Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

The Israeli Left needs to step up

There is a basic disconnect between the Western understanding of Israeli politics and the reality.

Westerners assume that the Israeli left is just like the American or European left as far as the Middle East is concerned. The EU in general, and the Obama administration in particular, have been conditioned by the media to think in simplistic terms of "Netanyahu=Likud=Hardliner=Intransigent" and that if only they would get rid of him, peace will reign.

They simply do not get that the vast majority of Israelis, right and left, agree that the majority of Jewish settlers must remain in Israel. The major settlement blocs are not up for negotiation. And, as a result, building within existing boundaries is not a problem.

Of course there is disagreement between the right and the left on many issues, but the positions of J Street and Eric Yoffe are so far divorced from that of the Israeli public as to make one wonder how out of touch they are.

The left-leaning Labor Party is a major component of the ruling coalition in Israel, and it is time for them to step up. They need to be writing the op-eds. They need to be visiting AIPAC conventions. The people who are adored by the Western Left - Peres and, to some extent, Barak - need to clearly articulate the red lines and the reason that they are red.

In recent weeks the discourse has changed from negotiating over the items that must be negotiated to negotiating over items that practically every Israeli thought was already settled. Abbas, by being far more intransigent than Netanyahu ever was, has succeeded in getting the Obama administration to allow him to change the rules of the game. He has added conditions that had never been demanded before, and the US is playing the role he intends it to play - pressure Israel to adhere to his new rules.

It is true that the Obama administration has reneged on agreements made with Israel, both recent and not so recent. But I think it is also true that the White House thinks that most Israelis agree with its "tough love" initiative.

During the Gaza war, Bibi Netanyahu went on a tour to explain the Israeli position - even though his party was not in power. Right now, it is time for not only Peres and Barak but also for Tzipi Livni to start speaking to the American and European Left and explain their positions clearly. It is time for them to write the op-eds for major newspapers and for them to speak to presidents and prime ministers. It is up to them to explain the difference between the mainstream Israeli left and the far left fringe that is misrepresented in the media. Otherwise, Israel is in danger of having a catastrophe imposed on it, a disaster that will not distinguish between the Left and the Right.

Add paranoia to Jeff Gates' antisemitism

On odd occasions I have linked to the rantings of far left lunatic pundit Jeff Gates. The most recent link was when Gates asserted that the airplane underwear bomber was a Zionist, and beforehand. Previously he was used as an object lesson of how lies spread among the anti-Israel web, and before that for his classically anti-semitic piece on the Jewish lobby.

Now he is in the pages of Al Ahram, talking about anti-semitism itself. He implies that Jews are behind everything from 9/11 to America's economic problems to the Iraq war, and then asks rhetorically whether it is anti-semitic to ask these questions.

Hmmm.

More humorously, here's where he descends into real paranoia:

Early on in this challenge, I included the noun “Jew” in a Google search. I received in return an automated response from the ADL implying that I was an anti-Semite. Why? More importantly, how did a Google response appear in my e-mail inbox — automatically — from the ADL?

I don't know about you, but I have Googled "Jew" in the past (as well as just now) and never received an automated email immediately afterwards from the ADL. If a Google search ever resulted in any automated email, privacy advocates would topple Google itself.

But Gates, for whom truth is never a high priority, is now claiming that the ADL has a deal with Google to warn people who search for the wrong word.Which gives a good indication of how trustworthy his other amazing facts about Jews and Israel are.

"Palestine Today" to publish list of news thieves

The Islamic Jihad-aligned "Palestine Today" site is sick and tired of other Arabic news sites stealing its articles, and they plan to issue a "black list" of article thieves.

Because nothing ticks off a publication that supports attacks on civilians more than copyright violations.

(One of the violators is, no doubt, Firas Press, in which practically every article is an identical copy of an article from another publication, without ever giving credit.)

Malaysian politicians accused of Jew-cooties

From The Edge (Malaysia):

The opposition does not use Zionist communications consultants to woo nor attract support, said Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) vice-president Azmin Ali on Wednesday, March 24.
Azmin, who is also the Gombak member of parliament (MP), also debunked the theory that opposition and PKR de-facto leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim (Permatang Pauh-PKR) was a Jewish agent.

During the debate on the royal address last Wednesday, Khairy Jamaluddin (Rembau-BN) had questioned Anwar on his relationship with former US ambassador to Indonesia Paul Wolfowitz.

“While it’s true that the Permatang Pauh MP has known Wolfowitz for a long time, their relationship has not reduced Anwar’s Malay-ness or his faith,” said Azmin in Dewan Rakyat.

But Zamin did make Zionist accusations:

Gombak MP Azmin Ali has urged Defence Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi to come clean about his alleged secret meeting with Israeli counterpart Ehud Barak in Paris last year.
“I want the defence minister and Umno deputy president to come into this House and explain Umno’s motive for meeting the Zionist at the Paris Air Show. Don’t deceive the Malays… don’t lie to the officers and don’t twist the facts,” he said in parliament.

It's nice to know that in the 21st century, politicians can still get mileage around meeting with Jews and Israelis.

(h/t to Meryl Yourish who coined the term "Jew-cooties.")

The world wants to kill Jerusalem

All the people who hyperventilate over new buildings, projects and plans for Jerusalem seem to forget the most basic fact there is: Jerusalem is a modern, living, growing city.

It is not a fossilized museum piece.

Jerusalem has not always been as dynamic as it is today. The portions of the city under Jordanian rule from 1948-67 did not grow to an real extent. In fact, the Jordanian municipality of Jerusalem was a mere 2 square miles in size. Its population decreased, and many citizens moved to Amman.

Under Israeli rule, however, Jerusalem has flourished. Its population has nearly tripled since 1967. It boundaries have grown in all directions.

Any vibrant city needs to make plans. Jerusalem, by its nature, requires very sensitive urban planning, as many of the religious populations want to remain in homogeneous areas but at the same time discrimination is to be discouraged. Children want to live near their parents. Growth is inevitable in a living city and it needs to be managed. Much of that management must be in terms of the mundane facets of everyday life - building approval, zoning laws, creating residential and business districts.

In Jerusalem it is even trickier, as you need to add enforcing the unique character of certain neighborhoods, protecting holy sites, and ensuring equal access to all.

The international community, however, wants to stop the municipality from acting as all cities must. It wants to treat every new initiative and approval as an international incident. It wants to give veto power over Jerusalem to people who do not live there, who never lived there and who showed no interest in the city when they had the means to do so.

In short, the world wants to kill Jerusalem.

The immediate consequence of President Obama's shortsighted and, frankly, stupid censure of Israel over the Ramat Shlomo neighborhood is that it is now open season on every single municipal project in Jerusalem, no matter how small or how important. Topics that were rightly ignored as a local issue are now considered international provocations. Reporters are now camped out near the Jerusalem municipal offices ready to create headlines for every new apartment expansion that gains approval. The neighborhoods that would remain under Israeli control in any realistic peace agreement are now considered up for grabs again, and this is emboldening the Arabs to demand more and more.

The main loser is Jerusalem itself.

One of the great ironies of the entire Palestinian Arab quest for independence is that the result would almost certainly be worse for the citizens of that very state. In the interests of a fake quest for "justice," the people for whom the justice is meant will lose. The quality of their lives will go down, and the odds are pretty good that sooner or later "Palestine" will turn into an Islamic theocracy with little concern for the rights of its members.

The same idiotic type of thinking is now being used to kill a beautiful city, a city that by any objective measure has grown, flourished and improved vastly while under Israeli rule.

Imagine if the Dutch wanted to re-assert their claim to New York City (which should properly be called New Amsterdam, in their theoretical lawsuit brought before the ICJ.) Imagine them getting UN resolutions to condemn any new New York planning until the parties could resolve their differences. This is effectively what is being demanded from Jerusalem today.

The world's most beautiful city is in danger of being choked to death by world politicians and diplomats. They don't care about the consequences of their actions. They think that they are as wise as Solomon but they really want to divide the baby in half.

Who will defend the Holy City? Who cares enough to make a stand to save Jerusalem?

A Church of the Nativity terrorist dies

One of the terrorists who defiled the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem in 2002 has died.

48-year old Abdullah Daoud, known as "Abu Yusuf," was one the terrorists who was exiled in the aftermath of the standoff. He died in Algeria following an operation to repair a heart problem.

The terrorists had heavily damaged and booby-trapped the church. They also looted every gold item they could find.

Latest adventures in auto-translation

For some reason I have been seeing the phrase "high quality porn" sprinkled throughout the Google autotranslations of Arabic articles about politicians.

The Arabic word is الحمساوي and I have no idea if that is what it really means. But the first two letters are "Al", which means "the," and when they are deleted the word translates into "Hamas man" or "Hamas member." The connections between Hamas and pornography is still unclear to me.

In a similar vein, for the past six months or so at the al-Qassam Hamas website each "martyr" is invariably described as "Mujahid BeyondUnreal"مجاهد قسامي

which seems to indicate that they were good videogame players. In fact, the word is "Qassami", or simply members of the al-Qassam Brigades.

Dershowitz on Obama and Iran's bomb

Alan Dershowitz, a huge supporter of Obama in the 2008 elections, challenges the president in a strong Wall Street Journal piece:

Most people today are not aware that British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain helped restore Great Britain's financial stability during the Great Depression and also passed legislation to extend unemployment benefits, pay pensions to retired workers and otherwise help those hit hard by the slumping economy. But history does remember his failure to confront Hitler. That is Chamberlain's enduring legacy.
So too will Iran's construction of nuclear weapons, if it manages to do so in the next few years, become President Barack Obama's enduring legacy. Regardless of his passage of health-care reform and regardless of whether he restores jobs and helps the economy recover, Mr. Obama will be remembered for allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. History will not treat kindly any leader who allows so much power to be accumulated by the world's first suicide nation—a nation whose leaders have not only expressed but, during the Iran-Iraq war, demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice millions of their own people to an apocalyptic mission of destruction.

If Iran were to become a nuclear power, there would be plenty of blame to go around. A National Intelligence Report, issued on President George W. Bush's watch, distorted the truth by suggestion that Iran had ended its quest for nuclear weapons. It also withheld the fact that U.S. intelligence had discovered a nuclear facility near Qum, Iran, that could be used only for the production of nuclear weapons. Chamberlain, too, was not entirely to blame for Hitler's initial triumphs. He became prime minister after his predecessors allowed Germany to rearm. Nevertheless, it is Chamberlain who has come to symbolize the failure to prevent Hitler's ascendancy. So too will Mr. Obama come to symbolize the failure of the West if Iran acquires nuclear weapons on his watch.

(The only way to read WSJ articles in full without a subscription is to do a Google search on something like "Dershowitz," finding the article and then clicking the link.)

Crisis at "Islam Online"

Islam Online, one of the most influential Islamic publications that was under the control of terror-supporting sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, is suffering from a crisis.

On March 15, when the workers showed up to work, all hell broke loose as it became apparent that a take over was in process. According to Atef Abdel-Ghany, who runs the website’s development committee, said the new board informed the employees that come March 31, “more than 250 of the journalists will be let go.” Islam Online currently employs more than 350 people.

Since then, a new board has taken over the rabidly anti-Israel publication, employees are scrambling, and the government of Qatar has stepped in - and removed Qaradawi. Stories are contradictory but it sounds like the new board is already deleting articles from its database and trying to move it into a "less moderate" direction - and it was hardly moderate to begin with.

The publication itself has publicized fatwas encouraging suicide bombings, and in Arabic it is even worse.

Hamas "interior minister": Executions about to resume

The Hamas "interior minister," Fathi Hammad, said in an interview that Hamas plans to start executing people who had been sentenced to death, no matter how much human rights organizations object.

Most Hamas death sentences are for "collaboration."

Hammad also claimed, improbably, that the recent series of bombings against Hamas police and other targets in Gaza were done by "teenagers," and that some of them were simply personal vendettas.

Palestine Today adds that he denied that Hamas arrested anyone who tried to launch rockets at Israel, saying that Hamas prisons are open to inspection and no militants would be found there. Instead, he said that Hamas just confiscates the weapons of those who try to launch rockets.

Yemeni clerics support child marriages

From Arab News:

Some of Yemen’s most influential Islamic leaders, including one the US says mentored Osama Bin Laden, have declared supporters of a ban on child brides to be apostates.
The religious decree, issued Sunday, deeply imperils efforts to salvage legislation that would make it illegal for those under the age of 17 to marry.
The practice is widespread in Yemen and has been particularly hard to discourage in part because of the country’s gripping poverty — bride-prices in the hundreds of dollars are especially difficult for poor families to pass up.
More than a quarter of Yemen’s women marry before age 15, according to a report last year by the Social Affairs Ministry. Tribal custom also plays a role, including the belief that a young bride can be shaped into an obedient wife, bear more children and be kept away from temptation.
A February 2009 law set the minimum age for marriage at 17, but it was repealed and sent back to parliament’s constitutional committee for review after some lawmakers called it un-Islamic. The committee is expected to make a final decision on the legislation next month.
Some of the clerics who signed Sunday’s decree sit on the committee.
The group behind the declaration also includes Yemen’s most influential cleric, Sheikh Abdul-Majid Al-Zindani, whom the United States has branded a spiritual mentor of Bin Laden. Al-Zindani denies being a member of Al-Qaeda.
The religious leaders organized a protest against the legislation on Sunday by a group of women. The women carried signs that read “Yes to the Islamic rights of Women.”
“I was married at 15 and have many children now,” said one of the women, Umm Abdul-Rahman. “And I will marry my daughter at the same age if I decide she is ready for it.”
The issue of Yemen’s child brides vaulted into the headlines three years ago when an 8-year-old girl boldly went by herself to a courtroom and demanded a judge dissolve her marriage to a man in his 30s. She eventually won a divorce, and legislators began looking at ways to curb the practice.
In September, a 12-year-old Yemeni child-bride died after struggling for three days in labor to give birth, a local human rights organization said.
A rights group pushing for a ban planned a protest for Tuesday.
“The government has two options: To give girls in Yemen a chance at life or to condemn them to a death sentence,” said Amal Basha, chairwoman of the group, Sisters Arab Forum in Yemen.
Yemen once set 15 as the minimum age for marriage, but parliament annulled that law in the 1990s, saying parents should decide when a daughter marries.

Bahrain minister laundering money for Iran?

The Arabic media is abuzz over rumors that a high-ranking Bahraini minister was fired because he was laundering money for Iran's Revolutionary Guards.

The LA Times blog Babylon and Beyond is more skeptical, but it is a story worth following.

J-Street's polls are designed to elicit the answers they want

J-Street is trumpeting a poll that, they say, shows that American Jews agree with their politics. A short examination of their methodology shows that the poll itself was designed to generate the answers that the J-Streeters are looking for.

Since they do not give the exact methodology, it is hard to go into detail on the bias inherent in the poll, but one question they show in full:

Professional pollsters know that the order of the choices can influence results. The wording here shows that they always presented their own preference first for this question, and the "other" side last.

Since the poll shows pretty convincingly that most American Jews do not follow Israel closely, it means that the interviewees are especially prone to manipulation since they do not have strong views on the topic.

In this case, J-Street first presents a statement that sounds reasonable to an little-informed subject:

Some Jewish organizations in the United States say that America has a special relationship with Israel and we must support our democratic ally, but this latest incident that took place during Vice President Biden's visit to Israel was an insult to America and damages our interests in a region where we are fighting two wars. The relationship between the United States and Israel must be a two-way street that allows an honest public discussion, and even criticism, when our two countries disagree.

A person without strong opinions will hear that statement and will generally agree as it sounds reasonable. The question itself is a form of education for the person polled.

Then, J-Street talks about "others," meaning people who do not agree with the already established reasonable statement:

Other Jewish organizations in the United States say that Israel is America's closest ally in the Middle East, and the Obama Administration's recent statements regarding the U.S. relationship with Israel are a matter of serious concern. The Obama Administration should work closely with Israel in a manner befitting strategic allies, make a conscious effort to move away from public demands and unilateral deadlines directed at Israel, and take immediate steps to defuse tension with the Jewish state.

Now that the subject already has committed himself to the first statement, he will be reticent to change his mind so quickly when hearing the second, "other" statement.

I can guarantee you that if the two questions were reversed, switching "some" with "others," the results would be reversed as well.

It is also telling that J-Street doesn't bother finding out what Jews who are care the most about Israel feel. They rely on the ignorant, apathetic Jewish majority for their support. Which means that they rely on Jews they can manipulate.

Hi Lady Liberty, nice to see you again

In my career, I have been fortunate enough to have worked in two locations where I had a clear view of the Statue of Liberty, one of them from my desk.

For the last couple of years, though, I did not have that privilege.

Today, I happen to be working in an office from which I can see Lady Liberty again. It is a cloudy day and she is not too close, but I didn't realize how much I missed her until I saw her again. My camera phone doesn't do her justice.

Nice to be back, even if only for a day.

Palestinian Arab researcher: BBC biased - towards Israel

This is too funny:

A researcher at Birzeit University submitted findings Saturday outlining what she found to be un-objective coverage around "the question of Palestine" on BBC Arabic's broadcast news.

The study, focusing on the daily news program World News This Evening's broadcasts between 8 November and 8 December 2008, found external political motivations swayed coverage of Palestine only weeks before Israel launched its Operation Cast Lead on 26 December 2008.

Sound like cherry-picking?

Masters student Buthayna Hamdan, who pioneered the study, explained that she measured the objectivity of the reports by BBC's own standards, and basic precepts of news coverage.

Benchmarks for measurement included: Omission of facts, clear differentiation of facts and opinions, and avoiding prioritization of accounts.

The research found that the news coverage employed Israeli terminology, describing the military as "defense forces" when its actions were offensive, labeling locations with Israeli place names like the illegal settlement Har Homa, built on appropriated land known as Jabal Abu Ghnaim.

Because the settlement and the expropriation of land is illegal under international law, the study argued, the area where the settlement is located should retain its Arabic name.

So, according to this unbiased Palestinian Arab researcher, the BBC should call the Israel Defense Forces the "Israel Offense Forces" because, in her weird world, that wouldn't be biased. And a place that houses thousands of people who call it one name should be given another name by the BBC - when it was empty space beforehand.

I guess that Hamdan would agree that the Al Aqsa courtyard should be called the "Har HaBayit" as that was its name before it was illegally expropriated.

It also noted the use of the term "military arsenal" to describe home made projectiles fired toward Israel by militant factions in Gaza.

And this is biased, how, exactly? Especially since most of the rockets were manufactured in small metal workshops, not in homes - the term "home-made" would be incorrect as well as biased. Also, mortars aren't home-made, and mortars make up more than half the attacks.

During the study period, the research found 25 news events in Palestine, including the death, injury and detention of Palestinians including children, that went unreported by the news program. The same period saw the full coverage of every home made projectile launched from Gaza into Israeli territory, a total of 14.

Wow - the BBC covered every one of the 14 projectiles shot at Israel, according to this researcher, a master's degree candidate for a prestigious university. Only one problem - there were at least 92 Qassams shot at Israel in that time period, not to mention well over 100 mortars. The BBC covered less than 8% of them, according to this report.

So which direction is the bias now?

And what accounts for these non-existent cases of bias? Take a wild guess:

Following the analysis, and citing works by British journalist Robert Fisk, the report suggested that BBC Arabic's news coverage was influenced by an Israeli lobby, and a mass supply of Israeli government-produced news and information.

See? The famous British Israel Lobby influences BBC's Arabic coverage.

Here is a description of one of the BBC reports during that time period that was supposedly so biased towards Israel:

It's a rare week that passes without the BBC providing a welcome bully pulpit for those who like to bash Israel. And so it was this morning that Oxfam was afforded the opportunity to attack those bad Jews for having the temerity to stop the free movement of goods (and weapons!) in and out of that land running with milk and honey which is Gaza. When it was mildly suggested to the Oxfam spokesman by the BBC interviewer that "militants" (Love that word, so much nicer than depraved Hamas terrorists) were firing off rockets into Israel (even one was launched during the interview!) the Oxfam response was to dismiss that aspect of things entirely and focus instead on the "humanitarian" plight of those who live in the moral sewer of Gaza. The BBC interviewer did not pursue this line of enquiry as it was obvious where his sympathies lay. The only opinion expressed was the venomous anti-Israel take from Oxfam - the utterly discredited Hamas-apologists.

Yeah, that's real pro-Israel bias right there.