Everyone is biased

I have spent a lot of time since the beginning of the Lebanon war posting about media bias. It is a topic that needs to be emphasized, and very often the biases of the reporters and editors and photographers and videographers will seriously color the news in a certain way.

The problem is that this is unavoidable. The very fact that newspapers have front pages make it unavoidable that someone needs to decide what the top story is, how the headline is written so it fits in a certain space, which picture to use to illustrate the story - all of a myriad of decisions that will, inevitably, end up exposing the subconscious or conscious biases of the editor.

As I have pointed out previously, pictures can show bias by how they are framed, how they are chosen, how the captions are written and even whether they are taken to begin with.

On the flip side, I can well understand how Fox News' claims of being "fair and balanced" is treated with derision by liberals. Of course it isn't. I believe that it is an important counterweight to the vast majority of left-leaning media, but to pretend that it is unbiased is absurd.

To give another example from the "other side" - I just read an Arab News editorial from a woman who wrote two articles, in Arabic, about the sources of Islamic terror. The first one said "Britain’s discrimination and sidelining of immigrant Muslims has been one of the main causes of creating a culture of extremism among Muslims in Britain. " The second said that "certain expressions of extremism among young British Muslims were mainly caused by certain “fatwas” or religious edicts issued by some of our (Saudi) scholars."

The author, Hatoon Al-Fassi, points out that only one of those articles was translated by MEMRI - the second. She is concerned that because people in the West only saw her second article, then the points made in the first are not noticed by anyone except people who read Arabic.

MEMRI has to pick and choose what to publish just like any other media outlet (or blog, for that matter.) It has a bias too.

(The author seems quite comfortable writing in English and I don't see what is stopping her from publishing her own translation about Britain's discriminatory policies - she strikes me as a pretty honest writer and it is all too rare to see well thought out articles in English from the Arab world. From what I can tell, it is a pretty good bet that much of European Muslim extremism comes from the fact that Muslims are not assimilated into society nearly as much as they are in the USA.

(Of course, her comparatively reasoned approach doesn't stop her from saying that MEMRI is "a right-wing organization which supports the Zionist, Israeli enemy." At least she has the honesty to say right afterwards "I am not denying the fact that MEMRI’s translation of my article was accurate and beautifully written." I would much rather hear her opinions than those of most of the hypocritical Arab writers I usually find.)

I strive for truth and accuracy on this blog, but my choice of topics shows my clear biases. Yesterday I had a cordial exchange with a moderator at MideastYouth.com, which appears to be a bastion of free speech forArabs. He mildly criticized one of my articles and pointed out my own inaccuracies and biases, which I was happy to discuss. And I will be thrilled if he finds me examples of moderate Muslims that are overlooked by the mainstream media (which is also a bias.) From thousands of miles away, I only have a limited amount of information to form my opinions, and most of it is from the MSM, directly or indirectly.

This is the greatest promise of the Internet - the ability to gather and report information from sources that are outside the traditional media. Just like cable news has supplanted network news over the past two decades, the Internet has the potential to do the same to the MSM.

The flipside, of course, is that much of the Internet is filled with half-truths and outright lies, and people do not read as critically as they should. Stupidities like 9/11 conspiracy theories can travel over the Internet much faster than the truth can. Just like reporters have biases, so do the consumers who are willing to believe things that jive with their prebaked opinions and ignore any facts that don't fit.

It gets frustrating, but we can only do what we can.

Read More

13th Anniversary of Arafat's greatest victory

13 years ago today, the Oslo Accords were signed on the White House Lawn. It is worthwhile to recall exactly what the Palestinian Arabs promised on that day, and to remind the world how well they have implemented their initial promises:

September 9, 1993

Yitzhak Rabin

Prime Minister of Israel

Mr. Prime Minister,

The signing of the Declaration of Principles marks a new era in the history of the Middle East. In firm conviction thereof, I would like to confirm the following PLO commitments:

The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security.

The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.

The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process, and to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations.

The PLO considers that the signing of the Declaration of Principles constitutes a historic event, inaugurating a new epoch of peaceful coexistence, free from violence and all other acts which endanger peace and stability. Accordingly, the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline violators.

In view of the promise of a new era and the signing of the Declaration of Principles and based on Palestinian acceptance of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid. Consequently, the PLO undertakes to submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval the necessary changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant.

Sincerely,

Yasser Arafat
Chairman
The Palestine Liberation Organization

Every single agreement and "peace" initiative taken since then has been based on this set of five false promises.

And practically no one nowadays holds the Palestinian Arabs to this original agreement, as they keep on pressuring Israel to make concession after concession in the pursuit of a illusory peace - while the PalArabs never got past their initial obligations of thirteen years ago.

Read More

Arab hate and the zero-sum game

A very interesting editorial in the Gulf News illustrates Arab mentality. Here are some excerpts:

Arabs are better off now
By Abdulkhaleq Abdullah, Special to Gulf News
professor of Political Science at UAE University, Al Ain.

It is time to examine the outcome of the war on Lebanon after Israel lifted its aerial and naval siege, and the commitment of the concerned parties to the UN Security Council Resolution 1701.

This raises a question: Are Arabs better off or worse than they were before the war? There are four reasons why Arab governments and peoples are relatively in a better condition than they were before the war.

The first reason is attributed to Hezbollah's fierce and valiant resistance against the bad Israeli performance in the 33-day war. It boosted the confidence of the Arabs after they realised they have a significant source of potential power.

On the other side, the Israelis have lost faith in their government and army.

The controversial discussion about the quality and significance of the victory and the size of destruction caused by the war is legitimate and healthy. But, despite the massive destruction in Lebanon, the Arabs seem to be better off after the war.

Logically, when Israel is in a worse condition, which is the case now, Arabs are definitely better off.

Although Israel was not routed in the battle, it surely seems defeated and frustrated. It is also living in a state of doubt and comprehensive review of its military and political performance during the war.

The equation of victory and defeat between the Arabs and the Zionist state has always been and will remain zero equation. This means that when Israel is defeated, Arabs have the right to celebrate victory.

The idea that a conflict is a zero-sum game is not only laughably simplistic, it is wrong - unless one side wants it to be that way. Which shows very nicely how interested the Arabs are in ever reaching a peaceful solution with Israel, under any circumstances.

Israel looks at the conflict and says, "How can we improve the entire situation? What solutions can be advantageous to both us and our enemies?"

Real peace is not a zero-sum conclusion to a conflict - it is a win-win. This should be obvious to anyone besides UAE political science professors. If two nations are at peace, they save huge amounts of money for defense, money that can be used for constructive purposes. They can pool resources and help each other out. They can grow their economies together.

Westerners naturally look at problems and try to find win-win solutions. This article shows that such a thought is utterly foreign to articulate, seemingly moderate Arabs.

His point is so ludicrous - if Israel had killed a million Lebanese rather than a thousand, but still felt "defeated and frustrated," then his absurd logic would still consider this a victory for the Arabs.

Nice of him to think so highly of the Lebanese that he is willing to sacrifice them all to gain the illusion of victory.

The second reason can be attributed to the state of unity that dominated the Arab street in their reaction to the Israeli aggression. Arabs have become more unified in the face of the Israeli aggression.
[...]
Hatred of Israel can be found in the genes of all Arabs. Although it is hereditary, its intensity varies from time to time. All facts on the ground indicate that the Arab rejection of the Zionist entity reached its peak after the aggression.

The unification of Arabs in their deep enmity against Israel is a positive matter, but such feelings will not last forever, since they are influenced by the progress of the peace process in the region.

"We hate, and that's great!"

This is not a wild-eyed fanatic, a Muslim extremist, a Kalashnikov-toting terrorist. This is the professor of a university for a nation that has close ties with the West and is considered an ally.

And his words are pure hate.

How can anyone reasonably talk about a peace treaty when the Arab world is, by its own admission, consumed with a "hereditary" hate for Israel (which means, of course, a hatred that predates Israel.) This hatred is carried even to distant Arab countries that have nothing to gain from Israel's destruction - and it is considered a desirable character trait!

For such a people, peace is not an end state, but at best a tactic on the way to total victory. Until the Arab people stop their puerile 15th century thinking, there is absolutely no chance that Israel will live in peace and security, no matter how many concessions she makes.

Read More

The Saratoga incident, 1877

In 1877, a wealthy Jewish banker named Joseph Seligman tried to book a room at the Grand Union Hotel in Saratoga, NY and was told that he cannot be admitted - because he was Jewish. This was an edict devised by the hotel's manager, an ex-judge named Henry Hilton (no relation to the Hilton hotel family.)

This article in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle describes what happened, and while it tries hard to be as liberal as one could expect a newspaper to be in 1877, it ends up adding its own slightly more subtle anti-semitism to its analysis of the situation.

The newspaper, while disagreeing with Hilton's logic that Jews were uncivil, ends up siding with Hilton that if Israelites cause the Christians to be unhappy, then it is proper for them to be banned - as unfortunate as that may be.

The subtext in this and all similar articles from the time period is that Jews are not Americans, that they are at best some sort of exotic aliens with different manners and habits, but in no way would they be included in the same circle of coworkers or friends of the reporters.



Hilton expanded on his bigoted logic, saying that he had no problem with Hebrews (meaning Sephardic Jews) but he disliked "Jews", meaning Ashkenazic Jews like Seligman:



This was followed two years later by banning of Jews in a hotel in Coney Island, which received a great deal of coverage in the Eagle, including interviews with society ladies who agreed with the ban, rabbis who disagreed, and a lawyer who felt that the ban might not be technically illegal because summer beach hotels might not be considered "hotels" in the legal sense.

Editorial cartoonists at the time evidently enjoyed lampooning Jews. Harper's had an article that was supposedly against the ban, but the cartoonist seemed to think otherwise:

(This Harper's article is mistaken that Hilton and the Coney Island manager started an organization called "The American Society for the Suppression of the Jews." It appears that this was part of a satirical article printed in a Jewish newspaper about the incidents at the time.)

Another cartoonist, Puck, had his own solution to the problem:


Did Hilton's bigoted business decision pay off? Apparently not, according to this article from 1883. Hilton is sarcastically described as a "genius" in so thoroughly managing to ruin a beautiful hotel that was run profitably and successfully for decades before he became manager:


And how did the Jews react to this banishment? By beating Hilton at his own game. This article from ten years after the initial banning shows that Jews took Puck's tongue-in-cheek advice and ended up buying many hotels as well as presumably ruining Saratoga with their uncivilized presence. The article also relishes the possibility that a Jew might even buy the Grand Union and kick Hilton out.


That did not ever happen, and Judge Hilton died in the late 1890s, but not until after enduring the embarrassment of his son carrying on publicly with a mistress, a comic opera singer.

Discrimination against Jews in hotels continued, however, with a similar case in Providence and a hotel owned by the ex-governor of Rhode Island in 1897. The "Hebrew" sued for $50,000 in damages, but I could not find out the outcome of the case.

Read More

Who is an Islam-hater?

Ralph Peters, whom I generally like, wrote an op-ed last week accusing some unnamed people in America of being "Islam-haters."

The most repugnant trend in the American shouting match that passes for a debate on the struggle with Islamist terrorism isn't the irresponsible nonsense on the left - destructive though that is. The really ugly "domestic insurgency" is among right-wing extremists bent on discrediting honorable conservatism.

How? By insisting that Islam can never reform, that the violent conquest and subjugation of unbelievers is the faith's primary agenda - and, when you read between the lines, that all Muslims are evil and subhuman.

I've received no end of e-mails and letters seeking to "enlighten" me about the insidious nature of Islam. Convinced that I'm naive because I defend American Muslims and refuse to "see" that Islam is 100 percent evil, the writers warn that I'm a foolish "dhimmi," blind to the conspiratorial nature of Islam.

Web sites list no end of extracts from historical documents and Islamic jurisprudence "proving" that holy war against Christians and Jews is the alpha and omega of the Muslim faith. The message between the lines: Muslims are Untermenschen.

We've been here before, folks. Bigotry is bigotry - even when disguised as patriotism. And, invariably, the haters fantasizing about a merciless Crusade never bothered to serve in our military (Hey, guys, there's still time to join. Lay your backsides on the line - and send your kids!).

It's time for our own fanatics to look in the mirror. Hard. (And stop sending me your trash. I'll never sign up for your "Protocols of the Elders of Mecca." You're just the Ku Klux Klan with higher-thread-count sheets.)

Another trait common among those warning us that Islam is innately evil is that few have spent any time in the Muslim world. Well, I have. While the Middle East leaves me ever more despairing of its future, elsewhere, from Senegal to Sulawesi, from Delhi to Dearborn, I've seen no end of vibrant, humane, hopeful currents in the Muslim faith.

I'm no Pollyanna. I'm all for killing terrorists, rather than taking them prisoner. I know we're in a fight for our civilization. But the fight is with the fanatics - a minority of a minority - not with those who simply worship differently than those of us who grew up with the Little Brown Church in the Vale.

Nidra Poller wrote an interesting response that was quoted in Robert Spencer's Jihad Watch site.

As a person who may or may not qualify as an Islam-hater in Peters' estimation, I am somewhat offended at potentially being labeled a bigot.

I have mentioned before that I have no real problem with Islam as a personal belief system, and in fact I find much of it admirable. In my estimation, the danger is not from individuals practicing their faith privately or communally; it is from them using Islam as a political ideology.

Political Islam is, from everything I can see, essentially equivalent to fascism. And opposing it is not being bigoted any more than opposing any other ideology from communism to Nazism. A political movement that aims to literally take over the world and subjugate non-members under its control is a pretty good definition of evil.

Peters then brings up massive strawmen - that these unnamed bigots want to kill a billion Muslims, that none of the millions of American Muslims have ever strapped a bomb and attacked a Wal-Mart.

But it is possible to ask questions about Islam and how it is practiced by today's Muslims - whether by the majority, a significant minority or even the 0.1% that still represent over a million potential terrorists - without being bigoted. In fact, not asking these questions would be foolhardy.

I have one basic question that I would like Peters to answer. This question is, I believe, the key to knowing whether Peters is right that we do not have to worry about the vast majority of Muslims or not. I know how Jihad Watch would answer, but if Jihad Watch is being tarred with the "bigot" brush by Peters, then I'd like to know what he thinks:

Is it an important tenet of Islam to establish a worldwide Islamic 'ummah, using jihad as the method?

It is easy to say that the extremists are "hijacking" the religion. But it seems to be exceedingly difficult to define the religion in a way that proves that the extremists' interpretations of the Koran are wrong.

I am not aware of any "reform" Islam that interprets the Koran in any way that is not literal. Perhaps many Muslims are not religious, perhaps many Muslims are liberal. But if they cannot argue with the mullahs and sheikhs on their own turf, if they do not have a strong liberal philosophy that can stand on its own and remain within the tradition of Islam, then they are worthless to fight Islamism. So many people say that "moderate Islam" is the solution, but this is a theoretical construct - there may be Shiites and Sunnis and Salafists, but there are no identifiable Reformers or Liberals within the Muslim religion that have made any inroads.

Peters is right when he points out that American Muslims are far more liberal then their Middle East counterparts, and less likely to gravitate to terror. But one must ask - is this because they interpret Islam in a liberal fashion, or because they are a minority and only act towards the jihad of political Islam when they reach a critical mass?

Dearborn has the greatest concentration of Muslims in the US. When they enjoy a greater measure of political power and cohesiveness, do they remain as liberal as the Muslims elsewhere in America, or do they become more intolerant? From what I am reading, they are the biggest supporters of the Hezbollah terror group in the US, and their size makes them unafraid to say it out loud.

If Muslims as a whole embrace and agree with the philosophy of jihad, of a reconstituted caliphate, of reconquering Spain, of killing all infidels and extracting the jizya tax from the dhimmis - then we have a major problem. If, on the other hand, most Muslims reject these goals as irrelevant in today's world - where are their voices and articles saying that? Even when a brave Muslim speaks up, he does not do it from within the parameters of Islam.

All apologetics aside, we have seen the polls where Muslims in most nations (Western and Eastern) do support terror in large numbers. Sometimes they are the majority, sometimes not. Sometimes they go through mental gymnastics to justify only certain kinds of terror (Jewish kids in Tel Aviv are legitimate targets, but not in New York.) What is clear is that the "tiny minority" is not tiny, and pointing this out is not bigoted - it is a necessary step in identifying the scope of the problem, and in finding a real solution.

If you are relying on moderate Muslims to solve the problem, you had better identify their leaders. By any reasonable Western standard, practically all "moderate" Muslims have said things that would be considered outside the pale had a Jew or Christian said something similar.

Answer the question - if people who are identified as "Islam-haters" are such bigots, find a recognized strain of Islam that does not accept the political components of the religion and publicize it. This should be easy if, as Peters say, so many Muslims worldwide "are struggling to move their faith forward in constructive ways."

I haven't been able to find it during the past five years, and I would be thrilled to see it.

Read More

Ahmadinejad really is Hitler

I just read the rambling letter that Iran's president sent to Germany's Angela Merkel, and it is remarkable in its subconcious evocations of Hitler in the 1930s.

Essentially, Ahmadinejad is appealing to Germany's sense of nationalism and patriotism, arguing that the US is subjugating Germany as the loser of World War II. Just as Hitler used extreme nationalism to fire up Germans after the defeat of World War II, Ahmadinejad tries to do the same, blaming America - and the Jews:

Sixty years have passed since the end of the war. But, regrettably the entire world and some nations in particular are still facing its consequences. Even now the conduct of some bullying powers and power-seeking and aggressive groups is the conduct of victors with the vanquished.

The extortion and blackmail continue, and people are not allowed to think about or even question the source of this extortion, otherwise they face imprisonment. When will this situation end? Sixty years, one hundred years or one thousand years, when? I am sorry to remind you that today the perpetual claimants against the great people of Germany are the bullying powers and the Zionists that founded the Al-Qods Occupying Regime with the force of bayonets in the Middle East.

He goes on to compliment Germany's success in rebuilding after the war - but asks Merkel to imagine how much greater it could have been had Germany not bothered to pay reparations to the Jewish victims of the Holocaust:

We need to ask ourselves that for what purposes the millions of dollars that the Zionists receive from the treasury of some Western countries are spent for. Are they used for the promotion of peace and the well-being of the people? Or are they used for waging war against Palestinians and the neighboring countries. Are the nuclear arsenals of Israel intended to be used in defense of the survivors of the Holocaust or as a permanent thereat against nations of the region and as an instrument of coercion, and possibly to defend the interests of certain circles of power in the Western countries.

Regrettably, the influence of the Zionists in the economy, media and some centers of political power has endangered interests of the European nations and has robbed them of many opportunities. The main alibi for this approach is the extortion they exact from the Holocaust.

One can imagine what standing some European countries could have had and what global role they could have played, if it had not been for this sixty-year old imposition.

I believe we both share the view that the flourishing of nations and their role are directly related to freedom and sense of pride.

Fortunately, with all the pressures and limitations, the great nation of Germany has been able to take great strides toward advancement and has become a major economic powerhouse in Europe that also seeks to play a more effective role in international interactions. But just imagine where Germany would be today in terms of its eminence among the freedom-loving nations, Muslims of the world and peoples of Europe, if such a situation did not exist and the governments in power in Germany had said no to the extortions by the Zionists and had not supported the greatest enemy of mankind.

I'm not sure if the US or the Zionists are the "greatest enemy" he is referring to, but it seems that Ahmadinejad's strategy is to divide European opinion and effectively push it to the sidelines as Iran prepares for its leadership role to take on the US.

He goes on to compare Iran to Germany, as another nation whose natural progress was interfered with by the victors of World War II. He tries to point out the unfairness that the US (never mentioned) has veto power at the UN.

After his somewhat opaque call for Germany to accept Islam, he concludes:

Iran and Germany can play a more important role together in the international arena by relying on the noble and high values.

This cooperative relationship can also enhance the role of Europe on the global scene and serve as a model of cooperation between two governments and nations.

Without doubt, cooperation of two peace-loving, powerful and cultured nations of Germany and Iran will serve the interests of Europe as well. Together we must end the present abnormalities in international relations, the type of order and relations that are based on the impositions of the victors of the World War II on the defeated nations. Nations and many governments will be on our side on this path.

We must make the shadow of World War II disappear and help the international community to promote security, freedom and sense of tranquility.

The people of Iran and Germany are two great nations that have contributed to the making of our civilization. They have rich culture and have been in the forefront of science, literature, arts and philosophy. Both of our people have a strong faith in God and follow the teachings of divine prophets. They have also had long-lasting scientific, cultural and commercial relations and share many valuable mutual interests.

I have no doubt that with the cooperation of the two governments and the support of the two great nations we can take great strides forward in alleviating the problems and abnormalities of our world today.

With the exception of the religious component, Iran's aims are clear - achieving superpower status and leadership of the world, turning Europe against America and Jews. He doesn't expect Germany to join Iran, but he does expect to make enough of Europe sympathetic to his anti-US goals, effectively parroting the arguments of neo-Nazis that all of Europe's current problems are the result of the Jews. He explicitly tries to point out how the Muslim world would help Europe economically, implying that the Jews couldn't do as much.

Meanwhile, while he writes about the importance of freedom, he shut down two opposition newspapers in Iran - one of them because of a cartoon lampooning him.

This has been his strategy for over a year now - divide the West, unify Muslim states under his leadership, become a nuclear power and ultimately defeat the US. In some ways, because of the 1.5 billion Muslims who are all potential allies, the millions of European liberals who hate the US with a passion, and the Third World, he may be in better position now towards his genocidal goals then Hitler was after two years in office.

Read More

Hezbollah politics in Detroit

One cheer for Dick DeVos:

Republican gubernatorial candidate Dick DeVos pulled out of a scheduled meeting this week with an Arab-American political group after pressure from some members of the Jewish community, who criticized comments made by the group's leaders about the Middle East.

Spokesman John Truscott said Monday that DeVos had a scheduling conflict, adding that DeVos was concerned about pro-Hizballah comments made by the group's leaders.

This was a remarkably wimpy statement, showing that DeVos is only doing this out of politics, not because he has a fundamental moral problem with speaking to an organization that explicitly and repeatedly supports Hezbollah. DeVos' statements to the Detroit Jewish News were more explicit but he needs to say those statements to the media at large.

The Dearborn-based Arab American Political Action Committee had planned to host DeVos at a "Dinner and Politics" meeting this week. The group has hosted other politicians, both Republican and Democrat, over the years and plans to continue inviting candidates from both parties.

But in an article published last week with the headline: "Don't Mainstream Extremists," Robert Sklar, editor of the Detroit Jewish News, said:

"No legitimate candidate for public office should go before the Dearborn-based Arab American Political Action Committee (AAPAC). That's because its leadership has defended Hezbollah, a virulently anti-Semitic terrorist group that calls for death to America and Israel, seeks an Islamist theocracy and instigated the devastating summertime war against Israel. There's something wrong about candidates for high office in Michigan accepting invitations to address any group that defends Hezbollah."

The article details comments made by AAPAC leaders Osama Siblani and others in recent months during the conflict between Israel and Lebanon.

In the article, Siblani is quoted as saying to the Christian Broadcasting Network that members of Hizballah are not terrorists, but freedom-fighters. The Detroit Jewish News article also quotes Siblani as saying during a rally that the U.S. government is being bought by the Zionist lobby, according to a Free Press article.

Another AAPAC leader is quoted as saying on National Public Radio that Israel is occupied Palestine.

On Monday, Truscott said, "We're concerned about any remarks that would support a terrorist organization."

Siblani said he and the group are "the victim of a smearing campaign in an attempt to stifle debate." He said his comments about Hizballah were made in the context of explaining the views of Arabs.

Many see Hizballah as a freedom-fighting organization, he said. And so his comments "reflect the Arab opinion," Siblani said.

As anyone who ever read the Arab American News can tell you, Siblani is a liar and his newspaper is consistently and vocally pro-Hezbollah. His Dearborn community is not just pro-terror but explicitly threatens Jews - and he is a leader of the organization that held rallies with those very threats. For Osama Siblani to pretend now that he himself doesn't hold these views and that his paper and own editorials are just meant to reflect opinions of others is laughable and remarkably cowardly. His own words, over years and still archived, show who is telling the truth.

Robert Sklar hit the nail on the head in his editorial, which is more damning than this watered-down Detroit Free Press article indicates. The Michigan Arab community is led by people who support terror, and while they have the right to choose their own leaders, Michigan politicians and all people of honor have the duty to call them what they are and refuse to pander to their immoral goals.

Read More

PalArab self-death count keeps rising

Here is the latest news about those poor, stateless Palestinians and how things would be peachy for them if only Israel ceased to exist.

Ziad Halada, 28, was shot and killed in the West Bank city of Nablus during internal factional fighting between Palestinian groups on Thursday.

Halada was shot in the head in the center of Nablus, during clashes between youth from the town and unknown masked men, local sources reported.

The sources added that after he was shot, his family attacked and set fire to two shops belonging to families suspected to be involved in the shooting. Palestinian police and security forces rushed to the area and began an investigation of the incident.

But wait, there's more:

At approximately 12:15 on Saturday, 9 September 2006, a dispute erupted between Abu Hatab and Absi "El-Danaf" clans in Market Street in Beach Camp. The dispute escalated into an armed confrontation. As a result, Ayman Abu Toha was hit by a bullet that penetrated his right side and issued from his chest. He was killed instantly. Abu Toha was trying to break up the dispute. In addition, two others were injured...

At approximately 02:00 on Friday, 8 September 2006, Haidar Mahdi was killed when an armed group fired several bullets at his house in Bloc 2 of Nuseirat Refugee Camp in the center of the Gaza Strip. Mahdi was hit by several bullets to the feet, thighs and back. He was taken to Al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital, where he died shortly after admittance. Neighbors stated that the shots were fired on the backdrop of a financial dispute between the shooters and one of Haidar's sons.

Hey - what do you expect them to do. It was a financial dispute in a land where there are no courts, no judges, no real police and no infrastructure, despite billions of dollars given to these people over decades. It's the Jews' fault!

And one more, a tender story of fatherhood:

A Palestinian youth was killed and his companion was wounded in an explosion in the Palestinian village of Na'ama near Ramallah.

An IDF spokesperson said that the explosion occurred as the two were apparently handling an explosives belt, which belonged to one of the youth's father.

Not to mention the non-fatal events that prove the Palarab love of peace and security - the car bomb that exploded prematurely, the many children who play with bombs and don't quite get killed when they explode, and those merely injured during Clan Clashes (TM).

This brings my count of dead PalArabs who were killed by other Palestinian Arabs or in "work accidents" since late June to 70. Remember: this is a number that no one else seems to be keeping track of. The real issue isn't dead Palestinian Arabs - whom no one cares about, least of all other PalArabs -- but how to demonize Israel.

(It is interesting to note that my major source for Pal self-deaths only reported on two of these four, so there may have been many more than I am keeping track of.)

Read More

The hole in the sky

This is a view of lower Manhattan at around 9:59 AM today, when the South Tower fell five years ago. (The sun shining in my direction makes it hard to take a good picture in the morning from across the Hudson.)

It is difficult for people who are unfamiliar with the skyline to understand how huge the twin towers were. I attempted to show in this picture, in a very limited way, the enormity of what was lost.

Read More

I detect a pattern, and it's spelled Y-M-C-A.

The tolerant, liberal Palestinian Arabs in Qalqiya finally torched the local YMCA, after months of threats - plus some firebombs in April.

Palestinian gunmen Saturday attacked and set fire to the Young Men's Christian Association headquarters in Qalqiliya, a large West Bank city controlled by Hamas.

Local government sources identified the attackers as members of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad terror groups, saying the identities of the gunmen are "well known" to Qalqiliya's security forces, which are controlled by the Hamas government.

Saturday's arson follows a series of warnings by the Muslim leadership of Qalqilya accusing the city's YMCA of missionary activity and demanding the Christian organization close its offices and leave town or face likely Muslim violence.

According to local reports, the gunmen Saturday afternoon destroyed the locks on the YMCA's entrance gates, crushed the gates, then entered the building and set it ablaze. Local fire brigades reportedly rushed to the scene and stopped the fire before it spread to neighboring buildings. The building sustained serious damage, YMCA officials said.

Qalqiliya police say they opened an investigation into the incident and would hunt down and arrest the attackers (who pay their salaries - EoZ)

In April major Muslim organizations in Qalqiliya in conjunction with local mosques, the city's Mufti and municipal leaders, sent a letter to the interior minister of the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority accusing the YMCA of missionary activities and demanding the Palestinian government immediately shut down the Christian offices.

It warned, "The act of these institutions of the YMCA, including attempting to convert Muslims in our city, will bring violence and tension."

Three days before the petition was delivered several Molotov cocktails were thrown at Qalqiliya's YMCA. Local political sources said the Molotov attacks followed Friday sermons in dozens of Qalqiliya mosques in which preachers called upon the community to revolt against the YMCA.

Joseph Medi, the YMCA manager in Qalqiliya, said his operation has never been involved with missionary activity.

Medi pointed out many employees at his branch of the YMCA are Muslim. He said the YMCA was instrumental in establishing a number of community programs, including contributing to the financing of the Al Ahli Club, a mostly Muslim local soccer organization that has competed in national games.

We've heard this tune before, but just to recap:

• Christians who are sympathetic to Muslims are targeted just as much as Israelis are.
• Muslim threats that follow the blackmail model - do what we want or else we will be forced to become violent. We have no choice, you see - your very existence is way too much of a provocation to us.
• Hamas pretending to enforce law and order when in fact they instigate crime and terror.
• Hamas pretending to embrace all religions when its actions show that it wants to build an Islamist state.
  
• Mosques used to incite terror.
• Institutions that help Muslims are targeted purely because they do not represent Muslims - bigotry in its most basic form.
• Muslim terrorists preferring to make the life of their PalArab brethren miserable by depriving them of social programs.
• The smaller the minority in a Muslim town, the more oppressed that minority becomes.
• An ancient and thriving Christian community becoming endangered in the face of Islamists.
• No worldwide media coverage of Islamic bigotry. The only stories in Google News, some 36 hours after the attack, are from WorldNetDaily, an abridged version in YNet, and The PalArab IMEMC which can't seem to figure out who mighthave done such a crime.
  

Nothing to see here. Just move along and dig a little deeper to find some juicy Israeli crimes, real or imagined.

Read More

Pre-Zionism Zionists (part 2)

Here are some more interesting historical articles about Jews who worked towards the establishment of a Jewish state in the years before the First Aliya.

First, we have a reference to a wealthy Jewish woman who was reported to have bought the Mount of Olives in 1856:

Secondly, here is an excerpt from an article about the life of Sir Moses Montefiore, showing some of his charitable acts towards the Jews in Palestine:

Finally, we have this article from 1879, right before the "First Aliya", describing how Jews were already flocking to Palestine, purchasing land as fast as they could and improving the economy:

There is much more to research and write on this topic, including the parallel Christian movement advocating "the restoration of the Jews" - which, as far as I can tell, was relegated to preaching about it but no real action.

Other fascinating topics are popping up as I am looking through these old newspapers - the informal and subconscious anti-Semitism that pervades many of the newspapers, and notably the period coverage of a number of New York hotels (upstate and in Coney Island) who banned Jews in the late 1870s.

Read More

Mixing work with Yiddishkeit

(I am finding myself burning out on writing articles about Israel, not so much out of anger as out of frustration at the current Israeli government. So I decided it is time to break the format for a while.)

Last Friday a vendor wanting to sell me services told me on the phone, "Shabbat Shalom" - and informed me that he was Jewish too.

This was not the first time this has happened to me - another vendor tirelessly brings up his Jewish bona-fides to me during every phone call, mentioning how he went to a yeshiva when he was younger, or how kosher pizza does not taste the same as non-kosher, or asking about what schools my kids go to.

Now, I have no problem talking about Yiddishkeit with people who ask me questions at work. One co-worker hilariously keeps trying to find some sort of unanswerable theoretical question ("So what if you are on a spaceship traveling close to the speed of light....") But when vendors use Judaism to foster a false sense of camaraderie, and indeed try to use their own Jewishness as a lever to get me to buy their products or services, I get completely turned off.

On a somewhat related note, I once worked at a place where the director of that location was frum. He is a brilliant person, and quite funny, and I knew him socially before he was moved into that position. But he had no qualms about showing obvious favoritism towards me - in front of all the layers of management in between. He would pepper his speech to me with Yiddishisms that no one else could possibly understand. One memorable time he saw me while talking to my boss, told my boss to wait because he had something important to show me, rummaged through his email for ten minutes (my boss eventually excused himself) and finally found what he was looking for - a Jewish joke that someone emailed him.

Any way you look at it, his actions were rude, even though I was the beneficiary. And I am indebted to him because on a single occasion, I got stuck in a political situation where my immediate manager put roadblocks in the way of me transferring to another location and this director helped me out. But I was always uncomfortable with his behavior towards me around the rest of the workers - essentially showing contempt for them.

When I am at work, as much as possible, I want to be treated like everyone else, and I do not want my religion to single me out for good or bad. My department's administrative assistant always goes out of her way to get me kosher food during any department or location event, and I am very appreciative - but I do not ask for it nor do I expect it. I generally do not mention that I keep kosher when I need to go to all-day vendor-sponsored seminars that include lunch (unless their registration form asks about special diets explicitly); I will pack my own or eat fruit/yogurt/whatever I can.

My desire not to mix work with religion also extends to possible kiruv. I am not a pro-active kiruv person; I will happily discuss anything but I will not bring up the topic of Judaism first. The interesting question is whether I should initiate anything if working with someone who is not frum or off the derech. (One acquaintance at work grew up a chosid and then one day, I am told, he showed up with his beard shaved, his hair dyed blonde, and now he plays with a jazz band at night and the only indication of his roots is that he never changed his very Jewish name.) Should I engage him in conversation? I am uncomfortable even considering it because I try so hard to keep the topics separate.

I would be interested in hearing what other people think.

Read More

Bigoted architects try to ban Israeli exhibition

A major architectural exhibition in Venice is taking place now, and the usual "progressive" gang of genteel anti-semites and self-hating Jews are trying to get Israel banned.

Why?

Because Israel's exhibition is centered around memorials, both for the Holocaust and for those fallen in wars.

There is a growing international and Palestinian campaign for the organisers of the 10th International Architecture Biennale in Venice to cancel the exhibition in the Israeli pavilion. The Israeli exhibition is entitled "Life Saver: Typology of Commemoration in Israel."

Fifty countries are participating in the Biennale, which runs from September 10 to November 19 and is one of the most important events on the international architectural calendar. Egypt is the only Arab country taking part in the Biennale, whose title is "Cities, architecture and society".

The exhibits in the Israeli pavilion comprise plans, models and full architectural details of 15 memorials built between 1947 and 2006, some commemorating dead soldiers or intelligence officers, others the Holocaust. The Israeli Defence Ministry is at the top of the list of the organisations who gave "generous support" for the exhibition.

The international pressure group Architects and Planners for Justice in Palestine (APJP) has sent a petition to the organisers of the Biennale saying it is "dismayed and concerned" that the Biennale agreed to host the Israeli contribution.

APJP requests the Biennale Committee to consider withdrawing the Israeli entry as being "provocative and counterproductive to the aims of the Biennale, and particularly distasteful in the context of the aftermath of an ugly and unnecessary war in neighbouring Lebanon, and a continuing one-side war in Gaza."

At the same time four Palestinian organisations have sent a joint letter to the organisers asking for the Israeli exhibition to be cancelled. The Palestinian organisations are the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI); the Palestinian Engineers Association - Jerusalem Center; the Society of Palestinian Architects; and RIWAQ - the Centre for Architectural Conservation.

The four Palestinian organisations say: "It is inconceivable how the Venice Biennale, an international celebration of art and architecture, of civilization and the progress of humanity, can provide a venue for such a blatant justification for and commemoration of genocide, war and bloodshed."

As usual, the hypocrisy is stunning and not mentioned. Palestinian Arabs routinely dedicate public areas, streets, schools and stadiums to the most depraved terrorists on the planet, and for them to say that Israeli war memorials are "commemorations of genocide" is the height of obscenity.

Haaretz adds:

Israeli architect Tula Amir, who curated the project, writes: "Justification of Israel's wars provides legitimization of the blood that has been spilled and is liable to be spilled in the future."

Jewish-British architect Abe Hayeem, who is behind the petition, uses Amir's words to explain why the exhibit should be withdrawn: It essentially justifies Israel's wars instead of criticizing them, he said. Amir, however, said the issue was addressed in the description accompanying the exhibit.

The Israeli architect is tacitly in the detractor camp, which makes her a curious person to curate, and yet her objections seem to be what empowered the more extreme leftist crowd to complain.

Of course, in the glare of the controversy, no one bothers to actually look at what Israel is actually showing at their pavillion.

The actual exhibits include Holocaust memorials, memorials for soldiers fallen in the War of Independence, and of soldiers fallen in the battle for Jerusalem. None of these memorials have anything to do with any war against Palestinian Arabs.

In this context, the true goals of the critics are clear: that Israel has no right to exist, nor to defend itself - even in its War of Independence. That Israel alone among nations is not allowed to have war memorials. That the Holocaust is simply justification for Israeli "crimes."

It is yet another case of Jew-hatred disguising itself as humanitarianism, and it is hypocrisy at its most disgusting.

Read More

The pre-Zionist Zionists (part 1)

Google is now using its search engine on the Newspaper Archive site, making it much easier to research old newspaper articles. Full OCR'd text is available for many obscure newspapers, and abstracts of articles for many others.

I only started looking at it today, but I have been finding some fascinating old articles about plans for Jews to move to Palestine decades before Herzl was even born. There seem to have been three main forces behind this idea:

• The proto-Zionists themselves, notably including the Rothschilds;
• Christians in America and England, who viewed the "Restoration of the Jews" as a precursor to the "Second Coming," and
• The Western Colonial powers, who appeared to consider this a win/win - they can ship out their Jews and a Western outpost would be built in the Middle East.

It should be clear that without a significant number of Jews wanting to actually move to the biblical land of Israel, the other two parties could not have accomplished anything.

Here is an article (as best as I could reproduce it) from The Adams Sentinel of Gettysburg, PA on Wednesday, December 02, 1829:

The following is an extract of a letter, published in the British Court Journal, on 'the subject of the purchase of Jerusalem by Baron Rothschild. KING following curious extract is from a private letter from Smyrna. We give it without note or comment:

The confidence of the children of Israel in the words of the Prophet has not been in vain the temple of Solomon will be restored in all its splendor. Baron Rothschild, who was accused of having gone to Rome to abjure the faith of his fathers, has merely passed through the city on his way to Constantinople, where he is about to negotiate a loan with the Porte. It is stated, on. good authority, that Baron Rothschild has engaged to furnish to the Sultan the enormous sum of piastres, at three installments, without interest, on condition of the Sultan's engaging, for himself and his successors, to yield to Baron Rothschild forever, the sovereignty of Jerusalem, and the territory of ancient Palestine, which was occupied by the twelve tribes. The Baron's intention is, to grant to the rich Israelites who are scattered about in different parts of the world, portions of that country, where he proposes to establish to give them, as far as possible, their ancient and sacred laws. Thus the descendants of the Hebrews will at length have a country, and every friend of humanity must rejoice at the happy event. -The poor Jews will cease to be the victims of oppression and injustice. Glory to the great Baron Rothschild, who makes so noble a use of his ingots. A little army being judged necessary for the restored kingdom, measures have been taken for recruiting if out of the wrecks of the Jewish battalion raised in Holland by Louis Bonaparte. All the Israelites who were employed in various departments of the Dutch Administration, are to obtain superior posts under the Government of Jerusalem, and the expenses of their journey are to be paid them in advance.

It does not appear that this plan ever went anywhere, but it shows the desire of Jews to peacefully purchase land in Israel to settle there as a first step towards sovereignty even as early as 1829!

Read More

How do morons get newspaper columns?

I was reading the Newark Star Ledger on the train today and saw an op-ed piece trying to rip the Bush adminstration for comparing Islamic fundamentalism to fascism. Since I think that the parallels are quite striking, I was interested in seeing how this liberal columnist would differentiate between them.

It turns out that this was more of a lesson in willful deception and misdirection than in any logic.

The anti-fascist oxymorons
Paul Mulshine

MSNBC's Norah O'Donnell was chatting recently with President Bush's counselor Dan Bartlett about the administration's recent effort to recast the so-called "war on terror" as a remake of World War II.

"Well, I think what you saw today, Norah, was a very specific articulation of the type of enemy we're here to face," said Bartlett. "What the sound bite you used by the president demonstrates is that the ideological struggle of the 21st century, the terrorist organizations that we're after in this war on terror, is very similar to ideological struggles that we faced during World War II when we fought Nazism and communism."

I ran this by Murray Sabrin, the Ramapo College professor and sometime libertarian candidate for various offices.

"What a nitwit!" said Murray. "These people are incredibly stupid. Now they're telling us we fought the Russians in World War II. You can't make this stuff up."

No, you can't. It's not merely that the Bushies have no idea who the enemy is in this current war. They can't even decide who the enemy was in World War II. In fact, they seem not to have the slightest clue to the history of that era.

Mulshine's main complaint seems to be that Bartlett said that we fought communism in World War II, during a Hardball segment, and therefore he extrapolates from this that the administration "can't even decide who the enemy was in World War II.." And he needed to interview a libertarian professor to make sure that, indeed, we didn't fight communists during World War II.

Unfortunately, if one looks at the MSNBC website, you will see that the quote is slightly incorrect:

BARTLETT: Well, I think what you saw today, Norah, was a very specific articulation of the type of enemy we are here to face. As the soundbite you used by the president demonstrates, is that the ideological struggle of the 21st century, the terrorist organizations that we are after in this war on terror is very similar in ideological struggles that we faced during World War II and when we fought Nazism and communism.

That little word "and" sure makes a big difference. I wonder if Mulshine will retract his entire column, based on this lie - and it almost had to be a lie, because unless he transcribed Hardball himself, he must have copied and pasted the quote from the MSNBC website and deleted the "and."

But let's look at the rest of his argument:

Later in that same interview, O'Donnell played a clip of Donald Rumsfeld:

"Indeed, in the decades before World War II, a great many argued that the fascist threat was exaggerated or that it was someone else's problem," said Rumsfeld. "I recount that history because once again we face similar challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism."

It is in fact true that in the run- up to World War II many argued the fascist threat was exaggerated. But here's the problem for Rumsfeld: They were almost entirely conservatives. The Republicans, chief among them Sen. Robert Taft, were isolationists.

"The president intends to get us into war," said Taft in October 1941. "He doesn't want it now, but step by step he'll lead us in."

It was the Democrats, not the Republicans, who were hot to trot against Hitler. The Republicans wanted to stay out of the war. It's not hard to see why. They were right-wingers. Up until Pearl Harbor, they thought the threat to America from the Soviets was greater than the threat from the Nazis.

But to hear Bush tell it, you'd think the exact opposite was the case. "The world ignored Hitler's words and paid a terrible price," Bush said the other day, ignoring the unpleasant fact that "the world" in question was made up al most entirely of conservative Republicans.

So Mulshine is not arguing that Bush is wrong, just that Bush is defending the actions of 1940's era Democrats and warning against the actions of the Republicans of the time.

He goes on from there, arguing that true conservatives would not act the way that Bush is acting. But he never addresses whether it is wrong to look at Islamic fundamentalism as the enemy, or as comparable to fascism - which is of course the entire point of Bush's latest talking points. In his rush to prove that the "Bushies" are morons, Mulshine completely ignores the real issue.

UPDATE: Mulshine answered my email with a transcript from the Federal News Service that shows his version of the conversation. He adds:

Note that even with the “and” the quote was nonsensical since there was no time other than World War II when we fought Nazism.

Without seeing the interview itself I cannot determine which is the correct quote. I have no reason to disbelieve his quote from FNS is accurate (one must subscribe to see it.)

Mulshine's note is weak, though, because in the context of "Hardball" (as opposed to a press conference or a speech) this does not betray a lack of knowledge of World War II and he based his entire column on the "fact" that Bartlett and by extension the Bush administration is ignorant of history.

I tend to doubt that the FNS transcript is as accurate as MSNBC's, but even if it is, the fact that Mulshine chooses to interpret it as an indication of mass idiocy of the Bush administration rather than a simple slip of the tongue in the heat of the moment during an interview speaks volumes about his interest in the truth.

And if he was interested in the truth, he would have acknowledged the discrepancy and offered to act as a reporter and find the actual tape, with an eye towards correcting his column. While I am wrong in assuming malicious motives to his quote, and I am happy to print his answer to me, I would have been far more pleased to see an indication that he had an interest in clearing this up, rather than implying that his transcript is more accurate than MSNBC's.

Read More