One of the reasons why Elder of Ziyon is my favorite pro-Israel blogger is his capacity to dish out well-deserved mockery to Israel’s critics, many of whom are often self-caricatures of the anti-Zionist Guardian-style Left – people beyond satire, who we’d have to invent if they didn’t actually exist.
His post today, “The humiliation in Gaza continues: The Andaluseyya Mall” is classic Elder, and puts in proper perspective the utter lunacy of those who continue to claim – be they flotilla-ists, flytilla-ists, or merely those duped by their political theatrics – that, despite abundant evidence to the contrary, there’s anything even resembling a “humanitarian crisis” in Gaza.
You can see the full post here, but here’s a photo of one of the new stores in the mall, which should at least give you a taste of Gaza’s unimaginable misery.
- Gaza’s misery? Revisiting two Guardian reports which cited Gaza unemployment at 45% (cifwatch.com)
- Harriet Sherwood feels Hamas’ pain (cifwatch.com)
- Mya Guarnieri laments possible demise of flotilla stunt; Quotes activist who blames “Zionist tentacles” (cifwatch.com)
- Guardian’s pro-Palestinian activist Harriet Sherwood manufactures the ‘news’. (cifwatch.com)
- The ‘flytilla’ – a cameo appearance by bigots and extremists within the anti-Israel campaign in the UK (cifwatch.com)
- Israel’s success + Flotilla’s failure = The Guardian’s boredom (cifwatch.com)
- Harriet Sherwood, and the Guardian’s continuing ideologically inspired sins of omission (cifwatch.com)
“Every Dutch reporter on the flotilla has bailed out for the same reasons. And they are also upset over how the flotilla is hiding the involvement of at least one known Hamas leader.”
Elder quotes From De Telegraaf:
Enraged at the paranoia, the dictatorial atmosphere, mutual distrust and outright opposition on board, all Dutch journalists to leave the ship which the Dutch activists seek confrontation with Israeli marines in the Gaza Strip.
According to the four reporters who left, they were censored by the activists, who did not respond to any critical questions, such as the financing of the ship. The money was scraped together by collections in Dutch mosques, as this newspaper revealed earlier.
The Dutch report, which Elder quotes, also notes the radical affiliation of the Netherlands Gaza group behind the flotilla:
Now it appears that the infamous Dutch Hamas leader Amin Abou Rashed was also present in recent days in the training of the crew in Greece…The foundation was forced to admit that Rashed was present in Greece, because of his involvement in the purchase of the ship.
Now emerges a unique picture, when the Dutch Hamas leader Sheikh Amin Abou Rashed supports Yusuf al Qaradawi, spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood. This Al Qaradawi is hoping to transform Egypt into a fundamentalist dictatorship. The Sheikh, a fierce anti-Semite and notorious for his inflammatory speeches, lived in exile in Qatar. After the revolt against Egyptian President Mubarak returned to Cairo. Al Qaradawi wants to stone gays and adulterers, would “dismantle” Israel, encourages suicide attacks inside Israel and believes that men should strike “rebellious” women.
Elder closed by noting “Amin Rashed was on last year’s flotilla and has been linked with Hamas and the Holy Land Foundation.“
So, when you add to the recent revelations about the radical terrorist affiliations of the flotillas’ sponsors to this latest development – of an increasing number of Liberal European journalists, and participants, being disenchanted with the flotilla and its mission – what you’re left with is a story about a an anti-Israel publicity stunt that seems to be failing miserably.
- ‘Freedom Flotilla 2′ – Update 4 – ‘Brothers’ in Arms (cifwatch.com)
- Guardian and Independent coverage of second flotilla omits key facts (cifwatch.com)
- The tangled web they weave – the eminence noir behind the “Freedom Flotilla 2″ (cifwatch.com)
- Flotilla Publicity Stunt Update (cifwatch.com)
- ‘Freedom Flotilla 2′ – Update 5 – Dutch journalists jump ship. (cifwatch.com)
This is cross posted by Elder of Ziyon
From The Guardian:
Sheikh Raed Salah, a leading Palestinian activist, has been detained in London after he entered the UK while banned from the country.
Salah, the leader of the Islamic Movement in Israel, was detained on Tuesday night by police.
The home secretary, Theresa May, said officials from the UK Border Agency were taking steps to remove Salah from the country. She said an investigation had been launched into how he managed to get into the UK.
…Sarah Colborne, director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC), insisted that Salah was the leader of a legitimate political organisation. He rejected all forms of racism, including anti-semitism, she said.
“Sheikh Raed Salah is the leader of the Islamic Movement in Israel, the largest movement for Palestinians in Israel,” Colborne said.
“This is a legitimate organisation which Israel has never moved to ban.
“Raed Saleh regularly speaks at venues across Israel where he has considerable support amongst the Palestinian citizens of Israel, who make up a fifth of the population.
“Sheikh Raed has been elected as mayor of his home town, Um al-Fahm, three times. He has never been convicted of anti-semitism in Israel.
“Before coming to Britain, he faced horrific allegations of anti-semitism, which he completely refuted.”
This article is a perfect example of media bias.
The entire article is 13 paragraphs long – and of those 13, fully 6 are given to someone defending Raed Salah.
There is nothing in the article that mentions any possible reason why Salah might be considered undesirable. It doesn’t mention why he has been arrested and imprisoned in Israel, or his ties to Hamas, or his regular incitement against Jews (every week or so he confidently declares that Israel plans to demolish the Al Aqsa Mosque, trying as hard as he can to inflame Muslim passions and start a new intifada.) To the Guardian, he is simply a “Palestinian activist.”
Even worse, the Guardian allows an apologist for Salah to assert that he is not anti-semitic.
Just one problem:
And it doesn’t take too much effort to prove that.
From Ha’aretz, January 29, 2008:
The head of the Islamic Movement in Israel’s Northern Branch, Ra’ad Salah, was charged Tuesday in Jerusalem Magistrate’s Court with incitement to violence and racism, over a fiery speech he gave a year ago in which he invoked the blood libel.
During the speech at the February 16, 2007 protest in the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Wadi Joz, Salah accused Jews of using children’s blood to bake bread.
“We have never allowed ourselves to knead [the dough for] the bread that breaks the fast in the holy month of Ramadan with children’s blood,” he said. “Whoever wants a more thorough explanation, let him ask what used to happen to some children in Europe, whose blood was mixed in with the dough of the [Jewish] holy bread.”
“Great God, is this a religion?” he asked. “Is this what God would want? God will deal with you yet for what you are doing.”
The rally was called to protest the planned Mughrabi bridge construction in Jerusalem’s Old City. Addressing the 1,000-strong crowd and assembled press, Salah accused Israel of attempting to rebuild the Jewish Temple on the Temple Mount while drenched in Arab blood.
“Whoever wants to build a house of God should not do so while our blood is still on his clothes, on his doorposts, in his food, in his drink, being passed along from one terrorist general to the next terrorist general,” he said.
Following the speech and Friday prayers, the crowd began rioting and throwing stones at police. According to the prosecution, Salah’s speech constituted a “call to commit acts of violence and encouragement of acts of violence, which given the content and context, there was a real possibility that it could lead to acts of violence.”
The prosecution said Salah made the remarks “with the objective of inciting racism.”
In an interview with Ashams radio, Salah said in response that, “I am willing to repeat before the court all the things I said at the Friday sermon in Wadi Joz or any other meeting with journalists.“
“Our statements are the products of conviction, and I will not recant,” he continued.
Salah was released from prison in 2005 after serving some two years for having contact with a foreign agent, as well as financial crimes related to the Islamic Movement.
This is not only a problem with the Guardian. No other newspaper coverage of Salah regularly mentions his blood libel, which is a piece of information that should be attached to his name every single time it is mentioned in a news report.
But The Guardian deserves to be singled out here for an article that is completely void of context and that is nearly 50% apologetics for a terrorist supporter, regular inciter to violence and an unabashed anti-semite.
- Azzam Tamimi’s big ‘Arab Spring’ lie. (cifwatch.com)
- Details on investigation and arrest of Palestinians in connection with Fogel family murders (cifwatch.com)
As Elder noted, “this is something to link to every time an Israel-hater says that ‘Israel killed nine peace activists in cold blood’ on the Mavi Marmara.”
This is cross posted by Elder of Ziyon
It is fun to watch how Israel haters react to my series of posters celebrating Zionism.
One such hater is someone named Ben White, who apparently is one of the leaders of the anti-Israel crowd. He wrote a book called “Israeli Apartheid: A Beginner’s Guide” and has been praised by the usual crowd of anti-Zionists like Ali Abunimah and Ilan Pappe.
His reaction to my posters was to put up his own spoof poster on Twitter, replacing “Zionism” with “Hasbara” and tweeting “Israel at 63: This is Hasbara!”:
Not having ever heard of him, I thought this was a compliment, because I think it is a very good example of what hasbara should be. Only when MargieInTelAviv responded
ah can’t stand the truth can you? Why not check it out?
Did I realize it was meant to be an insult.
Of course it is #Hasbara. And it is true. Hasbara is no more an insult than #Zionism!
#hasbara in 2011 = treating kids in Haiti, evicting kids in #Palestine
He then included a link to “Hasbara Buster” who claims that Israel’s good deeds aren’t good in themselves, but an insidious plot to redirect the world from talking about Israeli crimes.
You are a sad man to get so upset over Zionists doing good things.
you are a not-so-bright man if u think it’s the “doing good things” bit that’s objectionable
Ah. One sided propaganda against Israel=good, telling the other side=evil. Got it.
No, it’s called using acts of charity in strategy 2 defend apartheid. But nice #projection though
Even your example disproves your thesis. Org is private. But your hate overrides all. Sad.
He then tried to change the subject, with a photo that I suppose is meant to illustrate Zionist evil. Which is the usual modus operandi of people like him – they need to change the playing field in order to pretend to win.
But think about his main argument: he believes that when Israel – or in this case, ordinary Israelis – do good things, they have an ulterior motive: to cover up crimes. And when people like me publicize how great Israel is, we also have an evil motive: to cover up Israel’s crimes.
In other words, to these mental midgets, Israel is inherently evil. Everything it does is evil. This is the premise that informs all of their activities. No shades of grey, no nuance, not even the possibility of admitting that things are more complex than they pretend. When Israel does something seemingly bad, it proves it is evil, when it does something good, it’s just more proof that it is evil.
Logical people, who make up their minds based on evidence, can look at both sides of a story and decide. Haters, however, already know the answer, and any evidence to the contrary they use to “prove” their own point!
Let’s once again look at the oppressed Palestinian Arab cancer patients who enjoyed a day in the snow courtesy of the IDF, the subject of my first poster:
Looking at these photos drives the haters crazy, as we have seen. They cannot reconcile the idea of Israelis – especially Israeli soldiers – actually doing something nice for the people they supposedly despise and who are, they believe, being ethnically cleansed by the very same soldiers. The cognitive dissonance must be painful. They must therefore invent their own elaborate frameworks of bizarre conspiracy theories to reconcile the obvious truth about Israel with their own, twisted, hate.
How can oppressed Palestinian Arab kids allow themselves to be used as pawns by the evil IDF? How dare they laugh and smile and have fun with the symbols of Zionist atrocities? Better that they refuse to go sledding in Mount Hermon, and stay in their hospitals, than go and have fun when there is a slight chance that someone might photograph them and use them in such a terrible evil hasbaristic way! Don’t they see that they are exactly like the Jews in Theresienstadt before the Red Cross visited it in 1944? Their smiles are lies! Their fun is a lie! The pictures are probably Photoshopped! The IDF was probably mowing them down with machine guns!
There is an entire industry out there, with people who are emotionally – and, in this case, financially – invested in demonizing Israel. Showing the truth is a direct threat to their worldview, and for them, this cannot be allowed. To them, Israel is a uniquely evil entity that must be destroyed, and tons of solid evidence showing that they are completely, irrevocably wrong is simply something else that they must do battle with their only weapon: lies.
H/T Elder of Ziyon
Of course, those who believe, with an almost religious intensity, that the United States is a hotbed of anti-Muslim bigotry won’t be moved by this study.
However, anyone with even the faintest interest in an empirical analysis of this issue might be interested in a new 40 page report by the Center For Security Policy which not only debunks the claim that Muslim Americans are disproportionately victimized by religiously inspired bias crimes, but clearly demonstrates Jewish victims are, in fact, far more likely to be the target of such crimes.
The article is a mixture of statements of the obvious – I give you,
“… Its impact will be felt far beyond the people injured in the blast and those who witnessed the explosion….”
As well as (curiously enough, given that it’s Harriet writing), a glimmer of understanding of why the IDF was engaged in acting against Hamas-linked terrorists in Gaza.
She even acknowledges that Hamas was responsible for the firing of the 50 or so mortar shells into Israel (although she couches it in somewhat equivocal terms).
She goes on to refer to the pressure on Hamas to do something for the armed struggle in order to satisfy the Palestinian people, (and here, totally unwittingly, she alludes to the fantasy ideology which has driven much of Hamas’ mad and fruitless acting out, which I have discussed in-depth elsewhere on CiF Watch).
So far so mediocre and hardly her usual offensive self, but let us not forget that she writes for the Guardian and sure enough later in the article out it comes:
“…. It is far too early to say what Wednesday’s bus blast heralds. But, at the very least, it is bound to reinforce Netanyahu’s belief that Israel has “no partner for peace”, a phrase that brings bitter laughter from observers who say Israel shows little sign of wanting to make peace…. “
Is Harriet seriously trying to argue that Netanyahu is WRONG to believe that Israel has no partner for peace in the PA? Dear Harriet, permit me to offer a little lesson in reality testing since you and your colleagues at the Guardian seem, (how shall I say?) somewhat deficient in this area:
You yourself admitted that there was a terrorist act in Jerusalem (OK you didn’t actually call it a “terrorist” act, unlike William Hague, the British Foreign Minister who condemned it in those terms, but you compared it to the terror attacks during the second intifada)
You then, quite correctly, named Hamas as the main culprits in the shelling of southern Israel. So far so good but hang on in, because this is where it may get difficult for you to understand:
True, Abbas condemned the massacre at Itamar, but on the day after that massacre he dedicated a town square to the memory of a suicide murderer!
Is this the action of a man who (a) tells the truth or (b) says only what he thinks his audience want to hear, and on the strength of that (c) can be trusted to mean what he says and (d) is therefore a reliable partner for peace? The man is a proven liar.
In light of the foregoing, how on earth can the Israeli government possibly believe that the PA means to make a lasting peace with Israel? How can Abbas be trusted as a partner for peace, whether in quotes or not, or whether it evokes “bitter laughter” or not from observers? It seems more and more likely that the bombers in the latest atrocity came from the West Bank, and if so they were very probably cranked up by his public adulation of terrorism!
Now, stay with me Harriet, because there’s more which underlines the nonsensical nature of what lies beneath your statement above:
Let’s go back to the Jerusalem bombing and more particularly to the Palestinian reaction to it.
So far as I am aware there have been no street celebrations or handing out candy as there was in Ramallah after the Fogel family were murdered, but Elder of Ziyon’s blog tells us the following, which ought to reinforce the belief that Israel actually has no partner for peace and which ought to convince even you:
Elder quotes from the Palestine Times which is a Hamas mouthpiece, but no matter:
…. Despite condemnation by the Fatah leadership, headed by President Mahmoud Abbas and his Prime Minister Salam Fayyad and described that operation as “terrorist”, there was joy in the street despite the pain experienced in the cities of the West Bank.
Upon hearing the news of a bus bombing in Jerusalem, citizens hurried to the coffee shops to follow-up on television news channels and radio stations to track the latest developments.
Abu Mohammed from Nablus, sitting in a café, said: “By God, it’s about time for such operations, which warms our hearts and the hearts of all who [suffer] from the oppression of the occupier recently.” ……
There are those who expressed their joy of such events. Samira from Ramallah: “When I saw the breaking news on one of the satellite TV news and there was an explosion on Jerusalem, the joy made my heart stop.”
A young man recalled happy memories of Tulkarm for operations similar to what happened today…
Others Palestinian citizens went into social networking sites like Facebook and forums on the World Wide Web, to express their joy and the news firsthand….” (emphases added)
So, what do we have, Harriet?
Abbas, a confirmed liar, who condemns barbarism out of one side of his mouth whilst out of the other he praises the perpetrators of such barbarism, and also the ordinary people of the West Bank, whose opinions are, we are meant to believe, representative of the majority and who feel joy and warmth in their hearts when Israeli Jews are killed and injured.
However, you may be able to redeem yourself, Harriet.
To do so you must write an intelligent, thoughtful and analytical article, based on fact and in objective reality about why you think Netanyahu is wrong to believe that Israel has no partner for peace in the West Bank, and supply us with evidence for your conclusions rather than your own half-baked opinions.
Then, who knows, you will be entitled to call yourself journalist. Though, you may subsequently be sacked from the Guardian.
While assimilating the daily commentary about the Middle East and Israeli-Islamist Conflict, and the incessant drum beat of political analysts who insist, despite the considerable historical evidence to the contrary, that additional Israeli territorial compromise will undoubtedly lead to peace and security, I’m reminded of a quote in Alexandre Solzhenitsyn’s classic, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, a story set in a Soviet Gulag in the 1950s, describing a single day of an ordinary prisoner, Ivan Denisovich Shukhov.
“How can you expect a man who’s warm to understand a man who’s cold?”
It’s not that there aren’t many two-state solution proponents who truly have Israel’s best interest in mind, it’s that in the political abstraction that Israel has become – this increasing tendency by Jew and non-Jew alike to see Israel, and Israelis, as the proverbial “other” – they often lack the capacity to feel the empathy (in the generic sense, meaning the capacity to recognize and share the concerns that are being experienced by another) afforded to those whose identity aren’t obscured by such cognitive distance.
While there are, without question, many who are callously indifferent to Israel’s security concerns, and many who are motivated by nothing but malice, it certainly seems reasonable to expect those who aren’t hostile or indifferent to consider the considerable risks associated with drawing new national boundaries which would render our entire country vulnerable to (increasingly sophisticated and accurate) enemy rocket fire – a quite likely scenario in the event that radical elements maintain significant political presence in a nascent Palestinian state.
I used to live in a prosperous country whose neighbors included Canada and Mexico, and fully understand the political assumptions which can be nurtured by such a bubble.
As such, we merely ask those currently living in peace and without fear (free of the the existential threats that my new national family is forced to face daily) to expand their considerable political imagination to include the very real-world concerns of those whose very moral legitimacy and, indeed, mere existence is cruelly and relentlessly challenged – a reasonable, sober and, it seems, quite modest proposal.
This is cross posted by Elder of Ziyon
Anti-Israel (and now other*) organizations are fond of showing the following graphic on their websites:
This map is a lie.
The first panel has the biggest lie:
While I presume that the white sections are indeed the land that was privately owned by Jews, the land in green was not privately owned by Arabs.
Only a tiny percentage of land in Palestine was privately owned. The various categories of land ownership included:
- Mulk: privately owned in the Western sense.
- Miri: Land owned by the government (originally the Ottoman crown) and suitable for agricultural use. Individuals could purchase a deed to cultivate this land and pay a tithe to the government. Ownership could be transferred only with the approval of the state. Miri rights could be transferred to heirs, and the land could be sub-let to tenants. If the owner died without an heir or the land was not cultivated for three years, the land would revert to the state.
- Mahlul: Uncultivated Miri lands that would revert to the state, in theory after three years.
- Mawat (or Mewat): So-called “dead”, unreclaimed land. It constituted about 50 to 60% of the land in Palestine. It belonged to the government. …If the land had been cultivated with permission, it would be registered, at least under the Mandate, free of charge.
By the early 1940s Jews owned about one third of Mulk land in Palestine and Arabs about two-thirds. The vast majority of the total land, however, belonged to the government, meaning that when the state of Israel was established, it became legally Israel’s. (I believe that about 77% of the land was owned by the government, assuming 6 million dunams of private land as shown in this invaluable webpage on the topic from which I got much of this information.)
To say that the green areas were “Palestinian” land is simply a lie.
Now the next one:
While this is an accurate representation of the partition plan, it has nothing to do with land ownership. The entire purpose of this map is to make it appear that Israel has been grabbing Arab land consistently, to serve as a bridge between maps 1 and 3. What is not said, of course, is that Israel accepted the partition and the Arabs did not, so as a result Israel in 1949 looked like it does in map 3.
Map 3 is still a lie, however, because in no way was the green land “Palestinian” at that time. Gaza was administered by Egypt and the West Bank annexed by Jordan. No one at the time spoke about a Palestinian Arab state on the areas controlled by Arab states – only in Israel.
In other words, this progression of maps is a series of lies meant to push a bigger lie, and it is tragic that a lot of people believe them to be the truth.
Here is a small attempt on my side to show a more accurate picture of Israel’s giving land it controlled up for peace since 1967:
This map shows that Israel gave up control of the Sinai, Gaza, Southern Lebanon and much of the West Bank over the years. Rather than falsely accusing Israel as a land-grabbing rogue state, it accurately shows Israel as perhaps the only state in history that has voluntarily given up more than two-thirds of the areas it controls in exchange for nothing more than a paper agreement – or sometimes not even that. All at the risk of serious security concerns for her people, no less.
This is all because Israel wants, desperately, to live in real peace with her neighbors. This desire is not reciprocated by those neighbors, unfortunately.
The real map shows the truth of Israel’s incredible concessions in the often vain hope for peace.
*I saw this one at a Colin Firth fan-site, as he is planning to star in a movie about The Stern Gang.
Courtesy of Elder of Ziyon
Though Elder has an entire collection of images pointing out the moral inversion which informs the movement to defame the most progressive nation in the Middle East as an Apartheid state, Omar Barghouti is clearly in a league of his own when it comes to the near comical hypocrisy of such “activists”.