Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Sunday, October 10, 2010

Washington Post pulls cartoon WITHOUT Mohammed

Last Sunday, the Washington Post refused to publish the following cartoon:

The catch is - Mohammed is not depicted in the picture at all.

Yet, the Washington Post and other newspapers refused to run the cartoon, out of the potential that some Muslims somewhere might be offended.

The WaPo's ombudsman writes:

[Cartoonist Wiley] Miller is fuming. The award-winning cartoonist, who lives in Maine, told me the cartoon was meant to satirize "the insanity of an entire group of people rioting and putting out a hit list over cartoons," as well as "media cowering in fear of printing any cartoon that contains the word 'Muhammad.' "

"The wonderful irony [is that] great newspapers like The Washington Post, that took on Nixon . . . run in fear of this very tame cartoon, thus validating the accuracy of the satire," he said by e-mail.

...Yes, Miller was trying to be provocative. But "Non Sequitur" followers expect that. And there's a difference between provoking anger and provoking readers to think.

Surely some may be displeased by "Where's Muhammad?" But unlike with the Danish cartoons, it's hard to imagine it would incite protests. Miller intentionally did not depict Muhammad, and the cartoon is not a blasphemous attack on the prophet. If anything, it's a powerful and witty endorsement of freedom of expression.

Post editors believe their decision was prudent, given the past cartoon controversies and heightened sensitivities surrounding Islam. But it also can be seen as timid. And it sets an awfully low threshold for decisions on whether to withhold words or images that might offend.

"Timid" is way understated. "Utterly dhimmified" comes a bit closer. At least the WaPo ombudsman gets it.

(h/t Jawa Report)

Palestinian Authority TV quiz show: Israeli cities are "Palestinian"

From Palestinian Media Watch:

The following are transcripts from this PA TV program,The Cedar and the Olive Tree,whose purpose was to reinforce the message that the Palestinian Authority does not recognize the legitimacy and jurisdiction of Israel anywhere. PMW is citing a number of examples from the program, including messages that recur, to demonstrate the use of repetition as one method of political indoctrination used by the Palestinian Authority and PA TV.

PA TV is under the direct control of the office of PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.

The following are transcripts from different days:

Host: "Name five cities in Palestine and we'll give you a prize."
Teenage Girl: "Haifa, Acre, Ramallah, Jaffa, and Jerusalem."
[Note: Haifa, Acre, Jaffa and Jerusalem are cities in Israel. The girl was rewarded $100 for correct answer.]

Host: "Can you name five cities in Palestine?"
Woman: "I'm here for a visit; I don't know."
Host: "You don't know five cities in Palestine?"
Woman: "No."
Host: "You mean you haven't heard of Jerusalem?"
Woman: "I've heard of Jerusalem."
Host: "But not Gaza? Ramallah?"
Woman: "And also occupied Palestine."
Host: "Palestine is completely occupied, and we want it liberated. Say the names after me: Jerusalem, Gaza, Ramallah, Haifa, Jaffa, Bethlehem."
[Note: Jerusalem, Haifa, and Jaffa are cities in Israel. The woman was handed $100 for correct answers.]

Host: "Haifa is a Palestinian city; can you name other Palestinian cities?"
Man: "Haifa, Jaffa, Acre, Nazareth, Gaza, Ramallah, Hebron, Bethlehem."
[Note: Haifa, Jaffa, Acre are cities in Israel. Other residents gave similar answers and received $100 for correct answers.]

[PA TV (Fatah), Aug. 12, 2010]

Host: "I want you to name five Palestinian cities."
Woman: "Ramallah, Jerusalem, Haifa, Acre, Gaza."
Host: "I want you to name five Palestinian cities that you've visited."
Woman: "Nahariya, Acre, Jenin, Gaza."
[Note: Jerusalem, Nahariya, Haifa and Acre are cities in Israel. Other residents gave similar answers and received $100 for correct answers.]

[PA TV (Fatah), Aug. 13, 2010]

Host: "Can you tell me which countries share a border with Palestine?"
Man: "In the north - Lebanon and Syria; in the east - Jordan; in the west - the Mediterranean; in the south - Egypt and the Sinai."
[Israel was not cited as a bordering country, yet it was the "correct" answer and he was awarded $100.]

Host: "Can you name four Palestinian cities?"
Woman: "Acre, Haifa, Jaffa, Nablus, Ramallah."
[Note: Acre, Haifa and Jaffa are cities in Israel. The woman received $100 for correct answer.]
[PA TV (Fatah), Aug. 16, 2010]

Host: "Which countries share borders with Palestine?"
Man: "Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt."
[Note: Israel was not cited as a bordering country yet the host rewarded him with the $100.]
[PA TV (Fatah), Aug. 18, 2010]

Host: "Name three Palestinian cities."
Woman 1: "Haifa, Jaffa, Acre." [Note: all are cities in Israel.]
Host: "Which countries surround Palestine?"
Woman 2: "Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt."
[Note: Israel was not cited as a bordering country. Both received $100 for "correct answers.]
[PA TV (Fatah), Aug. 18, 2010]

Host: "Which countries share borders with Palestine?"
Man: "Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Syria."
[Note: Israel was not cited as a bordering country yet the host rewarded him with the $100.]
[PA TV (Fatah), Aug. 22, 2010

On Aug. 20, six different people were asked to define five cities in Palestine.
Their answers were:
1. Acre, Jaffa, Hafia, Gaza, Ramallah
2. Gaza, Jericho, Haifa, Jaffa, Acre
3. Acre, Haifa, Jerusalem, Ramallah, Jenin
4. Acre, Haifa, Jaffa, El-Bireh, Nablus
5. Jaffa, Haifa, Acre, Jerusalem, Bethlehem,
6. Acre, Haifa, Lod, Nazareth, Ramallah
[Note: The respondents received $100 each for portraying Israeli cities Haifa, Jaffa, Lod, Nazareth, Jerusalem and Acre as Palestinian cities.]

[PA TV (Fatah), Aug. 20, 2010]

Host: "Can you name five Palestinian cities?"
Woman: "Haifa, Jaffa, Acre."
[Note: Haifa, Jaffa and Acre are cities in Israel. The respondent received the $100 cash prize.]

[PA TV (Fatah), Aug. 23, 2010]

Host: "Do you know which countries share borders with Palestine?"
Woman: "Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, and the Mediterranean."
[Note: Israel was not cited as a bordering country yet the host rewarded her with the $100.]

Host: "Can you name three cities on the Palestinian coast?"
Woman: "Acre, Haifa, Jaffa."
[Note: All are cities on Israel's coast. In all cases, the respondents received $100 for "correctly" defining Israeli cities as Palestinian cities.]

[PA TV (Fatah), Aug. 30, 2010]

Those evil settlers and their Zionist chemicals!

From the Hamas-oriented Palestine-Info (UK) site:

Zionist settlers destroyed tens of fruitful olive trees in Al-Mughir town, northeast of Ramallah, on Friday after spraying them with a chemical material.

Local sources said that the settlers spoiled 55 olive trees using a white chemical material unknown to locals, adding that the material dries the trees and slowly kills them.

They noted that farmers could not reach the area, which is adjacent to a Zionist settlement, fearing attacks by those settlers.

In another location, Zionist settlers attacked tents pitched by shepherds in the Jordan Valley and damaged drinking water ponds for cattle, witnesses reported.

They noted that the settlers infiltrated into the area under the cover of darkness on Friday night, adding that shepherds were not present at time of the attack.

So these religious settlers attacked on Friday night? And somehow damaged a water pond? (How does one do that, exactly?)

And, better yet, they sprayed an unknown chemical that slowly destroys olive trees - and the trees are already destroyed?

This steaming pile of garbage was, unsurprisingly, immediately picked up by Iran's ABNA news agency. And no doubt believed as absolute truth by the many who reflexively believe the most ridiculous anti-Israel stories without the slightest capacity for critical thought.

WSJ on Mabhouh investigation

It is worth reading the WSJ on how the trail to Mabhouh's killers has grown cold, as well as Haaretz' coverage.

Crazy Water Park re-opens

The Crazy Water Park in Gaza, which was torched last month, has re-opened.

But the lessons of the torching have not been lost on Gaza's upscale cafes and resorts.

An article in Elaph talks about Hamas' ban of women smoking hookahs in Gaza. Restaurants are enforcing that law against single women (apparently, women in restaurants with their families are allowed to smoke.) The restaurant owners are explicitly saying that they saw what happened to the Crazy Water Park, which irritated the Hamas theocrats and did allow women to smoke, and they do not want to have the same thing happen to them.

The good news, of course, is that the poor, suffering, starving, imprisoned Gazans - who are smuggling food out of Gaza to Egypt - now can relax and enjoy themselves again at a nice looking water resort.

Some notes on the staged rock throwing of Silwan

A few follow-ups on the video and photographs of the events at Silwan on Friday.

The photographs of the incident that do not show the entire context have been reproduced all over the place. I have yet to see any of the media mention that the stone-throwers smashed the rear windshield of the car with their peacful protest pebbles. In fact, from the video one can see that out of all the photographers that were there, only the videographer took footage of the car afterwards showing the damage; the rest rushed to the kid. (Most of the media showing the video do not bother to show that part of the footage either; Al Jazeera is the best example but even Fox only showed it momentarily after showing the kid being hit three different times.)

The driver was swerving to avoid a different stone-thrower. In other words, he had a car behind him and two kids in front of him; if he would have stopped he would have been in mortal danger.

The kid who was hit, Amran Mansur, recalls the incident in a way that is completely at odds with what we could see:

"I had just left the Friday prayers at the neighborhood's protest tent when I saw a car speeding towards me," remembers Amran Mansur, 11, who was ran over by David Be'eri, chairman of the Elad Association promoting Jewish settlement in east Jerusalem.

Amran was released from the Hadassah Ein Kerem Hospital in Jerusalem early on Saturday. "I couldn’t run away in time, I didn't even have time to signal him with my hands," he says. "It was clear he did it on purpose. I was on the sidewalk, so there's no chance it wasn't deliberate."

Palestinian Arab kids learn how to lie to the media early. Of course, there was the earlier footage showing Mansur about to throw a stone at a different car, so he was at the scene for at least some time; he was running full-speed towards the car, not away, and he was in the middle of the street, not the sidewalk.

There were about six or seven journalists at the scene, possibly more than the number of stone throwers. It is hard to imagine that this event was not at least partially staged by them.

And while the journalists keep a "professional" distance from kids endangering the lives of Israeli motorists, they rush to help out the injured kid. Well, sort of. If he had been badly injured - say, neck or back injuries - their manhandling of him and forcing him into the car could have paralyzed him.

Someone should interview the photographers on the scene and ask them straight out: why were you so conveniently at that intersection at that time? Were the kids throwing stones because you were there? Did anyone tell them where to go or how to act? What news agencies were represented? Where is the rest of the footage between the first part and the second? How long were the boys there? How many other cars were stoned?

Even though this is a perfect example of a photograph not telling the truth, you just know that they are thinking Pulitzer and not the consequences of their actions.

UPDATE: See Media Backspin on why this looks like a set-up, from the perspective of a news photographer.

The dismantled Al Aqsa Brigades didn't get the memo

Yet again, the supposedly dismantled, Fatah-associated Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades have shown up:

Fatah's armed wing the Al-Aqsa Brigades said Friday that their response to the killings of two Palestinians in Hebron was "only a matter of time."

In a statement, the Al-Aqsa Brigades cited the men as "friends" of the armed wing of Fatah, and said the two groups had participated in joint missions in the West Bank during the Second Intifada.

Where does the Al Aqsa Brigades get its funding from, if not from the "moderate" Fatah that supposedly dismantled it years ago?

Islamic Jihad leader in hospital for hunger strike against PA

An Islamic Jihad leader in the West Bank was arrested on September 29th. He then started a hunger strike to protest his arrest. He claims that the PA tortured him.

He just entered a hospital because his condition was deteriorating.

This story is nearly nonexistent in the non-Arab media.

Sir Alexander Galloway's opinion on the refugees, 1952

A couple of months ago I found a 1958 article about the Arab refugee problem that quoted "Ralph Galloway", a UNRWA official, as saying "The Arab states do not want to solve the refugee problem. they want to keep it an open sore, as an affront to the United Nations, and as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders don't give a damn whether the refugees live or die."

It turns out that the the speaker was not named Ralph Galloway, but Sir Alexander Galloway.

Alexander H. Joffe and Asaf Romirowsky have a fascinating, scholarly article in Middle Eastern Studies about this man, as well as how his name ended up getting changed to "Ralph" in the quotes.

Alexander Galloway was the head of UNRWA in Jordan in July, 1951. At the time, Jordan's economy was a mess, especially after the assassination of King Abdullah, and UNRWA represented a lucrative source of income:

At the time of Galloway's appointment UNRWA was one of the major sources of income for the Hashemite Kingdom as a whole, along with the annual remittance from the British Government. In 1951 UNRWA imports and local expenses accounted for 25% of Jordan's total balance of payments, a figure that rose to 33% in 1952 and 35% in 1953. In September 1951 the Jordan Development Bank was founded with 80% of the capital coming from UNRWA and with Galloway as a Managing Director.

UNRWA also contributed 8.7% of public sector wages in Jordan. This figure rose to 9.8% in 1953 and 12.4% in 1954 when the organization employed some 2500 persons....The sense that international staffers were being paid disproportionately high salaries was present before Galloway's arrival. Hugh Dow of the British Consulate in Jerusalem wrote to T.W. Evans in the Middle East Secretariat of the Foreign Office on 13 March 1951 and noted that the high administration costs of UNRWA were based on 'Lake Success allowances' saying 'shorthand typists employed by UNRWA are receiving salaries almost equal to my own basic pay'.[44] Similar concerns regarding the larger salaries paid to UNRWA's international staffers were reportedly expressed by Lebanese officials and were of sufficient gravity to be mentioned in confidential briefings by UNRWA officials to Canadian Foreign Ministry representatives.[45]

Proposed budgets for 1952 saw UNRWA's overall costs increasing to almost $80 million, representing a potentially lucrative source of income for the Jordanian government.[46]

Jordan's resentment over international UNRWA employees continued to grow, and Galloway was replaced because of this dispute in April 1952.

Afterwards, he wrote an article for the Daily Express describing the problems of the Arab refugees and the political issues. Here are some excerpts:

The Jordanian population fear the settlement of large numbers of refugees in their country. But they are aware that it means the spending of large sums of money in Jordan. They want the cash. They want to spend it on schemes for the development of Jordan. If the refugees benefit from this arrangement, so much the better.

In Syria the Government is a dictatorship by which a number of much-needed and healthy measures are being inaugurated.

There is plenty of room for development. Half a million refugee families could settle on agricultural schemes with benefit to themselves and to the country.

Like other Arab countries, Syria may not be anxious to take the first step in a programme which indicates acceptance of the fact that the refugees will not return to Palestine. In Syria the activities of the Agency are controlled to a high degree by Government. Local Agency employees are dismissed at will. Internationals are scrutinized and followed about by Security Police. The prestige of United Nations does not stand high.

Occasionally the United Nations country representatives are summoned to Beirut or discussions. During the past year I attended several discussions. They achieved little. Decisions were seldom taken, except to postpone decision, although much was often said about unity of effort, sense of high purpose, avoidance of the "Colonial approach."

In Beirut and elsewhere to a lesser degree, some useless work goes on. Staff begets more staff. Plan follows plan. Typewriters click. Brochures and statistics pour out. The refugees remain and eat, and complain and breed; while a game of political "last touch" goes on between the local Governments and the Director, UNRWA.

What is the solution? Of course the problem is difficult. Refugee settlement, except under dictatorship, is a long, expensive business. Somehow or other the Arab Governments, the United Nations, UNRWA and some of the refugees have got to face facts.

There is a need of a change of heart and a better atmosphere. There is need to distinguish between a tempting political maneuvre and the hard, unpalatable fact that the refugees cannot in the foreseeable future return to their homes in Palestine. To get this acceptance is a matter of politics: it is beyond the function of UNRWA.

Second, a determined effort should be made to get the "host" countries to take over relief from the Agency, thus freeing it to get on with the much more important task of resettlement.

It must be kept quite clear in all discussion that the refugee retains his absolute political right to return to his former home whenever he can. Without this condition being implicit in any arrangement there can be no progress.

The authors note that the last paragraph seems to have been written almost by habit, probably based on the fact that Arab governments were so hell-bent against naturalizing the refugees - as they remain today.

Later, Galloway was quoted by Reverend Karl Baehr, Executive Secretary of the American Christian Palestine Committee, in front of a Senate committee:

In April of 1952, Sir Alexander Galloway, then head of the UNRWA for Jordan, said to our study group, and this is really a direct quote from what he said, "It is perfectly clear than the Arab nations do not want to solve the Arab refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore, as an affront against the United Nations, and as a weapon against Israel."

Then, by way of emphasis he said, "Arab leaders don't give a damn whether the refugees live or die."

When asked what he felt the solution to the problem was, Sir Alexander Galloway in essence said: Give each of the Arab nations where the refugees are to be found an agreed-upon sum of money for their care and resettlement and then let them handle it. If, he continued, the United Nations had done this immediately after the conflict – explaining to the Arab states "We are sorry it happened, but here is a sum of money for you to take care of the refugees" – the problem might have been solved long ago. The Arab states would have had to do something constructive about the problem, or lose status in the eyes of the world. This way, said, Sir Alexander, the burden is on the United Nations and the governments that support the United Nations, and we are powerless to solve it.

There's much more to the paper. One tiny detail that I thought was important was this one:

Galloway's own archives do not include any documents pertaining to UNRWA. Copies of his monthly reports from Amman are found in British records but only through October 1951. In the absence of other contemporary documents, including UNRWA archives which remain closed to researchers, clues to the situation Galloway faced in Amman are found in the confidential reports of Sir Henry F. Knight to the Foreign Office, and telegrams from Geoffrey Furlonge, British ambassador to Jordan.

Why is UNRWA, a publicly funded organization, allowed to keep its archives from some 60 years ago closed?

(h/t Andrea)

2491 people managed to escape "the world's largest prison" last week

From Ma'an:

Almost 3,500 Palestinians passed through the Rafah crossing between Egypt and Gaza last week, officials reported.

Border administrators said 1651 Palestinians returned to Gaza, most of whom were patients who had received treatment in Egyptian hospitals, whilst 1821 left Gaza through the terminal. Officials said 276 Palestinians were refused permission to cross.

Crossings officials said the Erez pedestrian crossing between northern Gaza and Israel was partially open during the week, recording the exit of 941 individuals from Gaza, including 652 residents, 245 foreign nationals, and 44 Palestinians with Israeli citizenship.

That's a pretty porous prison!

How a photograph lies

From The Daily Mail:

Dramatic images have emerged of the moment an Israeli motorist drove straight into a young Palestinian boy in East Jerusalem today.

The child had been part of a group throwing stones at Israeli cars following news the country's military had killed two Hamas militants in the West Bank city of Hebron earlier on Friday.

Amazingly the boy only sustained 'light injuries' after being thrown into the air by the vehicle and twisting over its roof.

Looks pretty bad, right? An Israeli heartlessly running his vehicle into a young boy?

Now watch the video:

The boy was running towards the car even during the impact. The car honked the horn to get him out of the way. Clearly the driver was worried about his safety and didn't want to stop, and for good reason - we see his back windshield smashed by the innocent, youthful rocks being thrown.

And there are a whole bunch of photographers there, whose presence makes the kids want to act with bravado and who might have actually been goading them into throwing rocks.

Notice that while the Daily Mail published a series of photos from the incident, it didn't bother to show the smashed rear windshield of the car.

The driver was David Be'eri, who has been trying to calm down the tension in Silwan, seen in this video.

(h/t Brian of London and Orna)

More here.

The myth of the 10,000 Palestinian Arab prisoners

How many Palestinian Arab prisoners are being held in Israel?

People who follow the news would automatically say, 10,000. They would have good reason to believe that;

the magic number of "10,000 prisoners" is used as received wisdom by Arabs, left-wingers and the news media as fact.

For example:

Daoud Kuttab, quoted in the NYT, November 2009: "Israel is holding more than 10,000 Palestinians, some without charge or trial. "

MJ Rosenberg in HuffPo, November 2009, headline: "Gilad Shalit's Counterparts: 10,000 Palestinian Prisoners In Israeli Jails"

BBC, November 2009: "Israel holds about 10,000 Palestinian prisoners in jail on security grounds - a major bone of contention with the Palestinians."

ABC News Australia, April 2010: "Hamas spokesman Adnan Abu Amar says it is hoped the video will renew pressure on Israel to reach a deal with Hamas to free many of the 10,000 or more Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails in return for the soldier's freedom."

Palestine News Network, September 2010: "There are at least 10,000 Palestinian Political Prisoners in Israeli army jails."

Only one problem: the number is wrong. Not only that, but it was never right!

B'Tselem has been keeping statistics of how many Palestinian Arab prisoners are being held in Israel, back to 2001. According to their statistics, the number of prisoners never surpassed 10,000. They reached a high of about 9600 in October, 2006, and have been steadily declining ever since.

Between June 2007 and August 2010, the number of prisoners has dropped from 9344 to 6011, a decrease of 36%.

Here it is graphically:

I'm sure that most of them were released because their sentences were finished; this was not meant as a good-will gesture.

Here we have another case where Arab activists and left wingers, by repeating bogus statistics over and over, manage to convince even the news media that the numbers are accurate. While the New York Times and the BBC might lean left, they do put on a pretense of objective reporting and fact checking - yet they let these numbers get reported as truth.

Last year I showed that Addameer's absurd statistics of between 650,000 and 800,000 Palestinian Arabs being arrested since 1967 were complete fiction, as anyone with the slightest grasp of numbers could easily confirm. Yet those numbers had been quoted uncritically by Goldstone, Time Magazine and Jimmy Carter, among others.

When will the media wake up to the fact that many Arabs and leftists are willing to lie to them without any compunction? By not doing basic fact checking, they are complicit in purveying falsehoods that influence millions of people.

Imagine if the New York Times would report that Israel has released over 3000 prisoners in recent years. It completely upends the Arab narrative of a vicious IDF randomly and capriciously arresting and holding thousands of people annually, indefinitely. It would make people think twice before accepting hateful, inciting claims against Israel by the Left. However, even well-meaning people do not have the means or ability to check what should have already been checked, so they understandably will accept what the media tells them, especially when it is stated as an aside, as a fact so well known that it is not even worth checking.

Israel is at fault as well. It is properly the job of the Israeli government to correct these lies, not bloggers. This posting may or not make it to the BBC, a year after their story, but Israel should have responded immediately.

Not only does the Government of Israel not correct the lies, but it doesn't capitalize on the PR value of the truth! 3000 prisoners released could be a huge story - but it is unknown.

The flip side of the coin is - should Israel have held on to all 9600 prisoners for an extra year or two, and then offer to swap 3000 of them for Shalit - prisoners that would have been released anyway, but in quantities that could have made a huge psychological impact and more pressure on Hamas as well as a propaganda victory?

(A separate question is whether B'Tselem makes any effort to correct the lies when they help further its own agenda.)

This is a big problem, all around.