Jordan freaks out over Dutch diplomat's minor rebuke of press freedoms in the kingdom

The Dutch ambassador to Jordan tweeted, "Pleasure meeting HE Minister of Media AlShubol. An opportunity to discuss issues of common concern, including the media scene in Jordan. Stressed our strong bilateral relationship, and I shared our concerns on Jordan’s declining international ranking on freedom of speech. Netherlands ready for cooperation."

Jordan ranks 129th out of 180 nations in press freedom, and as I have noted often, even though it has control over the media it allows virulently antisemitic material to be published daily. 

Jordan and Jordanians are very unhappy at this very mild rebuke.

Jordan's government has criticised the Dutch ambassador to Amman after he made comments about media freedom in the kingdom.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates said that Harry Verweij had weighed into domestic affairs during a courtesy meeting with a senior official.

His comments included the licensing of a local radio station and who ran it, according to the ministry, which did not elaborate further.

The ambassador's actions were “incomprehensible” according to a statement.

"Jordan is always open to frank dialogue that approaches all issues with all partners and friendly countries through diplomatic channels and direct contact, in accordance with diplomatic norms, but that it does not accept interference in its internal affairs," a statement on the Petra news agency said.

The responses on Twitter are no less strident:

I reject any interference by you in Jordan's internal affairs.

You must respect your position and shut your mouth Our internal affairs are none of your business.

This is a blatant interference in the affairs of our country and we do not allow you. You have to respect the sovereignty of this country. And not to interfere in his affairs

I advise you to go back to Holland, you need to collect a lot of firewood this winter because of the Russian war. This is none of your business.

Unacceptable intervention in our country's  business. Read your job description again and stick to it..

Our freedom of speech is our concern, and its not yours whatsoever.

No State or group of States has the right to intervene or interfere in any form or for any reason whatsoever in the internal and external affairs of others..

I wonder if this robust defense of Jordan from criticism and outside interference applies to Israel too?

---

---

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon! Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.  Read all about it here!

 

Read More

Yes, @NYTimes, photographs can mislead. And you have published lots of them yourself.

The New York Times has an interesting article about the revelation that Herman Heukels, who took most of the famous photographs of Jews getting ready to be transported from Amsterdam to work or death camps, was a Nazi.

With this knowledge, we now understand that he intended to demean the Jews whose photos he was taking. He didn't take any photos of the police rounding them up, for example. 

In some images, the Jews' dignity shine through anyway.

But this changes the interpretation of the photos.

Janina Struk, author of the 2005 book “Photographing the Holocaust: Interpretations of the Evidence,” said that in the postwar period, photos taken by bystanders, perpetrators and victims were “all kind of mixed together,” and hardly anyone asked who had shot the photos or for what purposes.

In recent years, she added, there has been a greater emphasis on contextualizing the images, explaining how they were made, so that viewers have a better understanding of what they’re looking at — and so people can make better ethical choices about how to present them.

I wish the New York Times cared this much about the context of photos from Gaza taken by modern antisemites.

Here are two photos from last year's war in Gaza that are obviously staged, as I pointed out then:

The New York Times also hires freelance photographers in Gaza who have every incentive to show Israel in a bad light and ignore Hamas war crimes like shooting rockets from populated areas. The NYT is highlighting obviously staged photos as well, like this one, with a bassinet that somehow landed right side up, meters  away from the demolished building that supposedly housed it - and without a speck of dust on it. The photographer was also amazingly lucky to find a photogenic, sad boy who just happened to be walking right in front of it, but to the side, so we could see both. 

Or this one, where elderly women climbed over dangerous rubble where they could fall and break their hips so they could sit (one on a convenient plastic chair) and look sad in this supposedly candid shot:

Seeing the beach in the background, this airstrike may have been at the Shati camp, where Israel said Hamas leaders were meeting - but the New York Times won't mention that. 

Context is everything. Photographers stage their photos and direct the subjects as actors when they won't get caught. They gather ahead of time in likely trouble spots but ensure that the other dozens of photographers crowding around are never in the shot. They choose the ones that tell the story they want to tell and don't submit the ones that contradict them. The freelancers provide the background information that is believed implicitly by the editors. 

Is there any moral difference between publishing context-free photos from people who hated Jews in the 1940s and those from people who hate Jews today? 

The last paragraph of the article about the Nazi photos is the best summary of the topic, and one that fair media would be attuned to if they cared about context and objectivity.

Struk added, “We need to move away from the idea that a photograph is just a window on the world. It isn’t. It’s a very edited version of what the photographer chose to photograph.”  

 

---

---

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon! Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.  Read all about it here!

 

Read More

Netherlands pro-Israel moves symbolic but important

Al Jazeera and other outlets reported on Thursday:

The government of the Netherlands has stopped sending about $1.5m a year to the Palestinian Authority (PA) because of payments it makes to families of those killed, hurt, or imprisoned by Israel.

The Netherlands' decision came after a motion in parliament was pushed through on Wednesday by pro-Israeli groups who had lobbied the government for years to end its economic assistance to the PA.

The Dutch government's financial assistance paid the salaries of staff in the Palestinian justice ministry.

Israel accuses the Palestinian government of "supporting terrorists" because it provides financial assistance to the families of those jailed or killed by Israel.

"Although the talks with the Palestinian Authority were constructive about this, it did not lead to the desired result and, therefore, the Netherlands will no longer contribute to salaries in the justice sector," the Dutch government said in a statement.

The $1.5m represents only direct funding to the PA. The Netherlands still contributes millions of dollars - paid through European channels - in development assistance designed to help the Palestinian economy and refugees.

It appears that the $1.5 million is being redirected into other Palestinian institutions through european NGOs.

It is interesting that the Netherlands was paying the Justice Ministry. That ministry is perhaps the least transparent of all the PA's ministries - one cannot find any statistics or information on trials or number of people in Palestinian prison from their website. Specific trials are sometimes reported on in the press, but far less than in any free country. Perhaps part of the Netherlands' decision was from the realization that the PA Justice Ministry really just hides its own abuses of justice.

Another important decision out of the Netherlands this past week:

The Dutch parliament on Tuesday approved a motion pushing back against a European Court of Justice decision that ordered the labeling of Israeli goods made in West Bank settlements.

The motion, approved 82-68, calls on the government to object to the ruling, unless similar standards are applied to all disputed territories around the world. It deems the singling out of Israel in such regard unfair and discriminatory.

Israel has heavily criticized the the court’s ruling last week, calling it discriminatory and noting that there are more than 200 territorial disputes across the world, but that the European court had never ruled on any of them.

The Dutch vote, supported by Christian groups in parliament and backed by the governing coalition, does not compel the government to act and is largely symbolic. However, diplomatic officials told the Ynet news site that the strong support from the coalition indicated it would guide government policy to an extent.

Both of these moves are symbolic, but symbolism is extremely important in the Arab world. The EU consensus about supporting the PA is finally starting to break down.

---

---

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