Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Monday, December 05, 2011

Quartet irritated by Palestinian Arab actions

The U.S. government has asked senior Palestinian officials to refrain from leaking details of talks that took place recently between Middle East Quartet envoys, Israeli representatives and the Palestinian Authority.

According to a senior U.S. official, the Quartet agreed with Israel and the Palestinians that the content of the talks would remain confidential.

“Quartet members and parties have agreed to preserve confidentiality in their discussions. So frankly, we're somewhat disturbed by the fact that many of these details have appeared in the press,” the official said.

The Palestinians presented the Quartet with two documents relating to the borders of a future Palestinian state and security arrangements with Israel in November, but the Quartet told the Palestinians that the documents would not be passed to the Israelis, according to the official.

Quartet representatives told Saeb Erekat, head of the Palestinian negotiating team, that the proposals he presented were not relevant, because they had not been presented in direct talks with Israel, the official said.

The Americans have expressed displeasure with the Palestinians in part because of their refusal to engage in face-to-face talks with Israel. The Obama administration sees the Palestinian strategy of presenting proposals to the Quartet without engaging in direct talks as an attempt to change the rules of the game.

On December 13 and 14, Quartet envoys will once again hold separate meetings with Erekat, and Israeli negotiator Isaac Molho.

Haaretz reported on Thursday that Erekat presented Quartet representatives with two documents on November 14 that contained the Palestinian proposals. One document proposed the borders of a Palestinian state based on 1967 lines,but also indicated a willingness to swap 1.9 percent of West Bank territory with that of Israel.

The second document dealt with security arrangements and included the Palestinians' consent to an international peacekeeping force on the Israeli border and in the Jordan Valley. It also committed the Palestinians to refrain from forging military alliances with countries hostile to Israel, and also to the demilitarization of the West Bank. The proposal, however, would permit the Palestinians to have limited weaponry.

The Palestinian proposal was submitted in the context of a timeline suggested by the Quartet on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session in New York on September 23, just a short time after Netanyahu delivered a speech to the assembly. The Quartet's timeline called for the Palestinians and Israelis to submit proposals on borders and security issues by January 26 of next year, to serve as opening positions for subsequent negotiations.

The recent comments from Howard Gutman and especially Leon Panetta indicate that despite soothing words the Obama administration has hardly tilted towards Israel.

However, it is fascinating that Palestinian Arabs have managed to irritate three White House administrations in a row that had started off very supportive of them.

Clinton did more than anyone to turn Arafat from a terrorist into a respected politician, only to be rebuffed and insulted during negotiations in the final months of his presidency.

George W. Bush started out quite sympathetic towards Palestinian Arabs, but Arafat's lies to him during the Karine-A incident made him publicly call for a change in the PA leadership.

And now it appears that the White House, years after Obama told his friend Rashid Khalidi that he would tilt the US' policy towards Arab positions, is showing unhappiness towards the PLO leadership as well. And, more amazingly, so is the Quartet - which includes the UN.

The PLO will always pocket their gains given by successive US leadership, but it does not make them any more flexible or amenable to peace - on the contrary, it makes them more arrogant.

The lesson, that no Western leader seems to learn until it is too late, is that coddling Palestinian Arab leadership is counterproductive to peace.

If only that knowledge would transcend an election cycle.

Exclusive: EoZ interview with Danny Ayalon

I interviewed Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon at the Bet El dinner on Sunday night. It was a noisy room so the sound quality isn't the greatest but for the most part it is understandable.

More details on Shalit

YNet has some interesting new details on Shalit as a hostage in Gaza:

On Sunday Yedioth Ahronoth revealed that the kidnapped soldier decided to stop eating while captive and reached a point of malnutrition that put him in a life threatening situation.

According to the report, Shalit's hunger strike advanced his release as Hamas senior officials feared for his life.

An intelligence source said that "there were those in Hamas who feared that the extreme conditions under which Shalit was being held would mean they could not offer him the help he needed and he would die on them," and so they compromised over the details of the prisoner exchange deal.

The report also reveals that Shalit was injured from shrapnel during the kidnapping which just barely missed his vital organs. The wounds eventually healed.

I found this particularly interesting:

The news of Shalit's abduction led to a flurry of activity in Israel in a bid to find out which organizations were behind the attack and a great deal of effort was invested in trying to locate the place where Shalit was being held.

At a certain point Israel believed the intelligence efforts would bear fruit. Information that reached Israel claimed that the captive soldier was being kept in a northern Gaza house surrounded by a wall. Israel exerted many efforts in trying to find out exactly what was going on in the house and was even considering the possibility of a rescue mission.

Luckily, they found out that Iran and Hamas were "feeding" the information to Israeli intelligence: The house was in fact empty and booby trapped. The scheme set up by Iran and Hamas was to lure the Israeli rescue forces into the house and then blow it up with the forces inside.

And more:

Shalit was guarded by four Hamas members who were brought in from abroad especially for the secret mission. The foreign operatives were not replaced at any time during Gilad's captivity. "The four guards basically sentenced themselves to the same conditions in which Gilad was being incarcerated," the Israeli intelligence source noted.

Now it is time for - Hunger-washing!

From YNet:

A majority comprised of 133 states voted at the United Nations General Assembly Friday in favor of an Israeli proposal to make farming technology more accessible to developing African nations. Arab countries, who opposed the measure for political reasons, led a group of 35 nations who abstained from the vote.

The measure proposed by the Jewish state is expected to aid the Arab world among other regions, and is in line with the UN policy to eradicate hunger and poverty.

Here's the good part:

Iraq expressed objection to the proposal on behalf the Arab states, claiming that Israel is exploiting the developing world's needs to make political gains and to mask "illegal and destructive" policies.

Sounds like they have been reading Sarah Schulman!

Sunday links

Barry Rubin lets the Obama administration have it.

Take the Palestine Quiz!

The IDF's Mona Lisa - an Arab woman enlists in an elite IDF counter-terror unit.

From Bucharest to Jerusalem at Jewish Ideas Daily

Moderate PA envoy: "Israel never had any shred of right to exist"

Here's a photo from Israel's Terror Watch showing an Iranian protester throwing a stone at the British embassy while police just watch him.

(h/t Jewess, Yoel)

France doesn't want to lead UNIFIL next year

From Naharnet:

France has renounced leading the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon fearing that its contingent would be a possible target of attacks if the situation on the border deteriorated, according to a report published in Le Figaro Newspaper on Saturday.

“It is better to stay in the shadows when the French diplomacy is taking a major role in the campaign on the Syrian regime,” military sources told the newspaper.

The sources said that France gave up its command role according to the rotation principle between the three European countries that have the wider participation in the UNIFIL, which are Italy, Spain, and France.

The command of the UNIFIL will be vacant in early 2012.

Le Figaro reported that the French step indicates the country’s decision to move away from the spotlight, as the UNIFIL peacekeepers “might be possible targets to be taken hostages if the situation in southern Lebanon deteriorates.”

On July 26, 2011, a roadside bomb hit a French convoy in the southern city of Sidon, wounding five French peacekeepers.

The newspaper added that the rocket attack from southern Lebanon into northern Israel on Tuesday indicates that any military intervention in Syria will “affect the whole region.”

According to Le Figaro France gave up leading the UNIFIL leadership without any media fuss and without announcing the step.

France considers that the UNIFIL mission is “incapable of carrying out its tasks … due to the reduced freedom of movement and the humiliation of the soldiers” in the south, the newspaper said.

Yeah, when they signed up to be patrolling a region dominated by a terrorist group sworn to destroy its neighbor to the south they had no idea that it might actually be dangerous!

If you didn't realize that UNIFIL was a joke before....

Gutman's speech even worse than reported

The speech of US ambassador to Belgium, Howard Gutman, that I mentioned earlier today is online.

And it is even worse than what YNet reported.

There is and has long been some amount of anti-Semitism, of hatred and violence against Jews, from a small sector of the population who hate others who may be different or perceived to be different, largely for the sake of hating. Those anti-Semites are people who hate not only Jews, but Muslims, gays, gypsies, and likely any who can be described as minorities or different. That hatred is of course pernicious and it must be combated. We can never take our eye off it or just dismiss it as fringe elements or the work of crazy people, because we have seen in the past how it can foment and grow. And it is that hatred that lawyers like you can work vigilantly to expose, combat and punish, maybe in conjunction with existing human rights groups.

I have not personally seen much of that hatred in Europe, though it rears its ugly head from time to time. I do not have any basis to think it is growing in any sense. But of course, we can never take our eye off of it, and you particularly as lawyers can help with that process.

So in some sense, that is the easy part of the analysis.

Let’s turn to the harder and more complex part.

What I do see as growing, as gaining much more attention in the newspapers and among politicians and communities, is a different phenomena. It is the phenomena that led Jacques Brotchi to quit his position on the university committee a couple of months ago and that led to the massive attention last week when the Jewish female student was beaten up. It is the problem within Europe of tension, hatred and sometimes even violence between some members of Muslim communities or Arab immigrant groups and Jews. It is a tension and perhaps hatred largely born of and reflecting the tension between Israel, the Palestinian Territories and neighboring Arab states in the Middle East over the continuing Israeli-Palestinian problem.

It too is a serious problem. It too must be discussed and solutions explored. No Jewish student – and no Muslim student or student of any heritage or religion – should ever feel intimidated on a University campus for their heritage or religion leading to academic leaders quitting in protest. No high school or grammar school Jewish student – and no Muslim high school or grammar school student or student of any heritage or religion – should be beaten up over their heritage or religion.

But this second problem is in my opinion different in many respects than the classic bigotry – hatred against those who are different and against minorities generally -- the type of anti-Semitism that I discussed above. It is more complex and requiring much more thought and analysis. This second form of what is labeled “growing anti-Semitism” produces strange phenomena and results.

Thus for example, I have been received well by Belgians everywhere in this country. I always get polite applause and sometimes more.

But the longest and loudest ovation I have ever received in Belgium came from the high school with one of the largest percentages of students of Arab heritage. It was in Molenbeek. It consisted of an audience dominated by girls with head scarves and boys named Mohammed, standing and cheering boisterously for a Jewish American, who belongs to two schuls and whose father was a Holocaust survivor. Let me just share a minute or two with you of a video clip from that visit....

These kids were not anti-Semitic as I have ever thought of the term. And I get a similar reaction as I engage with imans, at Iftars, and with Muslims communities throughout Belgium.

And yet, I know and I hear at the same time that the cheering occurs for this Jew, that within that same school and audience at Molenbeek, among those at the same Iftars, and throughout the Muslim communities that I visit, and indeed throughout Europe, there is significant anger and resentment and, yes, perhaps sometimes hatred and indeed sometimes and all too growing intimidation and violence directed at Jews generally as a result of the continuing tensions between Israel and the Palestinian territories and other Arab neighbors in the Middle East.

This is a complex problem indeed. It requires its own analysis and solutions. And the analysis I submit is not served simply by lumping the problem with past instances of anti-Jewish beliefs and actions or those that exist today among minority haters under a uniform banner of “anti-Semitism.”

It is I believe this area where community leaders – Jewish, Muslim, and third parties—where diplomats and religious leaders, where lawyers and professionals from both communities, where mothers and fathers, where university leaders and school administrators, can make the most difference by working to limit converting political and military tension in the Middle East into social problems in Europe. But it is the area too – both fortunately and unfortunately -- where the largest part of the solution remains in the hands of government leaders in Israel and the Palestinian territories and Arab countries in the Middle East. It is the area where every new settlement announced in Israel, every rocket shot over a border or suicide bomber on a bus, and every retaliatory military strike exacerbates the problem and provides a setback here in Europe for those fighting hatred and bigotry here in Europe.

I said that it is both fortunate and unfortunate that the largest part of the solution for this second type of problem – too often lumped under a general banner of anti-Semitism – is in the hands of Israel, the Palestinians and Arab neighbors in the Middle East. It is fortunate because it means that, unlike traditional hatred of minorities, a path towards improving and resolving it does at least exist. It is crucial for the Middle East – but it is crucial for the Jewish and Arab communities in Europe and for countries around the globe – that Mid-East peace negotiations continue, that settlements abate, and that progress towards a lasting peace be made and then such a peace reached in the Middle East. Were a lasting peace in the Middle East to be reached, were joint and cooperative Israeli-Arab attentions turned to focus instead on such serious, common threats such as Iran, this second type of ethnic tension and bigotry here in Europe – which is clearly growing today – would clearly abate. I can envision the day when it disappears. Peace in the Middle East would indeed equate with a huge reduction of this form of labeled “anti-Semitism” here in Europe.

It is at the same time somewhat unfortunate that most of the cause and thus most of the solution for tension and hatred in Europe, for growing problems at Belgian universities, for epithets in the streets, rest with governments and people a continent away. For, in some respect, citizens, parents, religious and community leaders here in Europe can simply try to promote understanding and patience, while ensuring law enforcement serves its mission, without being able fully to address the most root causes and most efficient cures.

It is a challenge for us all. I hope it is one you will address in this conference.

Thanks so much and all the best.

Howard Gutman is a credulous, gullible idiot.

If his theory was correct, that Israeli actions cause Arab Jew-hatred and that diplomacy would reduce it, then the least amount of Jew-hatred in the Arab world must be seen in Egypt and Jordan, who have peace treaties with Israel.

But the exact opposite is the case - those are the states with the most hatred of Jews!

How can Gutman explain that?

Is it because Jordanians and Egyptians love Palestinian Arabs so much? But in fact they discriminate against their Palestinian residents?

He can't explain it. Chances are, he isn't even aware of it.

Yes, Arabs and Muslims pretend that their modern version of anti-semitism is completely political - or at least they have been making that claim since 1967, or since 1948. But in fact the Jew-hatred, which has been richly documented in this site as well as many others, is exactly that - against Jews. Ask the hundreds of thousands of Jews who have been forced out of Arab lands whether they lost their homes because they were "Zionists." Ask the Jews of Hebron in 1929 if their "Zionist" activities is what caused the riots that killed scores of them.

Just because the excuses they use for their modern Jew-hatred is couched in terms of human rights and Palestinian Arab nationalism does not mean that it is true, any more than Nazi claims that Jews were "declaring war" on them in 1933 was true.

The Arabs have learned that Westerners are more amenable to arguments using human rights and liberal terminology, so that is what their current manifestation of Jew-hatred resembles.

Gutman, and far too many other stupid, gullible American Jews, actually believe the words of soft-spoken Arab leaders wearing suits in Western media interviews, when they are saying the exact opposite in Arabic to their real audiences. A quick glance at Palestinian Media Watch shows literally hundreds of examples, and MEMRI fills in the rest from the larger Arab world.

Amazing, mind-blowing idiocy. From a US ambassador.

The Wikileaks memos have shown that most State Department employees are pretty bright and have a good grasp on what they are doing. There are some great analyses to be seen there.

But political appointees who get plum jobs because of their fundraising activities are not exactly the same, are they?

(h/t CHA)

Abbas has no strategy - and another type of media bias

A rare wire-service article critical of Mahmoud Abbas, from AFP:

The Palestinian bid for membership of the United Nations, launched amid fanfare in September, has hit a dead end and left the major powers wondering if president Mahmud Abbas has a strategy.

The Palestinian leadership shows no sign of calling for a vote on the application for full membership at the UN Security Council and after getting acceptance by UNESCO there has been no followup to other international agencies.

Abbas told the UN General Assembly how the bid for international recognition of a Palestinian state was born out of frustration at what he considers Israel's deliberate blocking of the peace process.

But many experts call the campaign a failure.

"They did not get the ... votes at the Security Council and so I think that bid basically has failed," said David Makovsky, director of the peace process project at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a think tank.

The Palestinians had to get nine votes from the 15 Security Council members, but too many said they would abstain or oppose the bid. Even if they had succeeded, the United States had made it clear it would veto the bid.

The Palestinians may be holding back because they do not want to further risk their relations with President Barack Obama's administration, Makovsky told AFP.

Philip Wilcox, a scholar with the Middle East Institute and former US diplomat with special responsibility for Middle East affairs, also called the Palestinian a "failure" -- for now.

"I don't think they will ask for a vote unless they are sure to get nine votes," Wilcox said.

The Security Council's new members committee could not agree on a united recommendation on the Palestinian application and for the past month the Council has been waiting for a sign from the Palestinian leadership on their next move.

Abbas could also decide to seek a super-observer status at the UN General Assembly where a majority is virtually guaranteed but the prize would have much less status than full membership.

Palestinian diplomats at the United Nations say they are waiting for instructions from Ramallah. Western envoys at the UN say they have been told not to take any action until Abbas decides.

"We are really not sure what the Palestinian strategy is and whether they have one," one senior Western diplomat said.

Vitaly Churkin, Russian envoy to the UN and president of the Security Council for December, indicated that he too is in the dark, when asked at a press conference on Friday.

It is a good article, showing a side of the PA that we rarely see.

And that is the problem.

Even though this article was released by AFP last night, I found it only at two news sites: Asia One and Univision. (I only noticed it at all because it was mentioned prominently in Jordan's Al Ghad in Arabic, where the readers presictably rated it "bad.")

Wire services send out articles to their client newspapers and other media. The editors at the media outlets decide whether to include these stories in their collection of articles or not.

This article is nearly invisible on news sites that choose hundreds of other articles a day from AFP.

The reason? It seems to be because it contradicts the prevailing narrative of an ascendant Palestinian Authority with its inevitable march towards statehood and respectability.

Journalists are lazy. They have a pack mentality that all but ensures that original reporting and analysis is suppressed in favor of following easy-to-understand snapshot narratives.

But even more lazy are editors. When given a chance to show an alternative to the ever-present memes, they will very often choose to ignore it. It is too hard to explain, it might bring in complaints, it contradicts the other narratives that they so lovingly embrace. Who needs the headaches?

Abbas bet his people on statehood. He lost. He has no Plan B. But the media which has portrayed him as a moderate, pragmatic hero cannot bear to explain to their readers that they were wrong and that Abbas is more interested in stunts than negotiations and compromise.

Only when events occur that they cannot ignore will editors start to accept a new narrative. But it has to be easy to understand, with a clear hero and a clear villain, or else they fear their readers will run away. Short of an Abbas sex scandal, it is easier to just let the statehood story die, and keep the image of a peaceful and moderate Abbas pristine for the next time he butts heads with the intransigent, hardline Israeli leader.

Virgin Megastore recommends Mein Kampf to its Arab customers

A Twitter user has a photo of a book display at a Virgin Megastore in Qatar:

Yes, that is Hitler's Mein Kampf prominently displayed as a recommendation for Virgin's Arabic-reading customers!

And it is not only in Qatar. This blog post from Bahrain shows that the Virgin store there also recommends Mein Kampf.

So this does not look like it was the decision of the local store manager, but of Virgin Megastores for the entire Arab region.

What does Richard Branson think?

You can tweet him at @richardbranson or you can complain to the Virgin Megastores Middle East at @VirginMegaME.

UPDATE: Virgin responds - with lies.

Islamists end up with 65% of Egypt vote

From Al Arabiya:

Islamist parties have won 65 percent of votes for party list seats in the first round of parliamentary elections, according to official figures obtained by AFP on Sunday.

The Muslim Brotherhood won 36.62 percent of the vote, followed by the hard-line Salafist al-Nur party with 24.36 and the moderate Al-Wasat with 4.27, according to a chart provided by elections committee secretary general Yusri Abdel Karim.

Abdel Karim said that the committee would not provide percentages until the end of voting on January 10, but according to an official chart he provided the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party list won 3.56 million out of 9.73 million valid ballots.

The al-Nur party won 2.37 million, and the Wasat party 415,590 votes.

The liberal coalition the Egyptian Bloc received 13.35 percent, with 1.29 million votes.

The percentages cannot be calculated into the number of seats each party list will receive until the final results for the whole country are in.

This is close to what Al Masry al Youm reported last night:

This doesn't mean that Islamists will get 65% of the seats in Parliament - they very possibly will get more.

Egyptians return to the polls on Monday for 52 run-off votes for individual candidates, who will occupy a third of the 498 elected seats in the lower house once two more rounds of the complicated voting process end in January. Two-thirds of the seats are allocated proportionately to party lists.

From what I can tell in the Egyptian press, the run-offs are between the two highest vote-getters in different districts - and in practically all cases, that means they are between the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafi Nour party. Which means, from a back of the envelope calculation, the Islamists will end up with about 370 seats, or 74%.

Moreover, if I am understanding things correctly, there is a real possibility that the Muslim Brotherhood alone can end up with an absolute majority of seats in the parliament after the run-offs. If they end up with 120 seats of the 334 that are allocated proportionately, they would need to get 80% of the wins in the run-off elections - something that is certainly conceivable given that they are more moderate than their likely opponents in most of those elections. Liberals and Wasat voters may vote for the MB party in those elections rather than the Nour Salafis, if given a choice.

Either way, Egypt will become an Islamist state.

Will it be extreme, or ultra extreme?

Can it cope with the economic meltdown that Egypt is now facing?

Can we expect to see a mass exodus of Copts?

Will Egypt ally closer with Iran?

Will there ever be another election?

US envoy: Muslim anti-semitism is Israel's fault (updated)

From YNet:

Growing global anti-Semitism is linked to Israel’s policy towards the Palestinians, the American ambassador to Belgium told stunned Jewish conference attendants in Brussels earlier this week.

Speaking Wednesday at a Jewish conference on anti-Semitism organized by the European Jewish Union (EJU,) Howard Gutman told participants he was apologizing in advance if his words are not to their liking. He then proceeded to make controversial statements about his views on Muslim anti-Semitism, Yedioth Ahronoth reported Friday.

A distinction should be made between traditional anti-Semitism, which should be condemned and Muslim hatred for Jews, which stems from the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, Gutman said. He also argued that an Israeli-Palestinian peace treaty will significantly diminish Muslim anti-Semitism.

The American envoy, a lawyer by training, is Jewish and played a major role in fundraising for the Democratic Party. He was appointed to the post by President Barack Obama.

The next speaker took Gutman to task:

The conference was attended by Jewish lawyers from across Europe. The legal experts at the event were visibly stunned by Gutman’s words, and the next speaker offered a scathing rebuttal to the envoy’s remarks.

“The modern Anti-Semite formally condemns Anti-Semitism and the Holocaust and expresses upmost sympathy with the Jewish people. He simply has created a new species, the “Anti-Zionist” or – even more sophisticated – the so-called ‘Israel critic,’” Germany attorney Nathan Gelbart said.

“The ‘Israel critic’ will never state ‘Jews go home’ but is questioning the legality of the incorporation of the State of Israel and therefore the right for the Jewish people to settle in their homeland. He will not say the Jews are the evil of the world but claim that the State of Israel is a major cause for instability and war in the region,” he said. “There is no other country, no other people on this planet the ‘Israel critic’ would dedicate so much time and devotion as to the case of Israel.”

“For no other country he would criticize or ask to boycott its goods or academics. And this for one simple reason: Because Israel is the state of the Jewish people, not more and not less,” Gelbart said.

I would have simply pointed out this note in the book The Rob Roy on the Jordan, Nile, Red sea, & Gennesareth, published in 1870 by John MacGregor:

This must be a typo; no doubt MacGregor really just mistranslated "Zionist," a word not coined until decades later.

Today's Arabs and Muslims are equally clear that they are only against Israel and not Jews. Here's a perfect example of a Muslim preacher, whom I quoted on Friday, who takes pains to make the distinction (I help him out, in case anyone could misintrepret his words.)

Servants of Allah, let us be aware that our struggle with the Jews ^(Zionists) is one of faith, identity, and existence. Read the Koran, where Allah says: “Never will the Jews ^(Zionists) or the Christians ^(Zionists) be satisfied with you until you follow their creed,” so that you may know what the Jews ^(Zionists) conceal within their hearts.

Read what Allah says: “Strongest among men in enmity to the believers you will find the Jews ^(Zionists) and the polytheists,” so that you may know the magnitude of their enmity towards the Muslims, and their hatred towards the followers of the Prophet Muhammad. These people...

Brothers and sisters, you should read history books, so you my know the history of this people ^(Zionists) , and so you may know that the Jews ^(Zionists) of the past were evil, and the Jews ^(Zionists) of today are even worse.

They ^(Zionists) are ungrateful, they ^(Zionists) distort the word [of Allah], the ^(Zionist) worshippers of the golden calf, the ^(Zionist) slayers of the prophets, the ^(Zionist) enemies of the divine prophecies, the ^(Zionist) scum of mankind, who incurred the curse and wrath of Allah, and ^(Zionists) whom Allah transformed into apes and pigs and into taghut worshippers.

You just have to be smart enough, like Gutman evidently is, to read between the lines.

UPDATE: I had forgotten about this little treatise which is really all you need to know on the matter. It's an entire e-book, so it is pretty comprehensive. (h/t Brian)

Poor little anti-semitic cartoonist getting death threats from Muslims

We have discussed Carlos Latuff's many anti-semitic cartoons before. While he has been heavily criticized for them, as far as I know nobody has threatened his life because of them.

But when he drew a fairly mild cartoon about the results of the Egyptian elections, all hell broke loose.

And his reactions showed him to be the classy guy we always suspected.

A Brazilian cartoonist whose caricatures against the former regime of Hosni Mubarak won him praise in the Arab world is now in the spotlight himself amid Egypt's divisive election.

Carlos Latuff's latest illustration, pointing to a sharp surge in support for Islamic candidates, was not received favorably Saturday by many Egyptians on social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook.

Reaction on Twitter was unexpectedly harsh, considering Latuff's series of cartoons encouraging pro-democracy protesters in Egypt, and his uncompromising criticism of the SCAF. The cartoons often showed up on signs in Tahrir square, he says.

But anger directed toward the latest caricature underscores resentment that outside interests still seek to dictate to Egyptians their political affairs, while often failing to distinguish between established religious parties and fundamentalists.

Adding fuel to the fire, Latuff shocked many of his followers by dismissing any criticism outright and responding with expletive-laden contempt, including one crude private message to a female tweeter.

Many said it was Latuff's hostility, not his cartoon, that sparked the outcry.

At the same time, Latuff said he had received multiple death threats in response to the caricature, while his supporters condemned the uproar as an attempt to stifle the artist's freedom of expression. They ridiculed as childish a campaign to "unfollow" him on Twitter.

While you gotta hand it to him to at least note that Islamists winning the Egyptian election is not wonderful, it is hard to feel sympathy for such a sickening piece of trash.

Washington Post repeats PCHR lies about civilians in Gaza

In an Washington Post article about how Gazans have to live with the constant presence of Israeli drones, we read:

The Palestinian Center for Human Rights says 825 people have been killed by drones in Gaza since the capture of Shalit, who was released in October. Most of those killed, according to the organization, have been civilians mistakenly targeted or caught in the deadly shrapnel shower of a drone strike.

The WaPo says that PCHR is saying that the civilians killed in Gaza are mostly mistakenly targeted. But PCHR claims that Israel deliberately targets civilians. The name of the report I am quoting is "Targeted Civilians." This is the first indication that PCHR is not telling the truth.

I could not find any specific report at PCHR listing the victims of drone attacks to see how many were really civilian, but we have already shown that the PCHR definition of "civilian" includes members of every major terror organization.

A small example:

In that same report on the Gaza war, they say:

At approximately 17:20 on 3 January 2009, an IOF drone fired a missile at the western gate of Martyr Ibrahim al-Maqadma Mosque in the north of Jabalia Refugee Camp, near Martyr Kamal ‘Odwan Hospital. The missile landed only 2 meters away from the mosque’s gate. 12 civilians, including 4 children and a father with his son, who were praying at the time of the attack, were immediately killed. Another 30 civilians were injured in the attack. A number of the injured were transferred to al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City. Later, medical sources announced that 3 had died. A total of 15 civilians were killed in this attack.

However, 6 or 7 of those killed were actually terrorists congregated outside the mosque - the targets of the attack.

Another from the same report:

Also at approximately 14:00 pm [January 7], IOF drones bombed al-Salatin area in the north of the Gaza Strip. Mohammed ‘Ali Ahmed al-Sultan, 55, who was near his house was killed as a result.

PCHR calls him a "civilian" but here is Hamas' Al Qassam Brigades memorial page for him, where we learn that even at the age of 55 he volunteered to be a member of the Qassam Brigades and that he was "in the first row in battle, fighting the enemies of God, the invaders." He was apparently relaying the positions of Israeli planes to the "mujahadeen" at the time he was targeted. In no way could be considered a civilian.

All in all, as I have documented, the PCHR categorized some 363 terrorists killed as "civilians" during the Gaza war.

Without the PCHR details I cannot prove that most of those targeted by drones are militant, but from reading about every airstrike over the past five years, I am certain that the percentage of civilians killed by drones is far less than 50%.

But the Washington Post does not bother to find out these basic facts. Israeli drones have been shown to be remarkably accurate and effective in targeting terrorists - not perfect, but about as good as any weapons used in history in a heavily populated area. But rather than dig a little deeper in a long article about drones, the WaPo uncritically believes an NGO that has been shown to lie, repeatedly, in its reports about this specific topic.

Stand With Us' response to the Forward - that The Forward didn't publish

I wrote about hit piece in the Forward last week, written by former Ha'aretz reporter Nathan Guttman, that painted the pro-Israel organization Stand With Us as an unethical right-wing group that should be, according to Guttman, registered as a foreign agent.

Stand With Us was understandably not happy with the article and asked The Forward to publish their response.

It will surprise few that a left-wing anti-Zionist newspaper that pretends to support free speech refused.

So here is SWU's letter to the Forward that was not published:

To The Forward,

StandWithUs appreciates your recent coverage of our dynamic growth, and of our multiple educational and advocacy efforts in cities around the world.

However, we were disturbed by the bizarre angle of your article, which tried to discredit us as “right wing,” and absurdly asked whether StandWithUs should register as an agent of a foreign government even though your own sources emphatically rejected this notion. You even tried to imply that there is something suspect about our funding sources though the Jewish Federation of Los Angeles and Birthright Israel can hardly be considered suspect.

Your readers deserve to know the facts.

StandWithUs does not and has never advocated specific policies for Israel. Our work and our respect for Israel’s democratically elected government is not contingent on which parties are in power. Instead, since our founding, our mission has been to counter the vicious anti-Israel, anti-Semitic propaganda campaign that was unleashed along with the Intifada in September, 2000. Our goal is to educate the public about Israel—and empower others to educate their communities—to counter the demonizing propaganda and to make it possible to have reasonable, informed conversations about Israel’s policies on campuses and in communities.

Your readers should be informed about the virulence of the anti-Israel propaganda campaign. Israel is the only modern state whose right to exist is still questioned. If you consider support for the existence of the Jewish State a right wing position, then indeed we are right wing. Yet you repeatedly confused anti-Israel propaganda with “reasonable criticism” of Israeli policies. But the boycott movement against Israel is not just critical of Israel’s occupation and settlements as you claimed. The movement opposes the very existence of the Jewish state. Read their literature and their websites which are biased screeds that ignore ongoing terrorism and falsify facts. We objected to the Israeli soldiers’ group speaking on campuses not because they are critical of the Israeli government but because they misrepresent the IDF to vilify it and contribute to the malicious misinformation about Israel on American campuses.

Similarly, your article misrepresented why we object to J Street. It is not because J Street “criticizes” Israel's government policies, but rather because it attempts to get the American government to strong arm Israel into adopting specific policies that Israeli voters clearly rejected in their democratic elections. It is an effort to bypass Israel’s democracy. Furthermore, J Street has often supported blatant demonization of Israel, as when it tried to facilitate bringing Richard Goldstone and the infamous UN Goldstone Report to Congressional members. Even Goldstone himself has admitted the inaccuracy and bias of that report.

Indeed, it seems you had to search hard to find some evidence that would justify your criticism of StandWithUs. Though you claimed that StandWithUs has many critics, the only one you cited by name is well-known for his extremist views. Your criticism of some specific facts in our educational materials is simply erroneous . Despite your claim, Israel’s founding in May, 1948, did not cause the Palestinian refugee problem. Indeed, no responsible historian, including Benny Morris, disputes the fact that had Palestinian leaders accepted the UN Partition plan instead of launching a war to destroy the newly declared state, there would have been no refugees and a Palestinian Arab state would exist today.   The Danny Ayalon video simply laid out the historical facts about the West Bank. It is disputed territory, and both Palestinians and Israelis have legitimate claims to it. What policies Israel and the Palestinians choose in light of these facts is a political question that will hopefully be hammered out in negotiations. StandWithUs does not recommend any specific policies, but rather elucidates the facts and history so there can be reasonable discussions about different policy options.

It is a shame that The Forward, while seeming to congratulate our growth and achievements during the last ten years,  nonetheless chose to malign our efforts.

These are difficult times for Israel. The Arab spring has created instability in the region and allowed the rise of Islamist forces that oppose Israel’s existence.  Iran is racing to develop nuclear weapons and constantly reiterates that it wants to wipe Israel off the map. Hezbollah and Hamas continue amassing arms. The anti-Israel propaganda campaign, often called the “new anti-Semitism,” (for good reason) persistently tries to make inroads in liberal Western democracies. StandWithUs alerts and educates the public about these challenges, while the Forward minimizes them, doing a disservice to its readers.

Roz Rothstein, CEO

StandWithUs

_________________________________________

If you find the original Forward piece to be offensive and (as I had written) smarmy, feel free to go there and comment.

Again, a disclaimer: I have done some work with SWU.

UPDATE: On December 7, the Forward published a condensed and edited version of the response.

Weekend open thread, with a Wall St. update

I visited Wall Street yesterday, for the first time in a couple of months.

I always liked the tile art in New York subways

Last time, you may recall, I saw the first wave of Occupy Wall Street protesters, including this gentleman:

I am happy to report that there were no protesters to be seen this time, at least not on Wall Street itself. (Well, I did see one guy telling people not to visit Thailand.)

Also, while the barricades are still up, they are not nearly as suffocating as they were in September. And they are no longer in front of the kosher Milk Street Cafe at all, which was hurt badly by the loss of customers, forcing layoffs.

The bad news is that I planned to go to Milk Street to pick up dinner for take out - but they changed their hours to close at 3:30 PM, probably because of the layoffs. So I didn't get to eat anything from there this time around.

Anyway, here are a couple of links:

Khaled Abu Toameh- Muslim Brotherhood: Extremist Islamic Group
Richard Landes - Muslim anti-Semitism, Israel and the dynamics of self-destructive scapegoating

Have a good weekend.