Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Friday, March 04, 2011

Ma'an pushes a fake Facebook "revolution"

It is not only Fatah and Hamas who are planning fake Facebook revolutions against the other, hoping to gain traction.

It looks like Ma'an News Agency is doing the same thing:

Palestinian students and rights activists in Gaza have initiated a campaign for Palestinian refugees aiming to harness the winds of change in the Middle East and mobilize the diaspora into action.

On May 15, the group said, more than 1 million people will participate in a global sit-in at Israeli embassies worldwide.

An organizer in Gaza told Ma'an that a preparatory committee was making contacts regionally and internationally, and a coordinated effort was underway to demand the return of 9 million refugees from camps in the Middle East and abroad.

"It is not our goal to criticize, affect or push negotiations or international treaties. We are only demanding the right of return to occupied territories," the organizer said.

Figures known for their work on refugee rights have been contacted, organizers said. Among them: former Palestinian member of the Knesset Azmi Bishara, Palestinian researcher, academic and leader of the Palestinian Right of Return Coalition Salman Abu Sittah and former British MP George Galloway.

Palestinian communities in Europe and Latin America were being targeted for the rally, and being asked to gather outside Israeli diplomatic offices in world capitals.

In the Middle East, organizers said locations were being kept under wraps, for fear that measures would be taken to quash the peaceful action before its launch.

Notice anything missing from this "news" article?

It has no specifics whatsoever.

Where on Facebook is this group? What is its name? How many people are involved? How many have signed on? How can they be contacted? What are the names of anyone associated with the group? What evidence is there that any of the names dropped by the organizers as being "contacted" (meaning, emailed) are even aware of the group?

In other words, what makes Ma'an believe that a Facebook group that anyone could set up is newsworthy?

It took a short while, but I found the group on Facebook. It has a mere 133 members. It shows no organization, no concrete actions, just a call by a person or two for "revolution." It is tiny, inconsequential and worthless, and there is no evidence that it has any real support.

Yet Ma'an reports this Facebook group that any ten year old could create as if it is a major news story.

Which means that Ma'an is not trying to report the news, but it is trying to create it, by giving the impression of a huge groundswell of support for a tiny initiative.

Israelis hiring mercenaries for Gaddafi? Another stupid rumor spreads in the Arab world

Arab and anti-Israel sites have been abuzz over the past couple of days over this story (this version from Tehran Times:)

Israeli arms distribution company Global CST has reportedly, under the authorization of Tel Aviv, provided Libyan ruler Muammar Gaddafi with African mercenaries to clamp down on anti-government protesters.

Egyptian sources have revealed that the Israeli company has so far provided Gaddafi's regime with 50,000 African mercenaries to attack the civilian anti-government protesters in Libya.

The arms company was previously convicted in an African country over illegal deals, News-Israel website reported.

Sources say Global CST had obtained the permission for providing the mercenaries to Gaddafi from the Israeli officials in advance.

Like all good rumors, this one has a tiny shred of truth.

First, the first published source was the Israeli Inyan Mercazi (Central issues) website. The article there quotes unnamed Egyptian sources making these accusations, including the charge that the CEO of the company met with Netanyahu and other Israeli officials and received explicit approval to provide weapons and men for Gaddafi.

So already we see that the original source for this article is suspect. No documents are reproduced, no proof is made, and how could an Egyptian source know that the Global CST CEO met with Israeli leaders, let alone what transpired in the meetings?

All these unsourced accusations are being repeated without confirmation by Inyan Mercazi.

The Israeli site then adds on some background: that the company was once in trouble for selling arms to some African country in the past, and indeed it does provide security services worldwide.

Let's look at the previous incident, as it will shed light on how absurd this rumor is:

From Ha'aretz, May 6, 2010:

The Defense Ministry's recently fined Global CST and its owner, Maj. Gen. (ret. ) Israel Ziv for deviating from the restricted permit it was granted by the ministry and signing a contract with the government of Guinea to set up and train Special Forces there and supply them with weapons. According to sources in the Defense Ministry, it was agreed that the fine, around NIS 90,000, would not be transferred to the state's coffers, and instead the company would invest it in developing training courses for its employees, where they would learn the Defense Ministry's guidelines and export regulations. Global CST denies they were fined, but confirmed that it had been ordered to retrain its employees.

This means that the company will not do anything without the approval of the Israeli government. So in order to believe this story, you must believe that Israel is supporting sending mercenaries to Gaddafi.

Is it a coincidence that this was the same rumor that erupted in the early days of the Libyan uprising, when both sides accused the other of Zionist collusion?

Tracing back this rumor, there is not a shred of evidence and it belies logic. That of course doesn't stop people who hate Israel from seizing on this story, buttressed by it being quoted in an Israeli newspaper, as being unquestionably true.

Ma'an picked up on the story, from where it spread to Al Jazeera, where it then turned into 50,000 mercenaries being recruited from South Sudan, Chad, Nigeria - and Guinea, the same country we know that Global CST is banned from dealing with!

Interestingly, Global CST's head, General Yisrael Ziv, sent a letter to Al Jazeera completely denying the story, calling it absurd, ridiculous and disgusting, and saying that Al Jazeera's broadcasting of these lies threatens the legitimate security work done by the company. (They have done security work worldwide, including Georgia.)

Of course, it is now too late, and none of the news sites are bothering to publish the explicit denials of a story that had no basis to begin with. Israel haters don't need proof for their lies, after all - just a small peg to hang their lies on, one that was provided this time - stupidly - by an Israeli newspaper.

(h/t Suzanne and Naftali)

Great report from the J Street conference

Wonderful insights from Z-Street's Lori Lowenthal Marcus:

While attending the J Street conference I wondered whether I had entered some alternative dimension, where facts known by the rest of the world, and basic principles of reasoning, just didn't operate in quite the same way as they do on the rest of planet Earth. I think I know what's operating.

Psychologists teach that an obsession is "a persistent disturbing preoccupation with an often unreasonable idea or feeling." There is a persistent theme on J Street: a Palestinian State must be created RIGHT NOW ("PSRN"), and it's almost as if there is a complete memory block about the refusals of varying forms of the state, including the original offer by the United Nations of yet another Arab State in 1947.

That PSRN is J Street's obsession is revealed by the fact that unanimity on that "solution" co-exists with radical disagreement about the nature of the problem. Here's an abbreviated list of the ideological positions you pass as you walk down J Street:

...Around the corner we learn from Knesset member Shlomo Molla that bilateral negotiations between Israel and the Arab Palestinians are the only way to move towards peace in the region. Two houses down on the same street, Tom Dine of Search for Common Ground tells us that bilateral movement is impossible, and instead a regional approach is the only possibility for peace. And that the only choice open to Israel is to create a PSRN.

Just across J Street from these guys is New York Times reporter Roger Cohen who insists that the unrest in the Middle East is actually weakening Iran, while down the block we learn from the Saban Center's Shibley Telhami that Iran is the main threat in the region. Iran is weaker, says Cohen, so now is the time to create a Palestinian State, and Iran is the major threat, says Telhami, so now is the time to create a Palestinian State. Polar opposite reasoning, yet naturally both ineluctably lead to the conclusion that the only possible answer is the immediate creation of a Palestinian State.

Hebrew University professor Bernard Avishai berated Dennis Ross for wimpishly claiming that "bilateral negotiations is the only mechanism" for achieving peace. Avishai instead called for an "Obama Blueprint" in which the US uses its bully pulpit to galvanize "international momentum and pressure" (on Israel, of course), to create a Palestinian State. In the same building but down a few flights we heard from the ubiquitous Egyptian journalist Mona Eltahawy that the "West has become irrelevant" and that rather than the West, the region demands freedom and dignity for the Palestinians. Both agreed about one thing -- wait, I'm trying to remember -- oh yes, the need to create a PSRN.

Read the whole thing.

What "even-handed" means to the London School of Economics

We had touched on the controversy of the London School of Economics accepting a £1.5 million donation from Saif Gaddafi.

I had missed this great quote from the director of the school, Sir Howard Davies, made in the Times of London last Monday to defend the donation (quoted in Just Journalism):

Sir Howard defended the LSE’s new Middle East Centre, half of whose board support an academic boycott of Israel. “The biggest donor to the School in the past year is George Soros, who of course is of Jewish origin. We operate, I believe, a very balanced view.”’

We love taking money from both Jewish and Arab haters of Israel! How much more balanced can one be?

(Davis has just resigned over accepting the Libya donation.)

More details on Hamas' armed robbery of a Gaza bank

Yesterday, Ma'an did everything it could to avoid mentioning that Hamas had robbed a bank in Gaza. But now that others have made the accusations, Ma'an feels it can report on the story.

And it is a doozy.

The Palestinian governments in the West Bank and Gaza Strip are at loggerheads again after the Palestinian Monetary Authority accused security forces in Gaza of robbing a bank.

The PMA announced Thursday that all banks in the Gaza Strip would close following a robbery at the Palestine Investment Bank in Gaza City.

Authority deputy Muhammad Manasreh told Ma'an that Gaza government officials stole $340,000 from the bank over two days.

On Tuesday, an official from the Hamas-led Ministry of Interior seized $90,000 from the bank by force after bank employees refused to honor a check due to insufficient funds in the account, Manasreh said.

The following day, the same official tried to cash a check for $250,000. Again, bank staff refused to honor the check due to insufficient funds. An argument erupted and cashiers called senior Hamas officials who failed to resolve the dispute, the PMA official added.

He said the bank was later raided by armed government security forces who seized $250,000.

Can you believe that Israel is so intransigent as to refuse to negotiate with this wonderful, pragmatic, respected political group?

Fatah leaders demand that Fayyad get fired

From Reuters:

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' dominant Fatah political faction has demanded that he sack Western-backed Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, according to a letter shown to Reuters on Thursday.

The letter, signed by senior Fatah officials, was sent to Abbas on Saturday, but the president "did not take it seriously," a Fatah official told Reuters.

However, the request underlined deep political friction at the heart of the Palestinian Authority, with many Fatah activists clearly frustrated by Fayyad, who has no significant political base of his own but wields substantial power.

Fayyad, a former World Bank economist, is widely credited by Western governments with transforming the institutional landscape in the West Bank, successfully building the core structures needed for a planned independent Palestinian state.

As prime minister he controls finances and security, leaving many Fatah members to complain bitterly in private that his high-profile activities are overshadowing their own work.

"We suggest you reconsider re-appointing Dr. Fayyad and (instead) ask that a strong Fatah figure do the job," said the letter, backed by Fatah's central revolutionary council.

Hmmm. The president, who is ruling past his legal term limits by invoking emergency powers, can ignore the demands of his people. He ensures that unpopular, unelected officials who are politically valuable can keep their jobs. This president is considered moderate because he supposedly adheres to Western interests and brutally puts down the people who oppose him, but if he would let his people do what they want he would very possibly be replaced with a radical who would be anti-Western and/or Islamist. The West supports him to the hilt even though he is responsible for major human rights abuses and has shown no flexibility in deepening the peace treaty with Israel.

But enough about Mubarak.

Roger Cohen's latest anti-Israel screed a classic piece of propaganda

Roger Cohen in the NYT gives three reasons he thinks Israelis are anxious about the Arab world upheavals.

Israel is anxious. It preferred the old Middle Eastern order. It could count on the despots, like Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, to suppress the jihadists, reject Iran, and play the Israeli-Palestinian game along lines that created a permanent temporariness ever more favorable to Israeli power.

Notice "permanent temporariness." Cohen is implying that everyone knew deep down that there would be a wave of popular revolutions in the Arab world, and that Camp David was Israel's way of stopping that inevitability in order to impose its hegemony on the region.

I'd love to find the Roger Cohen columns from between 1979 and 2011 that gave us a glimpse of this inevitable Egyptian revolution.

Moreover, his very premise is that the Israel/Egyptian peace agreement was a means to ensure Israel's power. In the end, though, Israel is the only party that took a risk at Camp David - giving up a huge amount of territory for nothing more than a piece of paper. His characterization of the peace agreement as some sort of Israeli coup rather than a frightful gamble is ridiculous and borderline slanderous. (And nowhere in his article does he mention that likely Egyptian leaders are all calling to re-examine Camp David, something that gives great credence to the Israeli fears he likes to downplay.)

Israelis are doubly worried. They wonder, Mr. President, if you like them in a heart-to-heart way. You’ve been to Cairo, you’ve been to Istanbul, so what’s wrong with Jerusalem? Why won’t you come and kvetch with us, President Obama, and feel our pain?

What does this have to do with Egypt? It is true that Israel doesn't feel the same warmth from Obama that it felt from George W. Bush and from Bill Clinton. The reason is because it simply isn't there.

Israelis are triply worried. Elections are unpredictable — just look at Gaza — and now they may be held across the Arab world! There’s the Muslim Brotherhood talking a good line but nursing menace. And what if Jordan goes, too?

"Just look at Gaza?" Perhaps we need to remind this self-styled Middle East expert that Hamas was not only elected in Gaza but by Palestinian Arabs as a whole across the West Bank as well.

Here's a bit of education for Roger Cohen - the 2006 election results by district:

Hamas won in Jerusalem, Tulkarem, Nablus, Salfit, Hebron - and even Ramallah!

But Cohen ignores this and barrels on:

I find all the Israeli anxiety troubling for moral and strategic reasons. The moral reason is simple: What could be closer to the hearts of Jews than the sight of peoples fighting to throw off oppression and gain their dignity and freedom?

If Israel has come to such a pass that these noble struggles from Benghazi to Bahrain leave it not just cold but troubled, then what has become of the soul of the Jewish state?

The Middle East’s most vibrant democracy is missing the upside of the birth of new ones.

Cohen has now framed his argument by defining his list of Israeli fears and his criticism of those fears. And, like any good propagandist, Cohen does not base his framing on reality but on a skewed perception that serves his purposes.

Cohen does not deign to listen to what Israel's Prime Minister said explicitly.

Unlike Cohen's thesis that Israelis are against democracy in the Arab world, Netanyahu says flatly:

It is obvious that an Egypt that fully embraces the 21st century and that adopts these reforms would be a source of great hope for the entire world, the region and for us.

In Israel, we know the value of democratic institutions and the significance of liberty. We know the value of independent courts that protect the rights of individuals and the rule of law; we appreciate the value of a free press and of a parliamentary system with a coalition and an opposition.

It is clear that an Egypt that rests on these institutions, an Egypt that is anchored in democratic values, would never be a threat to peace. On the contrary, if we have learned anything from modern history, it is that the stronger the foundations of democracy, the stronger the foundations of peace. Peace among democracies is strong, and democracy strengthens the peace.

So much for Cohen's assertion that Israel opposes Arab democracy and "missing the upside of the birth of new ones."

But Cohen's list of Israeli fears ignores the actual fears that Netanyahu mentioned in his speech:

Far away from Washington, Paris, London – and not so far from Jerusalem – is another capital in which there are hopes.

In this capital, there are leaders who can also see the opportunities that change in Egypt could bring.

They also support the millions who took to the streets.

They too speak about the promise of a new day. But for the people in this capital, the promise of a new day is not in its dawn but in the darkness it can bring.

That capital is Teheran, and I assure you, that the leaders in Iran are not interested in the genuine desires of Egyptians for freedom, liberalization or reform, any more than they were interested in answering similar calls for freedom by the Iranian people, their own people, only 18 months ago...

The Iranian regime is not interested in seeing an Egypt that protects the rights of individuals, women and minorities. They are not interested in an enlightened Egypt that embraces the 21st century. They want an Egypt that returns to the Middle Ages.

They want Egypt to become another Gaza, run by radical forces that oppose everything that the democratic world stands for.

We have two separate worlds here, two opposites, two worldviews: that of the free, democratic world and that of the radical world. Which one of them will prevail in Egypt? The answer to this question is crucial to the future of Egypt, of the region and to our own future here in Israel...

Should the forces that wish to carefully reform and democratize Egypt prevail, I am convinced that such positive change would also buttress a wider Arab-Israeli peace. But we are not there yet .

Cohen also downplays the basic Israeli worry:

For over 30 years we have enjoyed peace on two fronts. One is a peaceful border with Egypt, and the second the peaceful border with Jordan... It has changed the world and it has changed the State of Israel. It changed our strategic situation.

That is why preserving the existing peace is vital for us.

Cohen does not even address Iran nor the basic problem of preserving the peace agreement - even though every frontrunner for Egyptian leadership has stated that they would revisit Camp David.

Instead, Cohen's solution for the Middle East is, yet again, to pressure Israel to give more concessions to a group that is increasingly anti-American and intransigent.

Cohen is knowingly ignoring facts, writing columns based on how he wants the world to be as opposed to how it is, and, as always, placing the blame on Israel.

MEMRI translates the Egyptian video on Mubarak's suit

In my scoop about Hosni Mubarak's vanity pinstripe suit, I had embedded an Arabic video.

MEMRI has now translated that video:

The problem with the Egyptian analysis is that they made it sound like the photo was taken very recently, although I can see from the photo's EXIF information that it was taken in October, 2009.

A prominent gay Jew defends Israel

From Michael Lucas in The Advocate:

I wish I could have been there to see it. Last Tuesday, a handful of anti-Israeli activists' heads exploded when they found out that New York's LGBT Center had canceled their planned Israeli Apartheid Week shindig and barred them from meeting at the center ever again.

The only explanation they could find for this horrible injustice: A porn star named Michael Lucas had used "his wealth and connections" to shut them down. While decrying characterizations of their group as anti-Semitic, they blamed rich Jews for forcing the LGBT Center's hand.

Their Jewish conspiracy theory allowed them to ignore the true reason the LGBT Center decided to disassociate itself from their cause: Their advocacy is hateful, runs counter to the cause of LGBT rights, and has no place at an organization established as a safe space for all members of the LGBT community.

Read the whole thing. It is actually a very good rebuttal to the many misguided LGBTs who embrace radical anti-Israel causes.

I am told that if enough people comment, the Advocate will be more likely to run Lucas' pro-Israel views in the future.

It is a shame that it is so hard to find liberal straight Jews who are as passionate about Israel as Lucas is.

Fascinating account of meetings between FDR and Ibn Saud

I stumbled across this small book at an anti-Israel site. Written by William Eddy, a State Department Arabist who facilitated and attended meetings between US Presidents and the leaders of Saudi Arabia.

While it was written from an unabashedly pro-Arab perspective, the details are believable.

The last sentence by Truman is what has made this a popular quote at Israel-hating sites.

It's a good thing that the Brotherhood can't sing

The Hamas newspaper Palestine Times shows a video of Muslim Brotherhood leaders in Cairo singing a song called "Birds of Guidance."

Seriously, you call this singing?

It's almost as bad as al-Qaradawi's song:

It's almost as if they got singing lessons from BDSers.

When Facebook becomes a weapon in the Middle East (NewsRealBlog)

My latest post on NewsRealBlog:

Arabs have historically been very susceptible to rumors, no matter how bizarre. (One only has to look at the many rumors about Zionist control of animals that I documented recently.) Much of the Arabic news media will happily pass on rumors as fact.

Now, Facebook and other social media tools can be used to make Arab rumor mongering much more effective.

I recently saw a rumor in an Arabic news source that there was an attempted coup in Oman a couple of weeks ago. Tracing it back, it appears to have been started on, you guessed it, Facebook:

Read the whole thing.

Afternoon links

It is not only Hamas that is dead-set against UNRWA teaching the Holocaust. Our moderate friends from Fatah are as well.

But it is unclear that UNRWA ever had any intention to teach it anyway.

IsraeliGirl asks why Amnesty International goes soft on Iran, not demanding the same arms emrbargo that it demands from other states whose human rights records are not close to being as bad as Iran's.

So just how pro-Israel are the attendees at J-Street's conference?

Abbas continues to insult the US, calling US demands for accountability of where he spends US money "extortion."

Literally under the radar: Syria's impending purchase of supersonic cruise missiles and what that means.

Honest Reporting gives us the top five arguments against Israel Apartheid Week.

Speaking of, my "apartheid?" posters have been making appearances. Here and at this French site.

An Italian site picked up on my story about the insulting Palestinian Arab walkout in Geneva.

The Top Ten Gaddafi Toads.

(h/t Zach N, Israel Matzav and a cast of thousands....)

The PR firm that helped Libya (Mother Jones)

Another article about the unseen hands that guide our news coverage:

In February 2007 Harvard professor Joseph Nye Jr., who developed the concept of "soft power", visited Libya and sipped tea for three hours with Muammar Qaddafi. Months later, he penned an elegant description of the chat for The New Republic, reporting that Qaddafi had been interested in discussing "direct democracy." Nye noted that "there is no doubt that" the Libyan autocrat "acts differently on the world stage today than he did in decades past. And the fact that he took so much time to discuss ideas—including soft power—with a visiting professor suggests that he is actively seeking a new strategy." The article struck a hopeful tone: that there was a new Qaddafi. It also noted that Nye had gone to Libya "at the invitation of the Monitor Group, a consulting company that is helping Libya open itself to the global economy."

Nye did not disclose all. He had actually traveled to Tripoli as a paid consultant of the Monitor Group (a relationship he disclosed in an email to Mother Jones), and the firm was working under a $3 million-per-year contract with Libya. Monitor, a Boston-based consulting firm with ties to the Harvard Business School, had been retained, according to internal documents obtained by a Libyan dissident group, not to promote economic development, but "to enhance the profile of Libya and Muammar Qadhafi." So The New Republic published an article sympathetic to Qaddafi that had been written by a prominent American intellectual paid by a firm that was being compensated by Libya to burnish the dictator's image.

The Nye article was but one PR coup the Monitor Group delivered for Qaddafi. But the firm also succeeded on other fronts. The two chief goals of the project, according to an internal document describing Monitor's Libya operations, were to produce a makeover for Libya and to introduce Qaddafi "as a thinker and intellectual, independent of his more widely-known and very public persona as the Leader of the Revolution in Libya."

In 2006 and 2007, Benjamin Barber, an author specializing in democracy studies and a senior fellow at Demos, a pro-democracy think tank, took three trips to Libya as a paid consultant to Monitor. On these visits, Barber met with Libyan lawyers, officials, and activists interested in democratic reform—and Qaddafi, too....

Barber says he believed that the main aim of the Monitor Group's Libya project was to stir reform there—trying to "turn Libya from a rogue state into a better state." He was encouraged by small steps he saw in the country. And in August 2007, Barber wrote an op-ed for TheWashington Post, noting that Libya had finally released five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor who each had been condemned to death for allegedly infecting children in a Libyan hospital with HIV. In the article—headlined "Gaddafi's Libya: An Ally for America?"—Barber wrote that his one-on-one conversations with Qaddafi had convinced him that the Libyan leader had arranged for their release to show his desire for "a genuine rapprochement with the United States."

"Libya," Barber noted, "under Gaddafi has embarked on a journey that could make it the first Arab state to transition peacefully and without overt Western intervention to a stable, non-autocratic government." He reported that Qaddafi, whom the United States and other governments had identified as a possible ally in the war against Al Qaeda, had been "holding open conversations" with Western intellectuals.

But Barber did not mention in the Post piece that he himself had been a paid consultant for the Monitor Group.

...Anthony Giddens, a leading British intellectual, made two Monitor-guided trips to Libya in 2007. According to Monitor documents, he published two articles about Libya after each trip. In one of those pieces—"My chat with the colonel," posted by The Guardian—Giddens noted, "As one-party states go, Libya is not especially repressive. Gadafy seems genuinely popular." He observed, "Will real progress be possible only when Gadafy leaves the scene? I tend to think the opposite. If he is sincere in wanting change, as I think he is, he could play a role in muting conflict that might otherwise arise as modernisation takes hold." The article did not mention the Monitor Group.

The document that Mother Jones from the Monitor Group unearthed shows that they were not only trying to influence journalists and intellectuals but politicians as well:

Many of the visitors Monitor brought to Libya have individually briefed all levels of the United States government including specifically the President, Vice President, Heads of National Security and Intelligence as well as the Secretary of State.

It also lists the people that the Monitor Group brought to Libya, along with their subsequent speeches of articles. They include Richard Perle, Anthony Giddens, Francis Fukuyama, Nicholas Negroponte, American Sheikh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani, Bernard Lewis, David Frost, Benjamin Barber and Joseph Nye. In addition, the Monitor Group maintained contacts with other influential people to get them to be more sympathetic to Libya, including George Soros, Fareed Zakaria, and Thomas Friedman.

Some of this is perfectly fine; it is not unusual for governments to invite influential people over. But the lack of transparency, especially for those who were paid consultants and published articles or gave speeches without proper disclosure, is really bad - and it makes one wonder what other autocracies are doing the same thing.

Could the Vogue reporter have been on the Syrian payroll?

(h/t Silke)