Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Wednesday, November 25, 2015

11/25 Links Pt2: Anthropologists take money from repressive regime, donors distance themselves

From Ian:

Eugene Kontorovich: Anthropologists take money from repressive regime, while Yahoo clarifies relationship

I wrote a few days ago about an irony of the American Anthropological Association seeking to boycott Israeli academic institutions while taking donations from Intel and Yahoo!, companies with high-profile operations in Israel and extensive academic ties there. Some of those donors have responded – and further financial ironies have emerged
A Yahoo spokesman contacted me today to clarify that the company made a single, one-time donation to the AAA, at time when they did not know about any boycott plans. “Yahoo has at present no intention of further sponsoring” any AAA projects, he said.
The AAA does have some foreign institutional members (though currently no Israeli ones). Among them is the state-run Zayed University, in the United Arab Emirates, where “political dissent is not tolerated and there are severe restrictions on freedom of expression.” As for academic freedom:
The government restrict[s] academic freedom, including speech both inside and outside the classroom by educators, and censored academic materials for schools. The government required official permission for conferences that discussed political issues.
One of the famous quips from the American Studies Association’s boycott was the explanation by its president of why Israel was singled out for boycott: “you have to start somewhere.” For the AAA starting by excluding institutions from a country with no member institution would not seem like a reasonable or non-capricious place to start.
UPDATE:
Intel has also sent a statement about its relationship with the AAA:
Intel made two small donations to the American Anthropological Association (AAA) during the past six years, but is not and has never been a member of AAA or a significant donor, and has no ongoing relationship with the AAA.
The description of Intel’s donation as “significant,” which I had quoted, was the AAA’s. According to the AAA, Intel was a sponsor of the Annual Meeting in 2013. They were also listed by the AAA in their highest donor category (“Benefactors”). By the tone of Intel’s statement, I do not think that will be the case in coming years.

Eugene Kontorovich: How to fight labeling

The European Commission's labeling is not about promoting "the two state solution" and it's not about "consumer protection." It is about a single-minded demonization of Israel.
The EU claims that "Made in Israel" labels mislead consumers about products' "country of origin." Yet the EU is not merely seeking a different geographical designation. Surprisingly, according to the EU rules, if "Made in Israel" is the problem, then "Made in the West Bank" or even "Made in Occupied Palestinian Territories" is not an acceptable answer.
Indeed, the EU notice specifically says that such alternative geographic indications cannot be used, though they entirely address the objection about geographic/territorial mislabeling. Instead, the EU notice also requires such products also be labeled "Israeli settlement" products. This is an extraordinary and unique step. "True origin" requirements for labeling are always and only about the country or territory goods comes from.
"Israeli settlement" labeling, however, is not about the geographic area. "Israeli settlement" is not a place on the map. The EU has replaced geographic indications -- labels about where something was made -- to something labels about who or how goods were made.

How EU Officials Resemble Stabbers

EU bureaucrats won’t like the comparison, but in one significant respect, the officials who approved discriminatory labeling requirements for Israeli products earlier this month bear a marked resemblance to the Palestinians who have been knifing Jews throughout Israel for weeks now. Clearly, there’s no similarity between labeling requirements and murder; the two aren’t remotely comparable. But the underlying attitude is remarkably similar: Neither the EU bureaucrats nor the Palestinian stabbers seem to care how many Palestinians they hurt as long as they can hurt a few Jews in the process.
Both the stabbings and the labeling promise to wreak havoc on the Palestinian economy – or to be more specific, on the ability of thousands of Palestinians to support themselves and their children. With regard to the violence, this ought to be self-evident. In an article earlier this month, for instance, reporter Brett Kline described the despondent mood in tourism-dependent Bethlehem now that clashes between slingshot-wielding Palestinians and Israeli soldiers have driven the tourists away. But the angriest comment, Kline reported, came from Hamadah, a construction foreman working in the Betar Ilit settlement:
He has just been informed that following the attempted stabbing of a soldier at the entrance to the settlement by a 22-year-old mother of two from Husan village across the road, work has been suspended indefinitely. And residents of Husan, home to thriving construction material depots and auto repair shops, cannot leave the village.
“What was she thinking,” he fumes, referring to the stabber. “Who the hell is she? … The woman is being fed in hospital. But how will I feed my family?
Indeed, the situation has gotten so bad that Palestinian businessmen in Hebron have begun trying to stop the violence on their own. And it could easily get worse. Last week, following a deadly attack in Tel Aviv perpetrated by a Palestinian who had just received a permit to work in Israel, the Israeli government suspended 1,200 other recently issued entry permits pending a security review. Should more permit-holders perpetrate attacks, Israel could eventually be driven to bar Palestinian laborers almost entirely, as it did during the second intifada. The impact on the Palestinian economy would be devastating: According to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, 92,000 Palestinians work in Israel (not including the settlements). That’s 13 percent of all employed Palestinians in the West Bank.

Peter Beinart tries, and fails, to smear AIPAC

Peter Beinart in Haaretz notes that most American Jewish organizations are sympathetic to the Syrian refugee crisis, but that AIPAC is silent.

Why Is AIPAC Silent on Syrian Refugees?
Many American Jewish groups balance the Holocaust’s tribal and universal lessons. The most powerful one doesn’t even try.

...While the organizations that petitioned Congress on behalf of Syrian refugees respond to both halves of the Holocaust analogy, they don’t wield much power in Washington. They’re far less influential than AIPAC, which focuses only on the first. AIPAC leaders invoke the Holocaust constantly, but only to imply that Israel’s enemies are Nazis, never to suggest that non-Jews suffering oppression deserve help. That’s why AIPAC won’t weigh in on Syrian refugees.

Hate to break it to you, Peter, but AIPAC doesn't define itself as a Jewish organization. It's mission statement is concise and clear: "The mission of AIPAC is to strengthen, protect and promote the U.S.-Israel relationship in ways that enhance the security of Israel and the United States."

AIPAC was not founded to give statements on gun control or Medicare or abortion or Syrian refugees.

Except, of course, when mention of those refugees could help Israel. So for example, in a case that Beinart probably considers "Syrian-washing," AIPAC proudly reported that Israel was helping hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees in Jordan through IsraAID.

Or, for example, back in 2012 AIPAC wrote with sympathy for the refugees as i discussed the ramifications towards Israel's neighbors of accepting so many refugees. It even discussed the possibility of jihadists hiding among those refugees. It is an issue that might affect Israel so AIPAC discussed it, as it should.

So AIPAC is not ignoring the issue - AIPAC only deals with it the way it deals with all issues, through the prism of the Israel-American relationship. Nothng nefarious, as Beinart wants you to believe.

Beinart is no dope. He knows what I am writing is true. But he wants to separate the American Jewish public from AIPAC, which he considers evil. So he trots out the straw man that AIPAC is a major Jewish organization that is too immoral to issue a statement of support for Syrian refugees.

Peter Beinart wants to impose his own bizarre opinions about Israel to the US government, and AIPAC is in his way. So he creates scenarios to smear AIPAC. His articles about Syrian refugees are smokescreens for his pushing his political agenda - whether it is anti-AIPAC or anti-Republican.

Beinart's pretense of concern over the Syrian refugee crisis is a sham. Itiis an excuse to bash those groups he finds objectionable no matter what they do. Based on the articles I linked to from AIPAC about the issue, AIPAC is using the issue when it fits their mission, just like Beinart is using the issue to fit his mission. Only AIPAC's mission is cheering Israel's accomplishments, and Beinart's mission is to tell the world how terrible Israel is.

This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For over 11 years and over 22,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.

Obama Calls For CDC To Stop Fighting, Start Negotiating With Cancer (PreOccupied Territory)

Our weekly column from the humor site PreOccupied Territory.

Check out their Facebook page.

Atlanta, November 25 - In a bid to reduce tensions and lower the level of open conflict in a war going back decades, US President Barack Kerry urged both sides in the War on Cancer to come to the negotiating table instead of fighting.

In a statement to the Centers for Disease Control in this southern city, President Obama called on the researchers and medical specialists to explore options that do not involve attacking cancer cells, but allows them a dignified way to express their grievances and assures they feel listened to. Only that way, said the president, will the rogue growths let go of the need to disrupt the body's systems and kill patients.

"Talks are always preferable to outright conflict," said the president. "In this so-called war, both parties have done little to find a solution not based on a zero-sum game mentality. It has always been manifestly clear that in a zero-sum game, in which one side's success comes at the expense of the other, there is never truly a winner. We must do more to cultivate possibilities that make a win-win situation not only available, but attractive."

"Researchers throughout the world have been fighting valiantly for many years, and have amassed accomplishments to make anyone proud," continued the statement. "But victory remains as distant a prospect as when this war began. I urge the parties to this conflict to resolve their differences at the negotiating table."

"No one believes such negotiations will be easy, quick, even achieve resolution of every single issue," Obama concluded. "But we lose nothing by trying, and maybe, just maybe, we can bequeath to our children a world with one less devastating conflict in it. Well, in the case of cancer, its children's children's children's children's children's distant descendants, because cancer cells multiply so fast. But I think I made my point."

Secretary of State John Kerry echoed the president's call, and offered to broker the talks. "First we need to restore calm, perhaps with a series of goodwill gestures," suggested the secretary. "I think the first move should involve a moratorium on radiation therapy and chemotherapy, as a confidence-building measure. Then we can begin to talk about the actual demands and grievances of both sides. If all goes well and the negotiations are conducted in good faith, a final status agreement could be reached within months."

Critics questioned the efficacy of direct talks at this stage of the conflict. "Its a little suspicious, actually," said conservative Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer. "Does anyone realize Kerry's late wife made some sizable donations to end-of-life hospice care institutions?"

11/25 Links Pt1: PMW: School football tournament named after 13-year-old who stabbed two Israelis

From Ian:

PMW: Football tournament at Palestinian school named after 13-year-old who stabbed two Israelis

Last month, two Palestinian boys, Hassan Manasrah and Ahmad Manasrah, aged 15 and 13, went with knives to the Pisgat Ze'ev neighborhood of Jerusalem, planning to kill Israelis. They stabbed two people aged 21 and 13, critically wounding both victims. Terrorist Hassan was killed while fleeing the scene, while terrorist Ahmad was shot and wounded by Israeli police and later tended to in an Israeli hospital.
Now a Palestinian school has named a football tournament after one of the stabbers:
"The Ahmad Manasrah Football Tournament" [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Nov. 23, 2015]
This is not surprising as the Palestinian Authority practices a policy of glorifying terrorists who have murdered Israelis, presenting them as role models to Palestinian children. Palestinian Media Watch has documented that the PA has named at least 25 schools, as well as dozens of sporting events and summer camps after terrorists.
The PA recently emphasized its terror glorification policy when a PA municipality erected a monument and named a road after terrorist killer Muhannad Halabi who at the start of the current terror wave stabbed and murdered two Israelis in Jerusalem. A youth center in Jenin also named a football tournament after this murderer.

Islamist-Zombies have snatched the brains of Western leaders

Looking at what is going on in the world, one gets the eerie feeling that we are living an ugly genetic-cross between a Zombie Horror flic and a Body-Snatched horror-sci-fi film. Muslim Islamist-Zombies are murdering non-Muslims and Muslims as if they are in a zombie trance. And, President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry act as though Muslims murdering the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, Jews, and pretty much everybody else really isn’t a big deal, and actually has a “rationale.”
It seems the Islamist-Zombies are not just “at the gates,” but that a brain-snatched President Obama is purposefully holding the gates open so they can flood in. We are living through an actual horror movie from hell from which there is no waking up, and from which we cannot escape.
First, why call these Islamist-murderers “terrorists.” Even with terrorists in movies there is some negotiation. These monsters are not out for negotiation, they are out to rampage, to maraud, and to bath themselves in others’ blood. Ask yourself a simple question: Watching the frenzied Islamist-murderers stab Israelis and spew bullets into a crowded French concert halls and cafes, are these murderers like the calculating terrorists of movies like Die-Hard or are these rampaging crazies like the zombies from movies like Night of the Living Dead? The answer is self-evident.
For seven years, Obama has so pandered to these Muslims and validated their ideals that he has whetted their appetite for more blood. Obama’s actions have insured that would-be Islamist-Zombies are falling over themselves to kill more people. They are frenzied Zombies that are out to murder and murder and murder until there’s no one left.

The Left’s Ideas Deficit Strengthens Islamists

This weekend, the novelist Joyce Carol Oates took to Twitter with a question. “All we hear of ISIS is puritanical and punitive,” opined the Grand Dame of American letters. “Is there nothing celebratory and joyous? Or is query naïve?”
Query isn’t naïve. Query is telling. Having distinguished herself as a political idiot earlier this year by leading the march of folly against awarding PEN’s freedom of expression award to the surviving members of Charlie Hebdo, Oates has emerged as one of the more eloquent tellers of a story gripping large swaths of the population formerly known as the American intelligentsia. Oates’ meta-narrative is the story of the struggle between those enlightened enough to see the intricacies of oppression everywhere at play and those benighted brutes who are halting progress by trampling the weak and spreading bigotry and bias. The latter look at ISIS and see murderous zealots; Oates and her fellow feelers, on the other hand, high on empathy, demand that we see joy and beauty–or at least “nuance”—in the beheaders’ violent spree, which, after all, was provoked by our own cruel insensitivities and will only stop once we recognize the legitimacy of our executioners’ grievances.
This, more or less, is contemporary progressivism’s big story. You can hear variations on it in the yelps of the mindless freaks at the University of Ottawa, who insisted on banning a yoga class because the practice of stretching one’s limbs in certain positions was taken from a culture that “experienced oppression, cultural genocide and diasporas due to colonialism and western supremacy,” or in the demands of the crybullies at Smith College, who vowed to bar reporters who didn’t pledge solidarity with their causes from covering their rallies. It’s there in the mumblings of the bobos in the 11th Arrondisement, who, while still scrubbing the blood of their friends and neighbors off their neighborhood’s sidewalks, were quick to condone their attackers and blame their government for the violence. And it’s alive in the wailing of the Israeli left, who meet every Palestinian wielding a knife, an ax, or a gun with soft apologies for having the temerity to ride the bus or shop for fruit or walk down the street on a warm fall day. Some specifics may vary from Yale to Tel Aviv and from Paris to Missouri, but the underlying worldview remains the same, a unified theory that holds that history is a battle between the “oppressed” and the “oppressors,” and that should be a matter of life and death for every good and decent person to stand on the side of the “oppressed” while working to dismantle the “structures of privilege” that make the oppressed so justifiably mad.

Kuwaiti op-ed: "Israel is not our enemy"

From The Kuwait Times, translated from Al-Anbaa:

Israel is not our enemy

shayejiI am trying to be realistic, objective and reasonable in what I am writing because I know that it will be shocking as well as contradicting with age-old non-negotiable beliefs and taboos. Is Israel an enemy? Is animosity stable or changeable? Is it controlled by and subject to certain situations, circumstances, attitudes and interests?

Arab hostility to Israel started even before establishing Israel, when powerful resourceful Arab countries at that time fought some Jewish militia gangs in Palestine, and yet those gangs managed to defeat the well-armed armies of seven Arab countries. International intervention was then resorted to in order to resolve the dispute over Palestinian territories between Arabs and the Jews. However, the ‘mighty’ Arabs rejected the division project, and thus granted the Jews a second victory. Consequently, the state of Israel was founded and declared and was recognized by the world except for Arab countries and other ones that later on found no alternative other than recognizing it.

Whose enemy is Israel? Is it the enemy of all Arab states? Well, Palestinians have every right to antagonize Israel because they occupied their lands. We do support and assist them in every possible way we can and that it the maximum, and nothing more, Arab countries are expected to do.

After seven whole decades, as Arabs, who is our real enemy today? Do all Arab states have only one enemy or each country or group of countries have an enemy who might most probably be a dear friend of another? The first step towards reform in the Arab world is to alienate the Arab nationalism concepts because facts deny them and those who believe they still exist are delusional.

Take Kuwait, for an example. Is Israel a real enemy of it? Has it ever invaded it? Has it fought it? Has it killed its citizens? The answer to all the above questions is a big fat NO. Why does Kuwait consider Israel as an enemy while it deals with Iraq, that already invaded and occupied it, as a friend, brother and neighbor? I do not wish that Kuwait antagonizes Iraq. On the contrary, it made the right decision because animosity is constantly changeable, particularly in politics where yesterday’s enemy can be today’s friend and today’s friend might become tomorrow’s enemy. This is a real fact.

The bottom line is that Israel is not Arabs’ enemy and Arab countries have to individually get rid of the Arab nation’s complex and make their own individual decisions independently. – Translated by Kuwait Times from Al-Anbaa

By Saleh Al-Shayeji

(h/t Gidon Shaviv)

Islamic Jihad suffering from Iran cutting support

Palestine Press Agency has an interesting report on how the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terror group has been forced to cut back on some of its media operations and salary payments in recent months.

Terrorists and supporters on the Islamic Jihad payroll have seen their salaries cut in half over the past six months. Islamic Jihad also has the most professional and extensive media presence of any Palestinian terror organization, both in Gaza and Lebanon, and they have been forced to shut some offices.

The reason is because Islamic Jihad's main sponsor, Iran, has cut funding in retaliation for PIJ's refusal to support the Houthis in the Yemen civil war, whom Iran supports.

When the war broke out, Iran insisted that the terror organizations that depended on it take sides, but most of them refused because they didn't want to alienate either the Iranians or the Saudis and Gulf states.

Iran has been acting similarly towards Hamas since that group refused to support the Syrian regime against the rebels.

Both terror groups have been trying to mend their ties with Iran. Islamic Jihad believes that things will improve although no details have been published.

But what is clear is that Iran is using both financial and military means to exert its influence on the region. It is not winning any hearts and minds through its ideology.

As Saudi Arabia gets weaker, terror organizations will be more likely to fall into Iran's orbit, or Iran will create new organizations like Hezbollah that will.

Isn't it wonderful that Iran will now receive tens of billions of dollars from the West so it can push its radical Islamic agenda so much further in the Middle East?

.@Amnesty cares about statelessness - except for Palestinians

Amnesty USA has a Take Action! press release about Haitians in the Dominican republic who cannot become citizens, despite being there for generations:

Tens of thousands individuals became stateless in the Dominican Republic in September 2013. The highest court in the country decided that even though these individuals were born and raised for generations in the country, they should not have been Dominicans because their parents, grandparents, or even great grandparents, who were undocumented, came from the neighbouring country of Haiti, with which the Dominican Republic shares the same island in the Caribbean.

Their lives are a succession of frustration, lost opportunities, and the denial of their rights as human beings. Without nationality, they have no documents nor rights. Without documents, children do not have access to education or have to stop studying. They cannot go to university and turn their dreams of a better life into reality.

Stateless people have difficulty accessing healthcare. They can’t travel and are forced into informal jobs. Women are at increased risk of violence or other abuse, and have little to no opportunity to secure justice in court. The lives of all those who remain stateless are in limbo.

Stateless people are people who legally do not exist.

Amnesty is rightfully concerned with the problem of statelessness.

However, there are another people who have lived without the rights of citizenship in host countries that have treated them badly for generations. The analogy isn't perfect, but when Amnesty looked at Palestinians who have been discriminated against in Lebanon because they were kept stateless, Amnesty didn't ask Lebanon to do anything about the problem of statelessness. They didn't demand Lebanon confer citizenship on Palestinians or even children of Palestinians born there. They didn't insist on equal rights even when Lebanon created laws specifically against them.

Amnesty doesn't demand that Lebanon (and Syria and Jordan for the Palestinian non-citizens there) offer citizenship, even though many Palestinians in Lebanon would love to be citizens!

The reason? Because Amnesty wants to make sure that Palestinians remain stateless so they can pressure Israel for a non-existent "right of return" - a "right" that that Amnesty twists international law to pretend that it exists.

So while Amnesty is so upset over the statelessness of Haitians in the Dominican Republic, ti has no such concern about the people that have dominated their reports for years. Because Amnesty will adopt the Palestinian anti-Israel "right of return" narrative rather than stand up for the real human rights of Palestinians.

Isn't that interesting?

Palestine Press Agency reports that Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan gave words of support for the wave of attacks against Jews in a speech at an economic conference of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation this morning.

According to the report, Erdogan said "The Palestinians are standing up to Israeli attacks and their violations of the Al-Aqsa Mosque; [they are] engaged in a struggle that is honest and honorable."

He also said that "the Gaza Strip has turned into an open prison because of the ongoing blockade."

I corroborated part of this, as excerpts from the speech was published in Haberler and elsewhere, but the part about Al Aqsa Mosque was not mentioned in the excerpts, which changes the context of the speech from one that apparently supports knifing Jews to a more general statement of support for "resistance." The Turkish report quotes Erdogan as saying, "In Palestine, despite the inhuman oppression and violence and Israeli attacks, our brothers give an honorable fight. This is the eighth year that 1.5 million people are under the Gaza blockade which has turned it into an open-air prison."

The entire speech is here on video, perhaps someone who knows Turkish can let us know what exactly Erdogan said and if he really was implying that he supports Arabs knifing Jews in a speech where he attacks terrorism.

Suddenly, Muslims are upset at kids playing OUTSIDE holy places

The Shehab News Agency is upset that a bunch of Jewish kids are playing outside the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron.

#شاهد .. ساحات المسجد الابراهيمي الشريف في الخليل أصبحت ملعبا للمستوطين .. تصوير رائد أبورميلة
Posted by Shehab News Agency on Tuesday, November 24, 2015

They are complaining that it has become a playground.

Commenters are expressing their sorrow.

Of course, what is bothering them isn't the fact that they are playing. What bothers them is the fact that they are Jews - and acting like they belong there.

Just as a reminder, here is how Arabs treat the Temple Mount, whose holiness far exceeds that of anything in Hebron according to both Jews and Muslims:

(h/t UKMediaWatch)

11/24 Links Pt2: How The New York Times whitewashes Palestinian terror; New Maccabeats

From Ian:

Eugene Kontorovich: Anthropology group votes to boycott Israel despite major donors’ — including Intel and Yahoo — thick Israeli ties

The annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association has approved a resolution to boycott Israel, which must now be voted on by the group’s membership. There are some unappreciated ironies that arise from the AAA’s efforts, and its interaction with private businesses that the AAA contracts with and takes donations from.
The resolution seeks to enlist a major academic publisher in excluding Israeli institutions from access to scholarly publications. And while the AAA is doing this, the AAA’s major donors are among the most important companies in Israel — which probably have not yet caught on to what is being done with their money.
For it turns out that the AAA does not mind getting funding from companies that, by the AAA’s logic, “maintain perpetuate the occupation.” Two of the group’s most “significant” donors are Intel and Yahoo! Labs.
Intel does not just do business in Israel, it is a big part of the Jewish State’s economy, and vice versa. Its Israel division is the country’s largest private employer, while accounting in recent years for up to 40 percent of Intel’s profit.
Intel is deeply tied in to Israeli academic institutions and has facilities all over the country. If Israel’s obscure anthropology departments “have been directly and indirectly complicit in the Israeli state’s systematic maintenance of the occupation and denial of basic rights to Palestinians, by providing planning, policy, and technological expertise for furthering Palestinian dispossession,” as the AAA resolution claims, surely Intel must be the Great Dispossessor.

Richard Landes: In an Age of Terror, How Thinking Right Can Save the Left

Among the responses in Israel to the Paris Terror Attacks, there has emerged a divide that deserves attention. Depending on where you spend your political time, one or the other response will appear predictable (and lamentable).
First, there are the self-referential Zionists who think, as they did after the attacks of Sept. 11 and the London bombings of July 7, 2005, and so many other moments: “Now, maybe they’ll understand our plight, and realize we have the same enemies,” and “We Israelis have a lot to teach you.” Their battle-hardened cousins further to the right reply, “Don’t bother trying, they’re all anti-Semitic and judge us by a double standard” or even “The West deserves what they’re getting, as a punishment for their hypocrisy.”
On the other hand, we have those who see this entire range of responses as distasteful, to say the least. Instead, they urge an expression of sympathy and solidarity unclouded by words of reproach, by displaying the French flag online as a way to declare #JeSuisFrançais. It’s really not cool for Israelis to complain about a double standard at a time like this, they scold. It’s not about us—it’s about France. As for those people, like the prime minister, who compare ISIS to Palestinian terrorists, they are engaging in a low form of propaganda, trying to use the victims of other wars in other places to wash away the sins of Israeli occupation.
In a deeply disturbing and repeating 21st-century, paradox, however, the approach of Israel’s generous and selfless ones has worked to the benefit of most regressive forces on the planet—while on the contrary, the voice that awakening Europe needs most to heed in the current crisis is that of those self-centered Israelis who relate European woes to their own pain. The failure to understand this paradox explains both why Western elites are so poor at resisting global jihad, and why, for a disaffected youth—Muslim by birth or by choice—it makes sense to join that jihad. Indeed, this split in Israeli discourse about the Paris attacks illustrates the disproportionate impact of a peculiar Jewish dispute on the current cognitive disorientation of the West.

How The New York Times whitewashes Palestinian terror

And so was the newspaper’s recent suggestion that there might never have been a temple on Jerusalem’s Temple Mount, despite unanimity among serious scholars to the contrary. The timing of this attack on Jewish history was no coincidence. Palestinians have explained that the wave of violence is fueled by rumors that Israel plans to change the status quo on the Mount, and by continued Jewish visits to the site.
Instead of explaining the historical connection between the Jewish people and their holiest site, the newspaper chose to rewrite history to better fit with a Palestinian narrative that Jews are foreign to the Temple Mount. (This article and the one about the Boy Scout knife were eventually corrected.)
The newspaper has long been criticized for its obsessive scrutiny of Israeli flaws, real and imagined, coupled with soft-glove treatment of Palestinians. Even its own public editor has urged reporters to strengthen coverage of Palestinians because, she incredibly had to remind colleagues, “They are more than just victims.” Clearly, the message hasn’t been heeded.
This journalism-gone-wild isn’t good for Israel, of course. But it’s also bad for the newspaper’s readers, who want an honest account of what’s happening across the world. It’s bad for students, who risk harassment and ostracism on campus if they come out in support for the Jewish state. And if our democracy, and by extension our foreign policy, depends on a well-informed electorate, it’s bad for us all. (h/t Yenta Press)

PressTV always good for a laugh

I love stuff like this:

Dirty, stinking Jews are out to tarnish the reputation of Muslims!

(If you doubt that the "activist" is an antisemite, read this.)

The very day following the terror attack in Paris in which Islamists claimed 130 lives, the following tin-rattling post by the Online Hate Prevention Institute (OHPI) appeared on Facebook: “CAN YOU HELP? The Online Hate Prevention Institute's Spotlight on Anti-Muslim Internet Hate campaign (SAMIH) is gathering the world's largest record of anti-Muslim hate content on social media. So far we have 451 unique items collected. We will keep taking reports until the end of November, but the crowd funding campaign supporting this project ends in 54 hours time. So far we have only raised 49% of our crowdfunding goal. Time is rapidly running out to support this vital project. Please help?” A more specific link was provided: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/samih-spotlight-on-anti-muslim-internet-hate#/ On November 15 the appeal closed, having met 68 per cent of its target.

Despite the timing of the OHPI’s post the comments beneath the Facebook appeal – mainly written by non-Muslim women, it seems – were singularly free of “anti-Muslim hate”. Virtually the first person to set the comments rolling ventured: “Sorry but after Paris event unfolding it is hard not to be angry”. Immediately challenged by another commenter with “Angry at who?” she explained: “The terrorist and the people who support them. This will only exacerbate the distrust of the Muslim people”. A little later she was obliged to clarify that with “…what worries me [is] that the average person will not be able to differentiate between Muslims and terrorists its so sad that so many will suffer the wrath because of the actions of those who say they are doing this in the name of "Allah".’
Despite these reasonable enough observations she was lectured almost to the point of harassment by other commenters.

Observed another woman: “Hatred against Muslims has no place .... online or anywhere. Speaking out against acts of violence and terrorism which are supposedly carried out by fanatics in the name of ISLAM or Allah does have a place....everywhere. Unfortunately, many people don't understand the difference between the peaceful principles that underpin the Muslim faith and the idiotic acts of violence by those who can't possibly be true Muslims. I urge all true believers of the Muslim faith to proclaim loudly and constantly that you do not condone these acts of violence. You must speak and act now. This will help to turn the tide of growing misplaced hatred against ALL Muslims. Show that you are united with the world and declare your outrage against all acts of violence done in the name of Allah. We will stand with you, will you stand with us ??”

Not exactly “Islamophobic” was she? Indeed, rather too naïve. But, boy, did she cop a scolding from others. This for instance, from someone with a female western name: “Remind me again when i was supposed to apologise for Westboro Baptists? Also, have you noticed we dont need a Spotlight on Christian Hate Campaign because of Westboro Baptists filthy behaviours? Christians did not need to seek the spotlight to publicly vocally condemn Anders Brievek [sic]? I didnt notice any Pagans apologising for the extreme right wing Pagans that were arrested through the week? I dont see a lot of Jewish people being expected to condemn Israel's treatment of Palestinians? (but hey, wouldnt it be nice if so many stopped defending them..) … It is not your place to tell Muslim people what to do. Speak up on their behalf, but stop placing your expectations on other people. They already speak out and they do enough… Have you asked Muslim people what you can do to help? Have you considered that it may mean you need to speak out more publicly to condemn the terrorism of your own people - the west? Do you have a right to tell others to condemn terrorism if you don't do it sufficiently yourself? Do you speak out to condemn terrorism when it is directed at thousands of people in Africa or Beirut or Baghdad or just when it is directed at "us"?’

“Not even 24 hours and the Arabs are blaming Israel and America for the terrorist attacks in Paris” observed somebody archly.

The Online Hate Prevention Institute (OHPI) was founded by forces within the Australian Jewish community in 2012 to counter antisemitism, and with exceptions, members of that community, including the current head of the Zionist Federation, constitute its present Board, while its International Advisory Board is composed mainly of Jews. Since its foundation, though, it has considerably widened its sphere, as its website shows:

‘[It] is Australia’s National Charity dedicated to tackling the problem of online hate including online extremism, cyber-racism, cyber-bullying, online religious vilification, online misogyny, and other forms of online hate attacking individuals and groups in society. We aim to be a world leader in combating online hate and a critical partner who works with key stakeholders to improve the prevention and mitigation of online hate and the harm it causes. Ultimately, OHPI seeks to facilitate a change in online culture so that hate in all its forms becomes as socially unacceptable online as it is in “real life”… OHPI monitors all forms of online hate. This includes both “hate speech” directed against groups, or against individuals because of they belong to an identifiable group, and cyberbullying which can involve hateful content directed against an individual for any reason, or for no apparant [sic] reason at all… Our definition is wider than both that of the law and that of platform providers. We aim to promote debate about the type of society we, the internet-using public, wish to see. We also seek to raise awareness about the dangers that hate, whatever form it takes, can have on individuals and their physical and emotional health.’

Having myself endured four years of appalling and sustained cyberstalking and online abuse by an repugnant anti-Israel (male) leftist in the UK on various web forums (a major reason why I use an alias) I fully realise how extremely worthy many of OHPI’s aims are.

Nonetheless, despite its good intentions, its adoption of the term “Islamophobia,” and its consequent zeal for exposing and suppressing instances of what it considers “Islamophobia” smacks of authoritarianism and thought control – and, crucially, legitimate and necessary debate on perhaps the most pressing problem of our time.

Take, for instance, the report “Islamophobia on the Web” issued in 2013 by the OHPI in collaboration with the Islamic Council of Victoria. According to the OHPI’s website, “The authors divide the hate messages appearing in several different categories around which focuses Islamophobic activity of Internet users: Muslims as a threat to safety or a threat to public safety; Muslims as a threat to culture; Muslims as a threat to the economy; Content dehumanizing or demonizing Muslims; Threat of violence, genocide, and direct hatred directed at Muslims; The hatred directed at refugees or asylum seekers; Other forms of hatred.”

And take this pronouncement of the OHPI regarding these Facebook groups in parentheses (The United Patriots Front; Crusade against the Islamisation of the World; 1 Million Aussies Against ISLAM by Election Day 2016; Aussie Pride – No Islam – No Shariah Law; Australian Defence League; Exposing islam; Australian Patriot; Australians Against Islam – Melbourne; Australian Infidel Resistance Fighters; Stop the mosque in Kalgoorlie Boulder; All countries together against radical ISLAM; English Defence League; Britain First; BAN the Islamic Extremist Group ‘Sharia4Australia’):

“These pages promote hatred of the Muslim community, many of them focused specifically on the Australian Muslim community. Please take a moment to look at the pages and their content, and to report both to Facebook and to FightAgainstHate.com… Pages promote the idea that one group is [sic] society should dictate how others conduct themselves, which make them a fertile ground for a minority who wish to promote vilification and engaging in bullying.”

Does this foreshadow shutting down debate on the effects on Western nations and society of mass Muslim migration? And what of the very misogyny that the OHPI purports to fight when the misogyny emanates from and exists within Muslim communities? One example of anti-Muslim hatred shown on OHPI’s website is a poster showing the words “Sharia Law” with a traffic stop sign superimposed upon it. Does the OHPI deny that the supposed inferiority and the subjugation of women in all sorts of ways is endemic in that law? Does it consider as “hate speech” criticism of that law and of the sharia courts that are springing up around the Western world as “Islamophobia?” Do the writings of online experts on Islam, such as the distinguished Australian scholar of Islam Dr Mark Durie, constitute “Islamophobia” in the OHPI’s eyes?

Yes, the OHPI’s road is paved with good intentions. But we all know the old adage that warns where that road leads.

As the splendid Brendan O’Neill wrote in Saturday’s The Australian:

…The Islamophobia industry, funded by officials, uncritically fawned over by much of the media, does two really bad things. First, it gives Muslims the impression that criticism of their religion is wicked. Indeed, when the idea of Islamophobia was invented in the 1990s, primarily by aloof think tanks such as the Britain-based Runnymede Trust, the concern was entirely with policing criticism of Islam and shooting down the idea that Western values are superior.

The second bad thing this industry does is convince Muslims that the world hates them.
With their bumped-up stats and often shrill claims, it’s surely the Islamophobia-obsessed think tanks and journalists, not isolated Islamophobes, who have made some Muslims feel like aliens. The consequences of the elite project of cultivating Muslim fear are dire. The Islamophobia industry censors and divides, making whites feel they can’t express moral concerns about Islam and making Muslims feel like an utterly removed group. It may not cause but it certainly contributes to a feeling of injury among some Muslims, especially younger ones. I’ve seen this on campuses in Britain, where radical Islam is growing. When I speak for Islamic societies at universities, I’m often shocked by people’s attitudes. Their capacity for self-pity is profound; their suspicion of Western society is palpable…

Runnymede, whose 20-year-old definition of Islamophobia informs the global debate, said Islamophobic speech included claims that Islam was “inferior to the West”. It implored the political classes to present Islam as “distinctively different but not deficient”, as being as “equally worthy of respect (as Western values)”. So from the get-go, the Islamophobia industry was about reprimanding opinion, punishing moral judgment, so that even the belief that Western democratic values trumped Islamic ones came to be pathologised as a phobia.

It was about imposing relativism, not challenging racism. And we wonder why some radical Western Islamists hate and threaten those who mock their faith. They’ve grown up in nations in which criticism of Islam and a preference for Western values have been demonised. They’re kind of the armed wing of the Islamophobia industry.

The Islamophobia industry, and more importantly the late 20th-century creed of relativistic non-judgmentalism that fuels it, makes it harder to do the very thing we must do post-Paris: argue unapologetically for the values of liberty and democracy, for all the good, amazing stuff about Western society, and assert that these things are better than Islamism.

11/24 Links Pt1: Murray: 'There is no diplomatic situation that John Kerry cannot make worse'

From Ian:

Douglas Murray: In Sex and War, the Left Is in Denial about Some Obvious Facts of Life

I mention this because we should recall that this is what the modern Left in the modern West has reduced us to: a twittering, gibbering puddle of competing neuroses — some sincere, most not.
Then some real triggering went off in Paris. And instead of students falling over themselves to pretend to be more wounded than the next, people the same age as they and younger were being gunned down in Paris by the score for having a drink or going to a concert or football match. Of course, the major tragedy was that so many lives had been lost or destroyed so un-mendably. But one follow-on grief was that once again the people who should be in positions of power decided to check out.
The American president’s cursory remarks on the tragedy sounded like someone not merely phoning it in but visibly yearning for the post-presidential speaking and golf circuit. His secretary of state, meanwhile, used the aftermath of the slaughter of 130 people in a European capital to vow “resolve.” Perhaps the average French memory can still stretch back ten months.
If so, they will be suitably cool about the promise. For that was the last time Secretary John Kerry had to respond to a brutal massacre in Paris. On that occasion he turned up late with the guitarist James Taylor. To a visibly pained audience, James Taylor sang, on behalf of Kerry and the whole American people, “You’ve got a friend.” It is hard to think of a more mawkishly insulting diplomatic offering. The French foreign minister turning up in New York a week after 9/11 and hauling along a Gallic crooner to sing “Que sera sera”? Of course John Kerry made it worse, as he always does, by saying that he had turned up in the wake of the slaughter of twelve journalists and four Jews to “share a hug with Paris.”
This time Kerry made things worse still by implying that, whereas January’s attacks had some “legitimacy” or “rationale,” these were indiscriminate. The only thing that linked them, in Secretary Kerry’s eyes, was of course that they had “nothing to do with Islam.” Here in Britain and across Europe, politicians are conspicuously uttering this lie less and less because the public finds it less and less believable. But Kerry plods earnestly along. This latest attack, he said, “has nothing to do with Islam; it has everything to do with criminality, with terror, with abuse, with psychopathism — I mean, you name it.” Sure, so long as you don’t name it “Islam.”

Sam Harris PodCast: On the Maintenance of Civilization - A Conversation with Douglas Murray

In this episode of the Waking Up podcast, Sam Harris speaks with author Douglas Murray about Islamism, liberalism, civil society, and the migrant crisis in Europe. (~2 hours)

Clip: Douglas Murray W/ Sam Harris - The Refugee Crisis

Caroline Glick: Obama’s new counter-terrorism guru

This debate is clearly uncomfortable for liberal US media outlets. So they have sought to change the subject.
As the Democratic Party adopted Bush as its new counterterrorism guru, the liberal media sought to end discussion of radical Islam by castigating as bigots Republicans who speak of it. The media attempt over the weekend to claim falsely that Republican frontrunner Donald Trump called for requiring American Muslims to be registered in a national Muslim database marked such an attempt to change the subject.
The common denominator between Bush’s strategic decision to lie about the nature of the enemy, Obama’s apologetics for IS and the media’s attempt to claim that Republicans are anti-Islamic racists is that in all cases, an attempt is being made to assert that there is no pluralism in Islam – it’s either entirely good or entirely evil.
This absolutist position is counterproductive for two reasons. First, it gets you nowhere good in the war against radical Islam. The fact is that Islam per se is none of the US president’s business. His business is to defeat those who attack the US and to stand with America’s allies against their common foes.
Radical Islam may be a small component of Islam or a large one. But it certainly is a component of Islam. Its adherents believe they are good Muslims and they base their actions on their Islamic beliefs.
American politicians, warfighters and policymakers need to identify that form of Islam, study it and base their strategies for fighting the radical Islamic forces on its teachings.
Bush was wrong to lie about the Islamic roots of radical Islam. And his mistake had devastating strategic consequences for the world as a whole. It is fortuitous that the Clinton and the Democratic Party have embraced Bush’s failed strategy of ignoring the enemy for justifying their even more extreme position. Now that they have, they have given a green light to Republicans as well as Democrats who are appalled by Obama’s apologetics for radical Islam to learn from Bush’s mistakes and craft an honest and effective strategic approach to the challenge of radical Islam.

Richard Kemp: Western kindness is killing democracy

The horrific attacks in Paris ignited a potent demonstration of solidarity throughout the Western world. Global landmarks have been bathed in illuminated Tricolor flags, social media has been awash with tributes and moments of silence have been observed in major capitals. This determined sense of unity in the face of terrorism is entirely admirable, yet useless if it remains the sum total of the West’s response. The time has come to truly comprehend that Western democracy faces nothing less than a bitter and bloody fight to shape the future of the world. The battle against jihadist Islamism cannot be fought with demonstrations of goodwill.
Kindness and compromise is simply no match for suicide bombers. The West can no longer afford to play the compassionate democrat when it faces an enemy which respects no ethical rulebook whatsoever.
The latest Paris atrocities have conclusively demonstrated the utter folly of any attempt to appease, accommodate or “understand” the demands of Islamism. The murder of Charlie Hebdo staff in January was foolishly portrayed by some as a response to religious defamation.
In fact, the Western requirement for logical cause and effect has long insisted that terrorist attacks are a cry for justice at perceived wrongdoing.But the murderous assault on Paris’ restaurants, bars, sports and leisure venues show that the jihadists’ only goal is death.
There is no discussion, no conversation to be had, because Islamists quite simply have no grievance. Their target is Western existence.

Israel-haters are a strange breed:

A number of Zionist investors bought an island in Finland which is worth 450 thousand euro in order to make it the Israeli colony.

A number of Zionist investors under the pretext of being in a calm, harmonic distortion have purchased an island in one of the Scandinavian countries (Finland) which costs 450 thousand euros," Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth" reported.

They intend to create a colony of Israel for those who love nature. This island officially is called Petäjäsaari.

Name of some of the investors is revealed: Amir Weil, Aviad Scheibitz, Assaf Giller and Moti Shemtovi.

Some of the anti-Zionist Jewish groups have compared this action with occupation of Palestine by the Jews in 1948

The real story is at YNet. Israelis bought one of the thousands of islands for sale in Finland to create ecologically friendly vacation homes for that are far removed from everyday life. While they are marketing the cottages to Israelis, they are selling them to anyone who wants, and have so far sold cottages to buyers from England, Germany, Switzerland and even Finland itself.

The local Finnish are excited about the purchase. Their only initial concern was not that Israelis were buying the land but that they were a front organization for Russians.

But it is nice that the Israel-haters seem to admit with their analogy that Jews legally bought land in Palestine when they moved there in the 19th and first half of the 20th centuries.