Judging Israel against perfection - a Twitter thread with Ray Hanania

I had a Twitter conversation with Arab-American journalist Ray Hanania on Sunday. It is worth reading.

My tweets are in plain text left-justified, Ray's are italicized and right-justified.

Jordan’s King Once Again Smears Israel at the UN

‏

It's about time someone called out Israel atrocities and violations of international law.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You mean Israel is silencing UNHRC agenda Item 7 dedicated to Israel, the hundreds of resolutions at the UN, dozens of your own articles and thousands like them?

No, Ray, it is about time someone put Israel's actions in context of how EVERYONE ELSE ACTS.

Because Israels' human rights record compares favorably not only with the Arab regimes but also with other Western democracies, especially but not only  when at war.

While you are to be commended for occasionally calling out Palestinian atrocities and attitudes, you cannot be serious and claim that they get the same airplay as Israeli actions that are far less evil.

So an Israeli soldier who puts a civilian nurse in his sniper scope and kills her from across the border because she is protesting or helping other victims. I guess that "far less evil"? Yikes! You look really bad pal

Compare with any nation at war. In  history. Don't take out of context. Sometimes bad things happen, I would need to check out the incident, but has that ever happened in France? Spain? UK? US? They've done worse and you don't care.

Selective outrage means that there is another agenda than human rights.

Israel does more to protect civilians among its enemies than any country in history. Prove that wrong and we can talk.

But comparing Israel and only Israel against a standard of perfection is bias, period.

Soon I will write an article on how Israel's treatment of Muslims compares with that of European countries. Hint: No Burqa bans, no bans on minarets, and very few restrictions on the volume of the call to prayer (comparable to Muslim nations!) Why don't you write that instead?

Oh yea, but Israelis tend to kill more Muslims than Europe. Well, at least the victims can wear their hijabs when they are shot to death?

Ray, again, you are proving you are no journalist. Independent groups say as many at 10,000 killed in allied airstrikes against Syria and Iraq. voanews.com/a/us-led-coali…

Compare the transparency on Israeli investigations on unintentional killings in Gaza with US/EU investigations in Syria/Iraq. No comparison. But you don't want to compare, because context is your enemy. Only sarcasm. Keep proving that facts don't matter to you.

"Transparency"? Israel CENSORS Journalist reports inside/ outside, & expels journalists who violate the censors. Ask family of Abdel Fattah al-Sharif murdered by Israeli soldier Elor Azaria about transparency. Israel punished the person who videotaped it. Facts don't matter to u

Sigh. Vietnam, Grenada, First Gulf War, Iraq War - all censored by the US military. 

Once again, you compare Israel against perfection rather than against other Western democracies at war. Which I mentioned earlier in this thread. Which is proof of bias, Mr. Journalist.

How you close your eyes to murder is really appalling and so unJewish, inhumane and really terrible. So you think it's ok that Israeli soldier snipers shot to kill protestors on the Gaza side of the border? Wow!

No. I'm saying that when the IDF denies targeting civilians I believe them over you who assumes they are. Because if they wanted to kill civilians, there were be tens of thousands dead.

You call them liars. I call you a liar. Who has more proof?

And of course you ignore my main point that Israel compares better than any other country. Do you claim otherwise? You are a journalist, Ray - do research and dig up facts rather than point to isolated accidents as proof of Israel's evil.

It's very un-Christian of you.

I have NUMBERS on my side. Every Friday Israeli snipers shoot, kill civilians but you look at Christians and Muslims as not being human or equal. That's apartheid racism. I feel like I am back in 1980s arguing over SouthAfrica Apartheid. Same responses. All u have is namecalling!

Please, Ray. Did you look at the videos of last Friday's "peaceful protest" complete with hand grenades?

You can't win on facts, Ray. You haven't disproved a single thing I have written. Including that the IDF doesn't target civilians.

Hamas puts civilians at the fence. Children. I have video. You cannot deny it. Israel tries to avoid killing civilians. You cannot deny that either because the casualty count is so low for tens of thousands at the border.

So you have yet to disprove anything I've said.

I have to go now. I'll make a blog post and I promise I'll keep all your words intact. I challenge you to do the same for me in an article.  If you are so certain that you are right.

Me too, Thanks. But, I DON'T Believe the Israeli soldiers when they say killings were accidental or the victims were engaged in terrorism. That's a lie and an excuse & u know it. I ALWAYS speak out against violence on BOTH SIDES. When have u ever denounced Israeli violence?

As far as believing the IDF, I have read in detail many of the reports of investigations done my the independent @IDF_MAG_Corps and have been blown away at how meticulous they are. Have you ever read one of them and found something incorrect or missing? If you have, PUBLISH IT.

Amnesty and HRW don't bother to read them. They just look at the conclusion, say "whitewash," and you believe them. I have yet to see a single substantive criticism. So don't tell me IDF soldiers wantonly target civilians. It is a lie and a libel as a blanket statement.

Amnesty is one of the most reputable human rights organizations in the world, until they started criticizing Israeli practices and killings, and suddenly they are bad. So hypocritical.

If you are interested, I can prove Amnesty's bias against Israel beyond any doubt. Start here:  Their "Gaza Platform," still online, contains HUNDREDS of lies (fake "civilians" Hamas admits were fighters) and they STILL refuse to correct it.

Read my research on it, contact Amnesty and demand that they update their figures. Then I would believe that you care about the truth. (Or disprove my research. Good luck.)

Here's one place where I unequivocally condemned the unjustified murder of a Palestinian youth.

But for the record, I want to make it clear that I want Israeli human rights to be even better than they are now. But not at the expense of the security of Israel's own citizens.

There is always room for improvement. That is not proof of being evil. Not even close.

So my question for you is, why don't you show some intellectual honesty instead of joining on the bandwagon to demonize Israel for things that EVERY OTHER WESTERN DEMOCRACY does without a word from hypocrites like you?

When so many do this so consistently, with only the Jewish state being so targeted, it sure feels like antisemitism.

And claiming that no one talks about supposed Israeli crimes is simply ridiculous.

You have yet to address my specific issues.

I'll make it clear, Ray: Saying that Israel, and only Israel, must come under extra scrutiny and criticism while EVERY OTHER NATION acting worse gets a virtual pass proves double standards. A grave violation of your supposed journalist standards.

He could not answer anything I said about double standards applied to Israel and only Israel.

He could not answer about his absurd implication that no one stands up for Palestinians when the world is obsessed with supposed Israeli crimes.

He could not admit that I have indeed spoken out against crimes by Israelis.

He could not admit that he was very wrong in his claim that Israel kills more Muslims than Europeans have. (Of course there are far more wars than the ones I mentioned.)

He could not provide proof that Israeli soldiers target innocent civilians.

People who are anti-Israel hate context. Israel must be compared to a standard of perfection, and always will fall short. Every single shortcoming is given as "proof" of Israeli evil, while every other Western democracy at war acts worse - higher percentage of civilian deaths, less transparency in their investigations, less independence in their investigations, less tolerance for Muslim minorities. But they aren't judged to the standards Israel is.

It seems too much of a coincidence that Israel is the only state that gets treated this way, and that Israel is the Jewish state.

---

---

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

Arab Christian describes Muslim bigotry, reveals more than he intends

I've given Ray Hanania both criticism and praise for his positions as an American of Palestinian origin. We exchanged insults over his support for Helen Thomas' bigotry. Even today he plays fast and loose with the facts. But this piece in Saudi Gazette is worth reading because it is a rare Arab critique of Muslim anti-Christian attitudes:

Recently, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a rightwing anti-peace Zionist, met with a Christian Orthodox priest from Nazareth, Father Gabriel Nadaf, to discuss ways Christian Arabs could become more a part of Israel. The meeting enraged Muslim activists who denounced Father Nadaf as a “Christian Zionist,” and as a “Jew.”

I understand what Father Nadaf is doing. He recognizes that Christian Arabs live in a precarious world with Muslims. They believe that just maybe, Israel might be a better protector of Christian Arab interests. Christian Arabs are denounced for even raising this issue in public. We’re not allowed to talk about it. It’s haram! It’s a sin. But to Christian Arabs, it is real.

In truth, the relationship between Christian Arabs and Muslim extremists is worsening. But the real problem is that mainstream Muslims are doing nothing to confront these fanatics, and in fact they even refuse to see it as a problem that needs to be addressed. But the hatred by Muslim extremists against Christian Arabs is growing. It’s getting worse and many Christian Arabs believe that maybe Israel cares about us more.

This problem has to be viewed in a different, more complex context. The Arab-Israeli conflict is not a simple issue of two sides hating each other. Christians are in the middle. On the one hand, Muslims claim we are “brothers” in arms against Israel. But what happens to us when Israel is gone? Will Muslims respect us or, will Muslims merely resort to confronting us next.

There is an old Arab saying that I grew up with as a child that goes: “On Saturday the Jews. On Sunday the Christians.” We all know what that means. Once Israel is out of the way, Christian Arabs will be next.

...Their voices of rage and hatred should be confronted not by their Christian Arab targets but by the mainstream Muslim community. I shouldn’t be the one confronting him. Mainstream Muslims should be confronting these wild voices of hateful insanity.

It’s incidents like these that have many Christians today concerned about the real long-term goals of Muslims. Are Christian Arabs equal or are we just a short-term opportunity to be abandoned once Israel is destroyed by them.

This piece is notable for a different reason than the obvious of exposing Muslim bigotry in a Saudi publication.

Hanania takes it as a given that Muslim Arabs' major goal is destroying Israel, a viewpoint that he says he doesn't share. Yet even he says "when Israel is gone," not "if." To Arabs, moderate and extremist, Christian and Muslim, Israel is still considered a temporary blight on Arab land that cannot possibly survive; and as long as this attitude remains then real peace is impossible. This simple fact also undercuts Hanania's own thesis in the previous absurd piece I linked to - it is Israel's strategic strength that keeps things peaceful, not a "balance of power." See this previous post about how there really is no such thing as an Arab peacenik.

Christians can breathe relatively easy as long as Israel exists to act as a lightning rod for Arab hate.  Too bad most Western observers don't realize what is self-evident to all Arabs.

As far as I can tell, this piece was not translated into Arabic anywhere, so the people who need to read it never will.

Read More

SPJ follows through and retires Helen Thomas award

As I mentioned last week, the Society of Professional Journalists officially decided to retire their Helen Thomas Award.

From SPJ:

INDIANAPOLIS – The board of directors of the Society of Professional Journalists voted Friday to retire the Helen Thomas Lifetime Achievement Award.

The vote means the Society will not give out an award for lifetime achievement. The action does not rename the award or remove Thomas’ name.

Both the board of directors and the executive committee heard from many people inside and outside of SPJ’s membership and journalism. SPJ fully understands the concerns expressed by both sides regarding whether renaming or retiring the award is necessary or improper.

A prominent objection to taking any action was that of Helen Thomas’ free speech rights. SPJ staunchly believes Helen Thomas and all people in the United States have a right to free speech. The Society defends that fundamental legal right as a core organizational mission, even when the speech is unpopular, vile or considered offensive.

However, the controversy surrounding this award has overshadowed the reason it exists. To continue offering the award would reignite the controversy each year and take away from its purpose: honoring a lifetime of work in journalism. No individual worthy of such honor should have to face this controversy. No honoree should have to decide if the possible backlash is worth being recognized for his or her contribution to journalism.

“As I said last week after the executive committee meeting, it’s time we in SPJ stop focusing on this divisive topic and start focusing on what unites us,” SPJ President Hagit Limor said. “There’s tremendously important work for us, like training our members for our ever-changing industry and fighting to ensure journalists and citizens have access to public records.”

A very proper decision.

Thomas' Arab defenders like Ray Hanania should note that the SPJ understood what Thomas really said, even as they continue to deny it:

The Jan. 8 executive committee meeting marked the second time in nearly six months the committee considered removing Thomas’ name, stemming from an incident earlier in 2010 when the longtime White House reporter and columnist commented to a rabbi on video that Jews in Palestine should “go home.” Thomas drew widespread criticism after the video was posted online, and she later resigned her job as a Hearst Newspapers columnist. The executive committee considered removing Thomas’ name during a July meeting but did not, noting it was a one-time, spontaneous remark for which she apologized.

In December, Thomas reiterated her previous comments before a speech in Dearborn, Mich., the Detroit Free Press and Detroit News reported. The News quoted her at the time as saying, “Congress, the White House and Hollywood, Wall Street are owned by the Zionists. No question.”

The SPJ knows very well what Thomas meant when she said "Zionists." Apologists for her are the ones who look like fools.

Read More

Ray Hanania says that "Zionism" is a New York City organization

Yet another article by the "moderate" Ray Hanania  shows that his grip on reality is getting more tenuous by the day.

Yes, he still denies that Helen Thomas was demanding, in an unguarded moment, that Jews should  "get the hell out of Palestine." And he insists that her comments about "Zionists" owning Congress, the White House, Hollywood and Wall Street" - classic anti-semitic tropes - were about Zionists. (No doubt, hook-nosed "Zionists" at that.)

But now Hanania is going off on his own bizarre theory - that Zionism is an organization!

Thomas has criticized and denounced Zionism, a political movement with headquarters in new York City. The purpose of the organization is to champion the interests of a foreign country, Israel.

...Zionism is a political organization with headquarters in New York. Its agenda is to defend a foreign nation.

...Ms. Thomas criticized Zionism, a recognized political organizati­on that champions the interests of a foreign country.

That's three times he claims that there is an organization, based out of Jew (sorry, New) York City, that is called "Zionism."

Is he referring to the Zionist Organization of America? Or the ADL? Or, more likely, has he just lost his mind?

Even funnier is how he tries to imply that supporting a foreign country is somehow inherently anti-American. Yet on one of his many websites, he headlines it "Can we save Palestine"? Isn't he then advocating for a foreign entity whose policies might be against American interests? Not only that, on that page he announces his candidacy to run for the Palestinian National Council and for the PA Parliament - indicating that Ray Hanania is more loyal to "Palestine" than to his own country of birth! Why, Ray, is being a Zionist somehow inherently anti-American but wanting to join a foreign government is not?

Just more hypocrisy from good ol' Ray. Keep it coming; it is really funny to see you fall apart like this, over a bitter old bigot no less. Since you claim to be a comedian, surely you can see the humor in this.

The real problem is that, by any objective measure, Hanania really is much more moderate than 99% of Palestinian Arabs. And even he cannot find a way to condemn the explicit bigotry of a fellow Arab. Which does not bode well for the chances of peace.

Read More

Arab leaders continue to support unrepentant anti-semite

The Arab American Anti-Discrimination Committee continues to honor Helen Thomas - not in spite of, but because of her anti-Jewish comments that she made in June as well as more recently when she spouted off anti-semitic stereotypes but tried to cover herself by using the word "Zionist."

According to Ray Hanania's Twitter feed, referring to Friday night,

Phenomenal turnout of 1,000 people at ADC Michigan banquet tonight with the great Clovis Maksoud and standing ovation salute to Helen Thomas

The Arab American News fully supports Thomas' statements, quoting lots of students and activists who support what she said. It also published a ludicrous article by the head of the ADC, claiming that Helen Thomas cannot be anti-semitic because she is a Semite:

Underlying the political struggle between proponents and opponents of Zionism in America is a definitional context. Thomas, a Semite in her own right, delivered politically charged remarks against a political entity, Zionism. Thus, one must ask, is a Semite who makes non-ethnic or non-racial remarks against a political entity anti-Semitic? The answer is clearly no. However, the denotation of "Semitic" advanced by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) not only extracts Arabs, such as Thomas, from their unilateral definition, but also narrows it to only include Jews. This may be politically expedient for organizations in America, such as the Anti-Defamation League, but is ultimately an incorrect usage of the term.

I guess that Dictionary.com is part of the ADL/Jooish conspiracy.

What makes all this defense of Thomas really funny is that, deep down, Arab Americans know very well what she meant. Amer Zahr, who appears to be an Arab comedian, says it outright in the Arab Detroit paper:

Helen, don’t you know that you can’t say the Jews should get the hell out of Palestine? Don’t you know it’s not even called Palestine? Don’t you know that there never was a Palestine?

C’mon, Helen…

People got upset and Wayne State, your alma mater, discontinued an award in your name. They said you were anti-Semitic. For saying Jews own all the important stuff? As Arabs, we don’t get the anger. If someone said we owned those things, we’d take the credit. Or at least we’d say, “Well we don’t own it yet, but we’re working on it.”

There's yet another irony at play here, as these Arab Americans are fighting for the right of Helen Thomas to spout Jew-hatred in the name of free speech. Beyond the obvious irony that they didn't feel the same way about the Mohammed cartoons, of course.

The fundraiser last night by the Michigan ADC chapter was announced this way on their website:

Join the ADCMichigan Annual Benefit Gala this Friday, December 10, 2010 at 6:00PM at the Hyatt Regency hotel in Dearborn as it recalls the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on Dec. 10, 1948.

The irony is that the Organization of the Islamic Conference - meaning, most Arab states - does not accept the UDHR, instead supporting the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam which does not guarantee freedom of religion nor gender equality, and ultimately says that Islamic law defines human rights, not humans.

Has the ADC, so concerned with Helen Thomas' rights to freedom of expression, ever publicly called for Arab nations to adopt the UDHR that they dedicated their fundraiser to?

The hypocrisy shown by this organization is staggering, and the Helen Thomas episode just proves that they care far more about defending bigotry than with standing up for the truth.

Read More

Ray Hanania a bit unclear on the concept of "free speech"

From UPI:

Journalist Helen Thomas ripped Wayne State University in Michigan for ending a diversity award in her name, saying the school mocked the First Amendment.

The university ended the Helen Thomas Spirit of Diversity Award last week after she made controversial remarks in Dearborn, Mich., about what she saw as Zionist control of American institutions. When announcing the end of the annual award, Wayne State said it pulled the prize and "strongly condemns the anti-Semitic remarks made by Helen Thomas."

Thomas told the Detroit Free Press in an article published Monday the leaders of Wayne State University "have made a mockery of the First Amendment and disgraced their understanding of its inherent freedom of speech and the press."

Thomas, 90, the daughter of Lebanese immigrants, added, "The university also has betrayed academic freedom -- a sad day for its students."

Some Arab-American leaders joined in criticizing Wayne State's decision to pull the award named after Thomas, who grew up in Detroit and graduated from Wayne.

Who are the Arab American leaders who criticized the decision? The only one I can find so far by name is our old pal Ray Hanania, who called this blog an "often racistly anti-Arab and anti-Muslim hate site" and accused me of hypocrisy.

Let's talk about hypocrisy, Ray.

Hanania wrote the press release for the National Arab American Journalists Association criticizing Wayne State University:

The National Arab American Journalists Association Saturday denounced the decision to Wayne State University to terminate its annual Helen Thomas Spirit of Diversity Award, calling the move a cowardly act surrendering to racist hate.

Wayne State University, which has a large American Arab student population located in the heart of the nation's largest American Arab community, took the action in the face of pressure from Pro-Israel hate organizations angry because Helen Thomas expressed an opinion criticizing the influence of Zionist American organizations on American Foreign Policy.

Thomas, the keynote speaker at a Diversity Conference hosted Dec. 3 by ArabDetroit.com and attended by more than 300 participants, criticized those who attacked her for challenging Israel's actions in Palestine. She repeated her belief that the Zionist political movement in the United States "controls" the White House, the Congress and American foreign policy.

You forgot about Hollywood and Wall Street, Ray! Why would you not mention that part, I wonder? Because it proves that Thomas was undoubtedly using anti-semitic stereotypes! Better to ignore that and pretend, in your lying press release, that she was simply stating anti-Zionist views.

"The topic of Zionism is irrelevant to this debate. The real issue is free speech. Is America a nation of Free Speech or has our free speech been compromised by oftentimes vicious and hateful special interest organizations," said NAAJA coordinator Ray Hanania.

"This is America and America is the nation that is supposed to be the country of Free Speech. Instead of cowering in the face of pressure and special interest lobbying groups, journalists especially and other mainstream organizations should allow an open and full public discussion of the issues, controversial or not."

Let's get this straight. No one stopped Helen Thomas from speaking her mind - in fact, it was refreshing that it confirmed what most of us knew from her summer outburst about her desire for Jews, and only Jews, to "get the hell out" of the Middle East. She is perfectly free to spout her hate, hate that Ray Hanania is defending so vehemently. 

But, according to this self-appointed Arab American leader, Wayne State University does not have the right to pull an award named after her - a diversity award, no less. Their right to distance themselves from an old, unrepentant anti-semite is not a right that Hanania believes that they have. Their right to spend their own money as they see fit, and to choose who they decide is worthy of emulation - indeed, their own right to free speech  is being denied by Ray Hanania!

Hanania knows a thing or two about hypocrisy; he is a living example of it. 

People think of him as the model moderate Arab-American because he is against Hamas, and this points to the fundamental problem - an American of Arab descent who is considered oh-so-moderate is still someone who publicly defends explicit anti-semitism and who nonchalantly throws out libelous claims against others.

Ray is a liar and a hypocrite and I have documented it. Which is more than he has done when he labels other people and organizations to be "haters."

UPDATE: Once I'm calling Ray a liar, here's a doozy on one of his many websites:

 The Palestinians are ready to accept Israel's hold on most of the settlements in exchange for final borders, but Israel's Netanyahu is dragging his feet and demanding more. Netanyahu's version of Give and Take: The Palestinians give everything and Israel takes everything.

OK, Ray, please find a single public statement made by any Palestinian Arab leader saying that they were willing to accept anything of the sort. You won't find it, for reasons you know very well - anyone who says that would be assassinated. Just because you believe it doesn't mean that the PLO, or Hamas, or anyone in a position to matter does.

On the contrary, as I have documented, Mahmoud Abbas has bragged - publicly - that the Palestinian Arab negotiating position has not changed one iota since 1988.

It is a lie, and you are a liar.

Should I waste my time to find more of your lies, Ray? Or have we already established a pattern?

Read More

University drops "Helen Thomas Spirit of Diversity Award"

From NPR:

Wayne State University won't be bestowing any more diversity awards named for Helen Thomas following more controversial remarks by the former dean of the White House press corps.

The university pulled the honor, the Helen Thomas Spirit of Diversity Award, after the 90-year-old said this week that "Congress, the White House and Hollywood, Wall Street are owned by Zionists. No question, in my opinion."

Thomas made those incendiary comments, according to a Detroit News report, before a diversity conference Thursday.

In an earlier report, the newspaper quotes a Wayne State official explaining the obvious, that the university had to put distance between itself and its famous alumna.

"The controversy has brought a negative light to the award, which was never the intent of the award," said Matthew Seeger, interim dean of the College of Fine, Performing and Communication Arts.

Even the very liberal NPR recognizes that Helen Thomas is a nasty old bigot with its (unprofessional but accurate) side comment of "explaining the obvious."

Wonder if Ray Hanania will figure that out for himself?

Read More

Tribute to Helen Thomas by a Hezbollah/Hamas supporter and 9/11 "truther" (update)

I mentioned that Helen Thomas was honored in a Washington ceremony last week as the recipient of the "Courage in Journalism" award last week by the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. My conjecture was that she received her award not in spite of her anti-semitism, but because of it.

It appears I am right.

The person who presented the award to her was James Abourezk, former senator - and terrorist supporter.

When Abourezk gave a glowing review to the Walt/Mearsheimer book on the Jewish Lobby, I noted that he had been on Hezbollah TV praising Hamas and Hezbollah, and saying that Zionists were involved with the 9/11 attacks. This gave rise to a comment thread on the review site where he and I argued a bit. I'm fairly sure I won that argument, decisively.

Here's part of what Abourezk said at the Helen Thomas tribute:

from People's Cube

Even Barack Obama, who has been advertised as a tolerant man, had to join in the denunciations of Helen. He, along with the others in the press corps, acted very much like children in a school yard. When one of the children falls down, the rest start kicking.

Helen was not necessarily done in by her statement about Israel. What she said is what I’ve been saying for years - the Zionists should get the hell out of Palestine.

Where they go when they leave there is not my concern, just as it is not the Zionists' concern where the Palestinians went when they were driven out of Palestine.

...As the Zionists and the Israelis are working very hard to get our country into a war with Iran, there remains almost no voice in the press or in the Congress to call a halt to this madness.

That is why we are all paying tribute to Helen tonight, and I hope, for a long time after this night. We pay tribute to all soldiers who act with bravery, and tonight, we add Helen Thomas to that company. She deserves our thanks, and she deserves the thanks of our nation.

So indeed Thomas was not honored by the ADC for her decades of journalistic work but for her anti-semitic and genocidal comments about Jews in Israel.

And James Abourezk is proud to agree with her.

(The rest of his speech shows that his regard for the truth has not gone up at all since my little exposure of his lies.)

By the way, i see that previous award recipient Ray Hanania finds my earlier mention of Thomas to be reprehensible:

On the one hand, the writer argues that Helen Thomas did not say that Jews should get out of the occupied territory, making the precision of the words their strongest case. And then they hypocritically violate principle, morality and even truth, arguing that Helen Thomas said that Jews should get out of Israel. The fact is Helen Thomas NEVER used the word "Jews." She was asked by a racist rabbi what Israelis should do and she said "Get the hell out of Palestine."

And then that "racist rabbi" said to her "So you are saying the Jews should go back to Poland and Germany" and she added "And to America, and everywhere else."
Hanania knows this, of course, as he attacks EoZ as "an often racistly anti-Arab and anti-Muslim hate site."

Sorry, Ray, but you are a liar. Helen made very clear what she meant, and the video shows that. Your defense of her is indefensible.

UPDATE: Not that this is the first time that I caught Ray Hanania lying....

Read More

Helen Thomas receiving Arab "courage" award tonight in Washington

The Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee is honoring an anti-semite tonight for her "courage":

The Detroit News reports:

Protests are expected today in Washington, D.C., when an Arab-American group honors Helen Thomas, the Detroit-raised journalist whose long career ended this year when she made inflammatory remarks about Israel.

Thomas, 90, is set to receive a "courage in journalism" award today by the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.

She resigned in May from Hearst News Service after telling an interviewer that Jews should "get the hell out" of the Palestinian territories and go to Germany, Poland or the United States. 

"By honoring Helen Thomas, who is clearly an anti-Jewish bigot, that makes a mockery of the ADC's ludicrous claim that the ADC fights discrimination," said Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America, a New York group organizing the protests.

Of course, Thomas didn't say that Jews should get out of the territories, she said they should get the hell out of Palestine, which obviously includes Israel in her mind (she didn't say they should go to "Israel" - to her, Israel is part of Palestine populated by Polish colonizers.)

More interesting is exactly when she was slated to receive this award. There was a Mehdi award winner in 2009 - Ray Hanania - but the one before that was in 2002. I could find no news of a nomination process for the 2010 award as there was in 2009.

It seems clear that her award, and probably the idea of offering the award altogether for 2010, was decided after her anti-semitic remarks, not before. Certainly the people who decide on the award didn't feel that Thomas was deserving of such an award for "courage" in the years 2003-2008 when they decided to forgo the awards altogether.

Her "courage in journalism" award seems to be for a single act of "courage:" telling the world that she wants all Jews to be driven out of Israel.

The ADC says:

ADC National Board Chair, Dr. Safa Rifka, states, "It is befitting to have this award presented at the Gala celebrating the achievements and courage of Helen Thomas. Like Dr. Mehdi, Ms. Thomas is a courageous pioneer who is proud of her heritage and pursues the truth."

ADC President, Sara Najjar-Wilson, stated that, "No one deserves the Courage in Journalism award more than Helen Thomas. Helen's unwavering dedication to her work, love for her country, and courage in asking the tough questions that no other person dared ask, are a source of pride to all Americans."

It appears that mainstream Arabs - ironically, especially the Arab American Anti-Discrimination Committee - are not the least bit embarrassed by Thomas' bigotry, and in fact they are celebrating it under the rubric of suddenly calling her "courageous."

Read More

Ray Hanania's peace plan (Zvi)

Guest post by Zvi on the peace proposal by Arab-American Ray Hanania, whom I've criticized here and praised here.

---

Ray in the Jerusalem Post writes:

I've outlined my own peace plan. It’s a part of my PR stunt to run for Palestinian president, but my real goal is to run for the Palestine Legislative Council from east Jerusalem. It’s simple, and detailed on my YallaPeace.com Web site.

Basically, draw the boundary roughly on the 1967 borders. Israel keeps most of the settlements, and gives Palestine land mass equal to land annexed from the West Bank.

Many Israelis would probably support this proposal.

The Palestinian refugee issue is resolved using the rule of reason not the rule of law. Refugees would surrender the “right of return” in exchange for financial compensation from an international fund and resettlement in the Palestinian state or assimilation into the Arab countries where they now reside.

Most Israelis would support paying compensation in lieu of return.

The Palestinian diaspora, if compensated fairly and if permitted to assimilate, would likely choose that option. For every Palestinian refugee who went to Lebanon in 1948, there may be 50 descendants; and the small house for which he has a key - where only a handful of them could ever have lived - was long ago overrun by urban sprawl. Populations have surged throughout the region during the intervening period, and it would be absolutely impossible to restore the sparsely-populated status quo ante even if every last Jew suddenly evaporated.

One of those 50 descendants has never lived anywhere but Lebanon. His father and mother never lived anywhere but Lebanon. Maybe his grandfather too. Most such people would rather be allowed to work and build lives for themselves than continue to rot in refugee camps, stewing about a key, even if they come from an honor-oriented clan.

Seems to me that this part of Ray's proposal is "spot-on."

The possible exception is Lebanon, which has some very real reasons for being concerned about demographics. I really do sympathize with Lebanon's situation.

I would think that the countries that have put the most effort into using the Palestinians as a weapon would take the greatest number of Palestinians, since they obviously care so much about them ; - )

Both sides would apologize to each other for the past and embrace this vision of moving forward.

Most Israelis would likely agree to this requirement. They know that Palestinians have been hurt by the conflict, and most Israelis regret it, where the specific Palestinians involved are not themselves terrorists.

Many Palestinians would have a harder time apologizing. They have been taught that the ends justify the means, and that the end is to get their honor back from the Jews. Do you apologize for taking revenge in order to get back your honor? No.

However, Palestinian society will simply have to accept that some Palestinians did some unspeakably horrible things in pursuit of their cause. It will have to own up to them and apologize for them.

Israel already issues regrets and apologies for accidental killings of civilians and the like. I have no doubt that apologizing for the general problems that Israel has caused for Arabs in the WB and Gaza and elsewhere would not be a serious issue for Israelis. Since the purpose of Zionism has never had anything to do with the Arabs (it is about rebuilding the Jewish national homeland), there is no contradiction between showing remorse and continuing to be Zionists.

If Palestinian nationalism is really about nationhood rather than revenge against Jews, then hurting Jews comes second to nation building and Palestinians, too, will be able to apologize.

Ray's position here, in other words, is a mature one, and would represent a test of the true intentions and maturity of WB/Gaza society.

Also on the table for discussion is my plan (which the Financial Times “borrowed,” to put it nicely) requiring Israel to take back some refugees, based on how many settlers remain in West Bank settlements. “Refugees for settlers” is a concept that needs to be explored.

I'm not sure why this is required. If there has already been a land swap, then it's up to Israel how to deal with that land. There is no need for Israel to be "double dipped".

Israel would likely take in some Palestinian Arabs under any final settlement, in any case; but to tie this number to the number of settlers living on land that has already been exchanged is pointless. Or maybe Ray means settlers who live on land that was surrendered to the Palestinians. That would make some sense.

The Arab countries, too, would work with Israel to compensate Jews who lost lands and homes as a result of the conflict. (How Palestinians and Jews “lost” land and property is irrelevant in this discussion. It doesn’t matter if they left voluntarily or were forced to flee.)

That makes sense to me. It would make sense to most Israelis.

Most of the Mizrachi Jews fled because of a very real fear of violence, or were expelled, and everything was taken from them. But Ray's point makes it unnecessary to argue about the causes of the two refugee issues. Arguing causes would just bog everything down. Better to move beyond it. Glad to see Ray acknowledge the Mizrachim.

The status of citizenship would remain the same. But Jews who wish to live in Palestine could do so and retain Israeli citizenship for voting purposes, although they must abide by Palestinian laws. Jews should be permitted to live in any area of Palestine, including Hebron.

Works for me.

The same for Palestinians. Refugees who “return” to Israel under the “settler-refugee exchange program” would be given Palestinian citizenship. And, Palestinian citizens of Israel could receive dual citizenship too, living by Israel’s laws. Settlers in settlements not annexed by Israel and surrendered to Palestine would be given the same option to keep Israeli citizenship.

An Egyptian living in Jordan is an Egyptian citizen who is living by Jordan's laws. An Israeli living in France is an Israeli citizen living by France's laws. A Palestinian living in Israel would be a Palestinian citizen living by Israel's laws.

If an Arab Israeli wants dual citizenship, I don't suppose there's a legal issue with that; Israeli law allows for dual citizenship in general. It is very important, however, that as part of the peace settlement, Arab Israeli leaders make an effort to encourage their followers to see themselves as Israelis as well as Arabs.

It’s worth exploring at a higher, more detailed level.

The Old City of Jerusalem would be shared, with Israel taking the Jewish Quarter and the Western Wall and Palestine taking the Armenian, Muslim and Christian Quarters. There, Palestine can establish its capital alongside Israel’s, which would be recognized by all.

I liked the Clinton plan, in which national borders (normally vertical) also had a horizontal component; Israel would own the below-ground strata within the Temple Mount that are associated with the 2nd Temple, and the Palestinians would own the top strata. Details of cooperation, necessary repairs, archaeological work, etc. would need to be worked out. With goodwill, they could be.

Ray's proposals here seem pretty reasonable. There are some practical issues, and he leaves out necessary points around security and the like, but I honestly don't find a lot with which I would argue.

---

[Elder] I am a bit to the right of Zvi, so while I personally would not want Israel to compromise on one square centimeter of the Old City and I highly doubt that any conceivable Palestinian Arab leader could apologize for decades of terror, I agree that most Israelis would accept the proposal as it was quoted so far.

However, more problematic is what he writes later:

Palestine would be a non-military nation for the first 20 years, and would eventually partner with Israel to form a Palestinian-Israeli military, even creating merged Palestinian-Israel police.

This is a recipe for disaster and the beginning of the dissolution of Israel. It is inconceivable that, say, the US and Canada would agree to share an army as friends with similar interests; to ever imagine that a Palestinian-Israeli army would defend Israel from its Arab neighbors is insanity - as is the idea that PalArabs wouldn't use their weapons against Jews, as they did during the second intifada.

The bigger problem is a fundamental one. Hanania is an American. He grew up in America. He thinks like an American, which is why Israelis would accept many of these ideas. But he seems to not understand, fundamentally, the Arab mindset, replacing it with wishful thinking about how everyone can think like him.

If all Arabs were Hananias, then the plan would be very realistic and eagerly accepted by many Israelis, because there would be a presumption of honesty and fairness and mutual goodwill.

But the Arabs who live in the Middle East did not grow up in Chicago. They don't have fathers who were members of the US Army during World War II, most aren't Christians and very few have Jewish wives whom they have any respect for as Jews. (incorrect sentence deleted - see comments.) In other words, Middle East Arabs aren't Americans and they don't think like Americans. To them, the conflict is not about fairness or compromise, it is fundamentally about pride and honor, and that mindset is not the least bit compatible with what Hanania is proposing.

In the highly unlikely scenario that the Arabs would accept this proposal, it would be as part of a strategy to destroy Israel, not to live in peace with her. This essay I wrote in 2008 explains the fundamental problem in the difference of Islamist versus Western mindsets, and Hanania's plan falls into the same trap. That problem would take generations to solve, not years or even decades.

Read More

Ray Hanania lies

Ray Hanania is one of the more moderate Arabs of Palestinian origin - an American-born commentator and sometimes comedian.

Yet he has no less of an urge to make up lies about Israel than his other PalArab comrades.

From the SW News Herald, copied from Palestine Note:

Jerusalem is a closed city. It has been for years. Every conqueror and occupier has restricted access to the city to certain people considered enemies.

The Ottomans did it. The Jordanians did it. And now Israel is doing it. Except that Israel is lying about it.

Israelis insist that Jerusalem is "finally" an open city. Yes, open to Jews from anywhere around the world and to most non-Arabs. But not to Arabs and especially not to Palestinians of the Christian and Muslim faiths.

Jerusalem under Israeli occupation is a closed city and the worst part about it is that most Israelis have closed their eyes and they don't care.

Israel's high powered propaganda machine - something the Arabs may not understand because they have no real professional communications at all - insists the "big lie" that Jews were banned from entering East Jerusalem after the cessation of fighting in the 1948 war and until Israel conquered it in their invasion in 1967.

That is an outright lie, of course. Jordan had the same policy that Israel has today. Exactly. Precisely. There is not a difference. During this Arab-Israeli conflict, ALL Arab countries banned Jews who had Israeli passports or who had visited Israel from entering their countries. They also banned pro-Israel activists. And that included East Jerusalem.

The Israelis focus on that fact without the accuracy, of course.

NOT BANNED, however, were Jews who did not travel to Israel and were from other countries who wished to visit East Jerusalem's Wailing Wall for religious, not political, reasons.

Jews prayed at the Wailing Wall all the time during the Jordanian occupation of East Jerusalem.

The difference is that Jordan didn't spend any time with clever public relations spin or professional communications explaining what they were doing.

Really? Jews prayed all the time at the Wailing Wall between 1948 and 1967??

Since there were approximately zero Jews in Jordan during that time period - they were all kicked out in 1948, including families who lived in Jerusalem for hundreds of years, without asking them if they were there for political or religious reasons - this is an astonishing assertion. Even more so since the newspapers of the 1950s and 1960s mention many, many times that Jews - not Israelis, but Jews - were banned from the Old City under Jordanian rule.

I found a single exception. During Christmas week in 1957, the Jewish and Arab mayors of Jerusalem opened up the Mandelbaum Gate and allowed a handful of religious Jews to the Old City. The Canadian Jewish Review mentions the incident, saying that the Jews cried far more for the ruins of the destroyed and desecrated synagogues than for the Temple, and some Arabs took advantage of the commotion to try to free some Arab prisoners from jail, causing the experiment in equal access to be aborted quickly.

Outside of that, the contemporaneous media uniformly mentions that Jews were not allowed to the Old City. Typical was this NYT snippet from January 13, 1957:

And there is the Wailing Wall, where the Jews may come no longer, barred now, as Christians or Moslems were from other shrines in ages past...

The Sydney Morning Herald, December 22, 1951, says

There is only silence to-day at the Wailing Wall, which is the western end of the great platform on which stood the Jewish Temple.

Is there "only silence" at the Al Aqsa Mosque today, Ray?

As far as the ability of Jews to travel to the Old City through Jordan, Dore Gold writes that "Jordan further barred non-Israeli Jews from the Western Wall, demanding that tourists present a certificate of baptism before a visa would be granted."

Hanania is claiming that Israeli policy today exactly mirrors that of Jordan during those infamous 19 years, in not allowing Arabs or Palestinian Christians to visit their holy sites. As I showed previously, not only did Israel hand out over 10,000 permits for Palestinian Christians to visit, but Israel also hosted hundreds of Jordanian and Egyptian Christians during Easter week this year.

To say that this is "exactly, precisely" the same policy that Jordan had when the Old City was Judenrein is nothing short of an absolute lie. If such a policy had existed, there would have been more Jews visiting holy places during Passover than there were Christians during Easter under Jordanian rule.

And, as I also mentioned, the number of religious visitors in Israel's undivided capital Jerusalem during the Passover/Easter season increased from 10,000 in under Jordanian rule in 1967 to over 100,000 this year.

Read More