because they don’t take into account certain changes that have taken place on the ground, demographic changes that have taken place over the last 44 years.
In fact, if we can believe the Palileaks, the Palestinian leadership is well aware of the impossibility of setting the clock back – the new suburbs around Jerusalem will stay part of Israel in any future state, and most likely Ariel will as well.
The point I would like to raise is this: Israeli spokesmen (and women) must stop falling into the lazy verbal trap of referring to the 1967 “borders”. There were no “1967 borders” – there were 1948 armistice lines. In particular, the 1948 armistice line on Israel’s eastern side was with Jordan, and there was no Palestinian “state” or “entity” that existed in the “West Bank”. In fact, the Jordanians occupied what Netanyahu, for example, is careful to refer to as Judea and Samaria. The “West Bank”, as defined today, was only that section of the entire area west of the Jordan River occupied by Jordan after the 1948 war.
In fact, Israel should make it clear that the Palestinians and their supporters should not be allowed to have things both ways. If, by “1967 borders”, as the common usage has it, they mean that the clock should be set back to the situation that existed in 1967, they cannot “cherry-pick” the bits of the pre-6 Day War situation they like and ignore the bits they do not like. A true return to 1967 would have Jordan in charge of the West bank and Egypt in charge of Gaza, and no “Palestinian state” to be discussed.
Israel may or may not accept this possibility, but it is no more unreal than the idea that Israel will go back to the 1948 armistice lines, the millions of grandchildren of those who fled in 1948 will kick Israelis out of their home as they return to what was never theirs AND the Palestinians will then form a third state on borders which three times proved an open invitation to invasion by Arab armies. That being said, lazy use of the term “1967 borders’ by Israeli spokesmen confers a legitimacy on the idea that there always was a Palestinian state on the West Bank, even in the face of the obvious fact that this was never the case.
Words have meanings, and we saw over the almost endlessly wrangling with the Egyptians over the last hundred yards at Taba how important the exact definition of “borders” is. Lazy, careless references to “1967 borders” help the Palestinians create a false case among those in the international community too lazy, ignorant, or politically motivated, to understand what the reality was until June 5th, 1967.
Armistice Lines following the 1948 war
This is cross posted by David Suissa. This essay first appeared in The Jewish Journal and Huffington Post.
One of the most ironic obstacles to peace in the Middle East is what I call the Jewish disease of “ifonlyitis.” This is the school of thought that says “if only” Israel would do this, or “if only” Israel would do that, then we finally might resolve the conflict. I suffer from the syndrome myself, and for that I blame my mother. She convinced me from a very young age that “if only” I put my mind to something, there’s nothing I can’t do.
Well, Mother, it turns out there’s plenty I can’t do, and one of those things is make my enemies like me.
I was thinking of this last week when I read about the plan to increase pressure on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to obtain the release of Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier held captive by Hamas since June 2006. According to reports, the plan in the Shalit camp now is to “take the gloves off” against Netanyahu. That might include politicizing the cause and having more disruptive demonstrations throughout the country.
In an editorial in Haaretz, Nehemia Strassler wrote that the Shalit family has to “wage a personal war against the prime minister” and be “much more militant.” They must “organize mass protests and bring the country to a standstill. They must not give Netanyahu one moment of quiet.”
Evidently, because Bibi has failed to convince Hamas to return Shalit in exchange for the release of almost 1,000 Palestinian prisoners, he’s now the bad guy and must be punished. If you ever needed more proof of the Jewish instinct to blame ourselves for everything, this is it.
This is a sure sign of the “ifonlyitis” disease: The belief that everything is on our shoulders. It’s all about us. We can achieve anything. If only we would release a few hundred more terrorists with Jewish blood on their hands, we might finally free Gilad Shalit.
If only we did this, or if only we did that.
There is a wonderful psychological benefit to this disease. It gives us the illusion that we are in control; that we can affect our situation, no matter how bad it might seem. It empowers us. And when we’re in a hostile and unpredictable environment, we desperately need to feel we are in control of our destiny.
But we pay a heavy price for this illusion of control. First, it leads to tremendous tension and mutual animosity among Jews. Because we assume we are the ones who are always responsible for any situation, we end up constantly beating each other up.
Second, we get so busy beating each other up that we lose sight of the real obstacles to peace. To the Haaretz writer who is calling for a “war” against Netanyahu because Shalit is still not free, I want to scream: “Why on earth are you declaring war against Bibi? In case you forgot, he’s not the one who kidnapped Shalit and is holding him hostage!”
What Jews need, it seems to me, is less hatred of one another and more hatred of evil. Any group that will target a guided missile at a children’s school bus is evil. Any group that will codify the murder of Jews and destruction of Israel in its charter is evil. Those, my friends, are real obstacles to peace.
If we didn’t have this obsession with blaming ourselves for everything, we might focus more of our energies against the real bad guys – and maybe even come up with some imaginative ways of getting what we want.
For example, instead of pressuring the Israeli government over Gilad Shalit, why not transfer some of that pressure to the Palestinians?
A Syrian Jew who sat next to me at the first Seder this year had this idea: Take the names of the hundreds of Palestinian prisoners whom Israel has already offered to release and promote those throughout the Palestinian territories. Drop millions of leaflets with their names and pictures. Promote them on the Internet and social networks. Buy ads in Palestinian newspapers. Film some prisoners pleading for their freedom and run the clips on Al Jazeera.
In other words, put the real pressure on Hamas, not on Bibi. Humiliate Hamas for refusing to obtain the release of its own Palestinian brothers. Have them answer to the hundreds of Palestinian families who would love nothing more than to see their own Gilad Shalits returned home. Expose Hamas for turning its back on its own people.
Think that wouldn’t be more effective than starting a “personal war” against the Israeli prime minister?
It’s ridiculous to keep beating Bibi up over Gilad Shalit. His offer to release hundreds of prisoners is already risky – going beyond it would be reckless and irresponsible. He’s done his part. Now we must do ours.
Just like the global movement to free Natan Sharansky focused on pressuring the Soviet Union, the global movement to free Gilad Shalit must focus on pressuring the Palestinians. Ideally, we ought to find someone with international credibility who could spearhead this effort – someone highly motivated to do something special for Israel and the Jewish people.
In fact, I have a name in mind: Richard Goldstone.
Now “if only” I can convince him to go after the bad guys.
I recently commented to a colleague that, though I’ve worked professionally fighting anti-Semitism and advocating on behalf of Israel for many years – and there weren’t many distortions, lies, or agitprop that I haven’t seen – I still haven’t lost the ability to, at times, still become outraged by the relentless venom that’s constantly directed at the Jewish state. Mya Guarnieri’s CiF piece, “Israeli rabbis’ racist decree strikes at the soul of Judaism,” represents such a case.
Let’s begin with the title, “Israeli rabbi’s racist decree strikes at the soul of Judaism,” and examine what it is meant to evoke. As we learn by reading the essay, her commentary pertains to 50 or so rabbis (including Safed Chief Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu) who signed a religious decree forbidding Jews from selling homes or land to non-Jews. So, from a totally non-binding decree, which (though clearly discriminatory) has no weight whatsoever in the context of Israeli civil law, we are provided a hyperbolic headline which would suggest that what’s at stake is nothing short of the “soul of Judaism.” As if Judaism itself is on trial.
Guarnieri’s opening notes that the rabbis who signed the decree “urged Jews to first warn and then “ostracize” fellow Jews who disobey the edict.” In this passage one can’t help but note a contrast in penalties between Israeli and Palestinian societies handed out to those whose behavior contradicts social mores. Jews, who violate this decree, will be issued a stern warning and face the possibility of limited social opprobrium. In contrast, for instance, Palestinians who are “caught” selling land to Jews risk the death penalty. Indeed, According to the 1973 legislation, the sale of property to Jews or Israelis constitutes a crime against state security and well-being, punishable by death and the confiscation of the culprit’s possessions.
Guarnieri continues by framing the issue as representing “…just the latest wave in a rising tide of religious fascism.”
So, by the second paragraph we’re told that what’s at stake isn’t merely the social ramifications of an edict signed by few dozen bigoted rabbis, but, rather, Israel’s descent into a violent, religiously based, authoritarianism – a breathtaking rhetorical leap that, one would assume, Ms. Guarnieri has ample evidence to support.
Yet her subsequent supporting passages merely noted the following: Fifteen or so rabbis recently urged Jewish landlords to refrain from renting to Arab college students; a letter was signed by a few Tel Aviv rabbis asking Jews not to rent to illegal immigrants; a campaign was launched in an orthodox neighborhood in Tel Aviv to clamp down on illegal immigrants.
A H/T for this post goes to Israelinurse
Considering that Israel hosts the highest density of foreign correspondents per capita in the world, which results in a magnified media spotlight upon events which take place throughout the country, not least upon the pages of the Guardian, one may have anticipated somewhat more thorough coverage of the disastrous Carmel fire.
To date, CiF’s Israel page has hosted three articles (two of which were AP dispatches) and one photograph gallery of the event.
Harriet Sherwood ignored the fire altogether (while it was still raging), but still managed to file a report on Israeli racism in Safed (Tsfat) while the blaze was still engulfing Northern Israel, and found the time to write two stories on shark attacks (yes, shark attacks) in the resort town of Sharm el-Sheikh.
However, it seems that Sherwood has returned to Israel, filing a report today that ostensibly was about the aftermath of the deadly fire, but, as she seems simply unable to cast Israelis in a sympathetic light, still managed to take two swipes at the Jewish state – both at the expense of the Orthodox community, who the Guardian so loves to vilify.
By way of comparison, during the terrible bushfires in Victoria, Australia in February 2009 in which 173 people died, 414 were injured and 7,562 displaced from their homes, CiF published 27 articles on the subject in the first four days of the event.
Taking into account that Australia’s population is more than three times larger than that of Israel, the 41 dead and 17,000 displaced persons in the Mount Carmel fire make current events in Israel a national disaster on a comparable scale.
Absent from the current CiF coverage of the event is any aspect of the individual stories of those Israelis affected by the fire, in contrast to the kind of articles run during the Australian disaster. Also not covered is any reporting on the damage to the environment and wildlife, again in contrast to the reporting of the similar event in Victoria.
Could it be that the Guardian editors are reluctant to run stories about events which do not fit in with the usual theme of ‘Israelis behaving badly’? (See Akus’s piece, back in early June, on the Guardian’s obsessive coverage of the flotilla incident for another example of this bias)
Here’s the visual of the Guardian’s coverage of the Australian fires, which is followed by a visual their coverage of the Carmel fire.
A Guest Post by AKUS
A new article by Harriet “ChickenLady” Sherwood, the Guardian’s woman in Jerusalem, who almost never has a good word to say about Israel, revealed a shocking new initiative by Israel: Israel recruits citizen advocates in Europe.
Yes – Israel has decided to ask eight or so of its European embassies to each identify 1,000 of the 300 million EU citizens who could help offset the drip-drip of anti-Israeli venom that daily oozes out of Europe’s mass media, blogs, and organizations – from media like, in fact, the Guardian. According to Sherwood, “These individuals – likely to be drawn from Jewish or Christian activists, academics, journalists and students – will be briefed regularly by Israeli officials and encouraged to speak up for Israel at public meetings or write letters or articles for the press.” Five of the embassies have been authorized to hire PR firms to help.
In fact, I am shocked – in a good way. This represents a remarkable change of direction for Israel. Until now, the Foreign Office and the laughable Information Ministry have never even indicated that they are aware of the problem and that something needs to be done about it. So – bravo, Israel – a shekel late and a shekel short, but if not now, when? And if not us, who? as Rabbi Hillel would have said if he were running the Foreign Ministry.
Of course, since we are talking about Israel, Sherwood has to make it clear in tone and words that the Guardian views this as yet another underhand effort by Israel to refute the attacks on its legitimacy.
Rather than comparing Israel’s PR efforts with those of every developed country on the planet (for example, the UK in the USA here and here and here) she chose to compare them with Rwanda, Sri Lanka, and Madagascar, citing a Guardian article that took aim at the efforts by the first two to overcome their image problems. Rwanda and Sri Lanka, of course, are well-known for actual acts genocide and mass murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians – so Sherwood is implicitly stating that Israel is in the same category.
Sherwood provides a strong hint that in her opinion Israel is doing something underhand by using PR firms to assist with its initiative. She provides a link to a critical Guardian article about various countries’ PR efforts, noting in a non-sequitor that “Bell Pottinger, headed by Lord Bell, a former adviser to Lady Thatcher represents Sri Lanka and Madagascar.” She provides no proof that Israel is using this firm, just the insinuation that there is something underhand about the firm and a country that would hire it. What could be more despicable, after all, than to use a PR firm whose head once advised Lady Thatcher and now advises Sri Lanka?
Hawkeye
Omar2
WellofSense
Medusa
The Alchemist
Louise
Tosca
Maimon
Telling the Truth
Israelinurse
Adam Levick
Margie in Tel Aviv
Guest/Cross Post
Hadar Sela
The Insanity of the Middle East: A Handy Guide
November 24, 2011 in Comments which are off-topic, ad hominem, racist, vulgar or include threats of violence will be deleted | Tags: Barry Rubin, Benjamin Netanyahu, Hamas, Mahmoud Abbas, Salam Fayyad | by Guest/Cross Post | 7 comments
This was written by Barry Rubin
Every day in the Middle East, terrible things take place.
The worst are the material acts of violence and oppression. The second-worst are the lies and distortions of truth that help ensure things don’t get better.
Every day in the West, the lies are echoed, amplified, and invented. This also helps ensure things don’t get better in the Middle East and that they do get worse in the West.
Now I’ve found, from the most unexpected place, a single sentence, an ancient proverb, that explains it all. It comes from the Navahos and it goes like this:
You cannot awaken someone who pretends to be sleeping.
In other words, you cannot convince someone who is not merely mistaken but is deliberately lying. They have abandoned professional ethics, democratic and intellectual norms. They have embraced being propagandists and supporters of authoritarian and bloody regimes.
Obviously, this doesn’t apply to everyone, and in those others are the hope for something better. It is those people, who honestly don’t realize that their leaders follow foolish policy, their newspapers all too often lie, and their universities (or at least significant sections of them) have abandoned the pursuit of truth in favor of the manufacture of lies.
If that seems extreme, perhaps that means you fall into that last category of the decent but deceived. Let’s look at some specific cases.
The newspaper.
If there would ever be a last straw for me regarding what was once the English-speaking world’s greatest newspaper, it is this one, the New York Times editorial of October 19, 2011:
What has one thing have to do with the other? Israel isn’t negotiating with Hamas on a political level but to save the life of a young Israeli who has been in horrible captivity for five years. And this is one with no illusion that Hamas will continue to wage terrorism.
But what’s really disturbing here is the idea that it is Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who have been refusing to negotiate with the Palestinian Authority rather than the other way around. It is frequently repeated in the mass media and it is so obviously absurd that it must now be considered a deliberate lie by propagandists rather than an honest or ignorant or ideologically driven error.
Funnily enough, within hours of this editorial claim we have…
The “Moderates”
The ultimate Palestinian “moderate,” Prime Minister Salam Fayyad,explained:
In other words, even when the Palestinian prime minister openly rejects talks and even after dozens of previous rejections by him and Palestinian “President” Mahmoud Abbas, and dozens of documented acceptances of negotiations by Netanyahu and Israel, the lie that Israel doesn’t want to negotiate and the PA does is repeated.
Obviously, this is not a misunderstanding but a lie. One reason for this lie is that if the truth were to be told it would have to be explained why the “poor,” “desperate,” “victimized” Palestinians don’t want to negotiate. And the answer would have to be an uncomfortable truth:
Their leaders don’t’ want peace, compromise, or a two-state solution but total victory.
And that truth would require a change in the Western policy and understanding of the issue.
Finally, note the reaction of the leaders of the two Palestinian regimes:
Abbas told the released prisoners:
And Hamas deputy leader Abu Marzouk insisted:
By murdering Israeli civilians, both the “moderate” and the “radical” explain, these people have done nothing wrong and are free—even encouraged—to do so again in future. You cannot build a democratic state on the basis of calling terrorists “freedom fighters” (and note the “secular” Abbas’s reference to jihad).
And you cannot compromise with another side when you continue to urge and justify the deliberate murder of its civilians.
Related articles
Share this: