Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Monday, February 14, 2011

Morning links

Some things to check out:

Israel's Channel 10 has a program about Israel's navy that includes never before seen footage of the Mavi Marmara from cameras on the soldiers themselves (starts around 1:30). The chaos and fear is undeniable. Hebrew only. (h/t JS)

CiFWatch is starting a contest where you have to say why the Guardian sucks - in less than 140 characters, including room to hashtag it on Twitter. Winner gets a $50 gift card. My entry:

The Guardian sucks because it discards any journalistic integrity it once had to push an anti-Western, anti-Israel agenda @cifwatch #cwcomp

Barry Rubin on whether the Egyptian revolution will be a net gain or loss for the West.

The Netherlands Parliament affirms Israel as the Jewish state.

The ADL lauds a German scholar on his work exposing the links between Nazi and modern Muslim anti-semitism (he has a nice takedown on Gilbert Achcar as well).

IsraeliGirl and Giyus bring us another set of hate links on Facebook that you can flag for removal.

Round 1, Match 3 of the Pro-Israel Blog-Off has finished, and it was very close! Round 4 begins today.

Ya gotta love hypocritical Muslim regimes

From NYT:

The Iranian leaders who cheered the popular overthrow of an Egyptian strongman last week have promised to crush an opposition march planned for Monday in solidarity with the Egyptian people.

“These elements are fully aware of the illegal nature of the request,” Mehdi Alikhani Sadr, an Interior Ministry official, said of the permit request for the march in comments published Sunday by the semiofficial Fars news agency. “They know they will not be granted permission for riots.”

The Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps was blunt.

“The conspirators are nothing but corpses,” Hossein Hamadani, a top commander of the corps, said Wednesday in comments published by the official IRNA news agency. “Any incitement will be dealt with severely.”

How will the West respond to what happens today?

Unlike Egypt, there is very little desire to support the ruling regime by most governments. But also unlike Egypt, it is not easy to find media that can get into Iran to cover the protests live, and that - more than Twitter - is what galvanized world opinion.

Moreover, while one must accept that Al Jazeera had a lot to do with Egypt's and Tunisia's revolutions, their Qatar sponsors are more ambivalent towards Iran, worrying about poking the thousand pound gorilla across the Gulf.

At the moment it looks like Iran is doing everything they can to stop any rally from occurring, including placing all opposition leaders under virtual house arrest and blocking metro stations.

Will the West criticize Iran as they did Mubarak?

(h/t SoccerDad)

Palestinian Arab "democracy" in action

From BBC:

Palestinian ministers are due to submit their resignations on Monday as part of a cabinet reshuffle, sources say.

President Mahmoud Abbas will immediately ask Prime Minister Salam Fayyad to appoint a new cabinet.

On Saturday, the Palestinian Authority led by Mr Abbas said it seeks to hold presidential and legislative elections by September.

The move comes after the fall of Hosni Mubarak in popular protests in Egypt, an important neighbour.

The cabinet shake-up has long been demanded by Mr Fayyad and others in the Fatah faction, according to Reuters news agency.

On political source told Reuters that it would result in a "massive change" in the composition of the government.

Mr Fayyad, 58, will be asked to stay on in the post he has occupied since 2007.

An aide to Mr Abbas on Saturday said the PA planned to hold long-overdue elections before September.

"The executive committee has decided to start preparations for presidential and parliamentary elections in the coming months... no later than September," the PLO's Yasser Abed Rabbo told journalists.

The BBC's West Bank correspondent Jon Donnison says the election pledge seems intended to show that Palestinian leaders are responding to events in Egypt and Tunisia.

However, Hamas, who are in control of the Gaza Strip, immediately rejected the plan, saying Mr Abbas had no legitimacy.

"Hamas will not take part in this election. We will not give it legitimacy. And we will not recognise the results," spokesman Fawzi Barhoum said.

The prime minister will remain a man who has never been elected and who received a tiny amount of the popular vote when he ran for office.

Now, that's democracy!

Iran bans Valentines Day

From WSJ:

In another sign of its ever more improvisational approach to governance, the Iranian regime has outlawed Valentine's Day. "Symbols of hearts, half-hearts, red roses, and any activities promoting this day are banned," announced state media last month. "Authorities will take legal action against those who ignore the ban."

Time adds:

In an attempt to banish Western influence from the lusting minds of Iranian youth, the Islamic country's state-run media announced that the production of Valentine's Day gifts as well as any promotion of the day celebrating romantic love between a man and a woman.

Whoops - it looks like we found a loophole!

Ya gotta love hypocritical Arab dictators

Libya leader Muammar Gaddafi called on Palestinian Arabs to act like the Egyptians and Tunisians and start a revolt against Israel.

Meanwhile, Gaddafi warned his own people against using Facebook.

You can't make this stuff up.

Besieged Gaza limits - imports from Israel

Exactly how you would expect a starving, besieged people to act, right?

From Ma'an:

A statement from Gaza's Ministry of the National Economy said Sunday that a new set of restrictions would be put on goods being imported into the coastal enclave, including a ban on clothing manufactured in Israel.

For several other items, the statement said, merchants would have to apply to the ministry for permission to sell the goods.

Ma'an obtained a copy of the list, which included the following items manufactured in Israel:

Require approval

- Home and office furniture
- Plastic products
- Tissues, toilet paper,
- Hoses
- Juices, soft drinks
- Chemical products
- Canned beans
- Biscuits, all types of candies
- Packaging materials

The ban and restrictions apply only to goods manufactured in Israel, with government officials saying goods produced from any other nation would not be subject to the restrictions.

Goods produced in Israel, merchants say, are often easier to import, and face fewer delays and restrictions at the crossings.

Palestine Press Agency explains that these restrictions are meant to protect the tunnel trade, which Hamas heavily taxes and which has taken a hit during Egypt's unrest.

Iran accuses the Mossad of being behind its drug trade

Palestine Today reports that Iran is accusing the Mossad of being involved in selling illegal drugs in the Islamic Republic.

Apparently, the Mossad is forcing drug dealers to lower their prices (by threatening them) in order to get the entire country addicted. And, of course, the drug dealers are listening to their Mossad masters.

Then, when every Iranian is busy being deeply fascinated with a single blade of grass, Israeli warplanes can swoop in and take over the country! And convert Natanz from a peaceful nuclear research facility into an atom bomb factory! Bwahahahaha!

12,000 tons of apples from Israel to Syria

From Ha'aretz:

Israel will begin transporting about 12,000 tons of apples from the Golan Heights to Syria on Tuesday. This is the largest quantity of the produce ever transferred between the two countries, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), who will be overseeing the operation.

The apples were grown by Syrian farmers living in the Golan Heights. Although such transfer has been undertaken in the past, it is a rare occurrence as it requires extensive coordination between Syria's Foreign Ministry and Israel's Foreign, Defense, Finance and Agriculture Ministries,

The ICRC will act as a neutral mediator in the transfer, which will take roughly 10 weeks to complete. Three ICRC trucks will drive up and down a strip of demilitarized road half a kilometer in length, crossing the border between Israel-occupied Golan and Syria-occupied Golan.

I first mentioned this in 2008, and again last year when we saw that some of those Zionist apples get exported to Gulf states at a profit.

Morning links

The Sinai is turning problematic, as the Egyptian army does not have a strong presence there and the Bedouin are taking advantage of a lawless environment. Israel requested that all Israelis leave the Sinai and there have been attacks on a church as well as governmental and police buildings.

Some problems in Tahrir Square as well.

The Guardian started translating some of its articles into Arabic, apparently to solidify its base audience. Is a merger with Al Jazeera far behind? (h/t CiFWatch via Samson)

An Israeli Arab goes on YouTube to defend his country. (And I mean Israel.)

My Right Word looks at some of the pro-Palestinian Arab events being sponsored by the US Consulate in Jerusalem.

Israel finally found a permanent UN representative, Ron Prosor, who seems to be very good. That vacuum was a problem.

Hamas' Al Qassam website has a heartbreaking story about how some Arab kids in Silwan are under house arrest. Of course, it doesn't mention that these same kids have a habit of hurling life-threatening boulders at cars with Israeli license plates.

Sharansky on democracy, freedom, Egypt

The Jerusalem Post has a long interview with Natan Sharansky, giving him a chance to apply his concepts of freedom and democracy to what is happening in Egypt. Excerpts:

Now the critical step, which has not yet been made but which can be made, is the linkage. The free world is lucky here in two respects. First, that what happened in Egypt happened when the Muslim Brotherhood is not yet strong enough [to sweep into power]. The longer there is dictatorship, the longer the free world helps to destroy all democratic dissent, the stronger the Muslim Brotherhood becomes. In Prague, in 2007, (at a meeting of international dissidents that Sharansky organized), Saad Eddin Ibrahim asked president Bush, Why are you supporting Mubarak? Bush answered: Because otherwise there will be the Muslim Brotherhood. Saad Eddin Ibrahim said: That’s a mistake. That if you want the choice for Egyptians to be either Mubarak or the Muslim Brotherhood, it will ultimately be the Muslim Brotherhood.

Ten years ago, in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood would have had 10% support. Today they say they have 25 or 30%. Who knows what it will be in 10 years if things don’t change. People are unhappy. The only alternative to that unhappiness has been the Muslim Brotherhood. The free world has been helping to destroy any democratic alternative.

So it is good that this is all happening now in Egypt when the Muslim Brotherhood is not strong enough.

And secondly, it is good that it is happening in an Egypt that gets the second biggest foreign aid package from the United States [after Israel]. America has a lot of leverage. A lot of linkage for any future Egyptian leader. Whoever will be the leader of Egypt, if he wants to solve problems, he will be very dependent on the free world. He will not go to Iran for help.

If the free world makes clear that our help is tied to democratic reforms, there is a chance finally to start building a drive forward. This [untenable] pact between the free world and a bunch of dictators ostensibly bringing us stability was not broken by the free world. It was broken by the people in the streets. We have to go with this. This is the chance. I hope America will take it.

We saw a White House that quickly, to the dismay of some in Israel, abandoned its ally Mubarak and has also encouraged the participation of the Muslim Brotherhood in the transition process. Is America getting this right?

America gets it right that Mubarak is a very problematic ally and in the long run cannot be any kind of ally. That’s true about all the dictators. At some moment, America will get it about Saudi Arabia. That was always the most difficult case, even among those [American presidents] who understood...

Like George Bush.

Bush went further with the freedom agenda than any other. It was great. He really, idealistically believed in this. The point on which he disagreed with me – although he told everyone to read my book – was over elections. [Contrary to what Bush believed], freedom and democracy doesn’t mean elections. Democracy is about free elections and free society. You must have free institutions.

He rushed into elections [for the Palestinian parliament in 2006]. He forced Israel to accept Hamas as part of the democratic process. Under all our agreements, we didn’t have to accept Hamas, because it denies our right to exist. And it was a clearly anti-democratic choice. He rushed to elections when the only choice for the Palestinians was between the torturing thugs of Yasser Arafat, who we empowered, and the terrorists from Hamas who were defending them. They voted for Hamas, an absolutely nondemocratic element. That was [Bush’s] mistake.

With the Obama administration – instead of taking a principled position and supporting any leadership which will support democratic reforms, and saying we will go together with you through these reforms and help – the danger is [over the readiness for] engaging: We will engage with whatever will come as a result. We’ll make them part of the process. That’s exactly how Hizbullah in Lebanon, step by step, became [ostensibly] legitimate partners.

On the day of the elections in the Palestinian Authority, I was at the White House, saying to them, this is your last opportunity. In 24 hours, the election results will be announced. You need to say that the results of the election have got nothing to do with democracy. Otherwise the whole world will say, well, this is Bush’s democracy: Hamas. And I was getting explanations: We’ll impose conditions; they will not be a majority in the government, this and that.

Elaborate please on why elections alone do not constitute democracy, on why you need free elections in a free society.

A free society means that there are institutions which guarantee to every individual the opportunity to choose between different ways of life, and that their lives will not be in danger, whatever they choose. In the Palestinian society, for instance, they had Israel’s occupation. After that, they had Yasser Arafat, who turned his Authority into a type of Mafia-run country where people were paying him patronage. I can tell you, as a former minister of industry and trade who tried to negotiate with Nabil Sha’ath on joint ventures to help their economy and create more jobs, that they were not interested in anything that would make their people more independent of them. They were interested only in how to establish more control. People were really fed up with this. That created a really nasty situation.

Then, there was a transition to Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) after Arafat died. And Bush asked me, is Abu Mazen a good guy or a bad guy? I told him, I can prove to you that he’s a bad guy, because I read his PhD (on the purported connections between the Nazis and Zionist leaders) in Russian. And I can prove to you that he’s a good guy in comparison with Arafat, because I saw them both at the negotiating table. But it doesn’t matter. He will now depend fully on your policy. The Palestinian Authority is fully dependent on the free world. America. Europe. If your policy is clear linkage to specific reforms, and you make plain that is there is no way Abu Mazen will get any legitimacy, or any recognition, or any support otherwise, he will go with it.

In fact, Bush did put these demands to Abu Mazen, but he never made the linkage explicit. He didn’t say: If you don’t do this, these are the consequences. And of course he didn’t have Europe behind him.

That meant the Palestinians moved almost immediately (to elections) from a situation in which they were still full of fear of the Arafat regime. In some Christian villages, Hamas was deemed to be a better protector, so the Christians suddenly became fundamentalists and voted for Hamas. That’s what you get when you have elections in a fear society. [The elections reflect only] the balance of fear. In that balance of fear, at that moment, Hamas got 51%. At some other moment, it would have got a different percent.

I wrote in my letter of resignation from Arik Sharon’s government [in April 2005] that Hamas would take over in Gaza [under his imminent disengagement plans]. That it would be bad for Jews, bad for Palestinians, good for Hamas. Instead of disengagement, I suggested making a transitional period, for three years of reforms, together with the Americans, maybe together with the Egyptians. See to it that, in these years, a fully independent economy would be established, normal education, dismantling of refugee camps and building good conditions for them, and of course cooperation to fight terror. Then, I suggested, after three or four years like this, hold elections. Those would be free elections. People would have different options and they would be protected, not afraid. And then you would have partners to negotiate peace. You would have people who, whether they hate you or not, whether they are anti-Semites or not, are elected because they are concerned about the well-being of their people.
...In the West Bank there are the first signs of a truly free economy. That’s good. There are no signs of improvement on the education system. There are signs of independence, of forces that are cooperating with us, on security. These are the beginnings. If this process, which must also include education, continues...

What’s needed on education?

The official [PA] education is that Israel doesn’t have the right to exist. There is not one Palestinian leader who is ready to go to a refugee camp and say, “Guys, we are going to have our own state. But you’re not going back to Tel Aviv. Let’s start discussing other options.”

Remember, I don’t know which meeting it was – there were so many – when Olmert gives Abu Mazen generous proposals and asks him only to recognize us as a Jewish, democratic state? And Bush is absolutely sure that Abu Mazen will now say this, because he’s getting so much. And Abu Mazen says no. Bush was surprised. Olmert was surprised. They were so sure that this generous proposal would do it. But Abu Mazen said it would be “a betrayal of our people in the refugee camps” to recognize a Jewish, democratic state.

Of course, it’s not only a question of going to the refugee camps and saying it. You also have to start building normal lives for them. You can’t keep them in the refugee camps in order to use them as a weapon against us.

So there are the first sparks. But it’s a long process. That’s why all these declarations, that we can reach peace in one year, or half a year, or two years, mean nothing. That’s just going back to the same idea of engaging with somebody, finding somebody with whom we can sign an agreement.

The idea that Abu Mazen is fully dependent on the IDF, and the hope that somehow he’ll be so dependent, he’ll agree to sign an agreement.

Wrong, because...?

What you need is to build peace from bottom-up. And bottom-up means democratic reforms. But I was always told, “Forget about it. It’s not for the Arab governments.”

And now?

And now it’s coming from the other end. Not from the peace process at all. Here, people are coming and demanding to build from the bottom, without any connection [to the peace process]. This is a great chance.

So how now, in the Egyptian context, should the West be acting? What signals should be sent. You’re the leader of the free world, what do you do?

If I was in the Senate, I would immediately pass a law maintaining US assistance to Egypt on condition that 20% of it goes to democratic reforms. What’s needed is real linkage.

The desire of the people has to be heard. It’s not up to us to decide whether it will be Omar Suleiman or Mohamed ElBaradei or someone else [who takes over]. Whoever it is, whoever is the leader, won’t want to depend on Iran, or even on Saudi Arabia so much. So they have to listen to the free world, and after all, Egypt is between the free world and Muslim fundamentalists.

And the entire free world has to say, “We are ready to help you, we are ready to support you, we are ready to be with you, but on condition that: first, there is no persecution for freedom of speech and for free press and so on; second, there is an independent economy; third, there is a tolerant, pluralistic education system where people can choose how they want to learn, what they want to learn; and, finally, that agreements that were signed with the neighbors about stability in the region have to be respected.

The entire free world should say that only those who accept these principles, and accept the principles of democratic change, should be permitted to participate and be empowered by the process. If the Muslim Brothers genuinely accept everything, then they can be part of it. But if, whatever they say, they continue in their mosques to speak about the war against Israel, or they declare that democracy will not determine what to do, then they cannot be a part of it. At this moment, it is still possible for the free world to do this.

So you think there is an extraordinary opportunity now, and that America has sent at least some of the right signals?

Yes. I think there was no opportunity as long as there was a strong belief, almost a unanimous belief, among the leaders of the free world that only strong dictators in the Arab world can bring us stability, and that only strong dictators are our allies, and that this can continue more or less forever. There was no chance.

No chance of what?

No chance of reform and also of a peace process. The moment this pact between democracies and dictators is broken, then there’s a chance for new concepts, for a new approach. It depends on us now. On the Arab side, they made their stand. The people made their stand, showing that “we’re here,” that “those who thought freedom is not for us, well, it is for us.” Now it is for the leaders of the free world to show that they really believe in this for them.

To set out the framework?

As Obama said in his inauguration speech, a fist to dictators and an open hand to those who want reform.

(Obama declared, “To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.)

And what if, three steps ahead, Egypt, other Arab countries, the Palestinians, amazingly enough, with correct signals and assistance from the West, do go through this process? But that it then turns out that the will of the people, in a genuine, democratic society, is to wipe out the State of Israel? That that’s what the people want?

We should never stop, not for a moment, relying on the strength of the IDF, but this is the only chance [for a true change]. For all the so-called peace process, we are more and more dependent on the IDF... on our capabilities in war. I don’t think that we have to weaken. But the only chance to create something whereby we’ll be less dependent on our military power is to give a chance to democratic reforms.

And I think it’ll succeed, because I think, in the end, the majority of Palestinians don’t want to continue living in refugee camps. They got closer to the ideas of the free world, a free economy, more education, than did many others, because of their proximity to Israel. But the fact is, they were never given the opportunity to choose. In 1993, we brought Arafat from Tunis, who said, “Now we’ll be a dictatorship.”

So Israel shouldn’t be panicking as it looks at the region now? We should be saying well done to the Arab masses for telling the West that they don’t want to live under dictatorship?

This is the moment for those Israelis who believe that peace has to be built bottom-up. They have to prepare for that chance. Israelis like me, like [Minister Moshe] “Bogie” Ya’alon. There are not many. This is a great moment. Let’s try to use it.

For those who didn’t believe this, for those who believe that all these ideas of freedom, as Arik Sharon was telling me, have nothing to do with the Middle East, this is the moment to think again. Maybe something was wrong with this idea of keeping these people forever under a control, which was always working against us, because it was the Muslim Brotherhood who were coming after it, whether in Iran, the Palestinian Authority, in Egypt. We hoped to have great peace agreements with all these dictators, but then the dictators who have signed peace agreements will be replaced by Muslim Brothers.

Maybe this is the moment to try to put our trust in freedom. After all, we’re not losing anything. The Muslim Brothers, they’ll come anyway [if things continue as they have been]. Here we have, maybe, the chance that they will not come.

Israel has to be concerned. I don’t want to dismiss all these feelings. All the recent changes have strengthened the fundamentalists...

In Lebanon, Iran, Gaza, Turkey.

We also have to be concerned because our best partners are becoming appeasers.

Elaborate, please.

Europe demands that we negotiate with Hamas. Then they demand that we accept a Lebanese government with 50% Hizbullah. Then it will be fully Hizbullah. And then US leaders can very well say, “Well, for us, engagement with the regime is more important than who is in this regime.”

So, yes, there are reasons for concern. We are a small country. We can be destroyed in one day if we lower our guard. But, on the other hand, while we continue to be on guard, let’s be glad that what’s happening now on the Arab street is happening before the Muslim Brothers control the entire Middle East, and that could be the direction. Let’s be glad that it is happening in countries which are still very dependent on the free world. And let’s try to see whether, finally, we can find new ways for a peace process, and not only a process that depends fully on one thing – on the strength of the IDF.

The Guardian's whitewash of the Muslim Brotherhood

Last week, The Guardian looked at the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and - surprise! - managed to find that it was not nearly as bad as those ignorant Westerners think:

"There can be no question that genuine democracy must prevail," Mohammad Mursi, a brotherhood spokesman, wrote in an article for Tuesday's Guardian. "While the Muslim Brotherhood is unequivocal regarding its basis in Islamic thought, it rejects any attempt to enforce any ideological line upon the Egyptian people."

Although the Brotherhood appears to have firmly embraced democracy, the means for reconciling that with its religious principles are not entirely clear: the issue of God's sovereignty versus people's sovereignty looks to have been fudged rather than resolved.

The Brotherhood continues to maintain that "Islam is the solution" while at the same time demonstrating a kind of pragmatism that suggests Islam may not be a complete solution after all.

For example?

One example is jizya, the poll tax on non-Muslims, which is clearly prescribed in the Qur'an. The original idea was that non-Muslims, since they did not serve in the military, should pay for their protection by Muslims.

Today, most Muslims regard jizya as obsolete.In order to follow Qur'anic principles strictly, though, it would have to be reinstated. In 1997, the Muslim Brotherhood's Supreme Guide at the time, Mustafa Mashhur, did suggest reintroducing it but, in a country with around 6 million Christians, this caused uproar and the movement later backtracked. For non-Islamist Muslims, jizya presents no great problem: they can justify its abolition on the basis of historicity – that the circumstances in which the tax was imposed no longer exist today. For Islamists, though, this is much more difficult because the words of the Qur'an and the practices of the earliest Muslims form the core of their ideology.

The Muslim Brotherhood wants Egypt to be an Islamic country. The only way that can occur is through democracy. But if it acts too Islamic now, it can never gain the power it craves. So it tactically chooses what to emphasize and what to downplay.

This is not evidence that it believes that "Islam may not be a complete solution after all." It is evidence that they know how to play the game, very well. The Guardian completely misses the point.

The Guardian's misinterpretation gets worse:

Years of repression at the hands of the Egyptian authorities have made the brotherhood more interested in human rights than many might expect from an Islamist organisation. When the European parliament criticised Egypt's record in 2008, the Mubarak regime responded with fury, while Hussein Ibrahim, the brotherhood's parliamentary spokesman, sided with Europe.

"The issue of human rights has become a global language," he said. "Although each country has its own particulars, respect of human rights is now a concern for all peoples" – though he specifically excluded gay rights.

Rather than deploring criticism from abroad, he said, the Egyptian government would do better to improve its human rights record, which would leave less room for foreigners to cause embarrassment.

The Brotherhood's interest in human rights extends in exactly one dimension - human rights for Islamists in Egypt. While the Guardian parenthetically concedes that the Ikhwan would not support human rights for gays, it pointedly ignores the other groups that the Brotherhood does not see as legal equals:

Women
Jews and Christians
Atheists, Hindus and other beliefs that are considered "idol worship"

We have a movement that openly looks upon Muslims as being a higher class than the rest of the world, and that advocates discrimination (or death) against everyone else. And yet The Guardian praises them for their stance on human rights!

Other criticisms of the article can be found at CiFWatch.

Iran says Hollywood most active section of Israel, US military

From Tehran Times:

Participants at the Iranian conference “Hollywoodism and Cinema” issued a statement at the end of the conference claiming that Hollywood, the most powerful international propaganda tool for Zionism, is facing decline.

Organizers of the Fajr International Film Festival, in collaboration with the Iranian Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance, arranged the two-day conference on February 5 and 6, by inviting a group of Iranian and foreign cineastes, writers and critics.

The attendees, coming from 20 countries, discussed the impact of Hollywood in the world of cinema, focusing on Hollywoodism, terrorism, the Pentagon, and the CIA. They issued a statement at the end of the program.

Hollywood is not just for entertainment or propaganda, but is the most active section of the U.S. and Israel military industry, reads part of the statement.

Hollywood not only tries to depict the image of the opposing countries and cultures, specifically Islam and Iran as threats, but also tries to eradicate justice and revolution.

Hollywood is trying to ruin spiritual values and is promoting materialism and its culture.

At the end of the session the participants stressed that Iran has the potential to become the center for all the world filmmakers to produce anti-Zionist productions.

They also asked Iran to help unite world great cineastes to make and produce better movies based on respect and peace.

I must admit I didn't know that Hollywood was on the IDF payroll.

I had mentioned this conference last month.

Here's a video from the conference from Iran's PressTV:

Don't you love how all the international female filmophiles were forced to cover their hair as they complained about the nefarious influence of Hollywood?

An earlier Tehran Times article quoted a French attendee as saying that "Hollywood producers also use the Holocaust to devastate the morals of human beings. They use this procedure to avoid having people ask any questions on the Holocaust. "

Erekat gone; AFP lies

From AFP:

Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erakat tendered his resignation on Saturday amid deadlock in efforts to renew peace talks with Israel, a Palestinian official said.

Erakat told AFP he was stepping down because of his responsibility for the disclosure of confidential documents on Al-Jazeera, shortly after his resignation was announced by senior PLO Yasser Abed Rabbo.

The chief negotiator said he was assuming "responsibility for the theft of documents from his office" that he said had been "deliberately" tampered with.

Last month, Erakat accused Al-Jazeera of taking part in a campaign to overthrow the Palestinian Authority (PA) after the Doha-based television began to release more than 1,600 confidential files known as "The Palestine Papers."

The documents, shared by Al-Jazeera and Britain's Guardian daily, expose concessions to Israel in 10 years of secret peace talks, embarrassing and angering the Palestinian leadership.

The files allege that Palestinian negotiators offered unprecedented concessions during peace negotiations, including on the ultra-sensitive subjects of Jerusalem and refugees, with nothing in return from Israel.

The files allege no such thing. The Guardian and Al Jazeera falsely reported that the papers said that; which means that AFP didn't bother to look at the files either and blindly believed the false reporting of their fellow anti-Israel advocates masquerading as journalists.

Any way you look at the papers, Israel offered to uproot tens of thousands of Jews from their homes, offered the Palestinian Arabs a state with about the same area as the West Bank and Gaza today, offered to take in some so-called "refugees," and offered to establish an atmosphere of true peace and normalization between two states for two peoples. It is simply a lie to say that these do not represent concessions from Israel.

Turkey's absurd flotilla report

Turkey today released its report on the flotilla incident. I haven't yet found the full report, but the conclusions are laughable. Here are some:

3. There were no firearms on board the ships.

Well, there was at least one, as an IDF soldier got shot with a bullet that didn't come from the IDF. Bullet casings were also found.

4. Prior to the convoy’s departure, an understanding was reached among Turkish, Israeli and American officials that the convoy would eventually steer towards the Egyptian port of Al-Arish, when faced with compelling opposition. Events demonstrated that Israel did not abide by this understanding.

This is a completely new claim. Certainly the captain nor the organizers ever said they would accept going to anywhere but Gaza - they repeatedly said the opposite when communicating with the IDF. In addition, the IDF told the flotilla repeatedly that they have the option of going to Ashkelon and getting the aid all sent to Gaza - why wouldn't they have asked them to go to El Arish? This is a really fishy story to pop up out of nowhere, and it shouldn't take long to get US or Israeli clarification.

5. No attempt was made by the Israeli forces to visit and search the vessels before taking any other action.

13. Prior to their attack, the Israeli forces did not proceed with standard warning practices, i.e. firing across the bow, to indicate an imminent use of force.

14. Israeli forces initially tried to board the Mavi Marmara from zodiacs. At this stage, the Israeli forces fired the first shots.

This is ridiculous. The videos show very clearly that the passengers were throwing items onto the Israeli boats before they attempted to board, so at least on the Mavi Marmara it was clear that they could not board peacefully. We've also seen videos of the IHH members brandishing iron pipes to stop any attempt to board from the sea, well before the helicopters were deployed.

The other boats in the flotilla were boarded peacefully because they did not offer any resistance. The Turks are knowingly lying.

15. The nature and magnitude of the Israeli attack caused panic among the passengers who, in fear for their lives, reacted in self-defence.

Reacted? They had already prepared themselves with slingshots, broken bottles, pre-cut iron bars and chains. Doesn't sound like a "reaction" to me!

17. The Israeli forces opened fire with live ammunition from the zodiacs and helicopters onto the passengers on deck, resulting in the first casualties.

They fired stun grenades. Shooting from a helicopter with 9mm guns does not make any sense, and, again, none of the videos show anything close to these allegations - and the video smuggled out by the activists showed the helicopters very clearly.

19. Israeli soldiers fast-roped down to the Mavi Marmara from helicopters. Three were subdued by the passengers. They were taken to the lower decks where they were treated for their non-lethal injuries.

"Subdued" must be the Turkish word for "mercilessly attacked with knives and iron bars." "Taken" must be the Turkish word for "kidnapped." I don't yet know what the Turkish word for "throwing off the deck" is.

22. The Israeli forces attacked the other ships as well. Violence by Israeli soldiers occurred on all the ships of the convoy.

What a great investigation to discover these new injuries so many months later!

26. Throughout the hours-long journey to Ashdod, the passengers aboard the Mavi Marmara, including the Captain, and some on the other ships were subjected to severe physical, verbal and psychological abuses.

28. Throughout the ordeal, passengers from virtually all the nationalities represented in the convoy were indiscriminately and brutally victimized by Israeli forces.

I can't wait to read the details on these.

10 killed in Egypt

From MSNBC:

Elsewhere, in the north Sinai town of el-Arish, there was a alarming development with Reuters reporting that about 1,000 people attacked a police station in an attempt to free prisoners.

Witnesses said they threw Molotov cocktails and exchanged gunfire with police who retreated to the roof. Al-Jazeera television reported the attackers were protesters who broke away from the main demonstration in el-Arish.

Arabic media is reporting that 10 were killed and 50 injured in the attack, and 12 policemen surrendered.

It appears that the attack happened either during or immediately after Mubarak's resignation.