Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Wednesday, December 08, 2010

Just another miracle from Israel

Jeffrey Goldberg, for some reason, watches Glee - and learns about an amazing Israeli device that can help paraplegics walk.

(h/t Alex)

2010 Hasby Award Winners

As announced last night in my live presentation in New York, here are the winners of the 2010 Hasby Awards:

People's Choice Runner Up with over 2000 votes:
Pilar Rahola's article, "The Anti-Israel Hysteria"

People's Choice winner, with over 2700 votes:
Paris Zionists' unique protest against the anti-Israel Gaza photo exhibit at the Museum of Modern Art in Paris:

Hasby Awards Fifth Place:

The IDF releasing video of soldiers being attacked on the Mavi Marmara within hours of the event, causing most viewers to see that the "peace protesters" were hardly peaceful:

Hasby Awards Fourth Place:

RabbiLIVE revealing Helen Thomas' anti-semitism and ending her career:

Hasby Awards Third Place:

Gabriel Latner's speech at the Cambridge Union Society debates arguing "Why Israel is a Rogue State."

Hasby Awards Runner Up:

16-year old Elad Daniel Pereg facing off, alone, against an angry anti-Israel mob in Los Angeles with an IDF shirt and Israeli flag:

And the Hasby Awards Winner for 2010 is....

Latma TV's We Con the World:

Rationale:

Good hasbara, as I mentioned yesterday, must be effective in having people change their perspective of the conflict, and must be accessible to a large audience. My talk also emphasized the importance of more visceral media (i.e., live events, video) compared to text.

Latma's We Con the World has over 2.4 million views on YouTube so far, and its use of humor in order to get through to people who are ambivalent or unaware of Israel's viewpoint was extraordinarily effective.

Gabriel Latner's speech, had it been on video, would probably have made it to second place, but the emotional impact of watching Elad Daniel Peleg take on a screaming crowd of Israel-haters is much higher than reading any speech, no matter how good or how compelling the back-story.

The Helen Thomas video (literally) revealed the ugly face of anti-semitism in a major media figure. It was public and effective in removing her from her job, and it set the stage for her to prove her bigotry again and again.

The IDF was very quick to release the videos showing soldiers being beaten on the Mavi Marmara, and that speed was what made them deserve the award. If they had released it a day later it would have been too late and the media, hungry to make an instant decision as to who was at fault, would have already turned against the IDF.

While I would not have chosen the Pilar Rahola article or the museum protest as winners, mostly because they did not reach a mass worldwide audience, both are noteworthy because they resonate with European Zionists who feel besieged by the constant demonization of Israel they are exposed to every day. In both these cases, it allowed them to feel empowered to be able to fight this scourge of one-sided and very disproportionate Israel-hatred. So while those entries are not "hasbara" per se, they were both very important in shoring up and galvanizing Israel's defenders in Europe, which is a critical but separate issue. (I would modestly put my blog in that category as well - it is not hasbara, as I explained yesterday, but it is empowering for those who want to enter the front lines of the battle.)

Congratulations to all the winners!

Wikileaks is only starting

Only 1,060 of 251,287 documents - 0.42% - have been released so far, according to the Wikileaks Cablegate website (one mirrored here.)

Gaza, December 6, 2010.

From a photo essay in the Hamas-run Palestine Times.

At the Daphne Anson blog, a thorough survey of how Palestinian Arabs and Israel-haters are destroying history to demonize Israel around Christmas-time.

The Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign offers a ten-card set depicting the madonna in Palestinian colours, holding her infant; I think she’s intended to convey the impression that she and her son – no introductions are required – were Palestinian rather than Jewish. The same PSC also offers a ten-card set depicting the Three Wise Men unable to get into Bethlehem owing to Israel’s “Wall”.

I cannot possibly do this piece justice by excerpting it. Read the whole thing.

Wikileaks: Saudis wanted Arab/NATO alliance to destroy Hezbollah

From The Guardian:

Saudi Arabia proposed creating an Arab force backed by US and Nato air and sea power to intervene in Lebanon two years ago and destroy Iranian-backed Hezbollah, according to a US diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks.

The plan would have sparked a proxy battle between the US and its allies against Iran, fought in one of the most volatile regions of the world.

The Saudi plan was never enacted but reflects the anxiety of Saudi Arabia – as well as the US – about growing Iranian influence in Lebanon and elsewhere in the Middle East.

The proposal was made by the veteran Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, to the US special adviser to Iraq, David Satterfield. The US responded by expressing scepticism about the military feasibility of the plan.
Here is what the cable said:
Opening a discussion with S/I Satterfield focused largely on Iraq, Saud first turned to Lebanon and stated that the effort by "Hizballah and Iran" to take over Beirut was the first step in a process that would lead to the overthrow of the Siniora government and an "Iranian takeover of all Lebanon." Such a victory, combined with Iranian actions in Iraq and on the Palestinian front, would be a disaster for the US and the entire region. Saud argued that the present situation in Beirut was "entirely military" and that the solution must be military as well. The Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) were too fragile to bear more pressure; they needed urgent backing to secure Beirut from Hizballah's assault. What was needed was an "Arab force" drawn from Arab "periphery" states to deploy to Beirut under the "cover of the UN" and with a significant presence drawn from UNIFIL in south Lebanon "which is sitting doing nothing." The US and NATO would be asked to provide equipment for such a force as well as logistics, movement support, and "naval and air cover."

This happened during Hezbollah's siege of Beirut in 2008.

I guess, in the parlance of that part of the world, Saudi Arabia must be considered Zionist...

Hezbollah says it can destroy any ship en route to Israel

From Now Lebanon:

“Our missiles can track any ship heading toward Israel and destroy it,” an unnamed Hezbollah source said in an interview published on Wednesday.

“Any ship heading toward Israel can be destroyed by a rocket carrying 514 kilograms of highly explosive material,” the source told Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Rai.

The source added that Hezbollah “is not in need” of P-800 Yakhont anti-ship missiles “because it has enough cruise missiles for an upcoming war.”

And, of course, these cruise missiles are coming via Syria - and Russia is selling cruise missiles to Syria.

Israel needs to make clear, especially in wake of the Wikileak from Syria I mentioned yesterday, that any attack from Hezbollah will result in retaliation against Damascus. Syria still holds some influence over Hezbollah and that regime does not want to fight a direct war against Israel except through proxy.

Wikileaks: Concern about IHH in December 2009

In a recently released cable dated December 4th, 2009 it is mentioned that the Treasury Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes raised concerns about IHH, the Turkish Humanitarian Relief Foundation. The same organization which purchased the Mavi Marmara and joined a flotilla of ships going to Gaza in May 2010.

The cable states that the IHH is "a large NGO providing material assistance to Hamas". [NAME REMOVED] surprisingly said to the Assistant Secretary that he was not familiar with the NGO but would look into the matter.

The same person whose name is removed from the cable states that Turkey and private Turks "sympathize with the needs of people in Gaza" and will send money directly to the people and work to "convince our Israeli friends to send help also".

Official Palestinian news agency republishes report denying Kotel (updated)

From JPost:

Only days after it was removed from the Palestinian Authority’s Ministry of Information website, a “study” denying Jews’ rights to the Western Wall has resurfaced, this time on the official website of the PA’s news agency, Wafa.

By publishing the document on Wafa’s website, the official mouthpiece of the PLO and the PA, the authority has sent a message that its has officially endorsed its findings.

The article can be found here. I had talked about it here.

Nothing gets published in Wafa without the permission of the PA leadership, so this is indeed an end-run around their taking the bogus "study" down from the Ministry of Information website under pressure from the US. No doubt, if the US complains about this as it did the first time, the PA will claim that this is an independent news agency that they have no control over - and they will be lying.

(h/t Israel Matzav)

UPDATE: In a wonderful display of the standards of Palestinian Arab journalism, the Palestinian Journalists Syndicate expressed solidarity with the author of the study filled with easily verifiable lies.

(h/t Serious Black)

Overnight open thread

Well, I finished my talk. About an hour forty, and i was rushing at the end. Some technical glitches - not all the videos played - but altogether it went well.

People seemed to like it, at least.

I didn't count how many people showed up but probably around 60-70.

One person said I had so much material I should turn it into an all day workshop!

Anyway, I'm zonked and probably won't be doing my usual early AM blogging, so here's an open thread until I get myself back together.

Last call: Come to tonight's Hasby Awards ceremony and Hasbara 2.0 talk!

Tonight is perhaps your only chance to see the Elder, live!

Yeshiva University - Rubin Hall

185th Street and Amsterdam Avenue

New York City

8 PM

I understand that this event has been heavily promoted all over YU.

The talk is divided into three sections.

First, the Hasby Awards. The People's Choice award winners are already known, but the top five Hasbies have been chosen by me, according to my criteria for good hasbara, namely: It must be effective at positively changing people's attitudes towards Israel, and it must have been noticed by a large audience.

There will be a brief discussion of why the winners were effective. I will discuss why this blog (in a vacuum) is not a good example of hasbara, and then we will go in-depth into the Eleven Rules for Hasbara with plenty of examples.

The final part will be about how, specifically, you can contribute to defending Israel, on both an individual and collective level. A large section is entitled "How to Be a Reporter" of things you can do to find and write up news, from your own desk, better than the mainstream media. Then we will go into how to publish, amplify and publicize the stories that need to be read by a large audience - not only how to make them go viral, but how to improve their reach and effectiveness.

There is a ton of information, and I can guarantee that you will learn something.

Afterwards, assuming that the digital voice recorder and lapel mike I just bought work well, I plan to create a full-length video of the talk. Unfortunately, it will not be free - I did spend a lot of time on this - but excerpts of the talk will be made available on the blog.

If you come tonight, of course, you don't have to pay. Plus you get free food - kosher Dunkin' Donuts, appropriate for Chanukah!

I look forward to meeting you!

Wikileaks: PalArab/Jordanian rioting cancels soccer game

From the latest batch of Wikileaks, an indication of how much Jordanians dislike their Palestinian Arab brethren:

Summary: Anti-Palestinian hooliganism and slogans denigrating the Palestinian origins of both the Queen and the Crown Prince led to the cancellation of a July 17 soccer game between the rival Faisali and Wahdat clubs, who traditionally represent the East Banker and Palestinian communities, respectively. Matches between the two teams have a long history of violence, but the specific digs at the royal family marked a new low. The clubs have been fined and their fans publicly chastised, yet official media reporting and commentary has been noticeably thin. The game exposed the growing rift between East Bankers and Palestinians in Jordan. The King’s silence on the event is noteworthy, as is a reluctance among our contacts to discuss the issue. End Summary.

Jordanian police intervened to stop fan violence and the chanting of anti-regime slogans during a July 17 [2009] match between Amman soccer clubs Faisali and Wahdat in the industrial town of Zarqa. The unrest began when Faisali fans started to chant slogans against Palestinian-origin Jordanians, including Queen Rania. Some Faisali fans threw bottles at Wahdat players and their fans. The coaches of both teams ordered their players off of the field in the middle of the game for their own safety, and the remainder of the match was canceled. (Note: It ended in a scoreless draw. End Note.)

---------

¶5. (S) Faisali-Wahdat games have a long history of hooliganism and politically motivated violence. Past matches have been shut down by the police following riots spurred by offensive slogans shouted by both sides. Those slogans have over time become a popular barometer of tensions between East Bankers and Palestinians. The slogans and cheers on the Faisali side during the July 17 match were particularly divisive and controversial, as they were directed at members of the royal family for the first time. Faisali supporters chanted about the Palestinian origins of Queen Rania with the cheer, “divorce her you father of Hussein, and we’ll marry you to two of ours.” The newly appointed Crown Prince did not escape comment either, as he is half Palestinian (and one quarter British) himself.

Official Fallout
----------------

¶6. (SBU) Official reaction to the match was surprisingly pro-forma. Prince Ali, half-brother to the King and chairman of the Jordanian Football Union (JFU), issued a statement calling the behavior of Faisali fans “unacceptable” and “a red line.” In addition to a relatively meager 5000 JD (USD 7000) fine on Faisali, the JFU indicated that larger security restrictions would be placed on future games. Members of parliament also sent a missive to the press denouncing the chants of Faisali supporters as “contrary to Jordanian values.” The statement was read by MP and Wahdat president Tareq Khoury on the floor of parliament. The Faisali club issued a press release of its own, promising to identify the “outcasts” among its fans and deal with them accordingly.

Media Silence, Internet Cacophony

¶7. (C) Despite all of the official condemnations of Faisali and its supporters, none of Jordan’s self-censoring media featured descriptive news stories about the game and why it was called off. Columnists and commentators, even those who are usually used to advance pro-government views, were noticeably silent. The heads of the Faisali and Wahdat fan clubs were allegedly invited to appear on Al-Jazeera, but refused in recognition of the sensitivities surrounding criticism of the royal family.

¶8. (SBU) Internet news sites, however, were full of commentary on the game and its implications. Many defended the Faisali supporters as “real” Jordanians fighting against undue Palestinian influence. Some commentators believe that Prince Ali failed to remain neutral in the conflict by only chastising Faisali supporters, and called for Wahdat to receive similar opprobrium.

Comment
-------

¶9. (S) There is broad recognition throughout Jordan that the Faisali-Wahdat incident exposed the uncomfortable gap between East Bankers and Palestinian-origin Jordanians -- one that most would rather keep well-hidden for the sake of political stability. The connection between this rift and the Hashemite monarchy, including the newly-appointed Crown Prince, makes the incident even more unsettling. Even our most forthcoming contacts are reluctant to talk with us about the issue, recognizing that it strikes at the core of Jordanian identity politics. One contact reluctantly admitted that the game brought out the “ugly side of Jordanian ultranationalism” and said that it would be difficult to contain now that it was publicly expressed. Another pointed to the “increasingly explicit and provocative” Faisali slogans as proof that status quo-oriented East Bankers are uncomfortable with the increasing pressures for reform that will inevitably lessen their near-monopoly on political and social power.

¶10. (S) The King’s silence on the game and its political implications is deafening. High level government contacts and members of the diplomatic community are puzzled by the King’s failure to respond to a verbal attack on his family that also dips in to Jordanian identity politics. While he is on “internal vacation” in the southern part of Jordan, the King’s public exposure has been limited to meetings with scattered foreign officials. While perhaps unintentional, the King’s silence has effectively empowered the pro-status quo establishment.

I knew there was friction in Jordan between the communities, but this is much bigger than I thought.

I need not mention that if any Israelis had shouted anti-Palestinian Arab slogans in a soccer game, it would be broadcast all over the world to prove Israeli racism. Jordanian bigotry against their own Arab brothers, on the other hand, is not going to get reported.

(After I found this, I saw that JPost had already covered it.)

Hamas clarifies its "moderate" stance

Late last week the Western media went through its periodic frenzy of believing that Hamas was moderating its position towards Israel. As reported by JTA:

Hamas will honor a peace treaty with Israel if the results of a Palestinian referendum approve the deal, said the group's leader in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh.

Haniyeh said during a rare news conference Wednesday in the Gaza Strip that Hamas would "accept a Palestinian state on the borders of 1967, with Jerusalem as its capital, the release of Palestinian prisoners and the resolution of the issue of refugees," Reuters reported.

The admission runs counter to the Hamas charter, which states that all of the land of Palestine, including what is now Israel, is a Muslim birthright and should not be ceded to Israel. The charter also calls for the destruction of Israel.

The new, improved "moderate Hamas" meme has been in the news before - a nearly identical story came out in 2008 and again in 2009. Both times Haniyeh spoke to Western reporters or diplomats and they ate it up.

Not as widely reported is that afterwards, in Arabic, he clarified his position to make sure that no Arab would think that he has done anything remotely peaceful. From Al Quds al Arabi:

Ismail Haniyeh, head of the deposed government run by Hamas, said his movement will not give up the rights of the Palestinian people, and said that talk of an 'interim order' does not mean compromising with 'Palestinian principles'.

Haniyeh said that Hamas's position is 'not to neglect any of the rights of the Palestinian people, concession and retreat from any fixed principles of the Palestinian [cause]'.

He added, 'when talking about any interim order it does not mean compromising Palestinian rights and constants'.

To emphasize the point, Hamas spokesman Hammad Riqib* said it more explicitly:

The spokesman of the Hamas in Khan Yunis Hammad Riqib stated that his movement is on its way to liberate the Al Aqsa Mosque and all of Palestine from the sea to the river.

Riqib said "Hamas was able for more than three decades to stick to our principles..."

He added "The Hamas movement does not rely on slogans and sayings, but the movement has translated into actions on the ground," stressing that Palestine is the homeland, Palestine is Islamic and not even one inch it may be waived or compromised.

He said: "Hamas has directed people towards a culture of resistance and preserving the principles, and provided for that constellation of martyrs, led by founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and other leaders of the martyrs, and this is the best guide to everyone on the sincerity of Hamas and its adherence to the principles and not compromising the rights of the people."

As usual, we will not expect to see any major Western media outlet cover these clarifications of Hamas' "moderation."

* I am assuming that this is Riqib, the auto-translation gives his name as "cervical."

How did the Wikileaks get leaked?

A compelling article in Pajamas Media by Charlie Martin:

As someone who has been involved with intelligence for more than 30 years and with computer security for 25, the professionally interesting point is: “How did it happen?”

Let’s start by recalling some of the basics of the whole arcane mechanism of classification. The classification system in the U.S. grows out of two basic axioms: first, you work hardest to protect the material that can cause the most damage; and second, the one way to be certain someone can’t reveal a secret is to make sure they don’t know it.

...The whole system of classification depends on two things: making it hard to get sensitive information, and making sure as few people as possible do know a particular piece of classified information by using “need to know” rules and their formalization in compartments.

According to the press coverage, the only suspect is one Pfc. Bradley Manning. Manning had been an intelligence analyst supporting the 10th Mountain Division. Manning bragged about having passed information to WikiLeaks to Adrian Lamo, previously famous for having cracking into the New York Times‘ internal systems. Lamo turned him in.

The story, as reported by the Guardian, is that Manning gathered the information on SIPRnet — a U.S. government sharing network for data at SECRET and below — then loaded it on writable CD-ROMs that he brought into his work area saying they contained Lady GaGa music.

The problem here: this explanation raises many more questions than it answers.

First is the “need to know” question. Manning had been a E-4 Specialist (same pay grade as a corporal) analyst — he was busted to PFC for unrelated reasons — and would have had access to intelligence in theatre. It seems inconceivable that he would have access to worldwide diplomatic cable traffic. The Guardian story’s answer is that these cables were being dumped into SIPRnet as part of a 9/11-inspired attempt to make information available, and thus avoid the problem of people not “connecting the dots.”

Perhaps. But the other side of that argument is what’s known as the “aggregation problem” in computer security: the more information you collect together, the more you can learn. As we’re seeing in these leaks, you can infer some very sensitive stuff from a lot of relatively low-level information. Are we really giving any random person with a SECRET clearance access to this much information, including video of Baghdad firefights and Special Forces operation reports?

Second, there’s the way Manning is said to have gotten the information out of his secure area. According to the Guardian, Manning brought in some rewritable CD-ROMs with music, erased the music, copied the data to the CD-ROMs, and walked back out with them.

If so, there is an ex-officer from his unit who is now counting socks in Thule, Greenland, or should be. Secure areas have a very straightforward rule on such things: media may come in, but it can’t go back out. (In fact, when I worked in a secured area, we even had to lock up our typewriter ribbons and platens.)

But this seems unlikely, because the DoD had forbidden people to even bring CDs and thumb drives in to secure areas in 2008.
...
This explanation isn’t completely implausible. Not completely. If it’s true, it appears that it means general breakdowns in the methods by which the U.S. has protected classified information since the First World War, as well as violating explicit policies and procedures.

Of course, there’s another explanation: someone at a higher level of trust than Pfc. Manning is the real source, and Manning is just a convenient fall guy.

Roger Cohen goes hick-huntin'

From Roger Cohen in the NYT:

I decided to check the pulse of a resurgent conservative America at the Kumback Café. The Kumback, established 1926, is a cozy, memorabilia-filled joint that sits opposite the courthouse in downtown Perry [Oklahoma], population 5,230.

Things work like this at the Kumback: The guys, average age about 80, arrive around 8 a.m. and get talking on “the whole gamut of life”; the girls, average age too indelicate to print, gather later at a horse-shoe shaped table toward the back. Ken Sherman, 86 and spry, explained: “We’ve got to come here every day to find out what’s going on. And by the time we leave we forget.”

I asked Paul Morrow, a whippersnapper at 71, how things were going. “There’s just too much Muslim influence, all this Shariah law,” he said. “We’re conservative here, old and cantankerous.”

You might not expect Shariah, a broad term encompassing Islamic religious precepts, to be a priority topic at the Kumback given that there’s not a Muslim in Perry and perhaps 30,000, or less than one percent of the population, in all Oklahoma. And you’d be wrong.

Jeffrey Goldberg summarizes it as "A very good Roger Cohen column on the irrational fear of Sharia, which the people who fear it most couldn't define if their lives depended on it."

While Cohen makes a reasonable point that the danger of Sharia law to Oklahoma is pretty much nil and that it is being used as a shorthand to exploit people's bigotry against Muslims, it is equally wrong to dismiss the issue of Sharia as flippantly - and as condescendingly - as Cohen does.

I don't think that Sharia needs to be outlawed in the West. It has a place, and that place is as a method of private arbitration between Muslim parties who agree to be bound by the decision of the religious judges - as long as that decision does not go against secular law. So, for example, if a shopkeeper has a dispute with his customer and both agree to go to Islamic arbitration that would use Sharia law in its decision, the American court can accept that decision as it would any other arbitration - as long as no one's hands are going to be chopped off. Agreed-upon third party arbitration, after all, is why it is legal for TV programs like " Judge Judy" to exist. Any decision needs to be reviewed and approved by a secular court, and there is great benefit in taking pressure off of the court system.

Safeguards have to be built in so that no party is coerced into accepting an Islamic decision process, such as a woman in a divorce case, but the possibility for abuse is not enough reason to throw out the system altogether.

Cohen's mistake, however, is in not considering how Sharia is not simply a personal legal code but it is intended as an all-encompassing system of universal laws in the international arena as well. Sharia as practiced in Iran or Saudi Arabia affects foreign policy, it affects how wars are fought, it affects whether Muslim nations accept international conventions - they still do not accept the Universal Declaration of Human Rights precisely because they perceive it as being in conflict with Sharia.

There are fatwas issued daily against Western nations and leaders. Salman Rushdie and Taslima Nasreen have been under death threats that are based on Sharia. Is this not a concern to anyone who holds by liberal, western ideals?

In addition, Sharia is also used as a means to suppress freedom of expression, women's rights and an entire slew of other sacred liberal principles in a number of countries. It is entirely possible that Islamic law, as understood by hundreds of millions, mandates not only the destruction of Israel but also the conquest of Spain and other "Muslim" portions of Europe. It is very shortsighted to dismiss the desire of Islamic fundamentalists to expand Sharia law as greatly as possible worldwide.

Sharia does not distinguish between Islam as a personal religion and Islam as a geopolitical movement akin to communism or capitalism. This is not a danger to be dismissed so perfunctorily. Cohen, by deliberately looking for the most illiterate hicks he can find to show his moral superiority, is being disingenuous.

Bigotry against Muslims is wrong. But Cohen's unstated thesis is that if there are bigots who are against Sharia, then there must be nothing wrong with Sharia itself. This is a false and ultimately dangerous idea.