Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Wednesday, February 19, 2014

Arabs protest photo exhibit of Sephardic Jews in Morocco

Last night a photo exhibition opened at the Instituto Cervantes in Tangier, Morocco, teaching the history of Jews in Morocco who were expelled from Spain in 1492, concentrating on those in northern Morocco.

Naturally, Arabs protested.

If stepping on an Israeli flag shows disapproval of Israel, what does this show?

The interesting thing is the reasons they gave for protesting. They can't say "we hate Jews" because the official Arab line is that they have no problem with Jews. So they protested by saying that a Spanish cultural center hosting an exhibit on Spanish Jews in Morocco is a form of - normalization with Israel.

The protesters noted that the exhibit was sponsored by a group called Sepharad Israel which is - shudder -Zionist!

They also heckled the police who stopped them from shutting down the cultural center by saying that they were allied with the Zionists.

Some idiots will, of course, believe them when they say that their motivation is pure anti-Zionism and nothing to do with centuries-old antipathy of Jews in Arab countries.

John Judis' "Genesis" - Blaming Jews for antisemitism

From a book review of John Judis' "Genesis," in the Boston Globe:

Judis rebuts the popular idea that Palestinian anti-Semitism stemmed (and stems) from religious or ideological convictions. Not so, he writes. Rather, as the number of Jews in Palestine increased, and as it became common for Jews to refuse to hire Arab labor, among other ostensibly hostile practices, only then did virulent anti-Semitism emerge.

When Palestinians did start sounding unhinged about Jewish influence, it was because they “had begun importing anti-Semitic conspiracy theories from Eastern Europe.” This implies that the widespread anti-Semitic conspiracy theorizing in the Muslim world originated not from the Koran or deep-seated ethnic hatred, but from Poland, Germany, and Lithuania and in response to secular, concrete frustrations.

Although I have done this before, here are a couple of other instances of how wonderfully Muslims treated Jews in Palestine in the 19th century.

From The comparative geographie of Palestine and the Sinaitic Peninsula by Carl Ritter, 1866:

From Three Weeks in Palestine and Lebanon, 1846, referring to Jews in Jerusalem:

It is so fashionable and chic to blame Muslim antisemitism on Jews. But people who are so ignore the facts.

This is not to say that Muslim and Arab antisemitism was as bad as Christian and European antisemitism throughout history. It is also not to say that Muslim antisemitism didn't increase as Jews in Palestine started demanding rights - rights to return to their ancient homeland, rights to buy land, rights of self-determination. All these rights that would be considered laudable for any people except the Jews.

Yes, some Jews wanted Jewish labor for their farms, because they felt ideologically that Jews must learn to work the land themselves rather than outsource it. But this didn't eliminate a single job from Arabs, since these were farms that didn't exist beforehand. On the contrary, Palestine's economy grew tremendously with the influx of Zionists, and Arabs immigrated to take advantage of the jobs that were created by Zionists.

The Arab and Muslim world at large continued to regard Jews as weak, spineless second class people. It was in reaction to Jews demanding to be treated with respect - something that they had lacked for centuries under Muslim rule - that caused Muslims to increase their hate.

The people who eagerly twist this around have an agenda - that Jews are responsible for Jew-hatred.

There is a word for that.

Gaza preacher: "It isn't about borders, but about Israel's existence"

From Terror Watch:

This was on Hamas TV.

Iranian video threatens to nuke Israel

From Algemeiner:

A short animated film being aired across Iran, shows the nuclear destruction of Israel and opens with the word ‘Holocaust’ appearing on the screen, underneath which a Star of David is shown, Israel’s Channel 2 reported on Tuesday.

The film, which started to appear Monday on Iranian websites depicts how the Islamic Republic might respond to an American or Israeli strike on its nuclear facilities.

In the movie, Western nations realize that the Islamic Republic has no intention to cease its nuclear development. To prevent Iran from building a bomb, the United States and its allies decide to take military action to destroy Tehran’s nuclear sites.

In the simulated war that follows, hundreds of Israeli and American fighter planes are seen jetting towards Iran. Ultimately, the jets are beaten back by Iran’s military.

With Iran having successfully defended itself, the simulation then shows Iranian forces going on the offensive. The video cuts to a scene showing Iranian Revolutionary Guard fighter planes flying over Israel, passing through Jerusalem and over the Al-Aqsa Mosque.

The final frame of the film leaves little room for doubt as to how this military campaign ends: a nuclear explosion is seen spreading across the screen.

Keep in mind that Iranian websites are controlled by the government; if this video is being placed on websites it is with the approval of Iranian leaders.

Saudi site implies Israel killed JFK

Okaz, which is Saudi Arabia's largest newspaper, has an op-ed analyzing how Jews think and how that in turn makes it inevitable that they will subjugate and terrorize Arabs.

Jews have a doctrine that is composed of three elements. The first is a bitter historical experiences carried by every Jew on his shoulders, the second is the fear of injustice, and the third is the fear of the unknown, and these three elements constitute the awareness of every Jew that lives on Earth, and these elements blended with their attributes mentioned in the Koran forms Israel's policy toward the world in general, and towards the Arabs in particular.

The writer mentions that Eisenhower insisted that Israel withdraw from the Sinai in 1956 and that Kennedy insisted that Israel reveal the secrets behind its nuclear program in the early 1960s. However, "he was murdered for mysterious reasons not known to the world even today."

And since then, US presidents have traditionally been more favorable towards Israel.

And it is all because of those Jewish attributes!

02/18 Links Pt2: Debunking the Apartheid Smear; Blumenthal and the Mainstreaming of Anti-Semitism

From Ian:

Caroline Glick: The anti-Zionist challenge to the Jewish establishment

As a form of economic warfare, boycotts aim to harm the profitability of targeted entities and either force them to toe the boycotters’ line, or force them out of business. That is, the aim is either coercive or eliminationist.
As a form of cultural warfare, the goal of boycotts of cultural or academic institutions is to place their targets outside of polite society, and so annihilate them culturally, professionally and socially.
In other words, unlike other forms of expression, the principle aim of boycotts is not engagement, or even incitement. It is destruction. Therefore, the question of whether or not boycotts are also a form of speech is entirely irrelevant.

Max Blumenthal’s ‘Goliath’ and the Mainstreaming of Anti-Semitism

While Blumenthal was perfectly capable to adjust his presentations according to the audience he was addressing, he provided a chilling demonstration of what he hoped to accomplish with Goliath during an event at the University of Pennsylvania, where he was hosted on October 17 by political scientist Ian Lustick to promote his book. Lustick noted at one point in the discussion that Blumenthal showed in Goliath that “Israel is not just a little bit fascist, Israel is a lot fascist,” and according to Lustick, this was the “ultimate delegitimizer,” because after World War II, “nothing fascist can even be allowed to survive.” Referring to the biblical story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrha, Lustick invited Blumenthal to fancy himself in the position of God in order to decide whether there are enough “good people” in today’s Sodom-like Israel to save it from destruction. Blumenthal, who clearly didn’t need convincing that Israel as a Jewish state shouldn’t be allowed to survive, responded by explaining that his first concern was relieving “the suffering of the indigenous people of Palestine.” According to him, the only way to achieve this was by placing “external pressure” – such as the BDS (boycotts, divestment and sanctions) movement is advocating – on Jewish Israelis in order to force them to choose between emigrating and agreeing to “become indigenized” by accepting Arab dominance in political, cultural and social terms.

Crisis in Arab civilization

The cruel violence among ethnic and tribal brothers in Syria is indicative for the depth of the crisis in that civilization. No coalition of warriors can open the way to the creation of an open civil society. The identities of the groups are being defined by ethnicity and/or religious affiliation. If a coalition of warriors would be able to defeat the other coalitions, a new dictatorship will be created – and this new dictatorship can only equal the old one since there is no prospect of successfully suppressing the traditional value systems while introducing those of liberal open societies.
This is a bitter dilemma for the ruling classes running Arab dictatorships: giving up complete control over the security forces and media to freely elected politicians, the initial conditions for a civil society, leads automatically to unleashing the extremist powers which would immediately overthrow the ruling classes – in other words: giving up control is a form of suicide.
In order to legitimize their hold on power, dictatorships by definition need antagonists.
The ideal enemy is Israel, the land of the Jews, who have been ridiculed by the Arabs since the very beginning of the Islamic religion.

Throwing the Jews into the sea (updated)

Wikipedia says:

In 1973 [British MP Christopher Mayhew] offered £5,000 to anyone who could produce evidence that Nasser had stated that he sought to "drive the Jews into the sea". Mayhew repeated the offer later in the House of Commons (Hansard, 18 October 1973) and broadened it to include any genocidal statement by an Arab leader (The Guardian, 9 September 1974), while reserving for himself the right to be the arbiter of the authenticity of any purported statements as well as their meaning. Mayhew received several letters from claimants, each one producing one quotation or another from an Arab leader, all of which Mayhew deemed to be fabricated. One claimant, Warren Bergson, took Mayhew to court. The case came before the High Court in February 1976. Bergson was unable to offer evidence of Nasser's alleged statement and acknowledged that, after thorough research, he had been unable to find any statement by a responsible Arab leader that could be described as genocidal.

The Internet is filled with this anecdote about the court case, and after much searching it appears to be true (see page 3 here. )

Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, was quoted by the New York Times in 1948 as saying "If the Jewish state becomes a fact, and this is realized by the Arab peoples, they will drive the Jews who live in their midst into the sea." That wasn't about Israelis but about Jews in Arab countries.

So did Arabs ever use that phrase concerning the Jews of Israel, or is it a myth?

It does not appear to be a myth.

This book by (unreliable) author Gilbert Achcar says that Nasser quoted the phrase in an ironic way:

The Gamal Abdel-Nasser Foundation's Web site, created in collaboration with the Bibliotheca Alexandrina,'° contains 1,359 declarations and transcriptions of speeches or interviews by the founder of modern Egypt. This electronic resource makes it considerably easier to analyze Nasser's discourse. There one finds an address delivered by Bikbachi (Colonel) Abdel-Nasser before Alexandria's Palestine Club on December 13, 1953.... In it, the future president offers an ironical comment on the Arab attitude during the period when the Zionist plan was being translated into action under the British mandate: "At our meetings and in our speeches, we said we were going to throw the Jews into the sea, and felt reassured after every speech. Then we all went back home:"

So while Nasser may not have made that call directly (and he actually denied ever saying that,) it seems to have been a common enough threat among Arabs themselves.

But did any Arab leader make that threat?

Yes. Here is a statement by Dr. Fadhil Jamali, Iraqi Representative to the United Nations, speaking to the Arab League, February 6, 1955:

I asked them (Arab League members) how Palestine was lost. It had been lost for two basic reasons: one, because we deluded ourselves by underestimating the power of our opponent and by thinking that the Jews were not powerful. The highest official in the League said that with 300 soldiers or North African Volunteers we could throw the Jews into the sea. The war started and His Excellency then said that with 3,000 North African Volunteers we could throw them into the sea. The second reason was that we thought that we were strong enough to face the world but the fact was that we did not estimate our own strength correctly. This then was the issue of Palestine. It seemed a trifling thing at the time but we did not know that behind the Jews of Palestine stood World Zionism with its resources in every major country.

Jamali had no incentive to lie about this for his audience. So while this is second-hand evidence, it seems pretty strong.

UPDATE: The book O Jerusalem, by Collins and Lapierre, mentions that the phrase was used by a number of Arab leaders.

The first one to say he wanted to "throw the Jews int the sea," according to the book, was Kamal Irekat (almost certainly the same family as Saeb Erekat,) a police chief in Jerusalem.

It says that the Mufti of Jerusalem adopted the phrase.

Finally, the book attributes it also to Fawzi el Kaukji, an Arab League field commander.

(h/t David Sigeti)

Jews must have stolen the word "chutzpah" from ancient Palestinians

The Palestinian Authority has accused Israel of "inciting against peace."

Really.

At a meeting yesterday, the PA cabinet issued a statement saying that the Israeli government is waging a systematic campaign of incitement "in word and deed" against the Palestinian people and all the "peace-loving" people worldwide.

"The campaign of incitement and fabrications and fallacies led by the Israeli government is not addressed only to the Palestinian people and leadership, but also towards groups of peace-loving Israeli people, and against American efforts, and the efforts of all peace-loving people in the world, in order to kill the possibility of achieving the two-state solution and to finish off the chances for peace irreversibly, leading to more instability and a foretaste of serious consequences for the entire region," the statement said.

In the very next breath, the spokesman welcomed the decision by the Arab League to hold an emergency meeting to discuss ways to support the prisoners in Israeli jails, at the request of "Palestine" and with the participation of Minister of Prisoners, who will brief the delegates and representatives of the Arab countries and officials of the Arab League on the tragic situation of the prisoners.

Why are these two statements juxtaposed?

Because the "incitement" that the Pa is complaining about is the recent story that the PA is allocating $46 million more annually to terrorists who are now or have been imprisoned. The story hit some major media outlets. Probably some Western donors to the PA raised some half-hearted questions about how their money is being used to support terrorists.

Naturally, when an Israeli organization publicizes facts that are freely available in Arabic media about the PA's monetary support for terrorists, that is "incitement against peace."

Which can only mean one thing.

Just like falafel, hummus and keffiyehs, Jews must have usurped the ancient Palestinian word "chutzpah" and pretended that it was theirs instead of representing a long hallowed Palestinian tradition.

It does take a special brand of chutzpah to claim that pointing out that Palestinian Arab society wholeheartedly supports terrorists - monetarily and emotionally - is "incitement against peace."

Unless you understand exactly what they mean by "peace."

02/18 Links Pt1: Abbas' duplicity; After rockets, Hamas asked Netanyahu for restraint

From Ian:

Mahmoud Abbas' duplicity

According to PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, are Israeli students peace partners or are murderers of Israeli students heroes? The answer, it seems, depends on who Abbas is talking to.
Although Abbas told Israeli students yesterday that he wants to live with them in peace - he himself, the PA, and the Fatah movement, both of which he heads, have been telling the Palestinian population that murdering Israeli students is glorious and heroic.
Last week, Israel released the bodies of two Palestinian terrorists to the PA. One, Habash Hanani, murdered three high school students and the other, Ahmad Al-Faqih, participated in murdering four religious studies students. Both murderers were given official military funerals and
both were called heroes by the PA and Fatah.
A poster from Abbas' Fatah movement was placed on the casket of murderer Habash Hanani, praising his killing of three high school students as a "heroic operation," during which he "saturated the soil... with his blood":

Canaanites Deny Being Forebears Of Palestinians (satire)

Amirapu added that he felt personally slighted by the idea that Palestinians might in any way carry his genes. “My mighty kingdom sat astride the crossroads of Assyria and Egypt,” he pronounced. “I resent even the insinuation that these desert people from distant Arabia, whose combined armies could not defeat a ragtag group of Second World War refugees, represent my progeny.”
Erekat was unavailable for comment, said a spokesman, as he was busy writing an article claiming that the Palestinians were already in the Levant when Homo Sapiens moved out of Africa.

Kerry-mocking site now jeers in English

John Kerry Solutions Ltd., which was launched last month by the organization My Israel with the backing of the Yesha Council — the umbrella council of West Bank settlements — is a composite of slapstick animated videos, bad-wig YouTube spots and a handful of semi-biting sections and articles, all designed to mock the secretary of state and his frequent-flier mile-heavy attempts at creating an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal.
The website for “John Kerry Solutions Ltd.,” at en.johnkerry.co.il, paints the secretary of state as a huckster peddling solutions — ranging from the merely half-baked to the downright ridiculous — to a plethora of problems.

We've got a peace partner

I noted yesterday that Saeb Erekat appeared at the Oxford Union last Friday, although very few had reported his statements.

The talk was sponsored by Al Jazeera and they will broadcast the interview on Friday.

They just issued a press release of the highlights, though:

Saeb Erakat, the chief Palestinian negotiator told Al Jazeera’s Head to Head that the situation will turn "ugly" in the Occupied Territories if a peace deal isn't done by April. The show will air on Friday 28 February at 20.00GMT.

Erakat told Head to Head host Mehdi Hasan and an audience at the Oxford Union: “If you want me to take you into the scenario of after that, it’s going to be very ugly. That’s why I say to John Kerry…Imagine Israel now just takes over everything in the West Bank, .....Amidst the changing Middle East, all right? And mark my words: what’s happening in the Arab world is Arabs are democratizing and anybody who says Arabs are not ready for democracy is a racist, and this is the best thing that happened to me as a Palestinian. … It’s going to be painful, it’s going to be long, it’s going to be bloody. But Arabs are democratizing.”

Um...who elected Erekat again? And how long ago did Abbas last win an election?

Erakat said he was fearful for the future of the PA and thinks it will be forced to shut down if a peace deal isn't signed with Israel: “I’m not asking for the solution for the PA, the PA cannot be sustained in its current form…It’s not sustainable anymore."

Erakat also said he will never recognize a Jewish state even though he recognizes the existence of Israel: "I will never recognize a Jewish state," when asked "Why not"? Erakat replied: "Because I have recognized the state of Israel’s right to exist in exchange for future recognition, in 1993 the name of Israel, state of Israel. Now, you know why they want me to recognize a Jewish state? I am the son of the Natufians, who built my hometown Jericho 2,000 years ago.[sic] I am the son of the Arab Kenonites, who were there 6,000 years before (who) came and built my hometown Jericho. [um, what? It was built twice?] What the Israeli's want me to do when I recognize Israel as a Jewish state, they want me to change my narrative, my history, my religion".

When pressed further by Hasan on whether he will accept Israel as a Jewish state in any final terms of a peace talk, Erakat replied: "Number one: you’re right. I cannot accept Israel as a Jewish state. Number two: I cannot accept any document without East Jerusalem being the capital of Palestine.”

Erakat said he supported the idea of an armed resistance if under occupation: “There is no single house in Palestine, including my household, that didn’t lose a loved one, that doesn’t have a loved one in prison. As long as there is occupation, there is resistance.”

Nice to know that the peaceful PLO is planning to return to terror. It must be because they are so democratic, and this is what the people want.

(I pointed out yesterday that Erekat admitted in Arabic that his family is from a Bedouin tribe in Jordan/Saudi Arabia, and are not "Canaanite" or "Natufian.")

By the way, if he is "Natufian," then he has the dates wrong - Natufians disappeared out around 10,000 BCE. And the Canaanites weren't Arab. Lying is just second nature to Erekat.

The unreported Egyptian siege of the Sinai

Ma'an reports:

The Egyptian army killed five people and arrested three others in raids in Bir al-Abd, Sheikh Zuweid, and Rafah, an army spokesman said.

Ahmad Mohammad Ali said that 34 huts, three bikes, and two pick-up trucks belonging to suspected militants were also destroyed.

Amazingly, out of the 200 or so people killed by the Egyptian army in the Sinai since their crackdown on Islamist militants, none have been civilians - according to the Egyptian army.

That would be an amazing record, if it was true.

Last September, however, a video of four babies incinerated by the Egyptian army was released and confirmed by bloggers and reporters in the Sinai. Al Masry al Youm reported on a village with houses of ordinary citizens burnt and destroyed, and about how the Egyptians have arrested journalists who tried to report the truth.

The Egyptian army has imposed a siege on the Sinai, collectively punishing all residents there for the actions of the terrorists.

With the Sinai operations underway, the locals have many good reasons to complain. Despite virtually all public utilities being cut off, from electricity to water and internet to cell phone networks for most of the time, to many, their biggest complaint is being singled out by the army, just because they are from Sinai.

..
The military official told Egypt Independent that checkpoints are an unfortunate convenience [sic] for Egyptians, especially in dangerous areas where they are more numerous, but they are necessary for the civilians’ protection. Checkpoints prevent extremists elements from moving freely inside the country, he says, and it is especially important these jihadist groups don’t make it to metropolitan areas and cause problems.

...Elzamlout says the increasing mishandling of Sinai citizens during the security campaign could create more terrorism because “they treat Sinai’s sons cruelly.”

Menai agreed. “There is no development, but instead torture and detainment. These things create terrorists. If there are terrorists here, they have created them.”

This is still the case today. This Egyptian blogger last month said that while Israel's military operations in the Sinai took only six days and afterwards there were no security problems, Egypt's siege of the Sinai is now six months old and no one can even talk about it.

The danger of Islamists in the Sinai cannot be denied, as the Taba bus bombing shows. However, the double standards of the media and "human rights" NGOs is striking - they ignore Egypt's collective punishment of hundreds of thousands of Sinai residents, with checkpoints, travel restrictions, limitations on electronic communications, censorship, curfews and more.

All this is happening right next to Gaza which has hundreds of reporters and NGO workers ready to write daily condemnations of Israel in order to justify their existence. None of them bother to travel a couple of miles to see what is happening on the other side of Rafah.

How many civilians have been killed by the Egyptian army? How many houses have been destroyed? How many have died because they couldn't access medical help? How many hours are they without electricity? How many have been arrested for no reason?

No one knows, and no one cares to find out.

Egypt's war against murderous Islamists is laudatory, while Israel's war against these same murderous Islamists is a violation of human rights.

Arabs celebrate more murderers' bodies being returned (update)

I mentioned recently that Israel was returning the body of one of the terrorists responsible for the attack at the yeshiva in Otniel in 2002, where 4 students were killed. Palestinian Arabs celebrated the return of the murderer.

Israel quietly released the other terrorist of the same attack, and naturally there was a large celebratory funeral.

He was buried next to his fellow terrorist.

It is still unclear why Israel is releasing the bodies of terrorists now. While the state was taken to court to release the bodies, apparently there was never a ruling forcing their return. And Israel is being very quiet about these releases of terrorist remains.

It sure sounds like something that John Kerry pressured Israel to do, in order to keep the sham negotiations going. So instead of getting something real in return, Israel is seeing its peace partner praising terrorists who killed Jews in cold blood.

What a deal.

UPDATE: PMW has the video of another funeral for a terrorist with remarks by a PA official praising him. This one killed three teenagers in Itamar in 2002.

(h/t Ian)

The Arab definition of "peace," 1948

This comes from a July 8, 1948 memo from the Arab League to UN mediator Count Bernadotte rejecting the extension of the truce during Israel's War of Independence. (I found this in a 1962 book of Arab League documents.)

The Arab States, however, were again disappointed when they received the proposals of the Count which he had based on partition, on the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, and on recognition of what has been called the "accomplished" fact brought about by the Zionist gangs. We do not think that the Mediator is unaware that the present struggle is directed against the idea of partition and against the establishment of a Jewish state. Yet he soon took this as a basis for his proposals, (thus) disregarding the rights of the Arabs.

The Zionists are going ahead with the establishment of their so-called "state". There is nothing in this to encourage the prolongation of the cease-fire and the finding of a peaceful solution. The Mediator himself is fully convinced, as he has said on one occasion, that there is no hope of convincing the Jews to give up their state.

This means that the cease-fire will not enable us to find a peaceful solution.

Even then, the Arabs would use Western concepts of "peace" when talking to the West - but as they made clear, their definition of peace means no Jewish state.

02/17 Links Pt2: Oxfam’s Middle East blinders; Responding to the J Street Challenge

From Ian:

Gerald M. Steinberg: Oxfam’s Middle East blinders

Oxfam also distorts economic analyses of the West Bank and Gaza, repeatedly arguing that that the sole impediment to Palestinian development is Israeli policy, ignoring intra-Palestinian limitations and factors, as well as immoral mass-terror attacks. Similarly, Oxfam uses its power and access to lobby the European Union to sanction Israel. In 2009, four years after the last Israelis left Gaza, Oxfam International’s director, Jeremy Hobbs, demonized the Jewish state for creating “the world’s largest prison” and erasing geography (Gaza shares a border with Egypt), and blamed it for Hamas’ policy of diverting humanitarian resources to fund terrorism.
For all of these reasons, the criticism of Oxfam’s role in the anti-Israel boycott industry is clearly justified. An organization based on promoting moral principles cannot support and enable one-sided boycotts and double standards that demonize and single out Israel. To go beyond the rhetoric of “reducing poverty and addressing injustice,” and put these words into action, Oxfam must end its involvement in all forms of demonization, and win back Scarlett Johansson’s heart.

Responding to the J Street Challenge

This reality is implicitly acknowledged in “The J Street Challenge,” a critical documentary film about the organization that has just been released by Americans for Peace and Tolerance, a Boston-based group run by the well-known anti-slavery activist Charles Jacobs. And it is a reality that, Jacobs and his co-producers insist, needs to be grappled with through honest debate and discussion.
The key question raised by the film is what it means to be “pro-Israel” not on a personal level, but within the context of the political lobbying and advocacy that swirls around American policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (or, as Harvard Professor Ruth Wisse more accurately terms it in her interview in the film, “the Arab conflict with Israel”). And when you examine J Street’s record, it becomes very hard to dispute Professor Alan Dershowitz’s assertion that the organization—despite its much-vaunted tagline—is “neither pro-Israel nor pro-peace.” Trailer

Orthodox Jew? Hate Israel? The New York Times Wants To Interview You

In “A Conflict of Faith: Devoted to Jewish Observance, but at Odds With Israel,” the New York Times wants to disabuse readers of the minority-antiZionist-380x252notion that observant Jews are all pro-Israel. So they highlight four who oppose not only Israel’s policies, but even favor the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaign.
Of course, the article does reference the fact that their views are at odds with family and friends. But it begs the question: Why would the New York Times publish a feature piece — in the “beliefs” section no less — about people whose views are in an extreme minority?

Why Anti-Zionist Jews Are a Minority

What the overwhelming majority of Jews know that these five people and their adoring audience at the Times don’t is that opposition to Israel’s existence—as opposed to criticism of it—is taking a stand against the right of the Jewish people to life. While there is a portion of the ultra-Orthodox community that also holds to anti-Zionism because of their own bizarre interpretation of Judaism (which strangely goes unmentioned in the article), non-Haredim who do so are fighting common sense, history, and the basic principles of fairness. If those who adopt such positions are a minority, it is not due to any resistance on the part of the majority to ethics or concern for others but because of the implausibility of their beliefs. (h/t NormanF)

Commenter "Rabbi Burns" wrote to UK Aid concerning a story I covered last month about a TV show on the Ma'an network that celebrates murderers of Jews. UK-Aid is one of the funders listed by Ma'an.

Their reply:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your email of 28 January 2014 about funding for Ma'an Network TV. I have been asked to reply as I work in the Department for International Development (DFID).

The UK Government deplores any anti-Semitic discourse – whether in speech or writing – along with any other form of racist expression. DFID does not currently provide funding to the Ma’an network.

We deplore incitement on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including any comments that could stir up hatred and prejudice in a region that needs a culture of peace and mutual respect.

Yours sincerely

[Name]

Department for International Development

"Rabbi Burns" responded:

Many thanks for your very helpful reply.

Might I also suggest that it would be in the interests of everyone who seeks a peaceful solution to the Israeli/Arab conflict if you were to request of Ma'an Network TV that it remove the UK Aid logo from its list of "Partners and Donors" (see link below). I fear that the continued presence of the logo may reflect badly on the UK government's involvement in the region.

http://www.maannet.org/modules/publisher/item.php?itemid=7

Yours sincerely,

R. Burns

So is Ma'an lying?

Has anyone contacted any of the other funders listed?

UPDATE: Yenta Press found the UK government site that dealt with the funding of Ma'an. It was a three year project:

Ma’an Network
GTF Number 095

Empowering transparency through effective secular media

Key facts:

Start date: 1 September 2008
End date: 31 August 2011
Amount of DFID funding £2,110,233
In this 3-year project, Ma’an Network aims to strengthen independent secular media as a catalyst for governmental accountability and responsiveness in Palestine.

Using media to amplify public demands for accountability and facilitate citizen input in governance processes in both the West Bank and Gaza Strip, we hope to contribute to building a culture of demand for good governance.

The project will focus on investigative and participatory journalism, utilising television, radio, and online reporting to increase access to information, institutionalise dialogue between Palestinian citizens and decision-makers, and give voice to marginalised groups.

The project will also establish a research unit at Ma’an to survey public needs and attitudes on media and governance, monitor public reaction to our media productions, and evaluate our programming quality and impact.

Key outputs include providing Palestinians with more independent information and detailed reporting on governance issues, and increasing the possibility for citizens to hold government officials accountable.