Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Thursday, December 09, 2010

How do you treat a lying, biased reporter?

How do you treat a reporter who reports on things he couldn't possibly have seen, ignores video evidence that disproves what he is reporting even though it is available before his article is published, writes a laughably biased article that is easily proven wrong, lies about easily verifiable facts and then brags about how he is, in fact, biased and writes with an agenda?

When his lies and bias are against Israel, you give him an award, of course!

JOURNALISTS from the Herald won six categories at this year's Walkley Awards, which recognise Australia's best journalism.

In the event's 55th year the chief correspondent, Paul McGeough, won the award for the best print news report for his story ''Prayers, tear gas and terror'', which covered an attack by Israeli commandos on a flotilla of aid ships heading for Gaza. The judges praised McGeough for his courageous journalism and writing excellence and commended the story for its newsworthiness and degree of difficulty.

McKeough wrote in his prize-winning piece of fiction -oh, sorry, "journalism" - the IDF "hunted like hyenas" and that the attack was "timed for dawn prayers" and that "a lot of people moved in to shelter" the first Israeli commando on deck "with their bodies." McKeough, who was not on the Mavi Marmara, must have interviewed Ken O'Keefe for his "facts."

UPDATE: The Cook's Cogitations blog illustrated this story:

Amnesty UK's duplicity, bias and false accusations against Israel

The director of Amnesty International UK, Kate Allen, wrote a piece in Foreign Policy calling Israel's easing of the Gaza closure a sham:

As a recent report from 26 humanitarian and human rights organizations shows, six months of a less-oppressive blockade regime has made only a minimal difference to the lives of Gaza's 1.5 million inhabitants.

Isn't it interesting that the major player behind that report was Amnesty International UK? The wording here implies that she is merely quoting a study to support her thesis - but she is the main force behind the study to begin with, hosted on Amnesty's UK site!

We've already looked at that study and exposed how one-sided it was. It plays with numbers, minimizes Israel's almost superhuman and certainly unprecedented allowance of aid to a hostile territory - even in the midst of a war! - and it does everything possible to pretend that Gaza's residents' lives have not improved at all since the summer, when in fact many correspondents have reported the opposite. Far worse is the fact that if Amnesty's recommendations would be implemented, it would give Hamas unlimited access to weapons. Placing hundreds of thousands of Israelis in danger is a consequence of Amnesty's demands that Amnesty considers inconsequential.

So right up front, we see that Kate Allen is being somewhat deceptive in her characterization of the study to support her thesis. There's more, however.

For example, she refers to the flotilla incident - and links it to a FP article about it, written as it was happening, by anti-Israel writer Marc Lynch. Of the avalanche of articles about the flotilla and the IHH attack on IDF soldiers as they legally attempted to board it, it is telling that this is the one she chooses - one that refers to the incident as an "outrageously disproportionate military response."

Worst of all, however, is Allen's repetition of one of the biggest lies around about the closure of Gaza - one that Goldstone, HRW, Amnesty and the UN repeat ad nauseum yet one that has no basis in fact:

The blockade is a violation of international humanitarian law (Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention) in its collective punishment of an entire civilian population under military occupation and control.

First of all, as we have shown many times, Gaza is not under "occupation" by any definition of the term. Military occupation means the physical presence of an army on the territory, and the only definition is the one given in the Hague Conventions. Not only that, but Amnesty's own definition of "occupation" proves that Israel is not occupying Gaza.

Beyond that, the idea that a blockade is "collective punishment" is also a lie. The framers of Geneva, when they wrote Article 33, specifically were thinking about purely punitive measures against an innocent population - wanton punishment for no possible military purpose. Wikipedia accurately gives the background:

By collective punishment, the drafters of the Geneva Conventions had in mind the reprisal killings of World Wars I and World War II. In the First World War, Germans executed Belgian villagers in mass retribution for resistance activity. In World War II, Nazis carried out a form of collective punishment to suppress resistance. Entire villages or towns or districts were held responsible for any resistance activity that took place there. Additional concern also addressed the United States' atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which, in turn, caused death and disease to millions of Japanese civilians as well as their decedents. The conventions, to counter this, reiterated the principle of individual responsibility.

These are active acts of punishment aimed directly at an innocent population.

Yet no one has starved in Gaza from this horrible "siege." Thousands of trucks of aid are sent in weekly; the Rafah crossing is open for people with legal passports to leave Gaza, thousands more have gone to Israel and elsewhere for medical treatment.

As law professor Michael Krauss has written:

The bar on collective punishment forbids the imposition of criminal or military penalties (imprisonment, death, etc) on some people for crimes committed by other individuals. But ceasing trade with a country is not inflicting a criminal or military penalty against that country's citizens, not least because those citizens have no entitlement to objects of trade that they have not yet purchased. If Canada tolerated and celebrated car-bombings of Buffalo from Fort Erie, Ontario, the United States could cease exporting cars to Canada - such cessation of trade was never contemplated as collective punishment, because it is not a military or a criminal sanction. The United States quite legally froze trade with Iran after that country committed an act of War against the USA following the 1979 Revolution.

Even prevention of access of goods coming from third parties is not collective punishment: the U.S. blockade of Cuba after they installed nuclear missiles directed at the United States was not a collective punishment of the Cuban people, it was a non-violent act of war in self-defense. In any case, Israel has made no effort to prevent Gaza from receiving electricity from Egypt; it has merely declined to furnish this assistance itself. Article 49 of the Geneva Conventions clearly does not outlaw such acts.

An article in the San Diego Law Journal from 2009 sheds more light on the distinction between collective punishment and what Israel does to Gaza:

Israel's imposition of economic sanctions on the Gaza Strip, such as partially withholding fuel supplies and electricity, does not involve the use of military force and is therefore a perfectly legal means of responding to Palestinian attacks, despite the effects on innocent Palestinian civilians. The use of economic and other non-military sanctions as a means of disciplining other international actors for their misbehavior is a practice known as "retorsion.” [FN82] It is generally acknowledged that any country may engage in retorsion. [FN83] Indeed, it is acknowledged that states may even go beyond retorsion to carry out non-belligerent reprisals--non-military acts that would otherwise be illegal (such as suspending flight agreements) as counter-measures. [FN84] Since Israel is under no legal obligation to engage in trade of fuel (or anything else with the Gaza Strip) or to maintain open borders with the Gaza Strip, it may withhold commercial items and seal its borders at its discretion, even if intended as “punishment” for Palestinian terrorism.

While international law bars “collective punishment,” [FN85] none of Israel's combat actions and retorsions may be considered collective punishment. The bar on collective punishment forbids the imposition of criminal-type penalties on individuals or groups on the basis of another's guilt, or the commission of acts that would otherwise violate the rules of distinction and proportionality, or both. [FN86] None of Israel's actions involve the imposition of criminal type penalties or the violation of the rules of distinction and proportionality. It is striking that there has never been a prosecution for the war crime of collective punishment on the basis of economic sanctions. Indeed, many of the critics calling Israel's withdrawal of economic aid “ collective punishment” call, or have called, for the imposition of economic sanctions or the withdrawal of economic aid against Israel and other countries [FN87] or, at least, claim to have “no position on [the legality of] punitive economic sanctions and boycotts.” [FN88]

Examples of retorsions are legion in international affairs. The U.S., for example, froze trade with Iran after the 1979 Revolution [FN89] and with Uganda in 1978 following accusations of genocide. [FN90] In 2000, fourteen European states suspended various diplomatic relations with Austria in protest of the participation of Jorg Haider--believed to be a racist--in the government. [FN91] Numerous states suspended trade and diplomatic relations with South Africa as punishment for apartheid practices. [FN92] In none of these cases was the charge of “ collective punishment ” raised. “Punishing” a country with restrictions on international trade is not identical to carrying out “collective punishment” in the legal sense.

I found this description of retorsion in International Law in Theory and Practice by Oscar Shachter:

It might be worthwhile to go through Amnesty's archives to see if it is consistent in its definition of closures and blockades as "collective punishment," but NGO Monitor once did the same for Human Rights Watch and found that they were remarkably inconsistent - and only a single nation that deprives a territory of certain supplies was considered in violation of Geneva's Article 33.

Using a Google search on HRW's site as a heuristic, 55 percent of HRW’s content referring to blockades and collective punishment is related to Israel.¹⁵ (Note that this is 55% of all HRW material and not limited to the Middle East and North Africa section). However, Israel is the only case where HRW uses "collective punishment" to refer to a blockade and the potential impact on civilian life. In other cases, this term is used to describe beatings, murder and destruction of property as indiscriminant retaliation against a group of people for the acts of members of that group.

Other cases of blockades that are not termed "collective punishment," include Azerbaijan's blockade of Nagorno Karabakh and Armenia described in Human Rights Watch 1994 World Report:

“Electricity, gas, oil and grain-necessary for the basic human needs of civilians in Armenia-were in extremely short supply… … The lack of gas and electricity deprived Armenians of heat in the freezing winter… a rise in deaths among the newborn and the elderly was accompanied by a higher suicide rate and growing incidence of mental illness. The blockade had ruined Armenia's industry…”

The report does not refer to this “blockade” as “collective punishment,”, and indeed recommends that “all but humanitarian aid should be withheld from Armenia because of Armenia's financing of the war”. It is not clear why HRW promotes a policy of economic isolation for Armenia, but when Israel must respond to daily rocket attacks on civilian population centers, HRW condemns a similar policy as "collective punishment."

Similarly, in a 1999 press release on Chechnya, “Russian Ultimatum to Grozny Condemned” (8 Dec, 1999) HRW described the humanitarian situation as

“rapidly deteriorating, with no functioning hospitals, electricity, running water, gas, or heating since the beginning of November, and dwindling food supplies”.

This is clearly a more urgt humanitarian situation than Gaza in 2007 (where humanitarian aid enters daily¹⁶), but HRW did not classify it as “collective punishment.” en

In 2007, the term “collective punishment” was used by HRW in 13 items not referring to Israel (see Table 1). These cases generally provide evidence of punitive intent against third parties either at the family or community level.

Table 1 Collective punishment in 2007 HRW publications

The items in Table 1 show HRW’s use of “collective punishment” in highlighting reprisal actions against third parties. For example, in 2007, testimony to a US House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health, Sam Zarifi (HRW's "Washington Advocate")¹⁷ stated,

“in the Ogaden, we have documented massive crimes by the Ethiopian army, including… villages burned to the ground as part of a campaign of collective punishment”.

Another example is found in an August 2007 Guardian article, “Ethiopia's dirty war” authored by HRW's London Director, Tom Porteous¹⁸. He asserts that

“dozens of civilians have been killed in what appears to be a deliberate effort to mete out collective punishment against a civilian population suspected of sympathising with the rebels.”

These results show that HRW’s application of "collective punishment" is inconsistent and arbitrary. No other "blockade" is described in these terms, and other cases of "collective punishment" involve beatings, murder and destruction of property as indiscriminate retaliation against a group of people for the acts of members of that group.

Almost certainly, Amnesty is equally guilty of applying this standard to Israel, and Israel alone. (The quick search I did of their site indicates this, but I did not do an exhaustive search.)

Certainly Amnesty UK is less than objective when it comes to Israel.

(h/t Zach for original article and San Diego Law Journal text.)

UPDATE: Zvi mentions that Allen was formerly the long-time lover of former mayor of London and anti-Israel extremist Ken Livingstone, and that she fired a member of Amnesty for questioning Amnesty's political backing for a Taliban supporter.

Saudi media silent on Wikileaks revelations

In the wake of the Wikileaks revelations about Saudi princes partying, Saudi desire to destroy Hezbollah and how much the Saudi monarchy hates Iran, I was wondering how the Saudi media are reporting these news items.

The answer? They aren't.

The English-language Saudi Gazette and Arab News have both limited their Wikileaks stories to very general issues and have not delved into any of the revelations, especially none that mention the kingdom. (Al-Arabiya, partly owned by the Saudi MBC network but based in Dubai, did a minimal report on one of the cables.)

It is easy to forget, when reading English-language Arab media, that there is a wide gulf (pun partially intended) between Western ideas of freedom of expression and those practiced in most of the Arab world. Even though one can find articles in Arab and Arabic media that would not be out of place in any Western publication, it takes a little more effort to realize what is not being covered.

There is a glimmer of good news here, though. Since we can see that the Saudi monarchy does not allow any articles to be published that they disapprove of, that means that they specifically allow many recent articles about increasing women's rights in the Kingdom as well as articles that implicitly denigrate the Muttawa, Saudi Arabia's religious police.

Afternoon open thread

Today is one of those days when I'm not near a computer for many hours, so that invariably means it is time for an Open Thread.

Be back later.

NGO Monitor updates "Lawfare" monograph

One of the biggest battles Israel faces today is "lawfare" - anti-Israel extremists using civil law in various countries to damage Israel and Israeli citizens.

NGO Monitor has been in the forefront of exposing these tactics, and they have just updated their monograph on the subject. From their press release:

To mark International Human Rights Day, NGO Monitor today released an updated monograph, NGO Lawfare – Exploitation of Courts in the Arab-Israeli Conflict. The publication includes groundbreaking research on the central role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), many of which are funded from the European Union, European governments, and major foundations, for the specific purpose of bringing war crimes cases against Israeli officials.

“The Lawfare monograph discloses critical information demonstrating the direct link from foreign governments to NGO exploitation of courts for their own political agendas,” says Prof. Gerald Steinberg, president of Jerusalem-based NGO Monitor. “Lawfare is a sophisticated strategy, developed at the 2001 Durban Conference and now implemented in courts throughout Europe and the U.S. It is the antithesis of human rights, and, as the study outlines, NGOs utilize foreign government funding for this specific purpose. Due to a lack of oversight and transparency, government officials are largely unaware how their money is spent.”

The study provides details about numerous cases brought against Israeli officials. The Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR), for example, has filed for arrest warrants in multiple countries against Israeli officials, primarily for “war crimes” over the 2002 targeted killing of Hamas terrorist Salah Shehade. In 2005, Oxfam NOVIB channeled PCHR a €298,339.08 grant from the EU under the “Abolition of the Death Penalty Project,” a project aimed at “contribut[ing] to the abolition of the death penalty in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, applied by the Palestinian National Authority via judicial death sentences and via extrajudicial executions” by the Israeli military. PCHR used this money for strategy sessions with its attorneys to bolster its “war crimes” lawsuits in Europe and the US.

“The lawsuits brought by PCHR are indicative of the cases we examine in the Lawfare monograph,” notes Anne Herzberg, NGO Monitor legal advisor and the monograph’s author. “The funding that led to these lawsuits was given in a non-transparent manner and was implemented with almost no oversight. These cases and demonization efforts are counterproductive to fostering peace and mutual understanding in the region, and do not align with the official policies of the governments that inadvertently fund them.”

Along with detailing specific cases, Lawfare also discusses NGO involvement in the creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the expansion of the concept of universal jurisdiction – two developments that have been key to NGO strategy. The study also traces the strategy’s development from the 2001 Durban conference to European government and EU-funded conferences on prosecuting Israeli “war criminals” and similar lobbying campaigns. [Click here for image of EU-funded conference]

“Our research shows a clearly defined strategy implemented by NGOs and their funders – to exploit and misuse human rights rhetoric to demonize Israel,” Herzberg continues. “The hundreds of NGOs that claim to pursue human rights have been largely silent regarding Gilad Shalit – the Israeli soldier held captive for nearly four and a half years – and Waleed Hasayin, the Palestinian blogger that was arrested, allegedly tortured, and now faces a life sentence in theWest Bank on charges of expressing blasphemous opinions on his blog and several Facebook pages. These individuals and their specific circumstances do not fit the political paradigm and are therefore ignored by self-proclaimed ‘human rights’ NGOs.”

In marking International Human Rights Day (December 10) many NGOs and the United Nations are continuing the exploitation of these universal values. This year, the UN will “highlight and promote the achievements of human rights defenders, and it will again emphasize the primary role governments must play in enabling and protecting their role.” Based on previous behavior, this activity is likely to continue the use of double standards reflected in Lawfare, while failing to support Mr. Hasayin or other victims of human rights violations in closed regimes.

Adds Prof. Steinberg, “The exploitation of human rights is a key component of Lawfare.” International institutions and NGOs must recognize this strategy and understand that it undermines the work of real human rights defendersthroughout the world. When NGOs allocate time and resources to pursuing these cases, they neglect legitimate human rights grievances in societies such as China, Libya, the Congo, and numerous other countries. International Human Rights Day should turn all of our attention back to individuals in these types of societies that truly warrant our attention and need our help.”

To read the Lawfare Executive Summary in English, click here. [PDF]
To read the Lawfare Executive Summary in Hebrew, click here. [PDF]
To read the PDF of the full report, click here.
See NGO Monitor's Lawfare Essentials page, with more information and updates on NGO lawfare.

Pillaging the Truth (Israel Finkelstein)

Israeli archaeologist Israel Finkelstein, who is bitterly opposed to the privately-funded City of David archaeological park in Jerusalem and far from a religious ideologue, responds point by point to a recent biased Al Jazeera piece alleging Israeli looting of "Palestinian" archaeological treasures.

Let me start out by stating the very obvious: This is a piece of political propaganda, aimed – as the bon ton goes today – at de-legitimizing Israel. The viewer must keep sight of the fact that the film was produced by the Arab TV network al-Jazeera. So rather than give a general statement, I wish to demonstrate – point by point – why this is a worthless film, ridden with manipulations, political propaganda, incorrect facts and even lies.

1. The creators of the film has no intention of being balanced. The Israeli side is represented only by anti-establishment archaeologists. Not a single scholar with an opposing point of view was interviewed. And while the Palestinian Director of Antiquities speaks in the film, not a single Israeli official (e.g., from the Israel Antiquities Authority) appears. This should come as no surprise; it fits the notion of pluralism and free speech in the Arab World.

2. At times the film, intentionally or unintentionally, resorts to anti-Semitic stereotypes, in which Israelis are shown either as religious settlers or as soldiers carrying guns. Then comes the cliché: The Palestinians are the true people of the land: peace loving farmers riding donkeys in beautiful fields with romantic flute music playing in the background.

3. Let the truth be known: Most of the looting in the West Bank (as well as in Israel!) has been carried out by Palestinians. In addition, the viewer should remember that since the 1993 Oslo agreement about 50% of the West Bank has been administered by the Palestinian Authority. If looting there continues, it is being done under Palestinian rule.

4. From the point of view of international law, the West Bank and Gaza are contested territories. To differ from Israel’s border with Egypt, which is a border between states, the 1967 border with Jordan was a result of war. Jordan tried to annex the West Bank with a motion in the UN in the 1950s and failed. The verdict regarding sites in these territories and antiquities found in them must therefore wait for a final peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. These issues are on the negotiating table. Meanwhile, artifacts from excavations in the West Bank are kept separately from artifacts from Israeli sites. Archaeology in the 50% of the West Bank which is under Israeli administration is administered according to the Jordanian law which prevailed before 1967.

...6. The Dead Sea Scrolls on display in the Israel Museum were bought in the US in the 1940s and 1950s. As such, they are not contested, not even by the Palestinians and Jordanians. The other scrolls were excavated in the 1950s, under Jordanian rule, and were then taken to Jerusalem. Israel had nothing to do with it. They too will be on the negotiating table.

7. Moshe Dayan’s looting of antiquities was scandalous and the sale of the looted antiquities to the Israel Museum a shame. For the record it should be mentioned that Dayan looted sites not only in the Palestinian territories but within the borders of the State of Israel as well. In fact, in 1968 he almost died in an accident in an illicit excavation on the outskirts of Tel Aviv.

...9. Also for the record, it must be said that the most devastating damage inflicted on antiquities in Jerusalem was the bulldozing of (mainly Islamic) antiquities from the Temple Mount by the Waqf – the Islamic religious authority which controls the Temple Mount. This was done in the course of constructing a mosque under the el-Aqsa mosque. Work there was carried out savagely, with no inspection by archaeologists.

Read the whole thing.

(h/t Joel B)

Palestine Today (Arabic) has an article on US funding for Israel's Iron Dome anti-missile system.

Their illustration shows a knitted kippah, with the IDF logo, protecting a building from rockets.

I have no idea if they made that horrendous Photoshop themselves or if they grabbed it from some Israeli blog, but it is a really strange picture to accompany the story.

Study: Palestinian Arab institutions hugely corrupt

From Ma'an:

One person in four worldwide paid a bribe during the past year, according to a study released Thursday to mark International Anti-Corruption Day.

The study, by the Berlin-based non-governmental agency Transparency International, focuses on small-scale bribery and was put together from polls conducted among more than 91,000 people in 86 countries and territories.

In the past 12 months, one in four paid a bribe to one of nine institutions, such as health, education or tax authorities, according to the 2010 Global Corruption Barometer.

Countries topping the list for reported bribe payments over the year were Afghanistan, Cambodia, Cameroon, India, Iraq, Liberia, Nigeria, the Palestinian territories, Senegal, Sierre Leone and Uganda, where more than one person out of two said they had handed out financial sweeteners to officials.

The study itself says that 51% of Palestinian Arabs paid a bribe to get services in the past year. They didn't list every Middle Eastern country, so it is unclear how the PA and Hamas compare with Jordan or Egypt, but Lebanon's score was 34%.

Israel's score was 4%, slightly lower than the US score of 5% and tied with Canada.

Denmark's score was zero, the only country to hit that level (the UK and Norway were next at 1%.)

Excerpt: EoZ's Hasbara 2.0 lecture

Here is a small part of what I said on Tuesday night at my Hasbara 2.0 lecture, part 2 of my 14-part section on "How to Be a Reporter."

I added an example, and when I get to making a video of the entire speech I will try to annotate and show examples in the video that I did not necessarily show during the lecture.

It will be a few weeks before I can get the entire speech ready for distribution, but this is how I envision the video will look.

What inspired me to create this section right now was an email I received from an Israeli activist I know who saw my Huckabee video, which mirrored one of the points I spoke about:

Thanks very much for making and posting the video - if it weren't for you, those wonderful speeches would disappear into thin air.

(I'm surprised that the Bet El didn't post the official video they made of the event. I will try to make that happen)

Would you have a video of the first 5 min or so of Huckabee's talk? I know it was just warm-up material, but I'd like to include it when showing your videos to people who weren't at the dinner.

So we have an example of effective Hasbara in action: the Huckabee videos I uploaded have already been viewed more than 3000 times, an Israeli activist is showing it to more people, and he makes a request that I am more than happy to fulfill (Huckabee's first five minutes were mostly jokes - some pretty good ones - but I didn't think they were relevant and they would have put my Part 1 video past YouTube's time limit so I had edited it out. Now because it would help someone, I uploaded it to YouTube here.)

This was the sort of stuff I spoke about - practical, relevant ways that individuals or groups can help Israel from their own desks, all at little or zero cost, and how these actions can be amplified and multiplied to reach the greatest number of people possible.

Saudi princes know how to par-ty!

The latest Wikileaks cable from Jeddah is a fun read:

Behind the facade of Wahabi conservatism in the streets, the underground nightlife for Jeddah’s elite youth is thriving and throbbing. The full range of worldly temptations and vices are available -- alcohol, drugs, sex -- but strictly behind closed doors. This freedom to indulge carnal pursuits is possible merely because the religious police keep their distance when parties include the presence or patronage of a Saudi royal and his circle of loyal attendants, such as a Halloween event attended by ConGenOffs on. [DETAIL REMOVED] Over the past few years, the increased conservatism of Saudi Arabia’s external society has pushed the nightlife and party scene in Jeddah even further underground. End summary.

Elite party like the rest of the world,
---------------------------------------

just underground
-----------------

Along with over 150 young Saudis (men and women mostly in their 20’s and early 30’s), ConGenOffs [officials of the US consulate - EoZ] accepted invitations to an underground Halloween party at PrinceXXXXXXXXXXXX residence in Jeddah on XXXXXXXXXXXX. Inside the gates, past the XXXXXXXXXXXX security guards and after the abaya coat-check, the scene resembled a nightclub anywhere outside the Kingdom: plentiful alcohol, young couples dancing, a DJ at the turntables, and everyone in costume. Funding for the party came from a corporate sponsor, XXXXXXa U.S.-based energy-drink company as well as from the princely host himself.

Royalty, attended by “khawi,” keep religious police at bay
--------------------------------------------- -------------

Religious police/CPVPV (Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice) were nowhere to be seen and while admission was controlled through a strictly-enforced guest list, the partygoers were otherwise not shy about publicizing the affair. According to a young Saudi from a prominent Jeddah merchant family, the Saudis try to throw parties at princes’ houses or with princes in attendance, which serves as sufficient deterrent to interference by the CPVPV. There are over 10,000 princes in the Kingdom, albeit at various levels and gradations -- “Royal Highnesses” (“Saheb Al Sumou Al Maliki”) signified by direct descent from King Abdulaziz, and mere “Highnesses” (“Saheb Al Sumou”) from less direct branches of the Al Saud ruling family. Our host that evening,xxxxxx (protect), traces his roots to Thunayan, a brother of Mohammad, Amir of Diriyyah and Nejd (1725-65), King Abdullah’s direct ancestor, six generations back. Although PrinceXXXXXXXXXXXX is XXXXXXXXXXXX not in line for the throne, he still enjoys the perks of a mansion, luxury car, lifetime stipend, and security entourage. (Note: Most of the prince XXXXXXXXXXXX’s security forces were young XXXXXXXXXXXX men. It is common practice for Saudi princes to grow up with hired bodyguards from Nigeria or other African nations who are of similar age and who remain with the prince well into adulthood. They are called “khawi,” derived from the Arabic word “akh,” meaning “brother.” The lifetime spent together creates an intense bond of loyalty. End note.)

Availability of black market alcohol, prostitutes, and drugs
--------------------------------------------- ---------------

Alcohol, though strictly prohibited by Saudi law and custom, was plentiful at the party’s well-stocked bar, well-patronized by Halloween revellers. The hired Filipino bartenders served a cocktail punch using “sadiqi,” a locally-made “moonshine.” While top-shelf liquor bottles were on display throughout the bar area, the original contents were reportedly already consumed and replaced by sadiqi. On the black market, a bottle of Smirnoff can cost 1,500 riyals when available, compared to 100 riyals for the locally-made vodka. It was also learned through word-of-mouth that a number of the guests were in fact “working girls,” not uncommon for such parties.

Additionally, though not witnessed directly at this event, cocaine and hashish use is common in these social circles and has been seen on other occasions.

Comment: Saudi youth get to enjoy relative social freedom and indulge fleshly pursuits, but only behind closed doors -- and only the rich. Parties of this nature and scale are believed to be a relatively recent phenomenon in Jeddah. One contact, a young Saudi male, explained that up to a few years ago, the only weekend activity was “dating” inside the homes of the affluent in small groups. It is not uncommon in Jeddah for the more lavish private residences to include elaborate basement bars, discos, entertainment centers and clubs. As one high society Saudi remarked, “The increased conservatism of our society over these past years has only moved social interaction to the inside of people’s homes.”

It will be very interesting to see if and how the Saudi media reacts to this.

Arab-American leaders defend Helen Thomas, show their own bigotry

From The Detroit Free Press:

Arab-American leaders met today with Wayne State University officials, asking them to reverse its decision last week to pull a journalism award named after journalist Helen Thomas after she made controversial remarks. And they defended Helen Thomas against those who say she made anti-Semitic comments Thursday in Dearborn.

"Helen Thomas is not now and never has been anti-Semitic," Imad Hamad, regional director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, said tonight. "She has worked her entire career, 60 years, to bring truth to the American public and she is simply continuing to do that."

Which means that the official position of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee - who say with certainty that Helen Thomas only speaks the truth - is that Israeli Jews must leave the country that they were born in and that "Congress, the White House, and Hollywood, Wall Street, are owned by 'the Zionists.'"

Not once as far as I can tell has an Arab American leader or spokesperson made the slightest noise that Thomas' comments were offensive.

And this reaction is telling:

The Arab-American group said in a statement that unless the situation "is properly addressed and corrected, this hastily-made decision will negatively impact relations between the university and the Arab American community for many years."

In other words, the group is threatening Wayne State University for exercising its right for free expression - to distance itself from a person now widely recognized as a bigot and an anti-semite, not just by Jews.

Arabs threatening people who do something they disagree with? Who would have thought it?

Your votes for the best Elder posts of the year

In conjunction with the Hasby People's Choice awards, I also asked my readers to vote on which of my posts would be considered the best example of hasbara, from a choice of 16:

Third place:
The Abbas/Apartheid Poster Series

Second place:

The humanitarian crisis of the Gaza Mall

And in first place (from December 2009, but within the last 12 months:)

"Civilians"

It was a very close vote.

If I had to choose a winner, I would choose for second place:

Gaza: The "staggering quality of the very ordinary"

in which, in one post, I think I cover the major problems with how the world's attention on Gaza has been missing the truth. The only problem was that this post did not achieve the wide readership I think it deserved.

In first place I would choose

The Mamilla Cemetery: Arab hypocrisy at its worst and Mamilla Update (also, The Mufti, The Hotel and The Cemetery)

because that story got pushed into the wider media and helped in a very real way defuse the lies that were being said about the Wiesenthal Museum of Tolerance and the supposed "sanctity" of a cemetery that Muslims had already shown they didn't care about themselves. My research made it into the Jerusalem Post and other media in this case, and therefore fits my definition of "effective" for hasbara.

Thanks for voting!

Israel's fire-fighting squadron - "Elad"

From People's Daily Online: (for some reason, I cannot find much on this in the English-language Israeli media:)

The Israeli Air Force (IAF) has planned to establish a fire-fighting squadron that would operate under its command after a wild bushfire that raged through the Carmel Forest in northern Israel last week, local Ma'ariv daily reported Tuesday.

IAF Chief Maj.-Gen. Ido Nechushtan has directed military attaches abroad to inquire about various models of fire-fighting aircraft and costs, the report said.

According to a story in Firas Press, Netanyahu wants to make this a regional effort, asking Turkey, Jordan, Egypt and possibly other countries to join in a joint squadron. He discussed the idea with the prime minister of Greece who was enthusiastic about the idea and promised to bring it up to the EU.

The squadron would be named Elad, after 16-year old Elad Riven, a volunteer firefighter who lost his life fighting the flames.

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!