Liar academic Juan Cole really upset at Jeffrey Goldberg for pointing out facts about Jews

Juan Cole, the twelfth rate academic whom I have shown to be a tendentious liar many, many times, is very upset at Jeffrey Goldberg:

 Phil Weiss at Mondoweiss, the most lucid and informed voice on the American Jewish left doing journalism critical of right wing Zionism, reports on remarks of The Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg at a Jewish Community Center forum in Manhattan.

In Weiss’s telling, Goldberg argued to his audience that Israelis are like the Seminole indigenous people of Florida, and the Palestinians are “the cowboys.”

This framing of the issue is completely ahistorical and frankly ignorant, and is offensive on all sides.

It's worth reading the entire section that Weiss quoted from Goldberg, because it is quite accurate, which is why it bothers the serial liar Cole.

Many Palestinian leaders understand the conflict not as the conflict between the cowboys– the Jews– and the Indians– the Palestinians.

But the Jews are the Indians, and the Arabs, the Palestinians, the cowboys, in the following sense. What happened in the Middle East– this is not a political commentary about what should actually be done leading to a fair and equitable solution to the challenge here– but what happened here is the equivalent of the Seminoles sitting in Oklahoma or wherever they are today, scattered around the United States– Seminoles coming together and deciding that they’re going back to Florida. And going back in such numbers and telling the whites and blacks and Hispanics of Florida, Oh by the way, we’re home and we’d like a state, and we’d like to take over Florida.

The people of Florida would probably say to them, you haven’t been here in 200 years. This isn’t your home. And the Seminoles would say, Actually, it is our home. This is where our people are buried. This is the center of our religion, this is where we were expelled from.

That [discussion] doesn’t happen; and people need to understand that – what’s happened is, it’s really interesting from an analytical perspective. As Israel has become more and more powerful as a country, and every year it becomes more powerful, it becomes bigger, it becomes more militarily powerful, economically powerful, it’s lost more and more control of its own narrative. The narrative is of an indigenous people coming home to its homeland and to some degree, to a large degree, to some degree, willing to share that homeland or at least parts of that homeland with the people who moved in after. Right? But they lost total control of that narrative, because the people who were opposed to Israel’s existence are very very powerful and clever narrators as well.

In order to understand what’s going on historically you need to understand history…

It is completely natural that the people of Florida would say to the Seminoles who are walking back 200 years after the Trail of Tears, coming back to Florida, What the hell– what do you mean? You don’t live here, your father wasn’t here, your grandfather, your great grandmother, nobody was here, you can’t claim this as your own, but that’s because we don’t really understand and privilege historical memory, among other things.

Cole can't handle the truth, so he sputters. The next sentence in his article is that "Goldberg apparently can’t bring himself to say the word 'Palestinian,' as though all Arabic-speakers are indistinguishable." As you can see above, Goldberg used the word Palestinian and didn't use the word Arab. Cole apparently knows that his brain-dead followers won't bother clicking on the link that proves he cannot help making things up.

Cole then goes on an extended pseudo-history of Jews with cherry picked (and possibly made up) facts where he strenuously tries to say that Jews aren't from Palestine - he doesn't seem to subscribe to the Khazar myth but something close - and that Jews hardly ever controlled Palestine, and that Jews weren't interested in living there anyway.

As an example:

The Crusaders killed or expelled most remaining Jewish populations. From about 1100 until the early twentieth century there were virtually no Jews in Palestine. Oh, there were a handful here and there– a few Kabbalist mystics at Safad, retirees in Jerusalem. But I wrote a book about Napoleon Bonaparte’s invasion of the Middle East and the French report that they only found 3,000 Jews in geographic Palestine in 1799.

That's an interesting and counterfactual view. Jews were the majority in Palestine until the Muslim invasion - yes, the Arabs were colonialists, even though Cole falsely claims that most Palestinians have been there for millennia. (Research shows that the only truly indigenous Palestinians are the Christian community, and most of them were originally Jews.)

Since the Muslim invasion, the Jews that lived there went through an astonishing number of massacres and expulsions from both Christians and Muslims. Yet through it all, they kept coming back. Dozens of major rabbis kept immigrating with their students, often to be slaughtered again (with a few major earthquakes that also killed hundreds.)

This Wikipedia article fills in the gaping historic holes that Cole doesn't want you to know. The overwhelming conclusion is that Jews were always spiritually tied to their land despite it having very few ways of supporting them. This is the exact opposite to what Cole wants you to believe.

What about the 3000 Jews that Cole says he found out about? Well, his book on Napoleon says it - without a citation.

However, it was estimated that there were 4000-6000 Jews in Jerusalem alone in 1815, only 16 years later. This doesn't count Jews in Hebron, Safed, or Tiberias. Perhaps the French person Cole refers to, whoever that is, isn't so trustworthy.

Cole continues to lie:

The European Jews were brought to Palestine by British imperial policy during the early twentieth century heyday of colonialism, and by the rise of Fascism in Europe that drove out or killed millions of Jews. Because of the complications of the Holocaust, Jewish migration into Palestine is not exactly like the voluntary settler=colonialism of the Pieds Noire in Algeria, 

Cole, the self described expert, apparently has never heard of the Perushim, the First Aliyah, the Second Aliyah. He thinks that somehow the British brought the Jews to Palestine, even though practically none of those were from Britain. He pretends that most Jews came to Palestine post-Holocaust not because they wanted to but that they were forced to. As someone who has looked up the Holocaust archives for my parents and relatives, I can tell him that the refugees filled out forms where they were offered where they would like to emigrate to. My parents chose America, they weren't forced to go to Palestine; one of my uncles and his mother chose Palestine.

In other words, Cole is a liar. Nothing new about that.

And by denying Jewish history including how fundamental Israel has always been to Jews and Judaism, Cole is proving that he is dabbling in antisemitism as well.

(h/t Dan, who reads Cole so I don't have to)

---

---

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Read More

Ninth-rate academic Juan Cole calls a student going to university in Israel a "BDS WIn"

I haven't looked at idiot academic Juan Cole for a while, but here's his blog headline for a Ma'an story:

Ma'an's headline also called it a "BDS victory" but Cole rewrote it - and he still considers this a "win" for BDS even though the BDS movement is explicitly against students coming to Israel to study.

To think that Cole still tries to pass himself off as a Middle East expert....

(h/t Dan)

---

---

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Read More

Good news! Juan Cole says Iran is peaceful as a pussycat!

Every once in a while someone sends me a link to a post by ninth-rate academic Juan Cole, and I can't resist showing what a shill for Iran he is.

Here's today's, where he pretends to debunk Netanyahus' warningd of Iran using Syria and Lebanon as springboards to attack Israel. :

First of all, Iran has not vowed to wipe Israel off the face of the map. Rather, Iran has a no first strike policy that has been repeatedly underlined by Ayatollah Khamenei and President Hassan Rouhani.

Second of all, Iran has not turned Damascus into a fortress or Syria into an army base. Iran sent Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps officers to Syria to train and advise the Syrian Arab Army. They are the equivalent of special ops. It is likely that there aren’t more than a couple of thousand Iranian military personnel in the country. Iranian officers have died at such a rate that they must have been in the field leading Hizbullah and Iraqi Shiite militias rather than only in the barracks doing training. There are estimated to have been as few as 500 Iranian personnel killed in Syria despite the big battles at places like Aleppo, and so there just can’t be very many Iranian troops fighting there. 

Only 500 Iranian killed in Syria! What more proof do you need that Iran isn't fighting in Syria?

Except that Cole is lying. Iranian officials themselves admitted that over 1000 Iranian soldiers had been killed in Syria as of last November.

And Cole conveniently forgets to include Iran's proxy army Hezbollah, which is wholly under Iranian control. Over 1000 Hezbollah fighters have been killed in Syria as well. And that's what they admit, the number may be much higher.

According to some reports Iran controls more soldiers (although most not Iranian) than Syria does in Syria - some 70,000 troops that report to Iran.

Cole knows this, but his blog isn't about truth, but propaganda. I wonder if Iran pays him as well.

He goes on:

This tiny rag tag force helped make a difference for the al-Assad regime in fighting Sunni rebels who have only light to medium weaponry. But it isn’t the kind of force that offers a significant threat, or a threat at all, to Israel. 

Israel isn't concerned about the current army, but Iran's ability to use Syria as a launching pad for rockets and missiles - like Lebanon has become.

 Third, Iran is very unlikely to be building missile factories in Syria and Lebanon, and Netanyahu just asserts these things rather than giving any evidence for them. He is a one man walking fake news. Israel has several hundred atomic bombs and the means to deliver them, and Iran is not so crazy as to send a missile against Israel. 

Likewise, Hizbullah, of which Netanyahu is so afraid, is just a regional militia. It has no armor to speak of and no air force.
The only reason for Netanyahu to be afraid of Hizbullah is if he wanted to invade Lebanon and/or Syria. It would put up a good guerrilla defense, as in 2006. But it isn’t capable of offensive action against the Israeli army, the best-equipped military in the Middle East.

Multiple sources, Arab and French, have discussed two of  Iran's underground missile manufacturing plants in Lebanon. Oops.

Iran has sent thousands of missiles into Israel. They just used their proxies in Iran and Gaza so Israel wouldn't retaliate against them directly.

And, why worry about 100,000 accurate rockets that are aimed at Israeli chemical and nuclear facilities, according to Hassan Nasrallah himself.There is no real threat from Hezbollah because they don't have an air force. What possible damage can 100,000 rockets do?

Juan Cole says not to be concerned! And he's like, a professor! And he knows Farsi! So he must be truthful, right?

Cole knows every single thing I have written here. He doesn't want his fans to know those facts, though. His twisting of facts and deception is clear to anyone who bothers to look.

But I haven't heard anyone important quoting him for a couple of years, so chances are - everyone knows what a fraud he is by now. And if you don't, just look through the many posts where I proved him a liar and a fraud.

(h/t Dan)

---

---

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Read More

"Intellectual" believes that Saudi Arabia gives Israel billions of dollars a year

Seventh-rate academic Juan Cole writes that anti-Zionism cannot have anything to do with antisemitism, and he has five "intellectuals" to prove it, quoting an article in TeleSUR.

One of the towering examples of intellect is David Palumbo-Liu, who I've shown can get an astonishing number of facts wrong in a single paragraph.

On that very same day, that towering intellectual Palumbo-Liu tweeted this:

Did Money Seal Israeli-Saudi Alliance? https://t.co/1W8cLIpOxG via @truthout

— David Palumbo-Liu (@palumboliu) May 9, 2016

The article he links to, at conspiracy-theory hotbed TruthOut, says this:

According to a source briefed by US intelligence analysts, the Saudis have given Israel at least $16 billion over the past 2 ½ years, funneling the money through a third-country Arab state and into an Israeli "development" account in Europe to help finance infrastructure inside Israel. The source first called the account "a Netanyahu slush fund," but later refined that characterization, saying the money was used for public projects such as building settlements in the West Bank.

So the "intellectual" that academic Juan Cole thinks is so trustworthy believes that Saudi Arabia sends far more money to Israel and the US does - $6 billion annually - in order to build Jewish settlements (and turn the "Israel Lobby" to their advantage, of course.)

And the source is impeccable: "a source briefed by US intelligence analysts." How much more reliable can you get?

It's fun looking at how easily anti-Israel "academics" can not only lie but also believe the most absurd things, as long as it fits with their pre-existing biases of Israel being the world's most evil regime. Any pretense of academic rigor is not only missing, but actively discouraged.

It is a wonder that colleges employ these quacks.

Meanwhile, I need to ask the Saudis to send me a few hundred million, because I am very influential, as Electronic Intifada admits.  As the US head of the Jewish Electronic Media Lobby, I can definitely help the Saudis achieve their political aims.

For a price.

UPDATE: Another "alternative news" site is claiming that Saudi Arabia gave $80 million to Netanyahu's re-election campaign, pretending that this was a Panama Papers revelation. Can't wait to see which intellectual giants will retweet that one.

---

---

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Read More

The cultural roots of violence in the Middle East - nothing to do with "statelessness"

Yesterday I showed what an idiot Juan Cole was for claiming that "statelessness" is the driving factor behind terrorism (and, therefore, Israel becomes responsible for every terror attack against it.)

To see some real analysis, this article by a PhD candidate published in Now Lebanon highlights once again the difference between a real academic and a fraud like Cole:

The Middle East has developed its own identity-based hierarchal order through the centuries. From the Omayyad to the Ottoman Empire, political legitimacy in the region rested on Islam. Non-Muslims were tolerated in Muslim realms, but only as second class members of society – i.e. dhimmis. The first cleavage in the region’s hierarchy separated believers from non-believers, the kuffar. The second great dividing line established the dominance and superiority of Sunnis over heterodox Muslim sects, most notably Shiites, Alawites, Ismailis, and Druze. Heterodox Muslims were frequently portrayed as the “enemy within” and were repeatedly accused of collaborating with foreign invaders, whether Mongols, Crusaders, or Persians.

Frequently, heterodox sects found refuge in rugged mountainous terrains away from the direct control of Sunni imperial centers (e.g. Jebel Ansarieh for the Alawites, Jebel Amel for the Shiites, Jebel al-Dourouz for the Druze). In the relative security of their fiefdoms, they developed a strong sense of we-ness coupled with a suspicion of Sunni Islam, as well as a deep resentment of their inferior status.

The rise of modern Middle Eastern states did not upset old hierarchical orders as dominant elites paid only lip service to secularism and modernization. The rhetorical emphasis on Arab nationalism did little to transcend the sectarian cleavages of old but instead rekindled an additional line of fracture, this time separating Arabs and non-Arabs (e.g. Kurds in the Levant and Berbers in North Africa). In Iraq and Syria, the current battlefields of the region, it was better to be Muslim than Christian or Jewish, Sunni than Shiite or Alawite, and Arab rather than Kurdish. Beyond the emotional wounds stemming from inferior social status, belonging to the lower echelons of the hierarchy meant having restricted access to state services, educational opportunities, and professional advancement.

Like any other hierarchical order, the system was seen as fundamentally illegitimate by subordinate groups. Consequently, it could only be defended through violent means. From the time the British Royal Air Force was used to bomb restive Shiite tribes in southern Iraq in the 1930s to the mass slaughters of Shiites and Kurds by Saddam Hussein’s army in the early 1990s, the Sunni elite in Iraq upheld the status quo by brute force. Ruling elites hailing from the long-oppressed heterodox groups did not prove any better when military coups, or the exogenous shock of foreign invasion, allowed them to reverse the order: the Alawite-dominated regime in Syria, firmly established since 1970, was discriminatory and violent from the beginning. The same can be said about the Shiite-dominated regime of Nouri al-Maliki in Iraq.

In America, when the racial hierarchy was dismantled after the triumph of the 1960s’ Civil Rights Movement, it was gradually replaced with an inclusive order, one that eventually allowed an African-American to become president. The tragedy of the Middle East is that each time a hierarchy has collapsed – such as when Sunnis lost power in Syria in the 1960s and in Iraq in 2003 – it was immediately reproduced, only with the previously oppressed quickly emerging as oppressors and vice-versa. Herein lay the cultural roots of the region’s continued civil wars.

Now, when a Jewish-majority state emerges in the middle of this already-existing friction between various classes of Arabs, how do you think they will think about the Jews who do not accept their second-class status with joy?

As I noted last week in my post about how different sects in Syria, Lebanon and Palestine hated each other in 1876, it was admitted that "all despised the Jews."

Anyone who pretends that Arab hate of Jews has anything to do with how Israel acts needs to explain why the Arabs hated the Jews before Israel existed. Cole, and the legions of Israel haters that he is a member of, cannot do that. So instead they spend their days and nights effectively justifying Arab antisemitism - and antisemitic murders - as if they are natural.

Read More

Despicable Juan Cole blames Jews for the boys' murders

We've looked before at sixth-rate "academic" Juan Cole before. We've shown him to be a liar a number of times. He twists statistics, and sometimes he just makes them up. He compared an Islamist dictator to Thomas Jefferson.

Once, because he was apparently so sick of how many times I showed him to be a lying piece of garbage, he even (falsely) accused me of inspiring a mass murderer.

Cole lies as easily as he breathes. And he never corrects his lies, a sure sign of someone for whom ideology trumps facts.

Now he is justifying terrorist acts and blaming the victims, all the while pretending that he isn't doing exactly that:

The kidnapping and killing of three Israeli squatter youth whose parents usurped Palestinian land has produced a paroxysm of hatred and calls for reprisals in Israel. Whoever is responsible for it, the killing of the youth was a horrid and inexcusable crime, and the heart of any parent goes out to the bereaved families.

Can there be a more backhanded "condemnation" of terror than this?

Besides the utterly disgusting implication that Jews who live in Judea and Samaria do not have the same human rights that everyone else on the planet does, and the utterly loathsome implication that most Zionists are responding to the news of the murders with vengeance rather than deep sadness, Cole appears not to know that two of the murdered boys lived in central Israel!

But why should Cole bother himself with mere facts? He has other fish to fry, and mere facts just get in the way. Cole lives in a post-factual world. He is more interested in what he calls "context."

But assuming that Palestinians were the culprits, the social and political structures fostered by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s Likud Party form an essential context here. Social scientists always contextualize, an anathema to propagandists and the more glib of the journalists, who confuse it with excusing things. To put things in context is not to justify anything, it is to seek and understanding of human actions beyond the simple demonization of the Other.

Hate to break it to you, Juan, but when all of your "context" is in the same direction, against Jewish Israelis, it is just a slightly more sophisticated kind of propaganda. Don't kid yourself - there is no "social science" involved here at all. It is all propaganda. And here's proof.

The Likud has a policy of keeping the Palestinians stateless.....Since the stateless lack a state, they also lack law and order. What most struck me from my last visit to a Palestinian refugee camp was how much of a frontier situation it was. There are no police. Everyone has to fend for themselves. And it is easy for predatory gangs to form.

That is, statelessness produces small violent groups such as Islamic Jihad and perhaps the Palestinian branch of the so-called “Islamic State” of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. It produces them because in the absence of formal state structures, such groups thrive in the interstices of society. And it produces them because statelessness and the consequent deprivation of basic human rights produces potent grievances.

What a great social-science theory!

Except that Al Qaeda members, and ISIS members, and the members of Egyptian Salafist groups, and most of those of the PLO and Fatah before 1967, and pretty much every other terror group in history have been made up of full, card-carrying citizens of states!

Now, who else has been against the establishment of a Palestinian state? Well, the entire Arab world before 1967, for starters. Yet the Palestinian terror groups that emerged then were aimed at Israel, not at Egypt and Jordan.

Imagine that - Cole's entire thesis completely destroyed by a little "context."

Who else is forcing Palestinian Arabs to be stateless? The leaders of every Arab nation that refuses to allow Palestinians who want to become citizens from doing so. No, they prefer that they remain stateless in order to justify and foment hate against Israel.

Exactly what Juan Cole is doing in this very article. 

After all, if he is so upset over Palestinian Arabs being stateless, why won't he demand that Lebanon or Syria allow people who have lived there for generations become citizens if they want to?  Why doesn't he encourage the Palestinian Arabs to accept one of Israel's many peace plans put forward - which would have resulted in a Palestinian state?

No, Cole doesn't give a damn about statelessness - he only cares about slamming Israel, and all his other "facts" are being twisted and used for only that purpose.

Which is the definition of propaganda.

What kind of "social science" is it when you cherry-pick your facts to come to a predetermined conclusion? Ah, the fraudulent kind!

Hypocrite Cole is flattering himself when he calls himself a "social scientist" - I've just proven, in a few minutes, that Cole is cares nothing for facts, for social science, for context, or for anything except for propaganda.

Why Cole is still employed and occasionally quoted as if he adds any value to the world is beyond me.

(h/t Ezra)

Read More

Juan Cole remains a lying idiot

The lying, fifth rate academic Juan Cole is at it again, with a spectacularly stupid post called "Recognizing Israel as a Jewish State is like saying the US is a White State."

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is adding a fifth demand to his negotiations with US Secretary of State John Kerry and Palestine President Mahmoud Abbas: That the Palestinians recognize Israel as a “Jewish state.”

As I've noted, this is not a new demand, and it was originally created by Olmert and Livni, not Netanyahu. But, hey, Juan Cole is an "expert," right?

Now comes the straw man arguments:

For Netanyahu’s demand to make any sense, he first has to define “Jewish.” “Jewish” has a number of possible meanings. It can mean “those recognized by Talmudic law as members of the Jewish ‘race’ via maternal descent.” The latter is the legal definition of Jewishness in Israeli law itself, and for this reason we must presume that it is what Netanyahu has in mind. It can also mean “adherents of the Judaic religion,” and we can explore those implications, as well.

Of the some 6 million self-identified Jews in Israel, about 300,000 are not recognized as “Jewish” by the Chief Rabbi and there is no prospect of them being recognized as Jewish any time soon. They were allowed to immigrate to Israel because they had at least one Jewish grandparent, but if their mother was not Jewish neither are they.

So if Israel is a “Jewish” state, is it a state for these (largely Russian and Ukrainian) “non-Jewish” Jews? Many of them are Jewish by religion, but not all are. None of them are Jewish by the Talmud.

He then goes on and on with discredited genetic studies and other points to buttress his moronic point that if any Israelis aren't considered Jewish by some definition, then they are being disenfranchised. And, of course, all Israeli Arabs are disenfranchised as well.

Here's a news flash for Cole, that he must not be aware of in his years of scholarly research: Israel has defined itself as a Jewish state for 65 years now, and somehow none of these supposed showstoppers have slowed down the Jewish state one tiny bit!

According to Cole, it is simply impossible - yet here it is. Imagine that.

Here's another news flash for Cole: Judaism is more than a religion. It isn't a race. Jews are a nation/people, and have been a people for over 3000 years.

Don't trust me. The famed 14th century Arab historian and intellectual Ibn Khaldun says explicitly that Jews are a people. Jewish prayers have said the same thing since before Islam existed. The Bible says so (e.g., 1 Kings 8:16.) . Perhaps Cole has heard of that work, it's fairly famous.

It is possible to join a nation, so this isn't a racial or genetic group. It isn't purely a religious group.

Cole's entire thesis is not only invalid, but laughably absurd.

Apparently Cole subscribes to the PLO's "logic" that the Jews aren't a people, because if they are a people, that means they have rights as a people.

Oh, and Cole also seems unaware that Israel defining itself as Jewish is not at all analogous to the US defining itself as white - it is analogous to many nations defining themselves as Arab. And guess who does that?

If he wants to be morally consistent, Cole must condemn every single Arab state that defines itself as "Arab." This disenfranchises all non-Arabs who live in Arab nations. It is discriminatory, according to Cole.

But Juan Cole isn't interested in consistency. He isn't interested in morality. He is certainly not interested in the truth. His major interest appears to be to deny the Jewish people their human rights. The very idea that Jews have such rights is anathema to lying pseudo-academics like Cole who use their pretense of knowledge to deny human rights to the Jewish people.

(h/t Adam)

Read More

Juan Cole making up facts again

Here's another example of how a third-rate academic acts.

In the middle of a typical anti-Israel posting that makes the usual, tedious and idiotic arguments one would expect from Mondoweiss (NEWS FLASH: Non-citizens who do not live in Israel cannot vote in Israel! This is awful!) he throws in his famous pseudo-facts that have no basis except his own fevered imagination.

For example, Cole claims that most haredim support Netanyahu. Who knew? I would have thought UTJ/Degel HaTorah, which gained seven Knesset seats, but what do I know?

Or this gem:

It should be noted that the Israeli right wing plays dirty tricks on the Israeli left and liberals, smearing them as traitors and harassing them (many of the nearly 1 million Israelis living outside Israel were leftists unwilling to live under Likud harassment. Such treatment of these Israelis acts as a form of voter suppression.

(Yes, this academic forgot to close the parentheses.)

Many of the million Israelis outside Israel fled because of Likud harassment? You mean they didn't move abroad for economic or family reasons, but to escape the horrid police state that Bibi built?

If that's the case, then of course the Israeli right must be dead-set against allowing non-resident Israelis to vote.

Except for this:

The inability of Israelis overseas to vote is an issue for the right-wing Yisrael Beiteinu party, which has tabled a bill to change the electoral law. "(In an) era of globalisation, when many citizens reside outside their country on the time of the election day, we must allow them to participate in the elections," the party says.

Wow, it almost sounds like Cole's ultra-right fascist party is more democratic than many European democracies!

Once again, Juan Cole is proven to just make things up.

You know, the sort of thing that would get most academics fired.

(h/t Dan)

Read More

Juan's ProtoColes

Anti-Israel pseudo-intellectual Juan Cole wrote a typically stupid article for Arab American News last week, with some howling lies like "In fact, Israel has refused to cease colonizing and stealing Palestinian land long enough to engage in fruitful negotiations with them" (besides the absurd language, Israel did cease building for ten months, and the PLO refused to negotiate until month 10, and then only under tremendous pressure and only cosmetically. Oh, and the PLO only added this precondition around 2007.)

One of his points, however, seem to place the professor in the same company as anti-semites:

Israeli hawks represent their war of aggression as in ‘self-defense.’ But the UK Israeli chief rabbi admitted on camera that that the Gaza attack actually ‘had something to do with Iran.’

First of all, let's get the pesky facts out of the way. The Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, thought he was off the air on BBC Radio - not televised - when the presenter asked him about his opinion of the fighting in Gaza, and he answered "‘I think it’s got to do with Iran, actually" before he was told he was still on live.

Sacks is not Israeli. He was born in London. He is not a member of the Israeli government, and as far as I know he doesn't advise them nor is he privy to their own discussions.

But let us put aside Cole's lack of basic knowledge, and see what he is really trying to say.

Juan Cole apparently believes that a Chief Rabbi must be a member of the Elders of Zion, and his offhand statement - almost certainly regarding the arming of Hamas and Islamic Jihad with medium-range Iranian rockets - was not merely conjecture from thousands of miles away from Israel, but an admission of how the other Elders of the Jewish people are really thinking in our super-secret discussions.

Cole cannot distinguish between Israeli politicians - and a British Jewish religious figure.

What kind of twisted, bigoted thinking would cause someone to make such an assumption that all worldwide Jewry is speaking with the same ("hawkish") voice?

The rest of Cole's essay also betrays a bizarre, paranoid, conspiracy-theorist way of thinking. For example, he says "the military action against the people of Gaza is a diversion tactic; the real goal is Greater Israel, an assertion of Israeli sovereignty over all the territory once held by the British Mandate of Palestine." Really? Israel started a mini-war to divert the world's attention from settlements? I would have thought that Syria was doing a better job at that.

I guess those scheming Jews were bombing Gaza just to divert attention from the West Bank, and they also have secret meetings with chief rabbis who stupidly reveal their plans, which have something to do with Iran and not the settlements.

I know it is all very confusing. You need a third-rate academic like Juan Cole, who believes in conspiracy theories where Jews control everything, to explain it all.

Read More

Why should Juan Cole do research when he can just make facts up?

A classic example of how third-rate academics do their work:

One of the few contemporary examples of settler colonialism is that of Israelis in the Palestinian West Bank. The number of Palestinians who have died from infant mortality, poor health conditions and lack of sanitation, loss of farms and other property and attendant penury, and other ill effects of the Israeli expulsion of their families in 1948 and 1967 and then occupation and colonization since 1967 is surely in the hundreds of thousands at least, though this toll is seldom considered.

Cole could have taken the time to look up population statistics, infant mortality rates, population growth rates, life expectancy figures and so forth to prove his thesis. You know...research.

But actual research is so tedious and time consuming. Worse yet, it might prove the opposite to what this pseudo-intellectual wants to convey. That won't do at all! Honesty is only a virtue when it supports Dr. Cole's bias, dontcha know.

Much better for this joke of a professor to just make up fake statistics. After all, it isn't as if his cheerleading anti-Zionist fans would actually call him on making up numbers out of thin air, would they?

By the way, I once estimated that there might be as many as 1.6 million more Palestinian Arabs alive today because of Israeli policies than there would be otherwise. While my numbers are fuzzy, I at least gave sources as to where I got them from, and anyone who wants can check my work or improve on it.

Which just goes to show what a sucker I am. I should have acted like Juan Cole and just make up facts instead of actually looking up hard data. Maybe I can get tenure somewhere!

Obviously, requiring professors to do actual research before they spout their half-baked opinions as fact is way over the line. They have inherent knowledge that doesn't require something as messy as data.

Then again, this isn't the first time Cole made up facts. Nor is it the first time that he accused Zionists of indirect mass murder by making up "facts" out of thin air.

Apparently, the normal rules of scholarship can be suspended - for certain "scholars."

(h/t Dan)

Read More

Juan Cole engages in libel against me

Juan Cole, the pseudo-academic who I have proven is a liar and an idiot a number of times, last month slanderously claimed that my blog influenced mass murderer Anders Breivik:

As in Norway, where the Muslim-hating network (fostered also by hateful web sites like “Gates of Vienna,” “Elders of Ziyon,” and a host of others) deeply influenced mass murderer Anders Breivik, so in the United States the purveying of a negative image of Muslims predictably has resulted in violence.

Cole knows very well that Breivik never mentioned my blog in his manifesto, and indeed there is no evidence that he ever read my blog. Incidentally, I  fisked and condemned his manifesto completely.

Juan Cole knows that people like me are a threat to him, because we expose his lies and fallacious arguments so easily while he pretends to be an intellectual. So it is not surprising that such a creature resorts to lies to try to slander me, since he is utterly incapable of actually arguing with me.

Cole also knows that this is not a hate site. I am not against Muslims and I am not against Islam as a personal religion. I have never said or implied that I support violence against Muslims. However, I am very against the hateful and supremacist political philosophy of Islamism, and I believe that Islamism must be regarded as just as evil as other supremacist political philosophies like Nazism and Communism.

Will Juan Cole apologize for this slander? Of course not. He never corrects his mistakes, even when they are proven - which is about all you need to know about his intellectual honesty.

(h/t Dan)

Read More

India police say Iran behind diplomat attack in February

From the Times of India:

Alleging that an Iranian state agency was involved in the February 13 bomb attack on an Israeli diplomat in the capital, the Delhi Police has concluded that the suspects were members of Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, a branch of the nation's military.

The investigation report, exclusively accessed by TOI, states that the IRGC members had discussed the plan to attack the Israeli diplomats in India and other countries with Indian journalist Syed Mohammad Ahmad Kazmi in January 2011, after Iranian scientists had been attacked allegedly by the Israelis. The cops have also learnt that Kazmi was in touch with these people for almost 10 years.

Details about the suspects have been shared with Iran through a letter rogatory. Delhi Police has sought more details of the five IRGC members, including the main bomber, Houshang Afshar Irani, who mentions his profession in Iran as a builder, Sedaghatzadeh Masoud (sales employee in a commercial company on Baharestan St, Tehran), Syed Ali Mahdiansadr (a mobile shopkeeper in Tehran), Mohammad Reza Abolghasemi (clerk in the finance department of Tehran's water authority) and Ali Akbar Norouzishayan (a retired accountant in Tehran).

According to the sources, Masoud is said to be the operational head and it was he who planned the attacks in Georgia, Bangkok and Delhi.

Apart from these five, police have also come across the role of an Iranian woman, identified as Leila Rohani, in the February 13 attack in New Delhi as well as the attacks in Bangkok and Georgia, and has sought details about her as well from Iran. Rohani had allegedly helped Iranian suspects in Bangkok attack of February 14 in getting a flat, after which she fled to Tehran.

But....Iran denied it!

And  Juan Cole knows that the Indian police really don't suspect Iran! In fact, he wrote:

American media that just parrot notorious thug, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman in this unlikely allegation are allowing themselves to be used for propaganda.

Can a "notorious thug" be right and an esteemed academic with a track record of unvarnished truth be wrong? Is it possible that the wonderful leaders of Iran are not telling the truth?

Too...much...cognitive...dissonance....gahh!

(h/t Yoel)

Read More

Juan Cole thinks Morsi is just like Jefferson

I really can't believe that people still take this joker seriously.

We should remember that the Thirteen Colonies that made the revolution starting in 1776 were religious societies. They had undergone the Evangelical Great Awakening, and millenarian and anti-papal movements were rife. Religious Americans fought the British for religious as well as material reasons.

...So if you are dismayed that the Muslim an-Nahda Party now dominates the Tunisian cabinet, you may as well be angry about bigotted Congregationaiists coming to power in some of the Thirteen colonies after 1776. (You could argue that the House of Representatives even today is highly religious; and the South Carolina state legislature is apparently a tailgate party for the Southern Baptist convention).

Yup, the Founding Fathers sounded just like this:

Mohamed Morsi: [in the 1920’s, the Egyptians] said: “The constitution is our Koran.” They wanted to show that the constitution is a great thing. But Imam [Hassan] Al-Banna, Allah’s mercy upon him, said to them: “No, the Koran is our constitution.”

The Koran was and will continue to be our constitution.

The Koran will continue to be our constitution.

Mohamed Morsi: The Koran is our constitution.

Crowds: The Koran is our constitution.

Mohamed Morsi: The Prophet Muhammad is our leader.

Crowds: The Prophet Muhammad is our leader.

Mohamed Morsi: Jihad is our path.

Crowds: Jihad is our path.

Mohamed Morsi: And death for the sake of Allah is our most lofty aspiration.

Crowds: And death for the sake of Allah is our most lofty aspiration.

Mohamed Morsi: Above all – Allah is our goal.

[…]

The shari’a, then the shari’a, and finally, the shari’a. This nation will enjoy blessing and revival only through the Islamic shari’a. I take an oath before Allah and before you all that regardless of the actual text [of the constitution]… Allah willing, the text will truly reflect [the shari’a], as will be agreed upon by the Egyptian people, by the Islamic scholars, and by legal and constitutional experts…

Rejoice and rest assured that this people will not accept a text that does not reflect the true meaning of the Islamic shari’a as a text to be implemented and as a platform. The people will not agree to anything else.

In Egypt, the MB said they wouldn't get involved in the protests - then they did.

They claimed they would not run for parliament - then they did.

They claimed they would not run for president - then they did.

But Cole believes them when they claim they will allow regular elections and listen to what the people want.

It is the "intellectual" equivalent of the mythical "law of averages," I guess.

(h/t Ron, O)

Read More

An "expert" and a real expert on Iran's anti-nuclear fatwa

A couple of days ago I noted that MEMRI stated that there was no written fatwa by Iran's Supreme Leader Khamanei forbidding nuclear weapons, and MEMRI used that as evidence that the entire fatwa was a myth.

Juan Cole, who has been trying his hardest to pretend that Iran has no nuclear weapons program despite all evidence of how they are hiding both the development of nuclear weapons and the development of rockets that could deliver them, responded, saying that

A fatwa is not like an American law that has to be published in the Congressional Record and in official law books. It is just the conclusion to which a cleric’s reasoning leads him, and which he makes known, even in a letter. In Shiite Islam, laypersons who follow a particular ayatollah are bound by his fatwas. When an ayatollah such as Khamenei delivers oral remarks in public, these have the force of a fatwa and are accepted as such by his followers. That is, Khamenei’s recent statement forbidding nuclear weapons in a speech is in fact a fatwa.

I am no expert in Shiite jurisprudence, so although this seemed strange - that a fatwa could be issued without the legal logic behind it - I don't know enough to argue.

And upon further research it looks like Cole is right in his definition. I found a fascinating paper on this very topic of Khamanei's nuclear fatwa, written by Mehdi Khalaji. Khalaji is a true expert in Shiite law, having studied Shiite theology and jurisprudence for fourteen years in the seminaries of Qom and he further studied the topic in Europe. If he and Cole disagree on the topic, there is no question that Khalaji knows infinitely more. In this case, he agrees with Cole that Khamanei's verbal nuclear fatwa is a real fatwa:

[E]ven though Ayatollah Khamenei has produced no written record on the religious prohibitions pertaining to nuclear weapons, his verbal statements on the subject are considered his religious opinions, or fatwas, and therefore binding on believers.

However, there is a lot more to this than meets the eye. Khalaji goes into great detail on how fatwas can and are regularly changed by the person who issued them, as well as about Taqiyya, which Cole downplays. He also talks about the interplay of politics and Islamic law in Iran. He describes how the Ayatollah Khomeini felt that Islamic law was not mature enough to run a modern government, and that the running of the government is actually more important that Islamic law! In Khomeini's own words:

The government can unilaterally abrogate any religious agreement made by it with the people if it believes that the agreement is against the interests of the country and Islam. The government can prevent any Islamic law—whether related to rituals or not— from being implemented if it sees its implementation as harmful to the interests of Islam.

Khalaji concludes:

In sum, since the ruling jurist has absolute authority and exclusive control in defining regime expediency, he can suspend all Islamic and constitutional laws whenever he chooses to do so. This means that laws have no independent authority; they depend entirely on the Supreme Leader’s validation. In such a system, politics never become normalized through the stable functioning of state institutions. Instead, every situation has the potential to be interpreted as extraordinary and manipulated to the liking of the Supreme Leader, possibly against the decisions of parliament, the president, and the judiciary. Thus what might be called the “politics of the extraordinary” concentrates enormous power in the hands of the ruling jurist and defines the essence of the Islamic Republic.

Supreme Leader Khamenei has stated that the production, stockpiling, and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam. But his recent language on the subject has become more equivocal, emphasizing only the prohibition on their use and not on their production or stockpiling. And should the needs of the Islamic Republic or the Muslim umma change, requiring the use of nuclear weapons, the Supreme Leader could just as well alter his position in response. This means that, ultimately, the Islamic Republic is unconstrained— even by religious doctrine—as it moves toward the possible production and storing of nuclear weapons.

In principle, at least, the emergence of maslaha or raison d’état in the ideology of the Islamic Republic represented a step forward in recognizing the realities of running a modern state. The principle might have been channeled toward allowing the parliament and president to establish a shared understanding of the “national interest” that could strengthen those institutions and foster nascent democratic processes. In practice, however, maslaha has become a means of freeing the political system from the hold of Islamic law, further undermining Iran’s democratic institutions and consolidating the Supreme Leader’s control over state politics, in effect laying the foundation for a clerical/military dictatorship in Iran. Iranian nuclear decisionmaking, therefore, bears the significant imprint of one man’s personality and politics—an imprint that may be unaffected by the will of other men, the decisions of other institutions, or, most ironically, the legal scruples or moral dictates of his own religion.

(Maslaha sounds a little like the Jewish concept of hora'at sha'ah, but the latter is meant to be used in only truly extraordinary and unique circumstances, while Maslaha seems to be much broader and less constricted in how it is used.)

What it boils down to is that Khamanei truly is the Supreme Leader, and he can do whatever he wants - suspend Islamic law, change his mind, lie, bypass all government institutions - if he believes that it is necessary to help run the country.

Which means that his fatwa, while apparently legitimate, is literally meaningless. There is literally nothing that binds him to even his own legal rulings. Actions are the only way that he can be judged, because he has no moral reason to keep his word.

Read More

More proof Juan Cole is a liar

Last week I noted that Juan Cole made quite a number of mistakes in his little "fact box" about Gaza - mistakes that he didn't bother correcting even after they were pointed out to him.

One of them was when he says:

Exports from Gaza to the rest of the world allowed by Israel: 0

He sourced this from HRW, which correctly stated that "No goods have left Gaza through Israel since May 12, according to Gisha, an Israeli rights group focused on Gaza." May was when the agricultural season ended. Which means that hundreds of tons of goods were exported before May 12 - a fact that Cole purposefully misrepresents when he says a flat zero.

But perhaps he was trying to imply that Israel would not allow any more goods to be exported from Gaza this year?

Wrong again.

From the IDF Spokesperson:

In light of the agricultural export season due to start at the end of November, and following the finalization of the trade process from Gaza to various European markets, a continuing education program for Palestinian agriculturists took place last Tuesday in the Coordination and Liaison Administration for Gaza.

As part of the conference, a detailed explanation of the export process was given. This process begins from the moment the product is picked and packed in Gaza, after which it is sent out of Gaza via the Kerem Shalom land crossing and sold in the European market, all while maintaining the freshness and high quality of the products. Furthermore, representatives of the Coordinator of the Government Activates in the Territories (COGAT) have announced that starting next month, an initial pilot program of furniture export from Gaza to Europe will commence.

This conference is part of the ongoing daily cooperation between the Coordination and Liaison Administration for Gaza and the Palestinians in the agricultural sector. The conference was attended by representatives of both the Agricultural Ministry of Israel and Gaza, observers on behalf of the Quartet, representatives of Israeli exporters, representative of the European States in the PA and a representative of the Kerem Shalom land crossing. All the attendees mentioned the great importance of the cooperation in this field and expressed their hope it would expand to other fields as well.

Mr. Tim Williams, the Quartet Advisor said: “It is important that we will see exports from Gaza and not just from the network of the Dutch project. We know that the Quartet is working and supporting the advancement of this field and that Israel already okayed the export of furniture and textiles, and I expect that from now on we will begin to see exports of furniture already in the coming weeks as was promised”.

During the past year, Palestinians from the Gaza Strip have exported more than 399 tons of strawberries, 10 million carnations, 6.5 tons of Cherry tomato and 6 tons of red, green and yellow bell peppers to European markets. In the coming year, Palestinians are expected to export 1,000 tons of strawberries, 20 million carnations and 150 tons of red, green and yellow bell peppers. The exports are carried out thanks to the cooperation between COGAT and the Palestinian agricultural coordinator who work together in order to improve the lives of Gaza’s civilian population.

We see that there is a huge project being coordinated among multiple groups in Israel, Gaza and the EU to ensure exports coming out of Gaza can be done safely and effectively, and the numbers have been doubling year after year.

But Juan Cole, celebrated academic who cares nothing for actual facts, sums it all up as "zero."

Read More

Juan Cole isn't very "informed" about Gaza

I stumbled across this piece of stupidity by Juan Cole where he takes already suspect statistics from HRW and elsewhere - and twists them even more:

Truckloads of goods per year allowed by Israel into Gaza today: 1,000

Truckloads of goods per year allowed by Israel into Gaza in 2005: 2,500

Exports from Gaza to the rest of the world allowed by Israel: 0

HRW's numbers are per week, not per year. One would think that a celebrated academic would know the difference.

Beyond that, the number of truckloads to Gaza is now about 1250 a week - 25% higher than Cole says. And a few events happened between 2005 and now, which Cole and HRW don't address, that make security an issue.

Israel allows exports of strawberries and flowers from Gaza, and did this year as well. Growing season ended in May. HRW says this, Cole ignores it. Cole is lying when he says that the amount of exports from Gaza are "zero."

Moreover, Israel requested a one-time export of tens of thousands of palm fronds in September, which was refused by Hamas. Does Cole approve?

Percentage of Palestinian children in Gaza who are stunted from malnutrition: 15%

In fact, the latest Lancet study showed:

6% of 1883 children who were assessed were stunted (8% of 930 boys vs 3% of 950 girls, p=0·01), less than 1% had wasting, 2% were underweight, 11% were anaemic (7% of boys vs 14% of girls), and 15% were overweight and obese (11% of boys vs 20% of girls; 11% were overweight, and 4% were obese).

Moreover, a higher 11.5% stunting rate was considered a fantastic achievement in a recent World Bank report, and the stunting rate in Gaza is small compared to many other Arab countries!

Number of key medicines which have gone out of stock in Gaza because of the blockade and consequent money problems: 163

There are no restrictions on importing medicine into Gaza. None. Any shortage of medicines is because of the PA (not Hamas) not paying for them. The blockade has nothing - nothing at all - to do with this.

Poor Juan, so blinded by hate that he is forced to bend statistics and believe unreliable sources to push his agenda.

Read More

Fisking a single Juan Cole paragraph

A reader emailed me to fisk a new Juan Cole posting on his blog. While I would normally not waste my time on something that does not get wide circulation, in the light of my now thinking more in terms of training people how to do hasbara, I thought this would be an opportunity not only to fisk, but to give pointers on how to fisk.

I do not have the time to show the lies in the entire piece, but the first paragraph will do quite well (and take up enough time, thank you.)

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his far rightwing government have slapped President Obama in the face with mail gloves by refusing to extend the freeze on new colonies in the Palestinian West Bank. Palestine Authority president Mahmoud Abbas reaffirmed his refusal to go forward with direct negotiations if Israelis were going to be seizing land that was being negotiated for while the talks were ongoing!

1. "Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his far rightwing government." As Cole well knows, left-wing Labor is part of this government. Likud itself is not "far rightwing" by any measure, as it is the government that made peace with Egypt and withdrew from Gaza. The PA, on the other hand, has every attribute of a far right-wing government, as it refuses to negotiate without preconditions and it refuses to compromise on even the most basic demands that Israel could not possibly countenance, like the illusory "right to return." It also refuses to allow any Jews in its nascent state and it imposes a death penalty on anyone who sells his land to Jews, making it an apartheid government as well.

2. "slapped President Obama in the face with mail gloves" is ridiculous imagery - mail gloves are metal gloves used by armored knights. The implication is that Netanyahu is actively injuring Obama, both in terms of honor and physically, which is absurd. (And isn't it interesting that Cole now cares so much about the honor of the President of the United States when he would have applauded any foreign leader treating Obama's predecessor with contempt.)

3. "by refusing to extend the freeze" - There was a ten month freeze,and for nine and a half of those months the Palestinian Authority refused to negotiate with Israel. As Cole will presently mention, he accepts Abbas' refusal to negotiate while the freeze is not in effect, but did he ever say a word about Abbas' intransigence while the freeze was in effect? Of course not!

4. "on new colonies" - Israel has not sanctioned the building of new Jewish towns for years. They have, in fact, dismantled numerous structures built by Jews outside existing boundaries of towns and villages in Judea and Samaria. This is simply a lie. Note also that he chooses the word "colonies" and not the more popular "settlements" because he wants the reader to think of Israel as a  "colonialist" state.

5. "in the Palestinian West Bank." Which parts of the West Bank will end up as "Palestinian" and which will end up in Israel is up for negotiation. UN resolution 242 makes clear that Israel must have secure borders and that the 1949 armistice lines were not the recognized borders of Israel. There has never been a Palestinian Arab state so calling the West Bank "Palestinian" is presumptuous. You can call it "formerly occupied by Jordan," you can call it "disputed," but if you want to be accurate you cannot call it "Palestinian" unless you are referring to Mandate-era Palestine, in which case all of Israel is "Palestinian" as well.

6. "Palestine Authority president Mahmoud Abbas" - who is now the illegal president of the PA because he went past his term in office and did not call new elections.

7. "reaffirmed his refusal to go forward with direct negotiations" - which proves that he is the intransigent party here, not the "obstreperous Likud government" as Cole goes on to say later.

8. "if Israelis were going to be seizing land that was being negotiated for" - All the building happening right now is within existing towns, no more land is being "seized" by Israel. In fact, Palestinian Arabs have been seizing land by planting trees and crops in disputed areas that would and should be up for negotiations.

9. "while the talks were ongoing!" - The Pa negotiated in the past without this condition, which means that it is the PA that has changed the rules and added preconditions, not Israel.

When reading a piece by someone like Cole, one must not only look at the main points but at the side-statements and adjectives, which are in some ways even worse. His entire framework is twisted, so one cannot take literally anything he says to be the truth unless it is verified from another source.

And one must also realize that Cole knows every fact I bring up above is true - and he chooses to ignore the truth anyway. This is enough to prove that his words have no value, and his entire intent is demonization and propaganda, not truth.

The truth is that there is one intransigent party here, and that is the PLO led by Mahmoud Abbas. (The PLO does the negotiations, not the PA.) If Obama is to be counseled to lean on anyone, it is the PLO. The negotiating position of the PLO has not changed since 1988 - no compromises, no flexibility, no concessions since then. Not one. Their demands are identical, and they add up to the same result - the ultimate destruction of Israel. (See this 2009 video just sent to me for yet more proof of that.) This is the reality, the reality that people like Cole know very well but spend countless hours trying to distract the world away from with their mantras of lies like "seizing land" and "far rightwing government."

Read More

My comment to Juan Cole

Juan Cole writes in his blog:

The spiritual leader of the ultra-Orthodox Shas Party, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, made waves this week when he included in his blessing for Rosh Ha-Shana, the Jewish New Year, a prayer that a plague should strike the Palestinians and wipe them out, including Mahmoud Abbas. He said, “Let Abu Mazen [Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority] and all these evil folk perish from this world. May God smite them with plague, them and these Palestinians.”

I wrote a comment - we'll see if he publishes it:

It is amusing that Juan Cole, who famously defended Ahmadinejad by claiming that his statement to wipe Israel from the face of the earth was a mistranslation, relies on Yahoo to translate the words of Rabbi Yosef. YNet today gave a more accurate translation: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3945840,00.html

Yosef did not wish a plague on all Palestinians, only the ones who “persecute Israel.”

Since Cole cares so much about accurate translations, I trust that he will correct this and apologize.

This picture was taken in Iran in 2008. I guess the podium designer doesn't know Farsi as well as Cole does.


(h/t Dan)

Read More

IDF releases timeline of events. Juan Cole praises Lebanese murderer.

A senior IDF source provides us (via email) with a background and narrative of the events of Tuesday that was given at a briefing earlier Wednesday.

Hezbollah’s Influence on the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF)

· Since mid-2007, there has been an increased in activity of Global Jihad in the area of Southern Lebanon.

· Recently, we have seen more incidence of violence by Hezbollah directed against UNIFIL’s peacekeeping force.

· LAF brigades in the past were often majority Christian soldiers. ≈ this has changed. The LAF policy now dictates that different brigades will rotate responsibility for the area, and this includes brigades with varying ethno-religious composition.

· There are now a number of brigades of Shiite commanders in charge of forces in the border area. It is likely, given where these soldiers are from – that many of them have relatives who are Hezbollah activists or supporters.

· There has been increasing influence of Hezbollah upon LAF forces, and growth in this has been seen in recent years, as more violations of Res. 1701 have occurred by the Lebanese Armed Forces.

Provocation, Intimidation & Tension in Recent Months:

· Over the past three months, the Central and Eastern Brigades of the LAF have acted with increasing aggression towards Israeli forces stationed along the border. IDF forces have been threatened verbally, as well as with physical gestures by Lebanese troops, aimed at escalating tension in this already sensitive border area. Certain LAF companies have in fact made threats and sought to provoke the IDF through threatening gestures with heavy weaponry, including machine guns and RPGs.

· Israel has informed the UNIFIL Liaison of the LAF’s demonstrations of aggression and attempts to enflame the situation, and has expressed the IDF’s concerns that such behaviour could spark a deterioration into violent confrontation – something which the Israeli side wishes only to prevent.

· Nevertheless, such provocative behaviour has taken place so often that it has in fact become a regular dangerous routine. This behaviour, over a number of months, laid the framework for the tragically violent incident that took place on Tuesday.

* The LAF is the sovereign army of Lebanon, and receives its orders through a standard military central command structure, in coordination with the Lebanese government in Beirut.

· Tuesday’s tragic events did not take place out of the blue. The increasingly risk-prone aggression and provocation by Lebanese forces over the past three months demonstrated clearly – both at the time and now with the benefit of hindsight – the intention for violence by the Lebanese forces.

The Incident:

· Tuesday began with plans by the IDF, coordinated in extreme detail with the UNIFIL Liaison Officer, to carry out a routine pruning of shrubbery near the fence which lies at a distance of 200-300 metres behind the “Blue Line” internationally recognised border between Israel and Lebanon.

· Such maintenance work is of absolute necessity for the safety and security of not just the Israeli military, but rather also the civilian residential areas and agricultural areas, which lie in, close proximity to the border area. It should be noted that Hezbollah forces using similar shrub growth as cover after illegally infiltrating Israeli territory facilitated the kidnapping of two IDF soldiers during the 2006 Lebanon War.

· Despite Israel’s absolute right to maintain this border area, which lies in undisputed Israeli territory, the IDF coordinates all such activities with the UNIFIL Liaison Officer, and often makes changes to its own plans due to UNIFIL’s concerns.

· In order to prevent any misunderstanding, prior to Tuesday’s planned maintenance work the Israeli officer in charge personally patrolled the relevant area together with the UNIFIL Liaison Officer to demonstrate, in an explicit and specific manner, which trees and shrubbery the IDF intended to work on. All such plans were approved by UNIFIL before any activities by the IDF took place.

· On Tuesday morning, the planned commencement of the maintenance work at 08:30am was postponed by a number of hours as per a request by UNIFIL. When the later time already agreed upon had come, UNIFIL once again requested that the IDF delay such activities a number of additional minutes, and the IDF further complied.

· Subsequently, the IDF sent crane equipment down to the site, in order to demonstrate exactly what activities it planned to carry out.

· At this point, the Lebanese Armed Forces opened fire with snipers towards Israel. It must be noted, however, that such fire was not aimed at the soldiers located by the fence, but rather directly aimed at IDF officers who were standing in a separate area, on higher ground. These officers were wearing helmets and flack jackets. The officer who was killed by this fire was shot in the head, despite the armour he was wearing. This demonstrates the premeditated, planned and deliberate nature of the Lebanese attack.

· Following the Israeli forces’ coming under unprovoked attack by the LAF, the IDF opened fire against the specific parts of LAF forces who had fired against Israel. The IDF made a clear distinction between such LAF forces, and any UNIFIL personnel or civilians that may have been in the area, thus compromising Israel’s capabilities out of genuine concern to prevent any innocent casualties.

· The Lebanese Army cynically manipulated Israel’s goodwill in coordinating all activities with UNIFIL observers, as well as Israel’s ongoing desire to avoid any deterioration into violent confrontation with our neighbours.

Juan Cole, furiously spinning  the Lebanon border incident, reveals not only his (purposeful)  ignorance of the sequence of events, but also that he revels in the death of any Israeli:

One surprising thing is that the Lebanese army showed such spunk in the face of the perceived Israeli affront. They know very well that they are vastly outgunned, and of course the Israeli military hit them with fire from helicopter gunships and artillery pieces. What made them so bold, that they shot and killed an Israeli officer over the tree removal?

Wow, isn't a pre-meditated and unprovoked sniping of Israeli officers standing in the open a couple of hundred yards away, "bold" and "spunky"?

(h/t Dan)

Read More

Juan Cole defending genocidal maniac, again

From the "Atlantic Free Press", by Juan Cole:

Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul continue to show themselves among the few in Congress with any integrity and backbone. They declined to go along with a resolution charging Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad with incitement to genocide, given his alleged call for Israel to be 'wiped off the face of the map.'

As most of my readers know, Ahmadinejad did not use that phrase in Persian. He quoted an old saying of Ayatollah Khomeini calling for 'this occupation regime over Jerusalem" to "vanish from the page of time.' Calling for a regime to vanish is not the same as calling for people to be killed. Ahmadinejad has not to my knowledge called for anyone to be killed.

I was talking to two otherwise well-informed Israeli historians a couple of weeks ago, and they expressed the conviction that Ahmadinejad had threatened to nuke Israel. I was taken aback. First of all, Iran doesn't have a nuke. Second, there is no proof that Iran even has a nuclear weapons program. Third, Ahmadinejad has denied wanting a bomb. Fourth, Ahmadinejad has never threatened any sort of direct Iranian military action against Israel. In other words, that is a pretty dramatic fear for educated persons to feel, on the basis of . . . nothing.

I renew my call to readers to write protest letters to newspapers and other media every time they hear it alleged that Ahmadinejad (or "Iran"!) has threatened to "wipe Israel off the map." There is no such idiom in Persian and it is not what he said, and the mistranslation gives entirely the wrong impression. Wars can start over bad translations.

It was apparently some Western wire service that mistranslated the phrase as 'wipe Israel off the map', which sounds rather more violent than calling for regime change. Since then, Iranian media working in English have themselves depended on that translation. One of the tricks of Right-Zionist propagandists is to substitute these English texts for Ahmadinejad's own Persian text. (Ethan Bronner at the New York Times tried to pull this, and more recently Michael Rubin at the American Enterprise Institute.) But good scholarship requires that you go to the original Persian text in search of the meaning of a phrase. Bronner and Rubin are guilty disregarding philological scholarship in favor of mere propagandizing.

Cole is engaging in the usual dishonesty so endemic among the terror-supporting Left where he attempts to use semantics to stupidly argue a point. (Those who claim that the term "anti-semite" means "hating Arabs, who are Semites" do this all the time.)

(His argument that Iran has no nuclear weapons program, based entirely on Iranian denials, is so absurd as to seem almost a parody of intellectualism.)

Let's look at exactly what Michael Rubin wrote, as he was demolishing Cole (and note that Cole does not address his point here:)

Revisionism is in full swing in Washington as some academics and policymakers bend over backwards to convince themselves and others that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does not mean what he says.
Today, the National Iranian American Council—a lobby group advocating the normalization of ties between the United States and the Islamic Republic—published this analysis, which ends:

The proper translation of Ahmadinejad’s quotes has been the subject of some debate. Kucinich argued that the translations used in the bill were either misquoted or out of context, offering alternative translations from the New York Times to convey his point.

It's a line which originated with Juan Cole, a University of Michigan professor, has peddled. Indeed, Cole wrote:

I have a suggestion for my readers. Every time you see a newspaper article that alleges that Ahmadinejad said that Israel should be wiped off the face of the map, please write the editor. Say that this idiom does not exist in Persian, and that what Ahmadinejad actually said was, "This occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." And you can cite me.

Perhaps one can quibble over how to render a translation. Here, the Islamic Republic provides its own clarification. In its official translations, it headlined Ahmadinejad's call to "wipe Israel off the map."
There is a tendency among academics to feel they have to advocate for those countries they study. They should not. Nor should they advocate for the U.S. government. They should analyze dispassionately. But, ignoring or burying evidence that reflects badly on a regime is more likely to advance misunderstanding than advance rapprochement. It is time academics and policymakers both deal with reality as it is, rather than a sanitized version they would wish it to be.

Note Cole's dishonesty as he pretends that the official Iranian translation was just copying from American mistranslations.

The best proof that Cole knows his argument is weak is that he freely links to Kucinich's comments, but not to Michael Rubin's - because he knows that he is not saying anything that disproves Rubin's point. Rubin, on the other hand, has no such problem linking to Cole.

Read More