Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Thursday, December 08, 2011

Holy Land Foundation (Hamas front) loses appeal

A U.S. federal appeals court on Wednesday upheld the convictions of five leaders of an Islamic charity on charges of funneling money and supplies to Hamas, which the United States designates as a “terrorist” group.

The organizers of the Texas-based Holy Land Foundation argued they were denied a fair trial in 2008 when the government used secret Israeli witnesses to testify against them. The organizers also raised a host of constitutional challenges to the evidence presented against them at trial.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected those challenges, concluding that “while no trial is perfect,” Holy Land and its leaders were fairly convicted. The court pointed to “voluminous evidence” that the foundation, which was started in the late 1980s, had long-running financial ties to Hamas.

Once the largest Muslim charity in the United States, Holy Land was closed by the administration of former President George W. Bush soon after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Holy Land argued that the millions of dollars it raised went to charities in the West Bank and Gaza known as zakat committees. Although those committees performed legitimate charitable functions, they were also Hamas social institutions, the court found.

Federal law makes it a crime to provide material aid and support to a designated terrorist organization like Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip and does not recognize Israel’s existence.

“By supporting such entities, the defendants facilitated Hamas’ activity by furthering its popularity among Palestinians and by providing a funding resource. This, in turn, allowed Hamas to concentrate its efforts on violent activity,” Judge Carolyn King wrote on behalf of the unanimous three-judge panel.

Two layers of discrimination against Israeli writers in France

From Ha'aretz:

There was a stir at a conference of Mediterranean writers in Marseilles yesterday when Israeli author Moshe Sakal was booted from a panel discussion at the request of Palestinian poet Najwan Darwish.

The director of the conference, French-Jewish author Pierre Assouline, said Sakal's participation in the panel, which was on the Arab Spring, "was not crucial."

Speaking by phone from Marseilles, Assouline told Haaretz that in the previous two years the conference had been held, Palestinian writers had refused to come because there were Israeli participants.

This year, Darwish said he had no problem with Israeli participants, so long as he would not have to sit with any of them at the same roundtable discussion.

Assouline said that when he explained to the audience before the discussion about the Palestinian's refusal to sit with Sakal, "half of the crowd got very angry, and the other half was thrilled."

Sakal, who entered the hall after the discussion had begun so he could listen to it, was somewhat surprised when his entrance caused a stir.

"I entered the hall just as [Moroccan poet] Tahar Ben Jelloun was speaking forcefully against this type of boycott," Sakal said. "He said that there are many Israeli authors who are supportive [of the Palestinian cause] and one should speak to them even if one doesn't approve of current Israeli politics."

"There were hundreds of people there and there were a lot of hecklers," Sakal said. "People were very upset."

Darwish, said Sakal, accused him of expelling him from his home, and said "the Jewish-Arabs [Jews from Arab lands] particularly hate the Palestinians."

Sakal, who is of Syrian and Egyptian origin, said he told the crowd "I understand them but I also understand my situation, and the one thing that distressed me was that he didn't try to find out who I am or what my views are."

The article makes an obvious point that is ignored by the so-called liberal Left: that even educated, cultured Palestinian Arabs like Najwan Darwish are bigoted and narrow-minded. You won't find any angry tweets about this from people who rail all day about supposed Israeli "apartheid."

But there is a more subtle, equally outrageous discrimination going on.

Both the Morroccan poet and, it seems, the Israeli author imply that there is no problem discriminating against Israelis if they are perceived to have political views that are different from their own. They are arguing that the Israeli writers who agree with them are OK, but poets and authors should ban any other writers who happen to have different ideas. Nothing to do with their writings, of course - only their political opinions.

Don't ban Israelis, they say. Allow Israelis whose opinions fit the political correctness of the Palestinian Arab narrative - and merely ban the others.

Why this second kind of discrimination is considered progressive is a question left unanswered by the "progressives."

(h/t Silke)

Egypt grants citizenship to 454 PalArab children

In January, in a UNRWA report about Lebanon, the agency stated "Tawteen (naturalization) is also strongly rejected by the Palestinians, who insist on their right to return to Palestine."

As I noted then, this is simply a lie. Every time an Arab government allowed Palestinian Arabs to become citizens, they rushed in to do it.

The latest example comes from Egypt. 454 children in Egypt who have Palestinian fathers were given citizenship yesterday, making over 1000 people who were formerly considered Palestinian to now be Egyptian citizens this year. And tens of thousands more are trying desperately to gain Egyptian citizenship.

The idea that Palestinian Arabs do not want to become citizens in the countries that they were born in and grew up in is simply another lie. Many, probably most, do, especially when they hear that even in the case of a Palestinian Arab state, their own leaders don't want them to move to "Palestine" - but to flood Israel instead, a scenario that will never happen.

The Arab nations and Palestinian Arab leaders are colluding to keep their "refugee" population miserable and stateless. And they have succeeded, brilliantly.

Fatah and Hamas really ARE united - in terror

YNet reports on some more nice shooting:

Israel Air Force aircrafts were able to target a vehicle transporting Assam Subahi Ismail Batash, a senior Gaza-based terror operative.

According to the IDF and the Shin Bet, Batash was the mastermind behind several terror attacks carried out by militants who infiltrated into Israel from the Sinai Peninsula.

Palestinian security officials said Thursday that a car transporting three people exploded near a public garden in Gaza City, killing at least two people and injuring six. IDF officials confirmed that the IAF had targeted a vehicle carrying Batash. Eyewitnesses reported seeing the two men being pulled out of the white vehicle.

Batash, IDF officials claimed, was a senior figure in the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, and was behind the imminent terror threat in the south.

Officials said Batash was also involved in several attacks in which terrorists from Gaza were smuggled into Sinai and then infiltrated back into Israel through the border. In January 2007 he organized a suicide bombing in Eilat that killed three Israelis.

Batash was also involved in several botched attacks, in which he tried to smuggle terrorists and arms into Israel.

However, who was the other person killed?

According to Palestine Press Agency, it was his nephew, Subhi Batash, who was a member of the Al Qassam Brigades.

Which means that members of the Fatah terror group and the Hamas terror group really do love to cooperate!

So there really was some unity that was being celebrated in Cairo.

(Fans of car swarm videos can see the one from this strike here.)

UPDATE: A touching photo of the double funeral with both group flags draping the dead terrorists:

When you hate Israel, even pro-PalArab articles are hasbara

A few months ago I wrote a tongue-in-cheek post about how Israel-bashers cannot stand any news from Israel, no matter how trivial or how local, that does not prominently feature supposedly evil Israeli policies against Palestinian Arabs.

I suggested that you too can share their viewpoint if you wear the special Occupation Glasses, through which the entire world can be seen refracted correctly where "occupation" is the central theme of everything you look at.

A hilarious example could be seen this morning on Twitter - and the offending article doesn't praise Israel, but Palestinian Arabs!

The Atlantic has a piece about the art scene in Ramallah. It is upbeat and positive. It shows a thriving art culture and it highlights new institutions that bring art to Palestinian Arabs. It tells us about the effort to bring a Picasso to the territories and how popular that exhibit was.

It is a nice article, it tells a story that people do not hear about, and (as long as the art is not used as a cover for incitement to kill Israeli Jews) it is a trend that should be encouraged. I don't look at this pro-Palestinian article and foam at the mouth in anger that someone dares write a piece that doesn't demonize all Arabs in the territories.

But when you wear the Occupation Glasses, even this article is terrible!

Joseph Dana looked at this article that humanized and praised his erstwhile Palestinian Arab friends and seized onto one sentence. Here it is in context:

Thanks to Palestine’s tense political history, the visual arts in Palestine have long failed to gain the foothold they deserve. From 1967 until the signing to the Oslo Accords in 1993, when Palestinian cities were under military occupation, there were restrictions on arts and culture. For example, it was forbidden to paint images combining the four colors of the Palestinian flag, black, green, white, and red. "Painting a watermelon was not allowed," explains Khaled Hourani, one of Palestine’s leading artists and former Director of Fine Arts for the Palestinian Ministry of Culture.

Even after 1993 and the end of military occupation, the visual arts stalled in the territories.

The author obviously meant that the restrictions that Israel placed on Palestinian Arab art are no longer in place since Oslo. Whether there is a "military occupation" after Oslo or not, it completely peripheral to the article's intent and thrust - unless you are wearing the Occupation Glasses.

You have got to see this conversation between Dana (writing as ibnezra) and Jewlicious, a liberal and pro-Palestinian Jew, to see how hate twists people's minds:

ibnezra says:
1967-1993, "when Palestinian cities were under military occupation" http://t.co/yxZtNIHZ

jewlicious says:
@ibnezra The thrust of the article was arts, not politics, and from that perspective it was rather good and humanizing http://t.co/UX8v51zQ

ibnezra says:
@jewlicious the article claimed that there was no military occupation of Palestinian cities. That is a joke.

jewlicious says:
@ibnezra The nature of Israel's presence in the WB changed dramatically after 1993 and the article is about arts!

ibnezra says:
@jewlicious I am sure that you are not saying that Palestinians cities in the West Bank are not under military occupation

jewlicious says:
@ibnezra That's not what I said

ibnezra says:
@jewlicious then you should not have any problems with my argument that the @theatlantic should be ashamed with itself

jewlicious says:
@ibnezra Gevalt. I think it was overall a good piece, esp if you focus on the arts.

ibnezra says:
The article is basically saying there is an art culture in Ramallah and no military occupation. Why are they complaining about? @jewlicious

jewlicious says:
@ibnezra and i am not arguing with you to score points either...

ibnezra says:
@jewlicious I understand. @noamsheizaf is going to write a post soon which will be necessary reading on the matter.

jewlicious says:
@ibnezra i for one am just glad there's a thriving arts scene in Ramallah, c'est tout...

ibnezra says:
@jewlicious there is not a thriving arts scene in my opinion. There is something but it is not thriving.

jewlicious says:
@ibnezra ok more thriving then? more thriving than 7 years ago?

ibnezra says:
@jewlicious Not necessarily

jewlicious says:
@ibnezra So you're saying the entire article is completely flawed? Come on, be fair...

ibnezra says:
@jewlicious I am saying that the article is dangerously flawed and basically a piece of propaganda

Yes, an article that praises Palestinian Arabs, that humanizes them and is more sympathetic to them than anything you are likely to see in the mainstream media, is "basically a piece of [anti-Arab] propaganda." No redeeming qualities at all. Completely flawed.

It takes a special kind of hate to be able to discern such a bizarre version of reality.

The Truth About Refugees (latest Ayalon YouTube video)

When I spoke with Israel's Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon on Sunday, he told me that he has a new video about the 1948 refugees.

It just came out:

He hits most of the major points about the history and about UNRWA's shortcomings.

He also quotes Alexander Galloway, head of UNRWA in Jordan in 1951,whom I posted about at length here.

CSU math professor uses college resources to attack Israel

From the Amcha Initiative, a letter to California State University/Northridge's president:

Dear President Koester,

We are faculty members at the University of California, who have been investigating and documenting anti-Jewish bigotry on California public university campuses for the last several years.

In case you have not seen them, we wanted to bring to your attention two webpages of CSU Northridge Professor of Mathematics David Klein, which are hosted on the CSUN server:

Professor Klein’s “Home Page,” linked to the “Tenure-Track Faculty” webpage of the CSUN Department of Mathematics, contains a section entitled “CSU and Political Issues,” that includes a link to another CSUN-hosted webpage entitled “Boycott Israel.”

Professor Klein’s “Boycott Israel” page contains a litany of false and inflammatory statements and photographs intended to incite hatred and promote political activism against the Jewish state.

There are several reasons why Professor Klein’s webpages should be immediately removed from the CSUN server:

1) These webpages are in clear violation of the CSU policy prohibiting the misuse of the CSU name for inappropriate purposes, including for the promotion of political organizations and activities such as “boycott.” As you have seen on Professor Klein’s Home Page, he specifically links the University to several political action organizations and activities, including the boycott of Israel, in a section he telling calls “CSU and Political Issues.”

2) Many of Professor Klein’s statements on his “Boycott Israel” webpage meet the U.S. Department of State’s Working Definition of Anti-Semitism, including the statement that “Israel is the most racist country in the world.” In addition, the pictures of mutilated dead babies that appear on this page, with the clear implication that the babies have been brutally murdered by Israeli soldiers, are perfect examples of the classic anti-Semitic “blood libel“, the false accusation that Jews kill non-Jewish children for evil purposes, an accusation that has been used throughout Jewish history for the purpose of inciting hatred and violence against Jews. Campaigns to boycott the Jewish state are also anti-Semitic according to the U.S. State Department, and in some cases are a violation of U.S. law.

3) The promotion of virulently anti-Israel and anti-Semitic statements and imagery on the departmental website of a CSUN faculty member cannot help but contribute to a hostile environment for Jewish students on your campus.

4) CSUN is a public university, whose facilities and resources, including the CSUN website, are supported by the tax dollars of California citizens, many of whom would find Professor Klein’s webpages an egregious violation of public trust.

We do not believe that this is an issue of Professor Klein’s freedom of speech. Indeed, CSUN’s policy on internet use explicitly states that the University has the right to remove “any defamatory, offensive, infringing, or illegal materials” from its website. If you choose not to remove Professor Klein’s anti-Semitic material from the CSUN website, we will presume that it is because the University finds nothing “defamatory, offensive, infringing, or illegal” about these webpages, and is unconcerned with the effects they may have on CSUN students, parents, community members, and taxpayers.

We know that you will soon be retiring as CSUN President, but we trust that you will have the opportunity to look into this matter and take appropriate action.

We look forward to hearing from you soon.

The president responded:

...The University takes such concerns very seriously. Thus, as soon as we became aware of these concerns and the web pages, I requested a full administrative review. In particular, the review considered whether the web content is in violation of California State University (CSU) or Cal State Northridge web use policies. While the review raised many difficult issues, it found no such violations. This conclusion was affirmed by CSU legal counsel.

While we recognize this finding will not satisfy everyone, the conclusions are based on the important tenets of academic freedom and free speech, which are central to the values and traditions of academia and, indeed, a democratic society. We encourage our professors—as well as students and all members of the campus community—to express their points of view, even when many others may disagree with them or even find them offensive.

This determination does not mean that the University supports or endorses Professor Klein’s views. In fact, Professor Klein is clearly speaking for himself and does not represent Cal State Northridge as a whole. The University, as a forum for the free expression of ideas and points of view, takes no position on the individual expressions of ideas by faculty, staff, or students. But the University does uphold and preserve the principles of academic freedom—and Professor Klein’s right to express his views. Our review affirmed that this right extends to the use of an individual’s web pages, as part of the University website, as a vehicle for expression.
...
I share with those who have expressed concerns a personal discomfort with some of the material on Professor Klein’s web pages, especially because the University is celebrated for its diversity and its spirit of inclusion. As core values, the University also upholds academic freedom, eschews censorship, and defends rights to express points of view. For all these reasons we must tolerate the presence of these web pages.

I personally do not think that Amcha has a slam-dunk case against the virulently anti-Israel (and arguably anti-semitic) webpage of Professor Klein. The biggest point of dispute between CSU and Amcha is whether the "Boycott Israel" page appears to represent CSU (where it would violate CSU policies) or is clearly Klein's personal opinions. Since the page is so laughably amateur - it looks like a webpage from 1996 - CSU has a slight point there.

On the other hand, using resources paid for by California taxpayers to push a boycott if Israel is an extraordinary misuse of funds. CSU's academic website is not Facebook. And the fact is that Dr. Klein's page is linked from the Math Department webpage - where from what I can tell all the other faculty use the pages in a professional manner - and it makes CSU's math department look bad. (Interestingly, the Math Department has a policy that "laboratory facilities, equipment and supplies are only to be used by College faculty, staff and students in the pursuit of instructional and research endeavors." This does not apply to webpages but I have a feeling that the other math faculty are not happy with Klein's use of the math section of CSU's website for blatantly political ends.)

All else being equal, I'm biased towards free speech, and I think people should see the hateful webpage to understand exactly how college professors can be so absurdly stupid (and to laugh at Klein's 1970's-style photo.) But you may want to write to CSU's chancellor, especially if you are a California resident, if you don't want to have your tax dollars supporting what is effectively hate speech on campus websites.

(h/t Bill)

Counterfeiters in Egypt send fake shekels to Gaza

Palestine Press Agency has an article about the problem of counterfeit currency in Gaza.

The reporter posed as a currency exchanger and became friendly with a Gazan contact, as he asked for a quantity of shekels. The counterfeit money comes in all denominations, from 100 shekel notes down to fake 5 shekel coins!

A Palestinian Arab in el-Arish creates the fake money and transports them through Gaza tunnels. The reporter couldn't get the counterfeit shekels the first day because Hamas was watching, bit a few days later they smuggled them in through normal goods smuggled through the tunnels - in this case, in paint cans.

Gazan intermediaries keep in touch with the Egyptian side through SMS. Most of the people involved do not know each other so if they are caught the operation can remain intact.

The forged cash is then spent in Gaza City markets where the shop-owners get duped.

Stunning academic study: Reuters engages in anti-Israel propaganda

From PRWeb:

Roosevelt University academic study documents systematic use of propaganda by world's largest news agency.

A study published in the November/December issue of the Journal of Applied Business Research finds that Reuters coverage of the Middle East conflict is systematically tainted by propaganda and influences readers to side with the Palestinians and Arab states against the Israelis.

Researcher Henry Silverman of Roosevelt University analyzed a sample of fifty news-oriented articles published on the Reuters.com websites for the use of classic propaganda techniques, logical fallacies and violations of the Reuters Handbook of Journalism, a manual of guiding ethical principles for the company’s journalists.

Across the articles, over 1,100 occurrences of propaganda, fallacies and handbook violations in 41 categories were identified and classified.

In the second part of the study, a group of thirty-three university students were surveyed, before and after reading the articles, to assess their attitudes and motivation to support one or the other belligerent parties in the Middle East conflict, i.e., the Palestinians/Arabs or the Israelis. The study found that on average, subject sentiment shifted significantly following the readings in favor of the Arabs and that this shift was associated with particular propaganda techniques and logical fallacies appearing in the stories.

“Governments have long used propaganda to whip up public support during wartime and to demonize enemies”, says Silverman. “Reuters is adopting these same techniques to covertly shape audience perceptions and opinion in violation of its corporate governance charter.” Silverman points out that this is particularly troubling since “the news agency promotes itself as a paragon of accurate and impartial reporting and its stories are read by millions of people who are led to believe they are being provided objective facts”.

The entire study is most interesting. It uses previously established, fairly rigorous criteria as to what constitutes "propaganda." It chose 50 articles about the conflict published by Reuters between May 31 and August 31, 2010 (during and after the Mavi Marmara incident.)

Here is how the study describes its analysis methods of the articles, with a detailed example:

Across the fifty articles in the data sample, ECA reveals 1,104 occurrences of reporting/ethical failures, i.e., propaganda devices, logical fallacies, and violations of the Reuters Handbook of Journalism, with a mean of 22.08 reporting/ethical failures per article. The propaganda device of asymmetrical definition occurs most frequently with a total of 129 instances followed by the propaganda device of card stacking with 94 occurrences. The logical fallacy occurring most frequently is appeal to pity and the Handbook violation occurring with the greatest frequency is that of a failure to uphold social responsibility.

An asymmetrical definition is a type of suggestion where the audience is misled via the propagandist‘s use of a word or phrase bearing a meaning different than that the audience would normally attribute to it (Smith, 1989). Reuters repetitive use of this technique can be seen in 16 of the sample articles published in June which focus on the story of a Turkish-led flotilla apprehended at sea while attempting to break the Israeli weapons blockade of the Gaza Strip. The flotilla consisted of six vessels, three of which were carrying construction materials and humanitarian aid for Palestinian Arabs (Palestinians) in Gaza. Five of the ships were boarded and subsequently impounded by the Israeli navy without loss of life or serious injury but the sixth ship, the Mavi Marmara, was the scene of violent clashes between passengers armed with cold weapons, e.g., knives and iron bars, and Israeli forces, armed with paintball guns and pistols.12 Although it went unreported by Reuters, inspection of the Mavi Marmara cargo hold immediately following the incident revealed no humanitarian aid on board the ship.13 Yet, in over a dozen stories in the data sample, Reuters conflates the Mavi Marmara with the other vessels, repeatedly using the word "aid" to describe the ship, its cargo, and its purported mission, i.e., to bring humanitarian aid to Palestinians in Gaza.

In a story published on June 4, 2010 for example, Reuters correspondent Tom Perry and then-Jerusalem Bureau Chief Alastair Macdonald write:

Israel is unlikely to heed calls to lift the blockade of the Gaza Strip but is bloody seizure of a Turkish aid ship has caused international anger and American dismay that is forcing it to seek conciliatory moves.

Israel’s leaders have been unrepentant. Prime Minister Netanyahu accused Europeans of hypocrisy over efforts to stop Iranian arms reaching Gaza‘s Hamas Islamist rulers.

But even with vital ally the United States criticizing the harm the blockade is doing to the 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza, and President Barack Obama calling the killing of nine men, including an American, a tragedy, Netanyahu is seeking points where concessions can soak up some of the pressure.

Perry and Macdonald‘s de facto editorial piece, which is identified in the headline as "Analysis" rather than with the more traditional and transparent term "Op-Ed" adopted by most media firms for stories where subjective content appears, is laden with propaganda devices and violations of the Reuters Handbook of Journalism.

First, by mischaracterizing the Mavi Marmara as an "aid ship", asymmetrical definition is being deployed to suggest a role for the ship distinctly different from the role it actually undertook and ultimately played in the incident. Although it is remotely possible Perry and Macdonald are utilizing the word "aid" to mean assistance in a socio-political sense, i.e., calling attention to the circumstances of Palestinians living in Gaza, readers are clearly and overtly being given the false impression that the Mavi Marmara carried humanitarian aid when it did not.

The statement, "Israel‘s leaders have been unrepentant" reflects both the propaganda device of innuendo and the use of loaded words, a violation of Reuters Handbook, as the language implicitly conveys a judgment of wrongdoing and moral condemnation of Israel‘s government officials for the incident which had neither been alleged nor proven by any juridical body.

"The harm the blockade is doing to the 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza" reflects 1) an assertion; 2) exaggeration; 3) card stacking; and 4) atrocity propaganda respectively, as the phrase is 1) unproven; 2) inflates the impact of the "blockade" to encompass the entire population in Gaza; 3) omits mention of the fact that Egypt too, had been embargoing the Gaza Strip; and 4) alludes to the "blockade" as a war atrocity by virtue of its alleged deleterious effect on the civilian population, without mentioning that all manner of humanitarian goods had been regularly transiting through the Israeli land border with the Gaza Strip.17

Perry and Macdonald then cite President Barack Obama "calling the killing of nine men, including an American, a tragedy". What Obama actually said in the relevant interview with CNN one day prior to the publication of the Reuters story was the following:

What's important right now is that we break out of the current impasse, use this tragedy as an opportunity so that we figure out how can we meet Israel's security concerns, but, at the same time, start opening up opportunity for Palestinians, work with all parties concerned, the Palestinian Authority, the Israelis, the Egyptians, and others. And I think Turkey can have a positive voice in this whole process, once we've worked through this tragedy, and bring everybody together to figure out, how can we get a two-state solution where Palestinians and the Israelis can live side-by-side in peace and security.18

Note that Obama characterizes as a "tragedy" the incident generally, i.e., the violence and casualties on both sides, not the [Israeli] killing of nine men, including an American as Perry and Macdonald misstate. This reporting failure is, at a minimum, an uncorrected error and improper use/lack of quotes, both violations of the Reuters Handbook. More likely, given the easily accessible record of the President‘s televised comments just a day earlier, the mischaracterization reflects a historical reconstruction, i.e., intentional fabrication, on the part of Perry and Macdonald.

One other of the many examples given to illustrate a specific propaganda technique:

Employing a propaganda device known as symbolic fiction, Sawafta and Hamilton cite a study by an Israeli non-government organization:

A report this week by Israeli human rights group B’Tselem says more than 300,000 Israelis now live on 42 percent of the West Bank, land where Palestinians want to establish their future country in a “two-state solution” with Israel.
The B‘Tselem study does not say this. Rather, the report indicates that Jewish communities reside upon less than 1 percent of this disputed territory. There is an allegation that due to the classification of a portion of the territory as "state land" by Israel, 42 percent of it is controlled by Israeli Jewish councils.47 Even this claim however, has been rejected by the Chairman of the Council of Jewish Communities who puts the figure at 9 percent. Following presentation of this fiction, Sawafta and Hamilton again violate Reuters‘ fairness doctrine by failing to provide space for any Israeli official to respond to the fictionalized claim in their story.

The survey given after the volunteers read the stories asked two very simple questions.

1) After reading this article, I feel more sympathetic or favorable towards:

Arabs/Palestinians--O--------------O---------------O---------------O--------------O-Israelis

2) After reading this article, I am more motivated to take some supportive action on behalf of:

Arabs/Palestinians--O--------------O---------------O---------------O--------------O-Israelis

The results?

For both survey questions, there is a large and extremely significant difference between the mean subject response prior to undertaking the readings and the mean response following the individual readings. ...Subjects take a largely neutral view of the belligerents going into the study (untransformed mean 3.18) but substantially shift their view in favor of the Arabs/Palestinians over the course of the readings (untransformed mean 2.17). Similarly, prior to the readings subjects are nearly dead neutral on whether they feel motivated to take supportive action on behalf of one or the other belligerent parties (untransformed mean 3.12) but over the course of the readings, subjects feel significantly more motivated to take supportive action on behalf of the Arabs/Palestinians (untransformed mean 2.35).

Consistent with the findings of Likert (1932), Rosenthal (1934), and other researchers employing linear scales to measure the effect of propaganda on audience attitudes and behavior, Reuters‘ stories are clearly influencing reader sentiment, in this case by shifting it favorably toward the Arabs/Palestinians and away from the Israelis.

The paper goes on to note that the higher the "propaganda" rating of the piece, the more the subjects shifted their opinions towards the Palestinian Arab side of the story.

This is stunning. While I can see how it may be possible for the researchers to be less than perfectly objective in categorizing phrases in different subjective buckets, the major result is that Reuters stories cause readers to act in ways consistent to having been subjected to anti-Israel propaganda.

While there have been a number of attempts to quantify bias in specific media outlets, this is the most objective and scientific study I have seen in for the Middle East conflict. It proves, as much as something like this can be proven, that Reuters is systematically and institutionally biased against Israel.

It would be most enlightening to see a comparison of different news sources using these same techniques over the same time period.

Reuters vs. the truth

Reuters has an article implying that Israel is a reckless ally, prone to doing dangerous acts without informing the US ahead of time:

The Obama administration does not know Israel's intentions regarding potential military action against Iran, and the uncertainty is stoking concern in Washington, where the preferred course for now is sanctions and diplomatic pressure.

Although Israel remains one of the United States' closest allies and the two countries' officials are in regular contact, U.S. officials have a "sense of opacity" regarding what might prompt an Israeli military strike on Iranian nuclear sites, and about when such an attack might occur, according to a senior U.S. national security official.

Two key U.S. senators acknowledged on Tuesday that there are gaps in U.S. knowledge about Israeli leaders' thinking and intentions.

"I don't think the administration knows what Israel is going to do. I'm not sure Israel knows what Israel is going to do ... That's why they want to keep the other guys guessing. Keep the bad guys guessing," said Democratic Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Senator John McCain, the senior Republican on the committee, echoed Levin's view: "I'm sure (administration officials) don't know what the Israelis are going to do. They didn't know when the Israelis hit the reactor in Syria. But the Israelis usually know what we're going to do."

General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the U.S. military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Reuters in an interview he did not know whether the Jewish state would give the United States notice ahead of time if it decided to act.

A former U.S. government official said: "There are plenty of instances when the Israelis have undertaken action without informing the United States first. So not always should we assume a level of coordination (between Washington and Israel) in advance on all issues."

Bruce Riedel, a former senior CIA expert on the Middle East who has advised Obama, said, "Israel has a long history of conducting military operations from Baghdad to Tunis without giving Washington advance notice."

Riedel said the White House wants to send Israel a strong message that the United States does not expect to be blindsided by its ally. "Obama wants Bibi to understand unequivocally he does not want a repeat performance in Iran," he said, referring to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by his nickname.

The Obama administration suspects that Israeli leaders have marked out for themselves certain "red lines" related to Iranian nuclear progress which could trigger Israeli military action if they are crossed, one U.S. official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

But Obama administration policymakers are plagued by a "sense of opacity" in their understanding of where the Israeli red lines are drawn, the official added.

Reuters of course does not consider how Washington is treating Israel while Iran moves forward with its nuclear weapons program.

TNR has an interesting article about just that topic:

Over the weekend I had the privilege of sitting in on the 8th annual Saban Forum, a high-level, Brookings-sponsored dialogue between Israeli and American officials (current and former) along with journalists, intellectuals, and representatives from other countries in the Middle East.

...I came away from the two days with a dark and disturbing conclusion: There is a gulf between Israel and the United States that could have momentous consequences in 2012. When American officials declare that all options are on the table, most Israelis do not believe them. They have concluded, rather, that when the crunch comes (and everyone thinks it will), the United States will shy away from military force and reconfigure its policy to live with a nuclear-armed Iran. This is an outcome that no Israeli government can tolerate. For Israel, the Palestinian issue is an identity question: What kind of country will Israel be and what kind of life will Israelis lead? But the Iranian issue is an existential question: Will Israel and Israelis survive?

In his opening remarks, the Secretary of Defense restated President Obama’s declared position on Iran’s nuclear ambitions that “we have not taken any option off the table.” During the question period, however, he offered a long list of reservations against the military option: Some of the targets are very difficult to get at, and even a successful attack would set back the Iranian program by no more than two years. The Iranian regime, now approaching pariah status, would be able to mobilize renewed support at home and abroad. U.S. interests in the Middle East would be subject to retaliation. The fragile economies of the United States and Europe would be gravely disrupted. And worst of all, the ensuing conflagration could “consume the Middle East in a confrontation and a conflict that we would regret.” Whatever Panetta’s intention, Israelis heard those remarks as a declaration of his opposition to the use of force against Iran, even if that country was on the verge of producing nuclear weapons. (The administration’s reluctance to go along with sanctions against the Central Bank of Iran—a matter Israelis raised repeatedly during the meeting—only adds to its credibility problem.)

During a break, I button-holed a knowledgeable, highly respected former Israeli official and asked whether he thought that the military option was still on the table for the United States. No, he replied, the United States had shifted to a containment strategy two years ago. Another former official, equally knowledgeable and respected, shook his head in dissent. No, he said, it was one year ago. While I didn’t meet all the Israelis in attendance, I talked with quite a few and didn’t encounter a differing view. And it was not a hard-line group: Supporters of Prime Minister Netanyahu were in a distinct minority in the Israeli delegation, a fact that occasioned humor on both the Israeli and American sides.

...Of course, Israel’s beliefs about American intentions toward Iran may well be mistaken. But it is a fact that they hold those beliefs and will continue to do so unless the Obama administration can persuade them that the use of military force remains a live option.

In other words, if Israel believes the US will truly do everything necessary to stop Iranian nuclear weapons from being developed, it has no reason to hide anything from the US. But if the US is actively opposing military action, the indication is that it opposes Israeli military action as well, so cooperating with the US would (from Israel's perspective) endanger Israels' very existence.

Reuters reporters are of course not quite educated enough to understand this.

And their quote of McCain is interesting. He says that the US did not know in advance of Israel's bombing of Syria's secret nuclear reactor. In fact, the US was informed ahead of time.

Senior U.S. officials said the U.S. military was not involved in the attack, and the U.S. government, although informed in advance, did not approve it.

"Israel made the decision to attack," a senior administration official said. "It did so without any so-called green light from us. None was asked for and none was given."

Also notable is that the attack on the Syrian reactor was not done when Netanyahu was in office - but Olmert.

(h/t R-MEW, JW)

Torture, rape and organ theft in the Sinai

From Al Masry al Youm:

Horrific accounts of torture, rape and organ theft are continuing to emerge from Egypt’s Sinai desert, seven rights organizations said last week in a press statement.

Human trafficking networks operating in northern Sinai detain migrants and hold them in what the rights organizations describe as “torture camps” until relatives pay a ransom.

The statement says that despite the “chilling evidence of horrors” inflicted on refugees — mostly fleeing Eritrea and Sudan — in detention, little has been done to rescue them.

Smuggling networks are “still up and running and hundreds of refugee hostages are being tortured by human traffickers in Sinai,” with the objective of obtaining tens of thousands of dollars in random money for their release.

Authorities have struggled to maintain control of North Sinai since Egypt's revolution began in January and the security vacuum has been exploited both by radical Islamists who have taken up arms, and some Bedouins who are cashing in on a lucrative human trafficking trade, smuggling migrants across the border to Israel.

The statement provides grim details of refugees’ experiences while being held hostage in Sinai. These details have emerged while refugees are still in detention, via satellite phones provided by their captors to call relatives and demand ransom money.

Five groups of hostages are currently being held.

One group of 165 Eritrean refugees is under the control of a group of eight traffickers led by an individual known as Abu Musa. This group is not in Sinai but the Delta governorate of Mansoura, and has been held for several months in a bunker, according to the report.

One refugee told the Hotline for Migrant Workers, one of the groups behind the statement, that smugglers beat and electroshock their victims in order to raise ransom money — set at US$30,000. He added that the group has not left the bunker since they arrived, but that the women are taken out every night and raped.

Five prisoners died as a result of electrocution in one week, the statement says.

Members of another group of 59 people told the Italian Agenzia Habeshia, another of the seven rights groups, that two of their members are in late-term pregnancy, and one, who is seven-months pregnant and was kidnapped from Sudan, has been raped “many times.”

When she was unable to pay the smugglers in Sudan the $3,000 they were demanding for her release she was sold to other smugglers.

“The current smugglers are demanding $23,000 and have made it clear that if she does not come up with the money by the time of her delivery, she will be forced to pay an additional $23,000 for the infant,” the statement says.

Several details are known about members of the smuggling operation, it says, including the names of several prominent members whose names are often repeated by victims.

One member, Abu Musa, is believed to work with the assistance of an Eritrean living in Israel, while another, Abu Abdalla, works closely with an Eritrean man known as Cornell, who is “responsible for collecting ransom money sent to Egypt by hostages’ relatives and for managing a network of collaborators in Israel,” the statement says.

In Khartoum, an Eritrean man called Angosom has kidnapped hundreds of Eritreans from refugee camps in Sudan and Ethiopia and sold them to human traffickers in Egypt.

The Arabic edition of Al-Masry Al-Youm reported last month an even more sinister dimension to Sinai’s human trafficking industry. Traffickers are stealing the organs of the refugees they kidnap, it reported, adding that there were violent confrontations in central Sinai as the Tayaha tribe accused members of the Nakhalwa tribe of stealing organs.

Max Blumenthal fabricates a quote (updated)

I had been reading on Twitter that an article by rabid Israel hater and serial liar Max Blumenthal contained a blockbuster quote that could not be verified - and now Jeffrey Goldberg has proven it:

A couple of Goldblog readers alerted me to a Max Blumenthal story in which Karen Greenberg, the director of the Fordham School of Law's Center on National Security, is quoted accusing Israel of teaching American interrogators the dark art of torture:

"After 9/11 we reached out to the Israelis on many fronts and one of those fronts was torture," Greenberg told me. "The training in Iraq and Afghanistan on torture was Israeli training. There's been a huge downside to taking our cue from the Israelis and now we're going to spread that into the fabric of everyday American life? It's counter-terrorism creep. And it's exactly what you could have predicted would have happened."
I was surprised to read this, because, though I don't know Karen Greenberg personally, I do know of her reputation for seriousness, and I was surprised she would make such an explosive charge without offering evidence that Israel was involved in such training.

Well, I called Greenberg, and it turns out that she, too, was surprised, because she said she never told Max Blumenthal any such thing. Here's what she told me: "I never made such a statement. I've never seen any proof of this. I told him I had heard a story out there about this issue, but that he should look into it and see if he could find evidence, because I have no proof of this charge. You have to be particularly careful when it comes to torture, you have to be careful not to overreach. He was looking for corroboration but I told him I didn't have any."

The Greenberg quote was the linchpin of the entire article - the necessary missing piece Max needed to make his circumstantial case blaming Israel for US police actions at Occupy protests - and Blumenthal just made it up.

Blumenthal has written for the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, the Independent and other major news sites. They should definitely think twice before accepting anything from him again.

And, of course, Al Akhbar should fire him according to their own editorial policies which demand "high standards of factual accuracy, source accountability, and proper accreditation."

UPDATE: Mother Jones also spoke to Greenberg who similarly denied having said that. The article finds other mischaracterizations in the Blumenthal piece.

Blumenthal, meanwhile, stands by his quote of Greenberg, even after her denial. He assumes that the mighty Zionist forces have forced her to retract, I guess by threatening Israeli torture techniques.

Blumenthal claims that the Greenberg quote was peripheral to his piece. Of course, that is not true. No one denies that Israelis have been training a number of police departments in the US in counter-terrorism techniques; that is well known. Blumenthal's most sensational accusation was that Israel taught US police torture techniques - based on the fabricated quote from Karen Greenberg - and his broad implication, with zero proof, that local US cops were using methods they learned from Israel in the crackdown on the "occupy" protesters.

Even in the unlikely case that Blumenthal quoted her correctly, it is clearly out of context and her denial carries far more weight than Blumenthal's original quote. The fact that he refuses to correct it, or even to modify it to include her clarifying remarks, shows how unimportant the truth is to Blumenthal. He had a great quote and he will stand by it, even if he has no proof of it.

He also implies that Urban Shield is where Israelis teach their techniques to the police. But according to their website, it is where Israelis are learning their techniques - along with teams from Bahrain, Jordan, Singapore, Canada, Croatia, Qatar and the UAE.

PA stops cancer patients from being treated in Israel

From PCHR:

The Ministry of Health in Ramallah issued a decision decreasing transfers of patients to Israeli hospitals starting from 02 November 2011, and the Department of External Treatment in Gaza has been committed to this decision. The decision is attributed, according to sources of the Ministry, to the high costs of treatment in Israeli hospitals. These sources pointed out that this decision had been studied and discussed in the Ministry of Health for years, but it was delayed due the need of some patients, especially those suffering from serious or incurable diseases in need of treatment in advanced health facilities, and because Israeli hospitals are closer to the Gaza Strip than Egypt and Jordan.

This decision has led to stopping dozens of transfers of patients who suffer from serious diseases, 90% of them cancer patients, whose treatment is not available in the Gaza Strip. It has also endangered the lives of dozens of patients who are in critical conditions and whose transfer to Egyptian hospitals is not possible due to the long distance. Furthermore, not all medical treatment for their diseases is available in hospitals in Jerusalem or the West Bank. Two children died as they urgently needed advanced medical treatment, but the Ministry of Health transferred them to hospitals that cannot treat their diseases. Those hospitals apologized for not admitting them, and the Ministry of Health did not transfer them to Israeli Hospitals.

The PA manages to find money to pay families of terrorist "martyrs" and prisoners, and for TV shows filled with incitement against Jews and Israel, but money for patients with life-threatening diseases just dries up.

Although PCHR doesn't say this, there is very possibly another reason why the Palestinian Authority doesn't want patients in Israeli hospitals: because it provides good PR for Israel, and that is anathema.

Arab leaders - including the current PA leaders - have been treating Palestinian Arabs as stateless pawns for years just to make Israel look bad. Why would it surprise anyone that they might choose to let a few of their people die to avoid having their lives saved by the hated Zionists?

(h/t David G)

Islamic cleric bans women touching bananas and cucumbers (updated)

From Bikya Masr:

An Islamic cleric residing in Europe said that women should not be close to bananas or cucumbers, in order to avoid any “sexual thoughts.”

The unnamed sheikh, who was featured in an article on el-Senousa news, was quoted saying that if women wish to eat these food items, a third party, preferably a male related to them such as their a father or husband, should cut the items into small pieces and serve.

He said that these fruits and vegetables “resemble the male penis” and hence could arouse women or “make them think of sex.”

He also added carrots and zucchini to the list of forbidden foods for women.

The sheikh was asked how to “control” women when they are out shopping for groceries and if holding these items at the market would be bad for them. The cleric answered saying this matter is between them and God.

Answering another question about what to do if women in the family like these foods, the sheikh advised the interviewer to take the food and cut it for them in a hidden place so they cannot see it.

The opinion has stirred a storm of irony and denouncement among Muslims online, with hundreds of comments mocking the cleric.

One reader said that these religious “leaders” give Islam “a bad name” and another commented said that he is a “retarded” person and he must quit his post immediately.

No word on whether men may touch cantaloupes or watermelons.

Then again, perhaps Muslim men shouldn't be handling guns either.

(h/t DoZ)

UPDATE: Some have been doubting the story, saying they couldn't find the original Arabic news story. Bikya Masr updated the post with the link to As Sawsana where the article was. The cleric is still unnamed, so it is still a little dubious, but it is funny.

Israel kills Islamic Jihad rocket launcher

From YNet:

Israeli aircraft attacked terror cells in two separate locations in north Gaza overnight Wednesday. Palestinian sources said one of the cells, which belonged to Islamic Jihad's armed wing, was holed up in a building in Gaza City's Zeitun neighborhood, not far from the border fence separating Israel from the Hamas-ruled territory.

According to the sources, one cell member was killed and two others were wounded – one of them seriously – in the strike.

The IDF Spokesperson's Office said the terror cells were preparing to launch rockets towards Israeli army forces. The office said IDF forces who took part in the strike identified hits and thwarted the rocket fire.

In case you were worried that the victim was an innocent civilian, the Islamic Jihad newspaper Palestine Today helpfully provides us with a photo and video of the dead man, Aeraar Ismail, 22:

The EXIF information for the photo shows it was created by a Nikon D90 DSLR camera. Sounds like the impoverished terrorists in Gaza spare no expense for good camera equipment.

And it looks like the dead man is indeed him: