Showing posts with label opinion poll. Show all posts
Showing posts with label opinion poll. Show all posts

Thursday, February 09, 2023

In December, the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research and Tel Aviv University carried out a joint opinion survey of Palestinians and Israelis, asking them similar questions to compare their opinions. 

These joint polls have been happening for years, and they are very valuable in comparing both sides' opinions of the peace process or a two state solution.

There were two questions asked, though, which were not well thought out. The responses are far more significant than they appear at first blush.

The pair of questions were prefaced with, "To what extent do you disagree or agree with the following statements regarding the experiences of Jews /Palestinians generally?" with the wording of "Jews" given to Israelis and "Palestinians" to Palestinian Arabs.

The first statement was, "I believe that the suffering of Palestinians/Jews is unique throughout the human history." 

This question implies an equivalence between the Jewish people who have existed for over 3500 years and a Palestinian people who have existed as a self-defined people for, at the very most, a century. If the question was meant to show equivalence, it should have used "Israelis" instead of "Jews."

The answers:


More Palestinians than Israeli Jews think that their suffering is unique throughout human history! Given that Jewish history includes centuries of pogroms, Crusades, expulsions, forced conversions, massacres and a Holocaust, this Palestinian mindset is astonishing both in its unparalleled hubris and in its ignorance of world history. 

It is impossible to make peace with people who are so detached from reality, and so wedded to the myth that their victimhood trumps all others since the dawn of time.

The next statement: "Since Palestinians/Jews are the victims of ongoing suffering, it is their moral right to do anything in order to survive."

The answers:


It is a poorly written statement for comparison purposes, because each side is likely to interpret it differently.

The statement did not define the parameters of "anything." Almost certainly, if the question had the words "including genocide" or "including blowing up babies" the percentage of Israeli Jews who agreed would have shrunk significantly. 

I'm not so certain if the same could be said about Palestinians. After all, they are taught that killing Israeli Jewish civilians is not only moral, but a legal right of "resistance" under international law, and they overwhelmingly support terror attacks against innocent Jews while the number of Israelis who support murdering Palestinian civilians is quite small. 

The Israeli Jews almost certainly didn't have an expansive interpretation of what "anything" means.  The Palestinians almost certainly did. Even so, far more Palestinians - nine out of ten! - say that anything is justified for their cause.

This poll shows a Palestinian people who are unhinged from both reality and morality.  







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!

 

 

Sunday, January 29, 2023



This video from Hamas' Al Resalah shows celebrations interspersed with scenes of the terror attack on Jerusalem on Friday night. 

This video is enough to prove that there is no moral equivalence between the sides. Not even close. 


It is worth reminding people that surveys done after major terror attacks show that Palestinians overwhelmingly support specific terror attacks on Jewish civilians. And the more "Jewish" they are, the more they support their deaths.

In 2008, 83.5% of Palestinians approved of the massacre of eight yeshiva boys at Mercaz Harav. In 2014, 80% said they support recent attacks including the massacre of four rabbis in a Har Nof synagogue.

There is no reason to think that the number supporting this latest attack on Jews outside a synagogue have any less support than those other attacks. 





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!

 

 

Friday, January 13, 2023

The ADL has released a report, "Antisemitic Attitudes in America," that is making headines today becasue it indicates that antisemitic attitudes in the US are increasing dramatically.

Over three-quarters of Americans (85 percent) believe at least one anti-Jewish trope, as opposed to 61 percent found in 2019. Twenty percent of Americans believe six or more tropes, which is significantly more than the 11 percent that ADL found in 2019 and is the highest level measured in decades.

Many Americans believe in Israel-oriented antisemitic positions – from 40 percent who at least slightly believe that Israel treats Palestinians like Nazis treated the Jews, to 18 percent who are uncomfortable spending time with a person who supports Israel.

There is a nearly 40 percent correlation between belief in anti-Jewish tropes and anti-Israel belief, meaning that a substantial number of people who believe anti-Jewish tropes also have negative attitudes toward Israel.

This is the first of a series of reports by the ADL based on this survey; a future report will compare antisemitic and anti-Israel opinions across the political and ideological spectrum. 

So while the overlap of anti-Israel and antisemitic attitudes would initially appear to show that Leftist anti-Zionism is correlated with antisemitism, we cannot make that conclusion, since traditional antisemites generally also hate Israel (as much as the Left tries to claim that they are Zionist.)  If virtually all far-Right antisemites are also anti-Israel, the 40% correlation could be accurate without any Leftist (traditional) antisemites.

However, even if we assume that the overlap of classic antisemitic and modern anti-Israel opinions occur exclusively on the Right, we can still infer something about Leftist contributions to antisemitic attitudes in the US from the specific questions asked:


Some of these reflect current far-Left antisemitic discourse more than traditional far-Right applying their existing antisemitism to Israel. It may reflect that the far-Left anti-Zionism contributes to far-Right antisemitic rhetoric.

And indeed we have seen that in the past. The most extreme far-Right antisemitic publications enthusiastically and prolifically quote from far-Left sources like Mondoweiss, Electronic Intifada and Max Blumenthal.

So while we cannot conclude that the far Left shares antisemitic attitudes with the far Right, there are definitely connections and influences, and this may be one reason the general index of antisemitic attitudes in the US is going up.

But this is in many ways the entire question misses the point.

One reason that my algorithmic  definition of antisemitism is (IMHO) the best out there is that it does not show bias against, even implicitly, the political attitudes of the antisemites. 


The ADL's correlation is important, but it says nothing about causation. 

Since the Left self-defines as anti-racist and socialist, it is emotionally invested in the appearances of treating everyone equally, so certainly their attitudes in any poll will reflect that self-perception. Which means that the ADL methodology, as well-intentioned as it is, has a fatal flaw.

It doesn't take into account the history of antisemitism and how it has changed over the centuries.

It started off as being against a people (this week's Torah portion includes the first expression of antisemitism in history: "“Look, the Israelite people ....may join our enemies in fighting against us....”) Christian antisemitism opposed Jews as a religion and as a people. "Scientific" antisemitism introduced the concept of hating Jews as an inferior race. Conspiracy theory antisemitism groups Jews together as planning to take over the world. And modern antisemitism ascribes all evil to the Jewish state and its supporters.

The commonalities dwarf the differences. For all of them, the "new" antisemites regarded their predecessors with some contempt, as a primitive example of bigotry unlike the newer, enlightened version. 

 For all of them, there were differences in which Jews were included as objects of hate. For all of them, some "good Jews" tried to ingratiate themselves with the new antisemites, and similarly the antisemites would embrace the "good Jews" as a shield to claim that they weren't bigots. For all of them, the Jews represented what the antisemites hated the most in the world. 

And for all of them, the vast majority of Jews in the world by any definition are framed as evil. 

People wouldn't be antisemitic if they didn't get something out of it. Antisemitism is attractive because it is a simple explanation for the ills of the world. It is attractive because the antisemites can use others as scapegoats for their own shortcomings. It is attractive for the simple reason that people want to feel superior to others. For antisemites, modern and classic, Jews represent what they hate most. 

If racism is the biggest evil, then Jews must be the biggest racists - but the new antisemites cannot admit that they are the ones being bigoted. Their hate is different, they want to believe, because it is anchored in ethics. 

But psychically, the hate is the same. It is just as toxic, just as irrational, and just as based on easily provable lies. 

The ADL, by trying to find correlation between the latest flavor of antisemitism and the older versions, does not take into account that the new antisemites specifically define themselves as impervious to bigotry, and will naturally try to avoid appearing to be one of the distasteful types of antisemites that their political enemies embrace. But of one could do a brain scan of their emotional state when they think of Israel, it would be identical to that of the KKK when thinking of Jews. 

The ADL could prove this pretty easily. They could rephrase some of their questions to refer to Zionists, not Jews:

Zionists are not as honest in their business dealings as other businesspeople.
Zionists are not warm and friendly.
Zionists have a lot of irritating faults.
Zionists are more willing than others to use shady practices to get what they want.
Zionists have too much power in the United States today.
Zionists don’t care what happens to anyone but their own kind.
Zionists have too much power in the business world.
Zionists do not share my values.
Zionists are more loyal to Israel than to America.
Zionists stick together more than other Americans.

And this is only a list of tropes that apply to traditional antisemitism. Like all previous versions, modern antisemites have added new antisemitic tropes. The ADL could add:

Zionists tend to be more racist than other Americans.
Zionists support Jewish supremacy in Israel.
Zionists are sympathetic towards right wing antisemites. 
Zionists accuse all critics of Israel of being antisemitic.
Zionists use antisemitism as a means to control Americans.

If the Leftist attitude towards "Zionists" mirror that of the Rightist attitude towards "Jews," then we would have very convincing evidence that anti-Zionism is just a new form of antisemitism. 






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!

 

 

Tuesday, January 10, 2023

In a recent interview in Hamodia, US Ambassador to Israel Tom Nides said, when asked about a recent poll that showed 72%  of Palestinians support terror groups like Lion's Den, "I firmly believe, and you might disagree with me, but the vast, vast majority among the average Palestinians doesn’t wake up in the morning wanting to kill someone who happens to be Jewish. They want to live just like you and I do."

Stephen Flatow responded quite nicely in JNS to this.

I would like to add my own observations.

Nides was careful in his words. He didn't say that the vast majority of Palestinians don't support terror, only that most of them don't want to personally kill Jews.

I've been closely following Palestinian polls for over 15 years.  I suspect Nides knows that polls show consistently over the years that a majority of Palestinians support terror attacks as part of a strategy to gain independence. Those questions are asked in the abstract.

But when Palestinians are asked about specific terror attacks, support goes way up.

In 2008, a terrorist entered the Mercaz Harav yeshiva and started mowing down students. 8 were killed, including 4 children. When Palestinians were asked if they supported that attack, an astonishing 84% said they did.

You can see how Palestinians consistently support specific terror attacks that murder Jews more than general attacks in the abstract from that March 2008 poll.

This is more than simply supporting terror for political gain. This is bloodlust against Jews. 

Nothing has changed since then. In 2014, after a string of stabbing attacks including the massacre of four rabbis in Har Nof, not only were celebrations shown on Palestinian TV. A survey shortly after the event asked, "Recently there has been an increase in Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank in attempts to stab or run over Israelis. Do you support or oppose these attempts?" Four out of five Palestinians supported murdering Jews, and one in three emphasized that they strongly support such attacks.

Although the media and government officials try hard to wave this away, the truth is in these surveys.

It goes beyond that. You will never find a Palestinian official on Arabic TV condemning these attacks - besides when Mahmoud Abbas is pressured to do so by the US. On the contrary, the murderers are "martyrs" and "heroes," virtually every time. 

Do well-meaning lies and obfuscations from people like Nides, and New York Times reporters, and Europeans, help the cause of peace? No, they don't. When the West gives Palestinians who support terror the benefit of the doubt, they learn an important lesson: that the West is on their side. By downplaying explicit and overwhelming Palestinian support for terror, they leaves the door open for "human rights" groups and Western parliaments to demonize Israel as the obstacle to peace, and the Palestinians as hapless, defenseless victims. 

This emboldens the terrorists and results in more dead people on both sides.

It is important to note that Gulf countries, in Arabic, have been criticizing Palestinians for nearly a decade now, even as their own support for suicide terror has plummeted in other surveys. The Abraham Accords is in no small part a result of a refreshing honesty in parts of the Arab world about the real situation. 

The West needs to stop its default stance of "don't upset the Palestinians." It hasn't worked and it has empowered them to be more intransigent, thinking that the West is doing their bidding. 

Palestinians live in an honor/shame society. Therefore, upsetting them is exactly what needs to be done. Palestinians must be shamed into stopping support for terror in their schools and media.  

If Tom Nides really wants peace, that is the most effective tool he has. 

Coddling and covering up Palestinian support for terror does the exact opposite - and we see how well that has worked.


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!

 

 

Monday, January 09, 2023

The Arab Opinion Index for 2022 has been released by the Doha Institute, and it shows that Arabs in the countries surveyed overwhelmingly oppose their countries recognizing Israel:



Moroccans were the least opposed, but that is only 20% of those surveyed.

Unfortunately, Bahrain and the UAE were not part of this survey.

One other question where Israel is a prominent component was more interesting.

When asked which world country is the biggest threat to their home countries, Israel received over 50% from only two set of nationals: Palestinians and Lebanese.

The other answers are fascinating:


In 2014, Israel's and the US' scores were much higher as to being considered a threat:

Look how Saudi Arabia's score for Israel plummeted from 40% to only 3% thinking Israel is their biggest enemy. Iraq's score also dropped a huge amount, from 42% to 7%, Libya's from 44% to 7%, Tunisia from 42% to 9%. 

I would say that while the diplomatic recognition question reflects sky-high Arab antisemitism, the "threat" question is more reflective of whether the respondents believe the anti-Israel conspiracy theories claiming that Israel wants to take over the entire region, as well as a more sophisticated understanding of how Arab states relate to each other and to other nations. 

At any rate, far fewer Arabs look at Israel as their main enemy than eight years ago. That is a very big deal. It means that the opportunities are opening at least for the possibility of dialogue and to discuss common interests, something impossible with a perceived enemy.




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!

 

 

Thursday, January 05, 2023

Arab Barometer released the results of a survey of selected Arab countries last September. One of the questions was about whether the people supported their country normalizing relations with Israel.

As one may expect, the percentages of supporters of normalization were quite low.


I'm not quite sure why this was not widely reported.

Even though the numbers are generally quite low, I find it interesting that Lebanon, traditionally extremely anti-Israel, was in third place behind Morocco and Sudan which had already started normalization. My guess is that with Lebanon's economy is a dumpster fire, a significant number of Lebanese think peace with Israel could help them out.

Egypt and Jordan, as well as the Palestinian Authority, all of which have peace agreements with Israel, are among the least interested in full normalization. Their leaders keep using Israel as a convenient scapegoat. But Israel trades with all of them and the Egyptian and Jordanian leaders have steadfastly resisted demands from their people to cut off relations - because their own basket-case economies need Israeli gas and/or water. 

The leaders will continue to insult Israel while quietly making sure that the relationship endures. 

Israelis might want it, but they don't need to be loved. In the Middle East, it is more important to be respected. 





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!

 

 

Tuesday, December 13, 2022



The Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research has released a new survey of Palestinians. It was taken between December 7-10.

The most notable finding was that a huge majority of Palestinians support the formation of terror groups like "The Lion's Den." 

72% of Palestinians (84% in the Gaza Strip and 65% in the West Bank) say they are in favor of forming terror groups such as the “Lions’ Den,” which do not take orders from the PA and are not part of the PA security services; 22% are against that.

Even more, 79%, are against members of that group surrendering to the PA, and 87% say the PA does not have the right to arrest members of those groups  to prevent them from carrying out attacks against Israelis.

In general, the Palestinians are more negative about Abbas than they had been in previous polls. Only 23% of Palestinians are satisfied with Abbas' leadership. 

Support for terror increased: 55% support a return to "armed confrontations and intifada" to break the current deadlock. Given a choice of the best way to obtain an independent state, 51% choose terror, an increase of 10 percentage points in three months; only 21% choose negotiations, and 23% choose "popular resistance. "





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!

 

 

Wednesday, November 02, 2022

Palestinian Legislative Council building

Over the summer, the Jerusalem Media and Communications Center surveyed Palestinians and asked them, out of a list of prominent potential successors to Mahmoud Abbas, how much they trust them.

The results are abysmal for nearly everyone who has a chance to be the next leader of the PA, the PLO and Fatah.

Q17. How much trust do you have in the following people: Much, somewhat, no trust or don’t know? 

 1. Mahmoud Al Aloul  
Much trust 8.0 
Somewhat trust 18.9 
No trust 25.8 

2. Jibril Rajoub 
Much trust 8.6 
Somewhat trust 25.0
No trust 38.3 

3. Nasser Qidwa 
Much trust 7.6
Somewhat trust 23.3
No trust 27.6

4. Marwan Barghouthi 
Much trust 55.2
 Somewhat trust 26.3 
No trust 7.2

5. Hussein Al Sheikh
Much trust 8.2 
Somewhat trust 22.0 
No trust 39.8

6. Mohammad Shtayeh 
Much trust 13.3 
Somewhat trust 31.1
No trust 41.9 

7. Ismail Haniyeh 
Much trust 17.4 
Somewhat trust 23.7 
No trust 42.3 

8. Yehya Sinwar
Much trust 16.4 
Somewhat trust 20.8
No trust 39.4 

9. Khaled Meshaal
Much trust 14.6 
Somewhat trust 20.5
No trust 42.0

10. Mohammad Dahlan 
Much trust 8.8 
Somewhat trust 21.8
No trust 47.7

11. Mostafa Al Barghouthi 
Much trust 19.3
Somewhat trust 35.6
No trust 24.3 
The only person they really trust is a terrorist, in Israeli prison for his part in murdering five Israelis.

The only one they somewhat trust, Mostafa Barghouti, is General Secretary of the Palestinian National Initiative and would be considered a moderate by most Westerners; he is not a terrorist and says he does not support violence. 





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!

 

 

Monday, October 31, 2022

We have seen that surveys over the past few years have found that between 3%-6%  of American Jews identify themselves as "generally not pro-Israel," a much more general term than "anti-Zionist" which has not been asked as a question of American Jews.

This means that the percentage of American Jews who actively identify as anti-Zionist (a much higher bar than "generally not pro-Israel") is diminishingly small - certainly less than than 6% but probably far less than that number, perhaps as low as 1-2%.

Yet anti-Israel Jews like to present themselves as a large minority with huge influence in the Jewish community. The strenuously argue that they are not fringe, but mainstream - even though they have little evidence of it. 

What I'm about to say is definitely comparing apples and oranges, but the comparison is still worthwhile.

In the four most recent Israeli Knesset elections, between 12% and 28% of Israeli Arabs voted for Jewish Zionist parties. 

In the last election, 5.2% of the Arab vote went to Likud, and 3.2%  to Yisrael Beiteinu. The rest were divided up between Meretz (3.8%) and a remaining 8% divided among other Jewish parties.

In the North, about 25% of Arab voters voted for Jewish parties; in the Jerusalem areas, it was more than one third.




 
If Arabs have it so bad in Israel, why are so many voting for Jewish Zionist parties?

The Arab vote for Jewish Zionist parties is definitely not fringe. However, it is a phenomenon that is simply not reported in stories about Israel. You would be forgiven for assuming that they are a tiny, anomalous minority.

Other polls show that more than half of Israeli Arabs consider themselves "proud citizens" of the state. (I have not seen a poll on how many identify as Zionist.)

Meanwhile, the Jewish anti-Zionists - who really are fringe compared to American Jewry as a whole - gain a great deal of media attention, as if they have far more adherents than they really do.

As is often the case, media coverage does not reflect the truth, but wishful thinking to make reality closer to what they want it to be.




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!

 

 

Monday, October 24, 2022

On October 13, major media reported:
Palestinian factions signed a reconciliation deal in Algiers on Thursday, vowing to hold elections by next October in their latest attempt to end a rift that has now lasted more than 15 years.

The deal was signed by a leading figure from the Fatah party of President Mahmud Abbas and by the chief of Islamist movement Hamas, which rules Gaza.

But Abbas himself, president of the Palestinian Authority since 2005, was not present.

"We signed this agreement to get rid of the malignant cancer of division that has entered the Palestinian body," said the head of the Fatah delegation, Azzam al-Ahmed.

"We are optimistic that it will be implemented and will not remain ink on paper."

Hamas chief Ismail Haniyeh said it was "a day of joy in Palestine and Algeria and for those who love the Palestinian cause, but a day of sadness for the Zionist entity (Israel)".
I didn't even bother to discuss it, because we've seen this movie before. Fatah and Hamas have made these sorts of agreements before - in fact, most of them have been supposedly more comprehensive, with the promise of "unity" between the rival factions.

After the agreement, nobody said much about it. But Mahmoud Abbas sent a message of thanks to Algerian President Abdel Majid Taboun for his role in the meaningless gesture.

But Palestinian Sama News held an online poll for its readers, asking "Will the Palestinian reconciliation succeed under the auspices of Algeria?"

As of Sunday afternoon, the results are 93% saying that the agreement is meaningless, and only 4% think it will succeed.


The Palestinians know that the rift between the PA and Hamas is irreconcilable. Only Western media takes these performative "agreements" seriously.





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!

 

 

Friday, October 14, 2022



The Center for Strategic Studies at the University of Jordan issued a survey of Jordanians this month, and the results are not good for the government.

Only 33% trust the current government and think that it can assume its responsibilities. Only 29% are optimistic about the government, with 71% disagreeing. Only 17% have confidence in Parliament and 12% in political parties.

80% of Jordanians say the country is moving in a negative direction in general, and 85% say the economy is moving in a negative direction. And perhaps most astonishingly, the vast majority of Jordanians - 69% - believe that the majority of people in Jordan cannot be trusted. 79% say that Jordan is not a happy society.

But guess who Jordanians regard as their biggest external threat? Israel, of course! 61% of Jordanians believe that Israel is a threat to Jordanian national security. 54% believe that Iran is a threat.

What can one make of these results? 

The fear and hate of Israel comes directly from the daily incitement and antisemitism in Jordanian media. And Jordan's media is not exactly independent, meaning that the government is trying to ensure that the people direct their anger at the Jews rather than the government. 

It is a time honored Arab tradition.




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!

 

 

Thursday, October 06, 2022

A photo of Hosam Salem from his Facebook page


Yesterday, Gaza photojournalist Hosam Salem tweeted that his contract with the New York Times had been terminated. Here's his thread:
After years of covering the Gaza Strip as a freelance photojournalist for the New York Times, I was informed via an abrupt phone call from the US outlet that they will no longer work with me in the future. 
I began working with the newspaper in 2018, covering critical events in Gaza such as the weekly protests at the border fence with Israel, the investigation into the Israeli killing of field nurse Razan al-Najjar, and more recently, the May 2021 Israeli offensive on the Gaza strip 
As I understood later, the decision was made based on a report prepared by a Dutch editor - who obtained Israeli citizenship two years ago - for a website called Honest Reporting. 
The article, which the New York Times had based its decision for dismissing me, gives examples of posts I wrote on my social media accounts, namely Facebook, where I had expressed support for the Palestinian resistance against the Israeli occupation... 
... My aforementioned posts also spoke of the resilience of my people and those who were killed by the Israeli army - my cousin included - which Honest Reporting described as “Palestinian terrorists”. 
The editor later wrote an article stating that he had succeeded in sacking three Palestinian journalists working for the New York Times in the Gaza Strip, on the basis of us being "anti-Semitic”. 
Not only has Honest Reporting succeeded in terminating my contract with The New York Times, it has also actively discouraged other international news agencies from collaborating with me and my two colleagues. 
What is taking place is a systematic effort to distort the image of Palestinian journalists as being incapable of trustworthiness and integrity, simply because we cover the human rights violations that the Palestinian people undergo on a daily basis at hands of the Israeli army 
He doesn't link to the Honest Reporting article that shows that he praised the massacre of four rabbis and a Druze policeman in 2014, that he has repeatedly praised suicide bombers that killed 10 in 2004, and he has continued to explicitly support terror attacks even after starting his work with the Times:

On November 18, 2014, Hosam Salem again used Facebook to express his joy over the massacre of four rabbis and an Israeli-Druze police officer in a synagogue in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Har Nof.

Citing the Quran, he encouraged his followers to “smite the necks” of unbelievers, adding: “[This is the] summary of the Jerusalem operation [sic] today.”

There’s more. In 2015, Salem applauded two acts of terror (see here and here); a shooting at the Gush Etzion Junction that killed an American teenager, an Israeli man, and a Palestinian bystander; and a Jerusalem stabbing that killed three.

Some three years later, after being hired by The New York Times, Salem called for more violence following an attack that killed two IDF recruits in the West Bank. “Shoot, kill, withdraw: three quick operational steps…to bring peace to the hearts of sad people like us,” the inciting post read.

Finally, he has repeatedly eulogized Mohammed Salem and Nabil Masoud. The two were responsible for a 2004 suicide bombing that killed ten workers at the Ashdod port, Israel’s second-busiest harbor (see here and here).

(It is possible that suicide bomber Mahmoud Salem was a relative.)

Now let's look at Salem's words defending himself again. "I had expressed support for the Palestinian resistance against the Israeli occupation..." That is an admission that he considers praising murdering innocent people to be "supporting Palestinian resistance." 

And he concludes by saying that "What is taking place is a systematic effort to distort the image of Palestinian journalists as being incapable of trustworthiness and integrity..."

Salem is positioning his explicit support of terror as being a mainstream view among all Palestinian journalists. He says that exposing his praise of terror attacks is an attack on all Palestinian journalists. 

In other words, he is saying that his opinions are mainstream, not anomalous. 

If a Zionist would say that all Palestinian journalists cannot be trusted to be objective because they all support terror, the Zionist would properly be branded a bigot. Each journalist must be judged on their own merits and their own words. Stereotyping them is wrong.

But what does it mean when a Palestinian journalist insists that all Palestinian journalists like him support terror? When he claims that his noxious support for murdering rabbis and others is simply the same "covering human rights violations" that all reporters supposedly do? He isn't apologizing for his views - he is claiming that he, like all Palestinian journalists, is just covering the news. Praising the murders of Jews is indistinguishable from journalism.

He puts all Palestinian journalists in the same bucket as himself. (And so does Al Jazeera.)  Does that make him a racist? 

The reality is that support for terror is a mainstream Palestinian opinion, across multiple surveys for decades. Sometimes the majority support terror, other times is drops to less than 50%, but it is always an accepted, popular opinion. Assuming that all Palestinians support terror is indeed racist, but understanding that there is a high chance that a random Palestinian who is hired for a position at a major Western media outlet might indeed be a terror supporter is prudent. As the New York Times has learned, vetting one's social media posts before hiring anyone is essential.  

As far as the many who are claiming that Salem is the victim of anti-Palestinian racism, they are the ones who are racist - because they are claiming that all Palestinians support murdering Jews. 





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!

 

 





Monday, October 03, 2022


Islamic Jihad (PIJ) mouthpiece Palestine Today has several recent articles about how the May fighting was a great victory for them.

They quote a Lebanese "expert" who describes how they achieved their goals in the fighting. A delegation from Islamic Jihad went to Syria and described their "victory,' saying the war never ended.

One reason for these articles is that PIJ is celebrating its 35th anniversary. 

But another reason may be because the Palestinian public does not consider Islamic Jihad to have won anything in May.

The PCPSR poll I mentioned yesterday asked Palestinians who won the armed confrontations. 
42%  think that neither Israel nor Islamic Jihad won . But 27% (33% in the Gaza Strip and 24% in the West Bank) think Israel came out a winner while only 12% think Islamic Jihad came out a winner. Surprisingly, 11% think Hamas, who did not participate in the confrontation, came out a winner. 

Half of the public (50%) says that Hamas’ decision not to become directly involved in the armed exchange between Islamic Jihad and the Israeli army was the correct decision while 37% say it was the wrong decision.  The view that Hamas did the right thing is more widespread in the Gaza Strip (68%) compared to the West Bank (38%).

Gazans, who have to live with these battles, are pretty much against Islamic Jihad for instigating the conflict, and they are happy that Hamas didn't join - which PIJ clearly wanted to occur.

Islamic Jihad is not very popular in Gaza right now. Its 35th anniversary activities and articles are partially meant to shore up its reputation. 




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!

 

 

FAIR - Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting - issued a report by Nora Lester Murad that claims that books for toddlers and youngsters that introduce kids to Israel are pretty much racist against Palestinians, because - they aren't about Palestinians.

However, Murad's critique exposes her own disdain for Arabs who live in Israel as well as her own hate for Israeli Jews.

Even though the books aren't about Palestinians, and aren't meant to be, she says that they"erase" Palestinians.

First, Murad claims that they erase through "appropriation:"

Rah! Rah! Mujadara!
, for example, is a 12-page board book for ages 1–4 that has an attractive tagline: “Everybody likes hummus, but that’s just one of the great variety of foods found in Israel among its diverse cultures.”

There’s a subtlety in that tagline that may be lost on some. While diversity is acknowledged, it is represented only within the Israeli sphere, without its own history and separate identity. This is a political position that  jibes with Israel’s intentional deployment of the term “Israeli Arabs” to refer to Palestinians with Israeli citizenship, whom Israel wants to incorporate as an Israeli minority, fragmenting them from the larger Palestinian community and from their national identity.
To progressives, referring to someone in ways that they object to - say, by using the wrong pronoun - is an unforgivable crime. But only a small percentage of Israeli Arabs refer to themselves as "Palestinian." According to a 2020 poll from  Jewish People Policy Institute, only 7% referred to themselves as "Palestinian" while 74% referred to themselves as "Arab Israeli" or simply "Israeli." 

FAIR is showing great disrespect to the people they are claiming to be defending from this book. And the simple children's book is far more accurate in its depiction of Arabs in Israel than FAIR is. 

The critique then veers into the absurd:
Newbies to the the Israeli/Palestinian narrative war may also not realize that food is an active battleground. Palestinians consider Israel’s claiming of hummus and falafel, among other foods, to be cultural appropriation.

Palestinians, therefore, are likely to consider both the people and the food appropriated  when the same [Muslim] girl is featured behind the text:

    Blow, slow.
    Taste. Whoa!
    Brown fa-LA-fel,
    big green mouthful!
Since the state of Israel is not even 75 years old, any food with a longer pedigree must have been originated by someone else. But while Kar-Ben Publishing is surely aware of this contention, they either choose to ignore it or intentionally intend to steer readers towards the Israeli narrative—by hiding the Palestinian one.
But does the book say that falafel is an Israeli-created dish, or does it say that it is a dish that Israeli citizens of all backgrounds enjoy? Clearly it is the latter - "the great variety of foods found in Israel among its diverse cultures." It mentions bagels too - does anyone claim that they are Israeli? Other foods in the book are meant to highlight the different cultures that come together in Israeli society: nowhere does it claim that malawach, mujadara, hummus, or bourekas were created by Israelis except in the fevered imagination of Nora Lester Murad.



Murad is apparently opposed to kids from different backgrounds finding things in common that they like from different cultures. This hardly seems progressive.

Murad then says that books about Israel that show the Dome of the Rock are "erasure through deception" because, she claims, "east Jerusalem" is not part of Israel. However, Israel disagrees, and so do many international jurists. To Jews, the idea of an Israel without the holy places is anathema and extraordinarily offensive.  There is no deception there - people who say that all of Jerusalem is part of Israel have that right. 

But FAIR doesn't recognize that right. We must all believe as they do, or we are racists. So tolerant!

The next "erasure" is "Erasure through both-sidesism." Yes, books about Israel that go out of their way to show Arab Israelis are awful, too - and her main target is, believe it or not, Sesame Street.

Welcome to Israel With Sesame Street (Christy Peterson, Lerner Publishing, 2021)...[has a] “both sides” approach, starting by teaching children how to say hello in both Hebrew and Arabic (pages 4–5).  This “both sides” approach makes a nice visual while hiding Israel’s disrespect for Arabic and Arabic speakers, which is clear in the fact that Arabic had been an official language of Israel until it was officially downgraded in the 2018 Jewish Nation State Law.

Of course, Murad pointedly doesn't mention that the use of Arabic in government documents and in the public sphere is still mandated under Israeli law. Israel still supports and funds its Arabic-language schools. There is no disrespect in reality. But why let the facts get in the way of anti-Israel soundbites?

Presenting “both sides” is a device used to appear neutral, which conjures a sense of objectivity and truth. It is also a way to stake a claim to antiracism and respect. For example, page 11 says that Jerusalem is “special to people of many religions,” over a  photo of Palestinian school girls, some wearing the Muslim hijab.

But presenting Palestinians only as linguistic and religious minorities of Israel, and not as a national group in and of itself, is an Israeli narrative tactic that dehumanizes  Palestinians and undermines readers’ ability to understand Israel. While appearing respectful of diversity, the text and photo cleverly omit that Israel is an explicitly, self-declared Jewish state, that enshrines Jewish supremacy over non-Jews (and the corresponding inequality of Palestinians) by saying, in law, that only Jews have the right to self-determination.
A book for children that celebrates Israel's diversity is regarded as flawed because it should show what Murad declares to be the truth, that Israel is a racist state that doesn't give its Arab citizens equal rights. 

This is all a lie, of course. The same poll I mentioned above shows that virtually the same percentage of non-Jews as Jews feel comfortable being themselves as Israeli citizens. Most Arab citizens of Israel are proud to be Israelis - but Murad the racist wants them to be considered part of a different nation that the vast majority want little or nothing to do with. The bigotry is in Murad's head and in her poison pen, not in the reality of Israel's non-Jewish citizens.

And by the way, virtually every Arab state declares itself to be an Arab state in their constitutions. By Murad's logic, they are all enforcing Arab supremacy. Does anyone think FAIR will ever mention that?

In Murad's twisted mind, Israel is by definition racist, so any children's book that doesn't highlight how terrible Israel is must be guilty of racism as well. The most bizarre part of her argument is that while it is obvious to all that children's books are meant to teach tolerance, which these books are doing, she is against it. Murad is the racist. Her arguments are as racist as those of a white supremacist upset at American schoolbooks that show white children playing with children of color without mentioning comparative crime rates for different groups. 

Finally, Murad freaks out over a map in the Sesame Street book:


The 1949 armistice lines are clearly drawn, and Israel is only shown inside those lines. Egypt, Jordan and Syria are not named. But Murad looks hard to find bias, and of course she succeeds:
Page 6 of Welcome to Israel With Sesame Street incorrectly displays a map of Israel (“and Surrounding Area”) including the West Bank and Gaza Strip in the same shade of yellow. The outlines of the occupied Palestinian territory are visible but not labeled. 
This is her entire argument - the yellow on the map of the territories is slightly different than the yellow of other countries. The actual lines that represent borders, prominently displayed, are meaningless to Murad's bizarre brain - the shade of yellow is offensive.

Hilariously, she sent this litany of paranoid complaints to Sesame Workshop, and they properly ignored her:
Welcome to Israel With Sesame Street, however, is not harmless. It uses subtle messages to contribute to erasure and distortion of Palestinians, which should cause concern among people who care about the educational reputation of the brand. Unfortunately, Sesame Workshop failed to respond to my several inquiries about this book.
Maybe because if she was honestly being as fair as FAIR pretends to be, she would realize that every single one of her complaints is baseless.

It would be amusing to see the same methodology used for children's books about "Palestine." Do they even mention or show pictures of Jews? Do they admit that Jews have the right to live in their historic homeland? Or are Jews not mentioned at best, and called "sons of apes and pigs" at worst?

If FAIR was fair, they would have a Zionist Jew do the exact same type of analysis on books pushing the Palestinian narrative, and see how they fare. Like the alphabet book that says "I is for Intifada." How are Jews represented there? How do they represent the emotional Jewish ties to Jerusalem? How are the feelings of millions of Jews taken into account? 

Which side actually tries for coexistence, and which side wants to see the other be ethnically cleansed in the books meant for children? 

The books being critiqued by her show smiling Arab children, some in hijabs. Find me a single children's book about Palestine that shows a smiling child in a yarmulke or tzitzit.

Just one.

That is the comparison that needs to be made to see which side is the side of progressiveness and tolerance, and which side is both implicitly and explicitly antisemitic. 

For example, this drawing for Palestinian children contrasting Arabs and Jews is not exactly sending  tolerant message. Yet I suspect it is a message that Murad wholeheartedly endorses all children should be exposed to..


Pro-Israel books go out of their way to teach tolerance. Pro-Palestinian books do the opposite. FAIR promotes the former as racist and doesn't want you to look at the latter.

FAIR isn't fair, and this article is exhibit A.



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!

 

 

AddToAny

EoZ Book:"Protocols: Exposing Modern Antisemitism"

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Hasbys!

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For over 19 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

subscribe via email

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Blog Archive