Friday, October 09, 2020
Elder of ZiyonWishing all my readers who celebrate a wonderful Shmini Atzeret/Simchat Torah!
Friday, October 09, 2020
From Ian:
President Reuven Rivlin: The people of Israel will defeat coronavirus
Defining Antisemitism as a Jewish Problem Is a Lose-Lose Proposition
President Reuven Rivlin: The people of Israel will defeat coronavirus
On Friday, everything starts fresh. Will we also be able to? Yes, yes, my dear ladies and gentlemen, completely anew. On the morning of Simchat Torah, we will read the 54th and final weekly Torah portion, V'Zot HaBerachah ("and this is the blessing"), immediately after which we will read the beginning of the Torah -- Bereshit ("Genesis").
We must also take the deepest of breaths, inhale the new air, and try starting fresh. To shake off the fatigue of the recent period, the lockdown, and rally together in the common cause of fighting the pandemic. We are well aware that our existence, as a nation and culture, also hinges on the deep-rooted ties to our traditions, historical heritage, the path of our forefathers, and the vision of the prophets.
The Simchat Torah holiday is a reminder that the bond between the people of Israel and the Torah -- the simple yet profound, honest joy of a people's connection to their most fundamental values – cannot be broken. This year, we cannot rejoice with the Torah as in years past. Instead of dancing in our crowded, happy circles, with our children on our shoulders, we will have to pray in limited gatherings in accordance with the directives meant to save our lives. It is very sad, but to ensure that next year we can return to dancing with our loved ones and Torah scrolls, I know we have no other choice.
If we don't fight together, shoulder to shoulder, in the battle for the public's wellbeing, we will fail. We must celebrate the holiday in adherence to the safety protocols, in the spirit of mutual guarantee for our fellow man, in solemn prayer that this scourge will be driven from our land.
Defining Antisemitism as a Jewish Problem Is a Lose-Lose Proposition
Radical groups — the radical left, the radical right, radical Muslims, and the radical African-Americans who champion Louis Farrakhan — are spearheading efforts to erode the core principles that make our country exceptional. The Islamo-leftist alliance, in particular, is gaining momentum. While many Jewish and other civil rights organizations singularly focus on far-right white nationalists as the main generators of extremism, the Islamo-leftist alliance parades in public as a social justice cause while infiltrating and undermining our communities and institutions. Collectively, these radical groups reject the Judeo-Christian values that have supported the foundation of our country and protected all minority communities in America, including Jews.Who First Said Anti-Zionism Isn’t Antisemitism?
Proponents of the Islamo-leftist alliance seek to undermine the structures and institutions that keep our country open, democratic, and healthy, including the family unit, businesses, communities, religious institutions, impartial media, law enforcement, the military, and the courts. Increasing antisemitic attacks and the public display of hatred are trial runs for what is to come from these radical movements. For years, Jews have been at the receiving end of this hatred. If we are truly ready to overcome it, we must stop playing the victim and start fighting this head-on together with other Americans.
We will lose as Jews and as Americans if we continue accepting our prescribed role as the sacrificial canary in the coal mine, hoping that others may recognize the danger after it has already consumed us whole. Instead, we need to be eagles looking to the horizon, detecting threats far before they grievously harm us and our country. There are practical actions we must take to go on the offensive against antisemitism. They include (1) investigating and exposing the radical movements that fuel the spread of this hatred by identifying their networks, money trails, and agendas; (2) increasing knowledge-sharing capabilities that inform the American people about the threats and empower them to act; (3) holding the media accountable to the standards of a fair and free press; and (4) supporting legislation that curbs the influence of the hate movements in our institutions.
Presenting antisemitism as a Jewish problem has been a lose-lose proposition because it has not spurred anyone to take meaningful action against it. Rather than griping about the problem, it is now time for all Americans to fight against this hatred and racism and for Jews to stand at the forefront of this fight. Our history and increasingly dangerous reality show that the inalienable rights afforded by the Constitution cannot be taken for granted. We need to fight for our safety and security today so that tomorrow we and future generations can continue living freely and proudly. We must fly into the future as brave eagles and free America from the dangers of antisemitism and the extremism it represents.
Roosevelt noted the Arabs underestimated the Jews and overestimated their own capabilities. “They thought they could do a job on Israel in a very short time with comparatively little effort, and they told their peoples that too, which was about the worst mistake of all.”
Fighting was still going on when he spoke, so he concluded by arguing that the only way to bring peace to Palestine was for the United States “to declare that any further fighting or any further infringement of a truce or an armistice in Palestine would result in a firm embargo by the United States on any kind of shipments, including specifically dollars, to whichever side started the violation.” Though he said this should apply to both sides, his chief concern was what the Arabists saw as Israeli aggression.
During the Q&A, Roosevelt argued the press had a pro-Zionist bias because newspapers were dependent on advertising from department stores, which “are in the hands of people who may not be Zionists themselves, but they are subject to very strong pressure from the Zionists.” He added that some publishers were susceptible to “a kind of friendly insistence that they not allow anything to appear in their papers which could encourage antisemitism.”
Ironically, he followed up this antisemitic trope about Jewish control of the media with the conclusion that “one of the most dangerous elements in this situation … has been the way in which the Zionists have identified antisemitism with anti-Zionism.” Roosevelt argued, “Sooner or later there is bound to develop in this country strong anti-Zionism. There is no strong reason why that should mean antisemitism, but the Zionists are making it all the more likely by their insistence that if you are an anti-Zionist you are an antisemitist.”
According to Roosevelt, not only is it unreasonable to suggest that anti-Zionism is antisemitism, but doing so provokes antisemitism.
Roosevelt may not have been the first to make the argument, but he certainly was not the last. Today, a universal dodge employed by antisemites is their insistence that they have nothing against Jews, only the state of the Jews, and that seeking the destruction of that state — anti-Zionism — is not antisemitism.
Friday, October 09, 2020
Elder of Ziyon
This article in Pakistan's Daily Times starts off sounding like a typical demonization of Israel:
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
According to the founding father of Zionism Theodore Herzl, “the area of the Jewish State stretches from the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.”The recent episode of ‘Middle East Peace Process’ is a proposal of Greater Israel by the Trump administration to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict formally unveiled in White House on 28 January 2020.The Greater Israel strategy is not strictly a Zionist Plan for the Middle East, but is an integral part of US foreign policy. The strategic objective is extending American hegemony beside fracturing and balkanising the complete Middle East region. The plan operates on essential premise that to survive Israel must become an imperial regional power, and must effect the division of the Arab world into numerous small states. Small, here will depend on the ethnic or sectarian composition of each state. The Zionist hope is that sectarian-based Arab states become Israel’s satellites and, ironically, its source of moral legitimation. This is not a new idea, nor does it surface for the first time in Zionist strategic thinking.
But by the end of the article, the author - a retired Pakistani army officer - sees no reason why Pakistan shouldn't have formal relations with Israel!
Hatred against Israel and the refusal to recognise or establish diplomatic relations with Israel is no new phenomenon to Muslim countries in Asia. This abomination is based on feelings of Islamic solidarity with Arab countries and a sense of religious belonging to the global Islamic community. The main factors preventing Pakistan from recognising and establishing diplomatic relations with Israel are solidarity with Muslim countries in general, Saudi Arab in particular, and fear of an adverse response by influential religious groups and militants from within Pakistan.The key question is why should Pakistan restrain ties with Israel on the basis of the Israel-Arab conflict while many Arab countries have established suitable relationship with Israel?Pakistan and Israel do not have a specific hostility or conflict area. What people don’t understand is that we are losing out against India by not maintaining ties with Israel. If Pakistan carries good diplomatic relations with Israel, it can help winning unfailing support from many developed countries of the world, with which Israel has the strongest lobbying powers. We are so wrapped up in what is good for everyone else; that we are losing sight of what is good for us as a nation. Nonetheless, it is time to be practical and relook genuinely, what Pakistan is losing out by not establishing appropriate diplomatic relations with Israel?
Every day I find myself saying....WOW.
- Friday, October 09, 2020
- Elder of Ziyon
Writing in Egyptian news site Essahra and Palestinian site Mashreq News and also Palestinian news site Al Bousla, Dr. Nasser Al-Yafawi writes that the traditional antisemitic blood libel is absolutely true, concentrating on the Damascus blood libel.
His article, entitled "The truth about the Jews baking pies with the blood of gentiles," start off with "On their holy feasts, especially the Eid al-Kabir, crunchy bread is eaten, and the crime is that this bread is not kneaded unless it is kneaded with the blood of a non-Jew from the goys."
According to his Facebook page, Dr. al-Yafawi is a Director at the Ministry of Education in Gaza for the Palestinian Authority.
Even other Gazans argued with him in Facebook saying that the blood libel isn't true, linking to the Arabic Wikipedia page on the topic, yet he insists that it is true.
This is what Palestinians are taught. Every day.
From Ian:
Zionism is about being pioneers in the land
David Singer: Rabin’s words and AOC
Caroline Glick: A magic carpet ride over the anti-Netanyahu protests
Zionism is about being pioneers in the land
Yet there are two critical facts that the late Elhanan Oren, one of the finest historians of Zionist settlement, emphasizes have to be added to the account. The first is that spirit, ruach, preceded official intellect in the creation of these settlements. It was socialist Zionist youth who called to conquer the land, to attack new territory through constructive civilian settlement, rather than make due with passive defense for existing settlements. This was particularly true along the coast (Tel-Aviv) against the Arab challenge, before Zionist officialdom realized the intrinsic geo-strategic importance of these settlements rooted in spirit.
The second point he makes is the argument that took place in Zionist officialdom. The argument was between the “rationalists,” Arthur Ruppin, the expert on German colonization who brought his expertise to bear in promoting Zionist settlement; Eliezer Kaplan, the movement’s leading economic mind who argued to stick to the existing coastal blocks; and the “visionaries,” Moshe Shertok (later prime minister Sharett), Joseph Weitz in the settlement department in the Jewish Agency, and others who called for far-flung settlement to deny the British Peel Commission – which was deliberating Palestine’s future – the option of further partitioning the Land of Israel.
Who was right? Israel’s War of Independence proved the importance of these settlements in staving off the enemy, either Palestinians or even more critically, the Arab states that attacked the fledgling state. Shertok knew when he made the decision to support the “visionary” plan (in the absence of David Ben-Gurion who was in the United States at the time) that the incorporation of these areas would further aggravate the demographic problem. It was a situation in which Jews were less than one-third of the population in the Holy Land. However, Shertock, later known as a “dove,” chose spirit over matter. In the end, spirit combined with matter prevailed.
How much more so should our leaders and warriors value spirit over bureaucratic thinking when the resources of the State of Israel, demographically and economically, are so much greater, and the foe is still adamant about conquering the Land of Israel from “the river to the sea?”
Alas, Reshef and his colleagues, have lost the spirit on which they were nurtured. The Palestinian Authority’s strategic settlement plan from 2011 is a challenge that Israel and Zionism never faced before. That and the more traditional means of burning what Zionists by planted by Hamas launching incendiary devices from Gaza, proves that Homa umigdal is as relevant today as it was in the 1930s, or more so.
David Singer: Rabin’s words and AOC
The approaching 25th anniversary of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin’s assassination on 4 November 1995 has seen leading left-wing Democratic Party Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) cancelling her planned attendance at a memorial event organised by leftist Americans for Peace Now on 20 October.
Ocasio-Cortez withdrew after journalist Alex Kane tweeted and AOC replied:
AOC Pulls Out of Event for Murdered Israeli Prime Minister Rabin, the First to Recognize Palestinian Nationalism | CNSNews
Alex Kane is telling the truth, but not the whole truth.. Rabin did say to "break their bones" during a violent and murderous Arab uprising in Gaza, but that was because he did not allow the use of guns during that period of attacks against Israelis and instead, gave the soldiers truncheons with which to try to keep the peace. Israeli mothers were less than happy at that decision.
Rabin was indeed a liberal peacemaker and AOC’s decision is to be deplored.
Summary of thread from 🇪🇺 @EUpalestinians: Blank check for hate, rejectionism, terror, and corruption. 40+ years of political & bureaucratic failure, billions wasted, nothing learned. @JosepBorrellF @eu_eeas @vonderleyen @EUinIsrael https://t.co/MpMppA09qn
— Prof Gerald M Steinberg (@GeraldNGOM) October 9, 2020
Caroline Glick: A magic carpet ride over the anti-Netanyahu protests
Mendelblit's contempt for the public was on prominent display last month in remarks he made at a Rosh Hashanah toast to his subordinates.
Referring to himself as the "guardian of democracy," Mendelblit spent most of his speech attacking his critics who view his decision to indict Netanyahu on bribery and breach of trust charges for his alleged efforts to win positive coverage from news outlets, as legally and normatively defective. Diminishing studied criticism as mere background noise, Mendelblit said derisively, "the windows [of this building] are sealed off from the noises outside."
Mendelblit expressed pure contempt for Israel's elected leaders whose criticism of his actions he attacked as anti-democratic, and worse. He referred to Public Security Minister Amir Ohana's criticism of his behavior as "a terror attack against democracy."
But then at the end of his remarks he turned to the anti-Netanyahu protests organized by Haskel and his comrades. Referring to them, Mendelblit waxed poetically about the "foundational right to protest" in a democracy.
In recent weeks Mendelblit's subordinates have instructed the police not to charge Haskel and his fellow Netanyahu haters for breaking the laws in the course of their protests, lest their democratic right to protest is trampled.
The glaring contradiction in Mendelblit's remarks – his seething dismissal of "noises from outside" made by those who oppose his deeply controversial efforts to criminalize otherwise lawful political behavior to oust Netanyahu from power on the one hand, and his self-righteous defense of the "foundational right to protest" in speaking about Haskel and his band of Netanyahu haters on the other – is disturbingly similar to the tale revealed by Haskel's videos.
Haskel rejected the foundation of Zionism by demanding the gratitude of the children of Ethiopian Jewry while glorifying the contribution he made to one of its greatest triumphs – the airlift of Ethiopian Jewry to Israel. Mendelblit revealed his contempt for democracy by rejecting the legitimacy of elected leaders while upholding the right of anti-Netanyahu protesters to break the laws in the name of "democracy."
Haskel's anti-Zionist outbursts and Mendelblit's anti-democratic speech show that Israel is not in the throes of an ideological battle between two competing ideological camps. Instead, a large majority of Israelis joined in their dedication to Zionism and democratic norms is being assaulted by an aggressive, hateful and arrogant minority whose leaders cynically exploit Zionist concepts and the language of democracy to undermine both to advance their naked, nihilistic bid for power.
- Friday, October 09, 2020
- Elder of Ziyon
analysis, Daled Amos
As such, there are certain basic positions that France shares with the EU --
such as the "two-state solution."
In fact, one year ago, Josep Borrell, the incoming EU foreign policy chief,
made the EU position clear:
The European position is to defend the two-state solution. I hope this continues to be the EU position.
France has been equally clear as well.
Just last month, on September 24,
France participated in a meeting in Amman, Jordan:
The Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Egypt, France, Germany and Jordan, met in Amman today to continue their coordination and consultation on means to advance the Middle East Peace Process towards a just, comprehensive and lasting peace. The meeting was attended by the EU Special Representative for the Middle East Peace Process.
The Ministers declared:...We stress that the resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict on the basis of the two-state solution, that ensures the emergence of an independent and viable Palestinian state on the basis of June 4, 1967 lines, living side by side a secure and recognized Israel, is the path to achieving comprehensive, enduring peace and regional security.
What a difference two weeks make!
On Wednesday, the French ambassador to Israel, Eric Danon, indicated that in
light of the Abraham Accords, France was open to peace possibilities other than the two-state
solution:
The envoy indicated that France prefers a two-state solution, but that doesn’t mean they can’t accept something else, adding that his country will accept any solution agreed upon by the Palestinians and the Israelis.
Clearly, France is not ready to dump the two-state solution altogether.
Also, it is clear that France is still supportive of the Palestinian
Authority, the Palestinian Arabs and the idea of their having their own
sovereign state.
But by the same token, France also recognizes that Trump has changed the
rules, and unlike during the Obama administration, the Palestinian Arabs are
no longer in the driver's seat:
The Palestinians must take into account their weak position on the international and Arab arenas, stressed Danon...They warned that Palestinians could lose everything now.A French diplomatic in Paris confirmed that what was once the personal opinion of Danon was now becoming official French foreign policy:
“French diplomacy is having a hard time putting all its weight on the two-state solution, as it becomes unrealistic on the ground,” the diplomat pointed out. “What the ambassador said is self-evident. That it is important to resume negotiations as soon as possible. The Palestinians have never been so weak. They could lose everything.” [emphasis added]
Why is France now suddenly seeing the light?
It might be because of Frances's diplomatic relations with the Gulf states
France, one of the five veto-wielding members of the U.N. Security Council, has close ties with Gulf Arab states, in particular Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, and rarely publicly criticizes internal political issues. [emphasis added]
And that includes Bahrain in addition to the UAE.
The UAE is also a major client for French weapons.
It would be in France's interests to support the UAE and Bahrain, not only in terms of the new agreements with Israel, but also to support the new potential for different options for peace.
So it is not just a matter of some countries wanting to ally themselves with Israel in order to get into Washington's good graces -- now there are advantages of allying with the Gulf states too. And if support for the Abraham Accords is the price to pay to reap the benefits of better relations and agreements with rich Arab states, it may not be just the smaller developing countries that see an opportunity.
Which is just one more way that Abbas's kleptocracy is left out in the cold.
Part of the goal of the Abraham Accords is to further weaken the PA.
Based on France's new stand -- that seems to be working.
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
- Friday, October 09, 2020
- Elder of Ziyon
As a peace activist, it is strange to do anything other than support any kind of peace treaty. But, this normalization agreement — what the Israeli government is trying to sell as a peace deal — forces us to remind ourselves what we actually mean by peace. An agreement in which the main profiters are arms industries and economic elites, and the losers are the people, is not a peace accord. It is a war agreement — of governments against the people.Why is Vardi against the agreement? Because, he says, it only profits arms dealers, and everyone else loses:
With this win-win-win for the arms industries, who loses out from it all? Given that the UAE is already using Israeli technologies to prevent dissent and opposition among their own citizens, and considering Abu Dhabi’s role in the war on Yemen, the real losers of this “normalization” are apparent: the people.In Jerusalem, the local loss is also apparent: firstly, Palestinians, who have just watched countries that have historically claimed to support their rights and independence sign a normalization agreement with their occupier.Secondly, Israelis, who are now in a second full COVID-19 lockdown amid a devastating economic recession, are having to watch their prime minister spend his time and energy on normalization agreements that have no effect on their daily life, and that profit only the upper echelons of Israeli society.
There is nothing "apparent" about the first paragraph at all. The UAEs astonishing modernization project of the past few decades has attracted huge numbers of workers from throughout the Middle East including as many as 100,000 Palestinians. There are challenges of having such a large expatriate population to be sure, but Arabs and others want to live in the UAE even without citizenship.
The second paragraph isn't true either, except the psychological issue of Palestinians having lived their entire lives in a bubble of free money from their Arab brethren with no responsibility towards their own future - and seeing that evaporate in an instant. Now they will have to live in the real world where their decisions have consequences and compromise becomes part of their vocabulary. That is not a loss - that is a huge gain for Palestinians and the entire world.
The third paragraph is so absurd, one wonders at the mentality of the author.
The Israel/UAE agreement is supported by the vast majority of Israelis. Seven decades of feeling alone under siege has been immensely lessened. The Arab boycott of Israel has resulted in Israel being more hawkish just to survive.
The signed and rumored business deals so far have not been limited to the arms industry, as Vardi ludicrously claims, but also medicine, cybersecurity, tourism and other industries that help ordinary people in both countries. It is the exact economic boost that will help the COVID-19 recession.
But the real point that is ignored by these hypocritical "peace activists" is the larger sea change in the Arab world towards Israel. Suddenly, Arabs in Lebanon and Syria and other antagonistic states are rethinking the wisdom of seven decades of pretending Israel will disappear because of their boycotts. The lose-lose mentality of doing everything necessary to try to hurt Israel has instead hurt Arabs far worse.
Moreover, in a single stroke, the toxic antisemitism of the Arab world has been reduced. Arabic media is interested in the history of Jews in the region. The agreement is like a pressure valve that has been loosened.
None of that means anything to hypocrites like Vardi and the other self-hating Israelis at +972. They continue with the hateful mindset that anything that benefits Israel must be opposed.
The only opponents to the deal are the jihadists, the Palestinian leaders who are losing their own gravy train of endless cash they can skim, and the "peace activists" like Sahar Vardi. That last group is reduced to writing insane pieces like this in +972 to justify their irrational hatred for Israel under new circumstances.
- Friday, October 09, 2020
- Elder of Ziyon
Ever since Hamas and Fatah announced in late September that they will hold elections within six months, the topic of elections seems to have been dropped in Palestinian media.
This article from a couple of days ago in Al Khaleej Today seems to offer some reasons why. But it is complicated, and it even may involve terrorist Ahlam Tamimi:
While the President of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, is supposed to issue a decree setting the date for the general Palestinian elections according to a timetable not exceeding six months, based on recent understandings between Hamas and Fatah, pressure from Arab countries is increasing to stop this path, in addition to field pressures exerted by the Israeli occupation in the occupied West Bank. Al-Akhbar learned that the Arab rejection of the recent understandings concluded in Turkey delayed Abbas’s issuance of the presidential decree in the elections, especially since some of the objections came in the form of warnings that “Hamas” would drag Abu Mazen into the bosom of Turkey and Qatar away from the “Arab consensus”.
Likewise, Egyptian and Jordanian pressures in particular, and behind them the Gulf, caused the postponement of the meeting of secretaries-general scheduled for the third of this month, during which the election decree was supposed to be issued after presenting the understandings to the rest of the factions. Sources reported that during the visit of the Fatah delegation to Cairo last week (after the Istanbul understandings), the movement was informed that the Egyptians were not satisfied with the way the agreement was announced in Turkey. However, “Fatah” defended by saying that the agreement took place in the Palestinian consulate in Istanbul without Turkish sponsorship or mediation, and that the Palestinians understood through bilateral meetings and achieved a “major breakthrough” in the reconciliation file, in addition to that “the current Palestinian strategy is based on the policy of bilateral meetings.” However, the sources add, this justification did not satisfy the Egyptians, who oppose the implementation of the agreement and even the elections.Amman is pressuring Hamas through Ahlam Al-Tamimi’s file to deport the husband of the freed prisonerThe Egyptian objection was that Palestinian reconciliation in this way, far from Cairo’s sponsorship, represents a diminution of the latter’s effort after many attempts at reconciliation between the two movements for 14 years. In addition, the current time is not suitable for elections, especially with the absence of international and American support for their conduct, which makes them « A leap not calculated from Abbas ». Complementing this position, the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, expressed “discontent” with the Turkey meeting, because some parties saw in these meetings a message to certain Arab parties, which was the response of the Secretary of the Executive Committee of the Liberation Organization, Saeb Erekat, demanding Aboul Gheit to resign from his post against the backdrop of his support of the Arab agreements with Israel and his promotion of the “deal of the century”, noting that a few days ago, the authority announced its abandonment of the presidency of the current session of the League after it failed to obtain any form of it that condemns the recent agreements with the occupation.
Meanwhile, “Fatah” sources revealed that Jordan has expressed, through communication channels with Abbas, its annoyance with the agreement and its signing in Turkey, stressing that it does not support holding the Palestinian elections for fear that “Hamas” will obtain a large share of the positions, in addition to the complications, Especially in the West Bank and Jerusalem, and what it knows of the Israeli intention to prevent the elections, which will open the door for confrontation in the West Bank. At the same time, Hamas sources reported, in an interview with Al-Akhbar, that an indirect Jordanian message reached Hamas to reject the reconciliation agreement, by putting pressure on the freed prisoner belonging to the movement and wanted by the United States, Ahlam Al-Tamimi, to leave the kingdom, through deportation of her freed prisoner husband, Nizar Al-Tamimi, and informing him of the need to leave within days, in preparation for her deportation and delivery to the US administration.
Hamas is concerned about the impact of this on Abbas’s decision, which in turn informed him that it looks with suspicion at his delay in implementing consensuses, including permitting popular resistance in the West Bank and stopping the pursuit of Hamas members, as well as his delay in lifting sanctions on the Gaza Strip, and stopping the distinction between the West Bank and the Strip,
Very convoluted! But in the end, the Palestinians can't do much without upsetting some of their remaining friends, and that is why nothing will be done.
Thursday, October 08, 2020
From Ian:
A lesson in Israeli public relations
Peter Beinart, the New York Times and the Coming Campaign to Eliminate Israel
A lesson in Israeli public relations
In 1993, in the Oslo Accords, Arafat was given a foothold in Judea and Samaria and Gaza, along with control over the residents of these areas. The autonomy envisioned by Menachem Begin, meanwhile, did not include Arafat’s Palestinian Liberation Organization, although it did crack open the door for exactly that. Bandar has a score to settle with Arafat—one might say a bloody one.Daniel Pipes: Is the Israel Victory Project still needed?
In the years he served as Saudi Arabia’s ambassador in Washington, he was one of the more influential figures in the United States and on certain issues pertaining to the Middle East, the energy industry and terror; he was even stronger than then-U.S. President George W. Bush. Bandar was the one who strong-armed Bush and his secretary of state, Colin Powell, to publicly declare U.S. recognition of the Palestinian right to an independent state of their own.
The Bush administration at the time went even further than the Clinton roadmap. It was Bandar who pressured Bush to allow many Saudi individuals, including those tied with Osama bin Laden and the Sept. 11 attacks, to board planes and flee the United States. For comparison’s sake, to this day one poor Jew, former spy Jonathan Pollard, cannot even leave the state of New York let alone fly to Israel.
Bandar did not become pro-Zionist overnight, but when it came to his narrative regarding the Six-Day War, he noted that it didn’t start due to wanton Israeli “aggression,” rather then-Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser’s decision to close the Straits of Tiran.
This moment in time, with the Saudis attacking the Palestinians, exposes the fact that peace with the UAE and Bahrain is essentially peace with the ancient birthmother of Arab nationalism. It was Bandar’s ancestors who rode, swords drawn, with Lawrence of Arabia to liberate most of the Middle East from the Turks during World War I.
Beyond this, the Saudi stance alongside Israel mostly indicates the Arabs’ reduced standing as a global power. They were at their apex in the 1970s and 1980s. From Israel’s vantage point, strategic patience and durability paid off. It appears that true victories aren’t achieved via lightning strikes but through dedicated commitment to a long-term process.
In the outside-in approach, Arab states partially assume Israel’s role to impose defeat on the Palestinian Authority and Hamas. Note the elements of what Khaled Abu Toameh terms their “divorce process:” the emerging warm peace between Abu Dhabi, Manama and Jerusalem; the imam of the Great Mosque in Mecca (who has been banned from Western countries for his crude antisemitism) talking about Muhammad’s friendly relations with Jews; the Arab League unprecedentedly turning down a Palestinian initiative and the Arab states reducing their financial support to the Palestinians by 85%.Tom Gross: Conversations with friends about their lives: Times of Israel editor David Horovitz
Does this mean Israel Victory has been superseded? No. Sunni Arab states unfortunately make up only a portion of the Palestinians’ vast and multifaceted support system. Exceptional public relations prowess, combined with antisemitism, transmogrified the tiny, weak and relatively prosperous Palestinian population into the world’s most prominent human rights issue, one which benefits from immeasurably more solicitude than the far more wretched Syrians or Yemenis.
That support system starts with Iran and Turkey, the only countries – in US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s description – to have “vehemently denounced” the recent agreements. Indeed, those two regimes have largely replaced the Arab states (whose last major war with Israel was in 1973) as the Palestinians’ regional stalwarts.
Second, because the foreign policies of Russia and China globally oppose the US, Jerusalem’s tight alliance with Washington makes them both significant Palestinian supporters.
Third, Israel’s Left despises Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, pooh-poohs the recent accords and touchingly believes that Palestinians will be content with a Palestine adjoining Israel.
David talks with Tom Gross about his upbringing, about editing the Times of Israel (and before that the Jerusalem Post), about interviewing Paul McCartney and others, about the difficulties of striving for fair and independent journalism in an era of fakery and misrepresentation, and about life in Israel and beyond.
Peter Beinart, the New York Times and the Coming Campaign to Eliminate Israel
The goal of this campaign is clear: to normalize and mainstream the idea of eliminating a nation. It is to convince a decisive majority of Americans that it would be a good thing, the moral thing, for a nation of eight million people to disappear. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was once called a “warrant for genocide.” Now, a new warrant is being written.
And it is clear that this campaign will push Jews to the forefront. It is no coincidence that Beinart and Rhodes are Jewish, and that they collaborated in firing the first shot. This indicates that the campaign will be directed at Jews as well. It will seek to convince us to abandon Zionism. To persuade us, in other words, that we do not deserve to live.
There is a very good reason for this.
In the 1970s, former Israeli Air Force chief Benny Peled had a remarkable insight. He said in an interview, “Our enemies had to examine the ingredients of our strength, and they of course discovered the thing that we’ve been shouting at full volume: that our strength is our spirit.”
“And they decided to attack that,” he said. “The Jewish people’s strongest weapon.”
The new campaign to eliminate Israel and Zionism is nothing but that: an attempt to shatter the Jewish spirit. And it has to be this way. Because those advocating elimination are not stupid. They know quite well that Israel is strong and getting stronger, and it is doing so very quickly. They cannot eliminate it in the flesh, but they can, or at least they can try, to eliminate it in spirit.
But the ironic thing is that, whatever their fantasies might be, they cannot win. I do not say this out of hubris or chauvinism. It is a matter of historical record. The Jewish spirit, if it can be called that, has withstood assaults far more horrendous than anything Beinart, Rhodes or the Times could come up with. If we have survived what we have already survived, we can certainly survive them.
The ominous question, however, is how much damage they can do in the meantime. If the historical record teaches us anything, unfortunately, it is that the damage could be quite substantial. We should not look away from what is coming, and we should ready ourselves to face it.
- Thursday, October 08, 2020
- Elder of Ziyon
This is really something. From Iran Wire:
The international relations chief at Iran’s Ministry of Sports has waded into the debate on Iranian athletes being blocked from competing with Israelis.
"The Iranian people do not have a view in line with the government and the ruling system on the Israeli issue," Farshid Tahmasebi told Radio Varzesh, in a startling but truthful admission. He went on to decry deep-rooted “cultural issues” in Iranian sports that he said were holding the country back – and even had a bearing on the economy.
For a figure as influential as Farshid Tahmasebi to publicly decry Iran’s foreign policy in sports came as a surprise for some. Tahmasebi’s remarks came without prompting from the interviewer and came after he had already criticized the self-centred management style at the top echelons of Iranian sports. "To this day,” he said, “I have never seen any manager help another manager who replaces him.”
He went on: “Has it ever been the case that the president of Iran has been present at the opening or closing of the Olympic Games? Before the outbreak of coronavirus and the postponement of the Olympics, I suggested that Mr. Rouhani attend the Tokyo games. But they said the president's schedule was full.”
Tahmasebi also made a curious comparison between countries’ sporting records and their economic prowess. "If China is first in the [global] economy, it is also first in the Olympics. So is America. Take a look at the first to fourth ranking of countries in Olympics; they are all at the top of the world economies."
Integrity in politics and integrity in sports, Tahmasebi insisted, were “an ensemble”. “Excuse me, let me be clear,” he said. “In the case of Israel, our people do not agree with the government. If you take the government and leave out diplomacy, you will not get results; it’s impossible. Unless our parliament and our foreign ministry address the problems in Iranian sports diplomacy, nothing positive will happen."
Although this is not unprecedented as the full article shows, the last time that an Iranian sports official tried to change this policy he was forced to resign.
(h/t Tomer Ilan)
- Thursday, October 08, 2020
- Elder of Ziyon
- humor, Preoccupied
Elah Valley, Philistine-Israelite border region, October 8 - A rhetorical confrontation between a Philistine warrior champion and his opponents, led by Saul, king of Israel, concluded this morning with the former emerging as the clear favorite in the eyes of potential voters, a series of surveys has found.
Goliath, a giant who has taunted the Israelites for several days, continued his jibes against the Hebrews and their God today, with the Israelites barely able to muster a retort. The Philistine warrior dared his foes to send a single combatant to face him instead of settling the conflict with a full-scale battle, a challenge that Saul and his military commanders have so far not accepted. Polls showed the Philistine warrior leading the Israelites by and average of 11% two days ago, and the gap has only increased in the interim, growing to 24.3% as of the unanswered challenge this morning.
Analysts expect a landslide Philistine victory. "Voters know a strong candidate when they see one," explained Doe Egg, an electoral statistician. "The Israelites' inability so far to mount an effective response to counter Goliath's arguments has only hurt them. Some experts believed that ignoring his barbs might make them seem above the fray and the Philistines uncultured and immature, but those analyses failed to account for the visceral resonance Goliath's talk produces. If the numbers hold when voters go to the polls officially, were looking at the Israelites being lucky to garner even forty percent of the votes. That's landslide territory. It's hard to see how Saul and his camp will recover from this development at this stage, let alone close the gap that already existed before the debate."
The Israelite king has struggled to maintain morale among his constituents and loyalists as Goliath has landed rhetorical punch after rhetorical punch. Saul has had to allocate manpower and resources to stem the hemorrhaging of voters, instead of to rebutting Philistine talking points or criticizing Goliath's record or policy proposals, let alone putting forth a positive vision of the future he seeks to create.
As spokesman for the Israelite campaign sought to downplay the significance of the debate. "There are plenty of hours until that actual contest, and a lot can change in that time, and besides, people overstate the impact of debates on these things, since the vast majority of voters have made up their minds," insisted Abner ben-Ner of the royal Chiefs of Staff.
A last-minute write-in campaign in Israelite ranks seeks to name David, a shepherd from Hebron and the youngest of eight brothers, as champion. Experts consider the effort a long shot.
From Ian:
Noah Rothman: Biden’s Repudiation of Obama’s Foreign Policy
Noah Rothman: Biden’s Repudiation of Obama’s Foreign Policy
In 2013, Obama invited Moscow to play peacemaker in the Syrian conflict, and his administration insisted—all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding—that Russia had successfully negotiated the liquidation of Syria’s chemical-weapons stockpile. The fateful move preserved the Assad regime, set the stage for Russian military intervention in the conflict in 2015, and preserved the conditions that eventually gave rise to the Islamic State. Only after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014 did the Obama administration reluctantly impose targeted economic sanctions. But Obama dismissed the invasion and annexation of sovereign European territory as a sign that Russia was a mere “regional power” exerting “less influence” on the global stage. The extent of Russia’s geopolitical ambitions would not become clear to the president until Moscow brazenly interfered with the 2016 election cycle—too late.In Phone Call, Israel’s Netanyahu and Russia’s Putin Discuss Iranian ‘Aggression’ in Middle East
By contrast, and despite President Trump’s sordid compulsion to praise Vladimir Putin, this administration preserved Obama-era sanctions on Moscow and tightened the screws. This White House imposed Magnitsky Act sanctions on Russia’s Putin-linked elite—sanctions that the Obama administration lobbied Congress against. The Trump administration provided lethal arms to the Ukrainian government, expelled Russian diplomatic personnel, and seized Russian consular property. The U.S. military under Trump has engaged in set-piece land battles with Russian mercenaries in Syria. This administration oversaw the expansion of the NATO alliance, despite covert Russian action intended to derail that effort, and abandoned the defunct 1987 intermediate-range nuclear-forces treaty, a compact to which even the Obama administration conceded only the United States was beholden.
If Joe Biden has determined that it is in America’s interest to get tougher on the rogue regimes that govern these two states, that’s great. There is, however, precious little evidence to suggest that Biden has had a genuine change of heart.
The former vice president has, in fact, pledged to end Cuba’s economic and diplomatic isolation, which he claims stifles Cuban entrepreneurs and strengthens the regime in Havana. His vague but detectable hostility toward fracking would relieve the economic pressure America’s virtual energy independence has imposed on the Kremlin. He has tacitly endorsed a de facto partition of Syria, pockets of which would be administered by Russia and the Western coalition—a move that would legitimize Russia’s troop presence in the Levant and commit the U.S. to an open-ended conflict in defense of no well-defined interest.
Though he didn’t do much to prove his thesis, Diehl is right: Joe Biden does seem to have learned from past mistakes. In the case of these two pariah regimes, those mistakes were Barack Obama’s, not Donald Trump’s.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke by phone on Wednesday with Russian President Vladimir Putin.Caroline Glick: It's Time for Trump to Soberly Confront the Rising Turkish Threat
According to a statement put out by Netanyahu’s office, the two leaders talked about “regional security issues, the Iranian aggression and the situation in Syria.”
“They also discussed advancing bilateral cooperation in the fight against the coronavirus,” it added.
A Kremlin statement listed Netanyahu as one of a dozen world leaders who called Putin on Wednesday to wish him a happy 68th birthday.
“In every conversation, the leaders touched upon the development of bilateral relations as well as topical regional problems,” the Kremlin said.
All of these aspects of Trump's foreign policies are vital for developing and maintaining a successful U.S. policy toward Erdogan's Turkey, as Erdogan exposes himself as a foe interested in pitting all sides against one another to enable his efforts to construct a new Ottoman Empire. Many commentators advocate expelling Turkey from NATO. But it isn't clear that a head-on confrontation with Erdogan would neutralize him. It could well empower him by helping him to rally the Turkish public behind him at a time when Turkey's economy stands on the brink of collapse.Tarek Fatah: Expel Turkey from NATO
Given Erdogan's multipronged aggression, the first goal of a realistic policy would be to diminish his power by severely weakening Turkey economically. This may mean imposing economic sanctions on Turkey for its aggression against Greece and Cyprus. Or it may mean simply giving Turkey a gentle push over the economic cliff.
Without raising the issue of removing Turkey from NATO, the U.S. can simply not sell Turkey advanced platforms while demonstrating its support for Greece and Cyprus, as well as Israel and its Arab partners.
True, China is already seeking to supplant the U.S. in sponsoring the Turkish economy and selling Turkey arms—but by keeping Turkey in NATO, the U.S. still has more leverage over Turkey than China.
A passive-aggressive policy for diminishing Erdogan's power and the threat he can mount is right up Trump's alley. Trump doesn't often directly attack his opponents. He embraced North Korean leader Kim Jong-un even as he imposed the harshest economic sanctions ever on North Korea and redesignated it a state sponsor of terrorism. He has acted similarly with Putin and with Erdogan himself.
Erdogan's belief that he can rebuild the Ottoman Empire while attacking EU and NATO members, the U.S., its key allies in the Middle East as well as Russia, owes to his narcissism that Obama and Biden did so much to feed.
With Erdogan now openly threatening multiple U.S. allies, it is increasingly apparent that the largest and fastest rising threat to stability and peace in the Middle East is Turkey—and the victor in next month's U.S. presidential election will have no lead time to deal with it.
Trump's reality-based foreign policy, his preference for indirect confrontations and empowerment of U.S. partners to defend themselves from aggression, rather than dictating their actions or fighting their battles for them, give the president the flexibility to diminish Erdogan's maneuver room, his economic independence and his popularity at home—while also empowering U.S. allies directly affected by the strongman's aggression to stand up to him effectively, with or without direct U.S. involvement.
Turkey's Erdogan denounced the call for a ceasefire and, according to reports, has lent its US-supplied F-16s to Azerbaijan's forces along with drones that are equipped with Canadian technology.
This forced Ottawa to act. On Oct. 5, Foreign Affairs Minister Francois-Philippe Champagne halted all military export permits to Turkey.
The reaction by Turkey was swift. The foreign ministry in Ankara accused Ottawa of "double standards" arguing: "There is no explanation for blocking defence equipment exports to a NATO ally while."
NATO ally? That's quite rich for Turkey's pan-Islamists to invoke NATO as their defence.
The only role Turkey has played in NATO since the collapse of the USSR is that of a Fifth Column. A country that has been a conduit for ISIS jihadis, the Muslim Brotherhood. A country that deploys refugees to threaten Europe and Greece while occupying Cyprus and festering war in Libya, is no NATO ally.
Time has come for Canada to ask for Turkey's expulsion from NATO. Turkey is a menace to Greece, Cyprus, Egypt, Syria and Libya. It has eyes on Bulgaria, Rumania and the Balkans, which it had to relinquish in the Lausanne Treaty that is approaching its centennial.
Don't be surprised if Erdogan annuls the century-old treaty to re-establish the Ottoman Caliphate that will make Central Asia its Turkic backyard after Armenia, the only obstacle, is eliminated.
- Thursday, October 08, 2020
- Elder of Ziyon
- anti-Israel feminists, censorship, gender equality, honor killing, jew hatred, Leila Khaled, Mondoweiss, PFLP, rape marriage law, social media, violence against women, women's rights
A recent Mondoweiss article by the "Palestinian Feminist Working Group" sheds some light on how hate for Israel is often disguised using liberal buzzwords that have nothing to do with the actual agenda of these groups.
The article is typically ridiculous - it pretends that Zoom, YouTube and Facebook's pulling the plug on a conference featuring a proud terrorist Leila Khaled was about censorship and a silencing of Palestinian feminist voices when it was simply adhering to existing US anti-terrorist and sanctions laws.
It goes on to justify Palestinian terror as "resistance" and defining everything Israel does as terror.
This is the first appearance of this group, which is what makes it interesting. The group has no website. It describes itself this way:
The Palestine Feminist Working Group is a U.S. based network of Palestinian and Arab feminists who are committed to ending all forms of Zionist colonial and gendered violence and oppression. We believe that social liberation is a critical component of Palestinian national liberation. The working group was founded by the Palestinian Youth Movement’s (PYM) Women’s Committee. To learn more about our work and/or to join our efforts contact us at Palestinianfeminists@gmail.com
Note that it doesn't say a word about feminist issues in the Palestinian controlled territories at all. The supposed feminism of this group begins and ends with attacking Israel.
Many of the people signing this article are academics at US universities:
Noura Erakat, Assistant Professor of Africana Studies, Rutgers UniversityDr. Sarah Ihmoud, Assistant Professor of Anthropology, The College of the Holy CrossDr. Hana Masri, Postdoctoral Fellow, Center for Advanced Research in Global Communication, University of PennsylvaniaMaisa Morrar, Physician Assistant and member, Palestinian Youth MovementDr. Loubna Qutami, Assistant Professor of Asian American Studies, UCLABasima Sisemore, Researcher, Othering & Belonging Institute, UC BerkeleyRanda M. Wahbe, Ph.D. Candidate, Anthropology, Harvard UniversityYazan Zahzah, MA in Women and Gender Studies, San Diego State UniversityLeena Odeh, J.D., The Decolonizing Race Project
Isn't it strange that these "Palestinian feminists" have so little interest in feminist issues in Palestine?
The United Nations Development Programme published a comprehensive guide to gender laws under the PA and Hamas in late 2018. It uncovered state-sponsored discrimination against women, which I have summarized before:
Domestic violence: Palestine has no domestic violence legislation.
Marital rape: Marital rape is not criminalized.
Abortion for rape survivors: Abortion is prohibited in the West Bank by the Jordan Penal Code (Articles 321–325) and in Gaza by the Criminal Code of 1936 (Articles 175–177).
Sexual harassment in the workplace: Sexual harassment is not criminalized by the Labour Code.
Honour crimes: Mitigation of penalty Laws allowing mitigation of penalties for ‘honour’ crimes were repealed in 2011 and 2018 in the West Bank. However, the government in Gaza has not applied the reforms.
Adultery: Adultery is an offence in Gaza and the West Bank. In the West Bank, Article 282 of the Penal Code criminalizes adultery
Human trafficking: Palestine does not have comprehensive anti-trafficking legislation. Some provisions of the Penal Code of Jordan apply to trafficking in the West Bank.
Sex work and anti-prostitution laws: Prostitution is prohibited by Articles 309–318 of the Penal Code in the West Bank and Articles 161–166 of the Criminal Code of 1936 in Gaza.
Marriage and divorce: The personal status laws for Muslims require the husband to maintain the wife. A wife owes obedience to her husband. A husband can divorce by repudiation (talaq). A wife has the right to divorce on specified grounds. She can also apply for a khul’a divorce without grounds if she forgoes financial rights.
Male guardianship over women: Muslim women require consent of a wali (male guardian) to marry. There are some weak legal protections for women under guardianship. Women can seek permission from the court to marry if the guardian withholds consent without a legitimate reason.
Guardianship of children: Fathers are the sole guardians of children.
Custody of children: After divorce the mother has custody up to a certain age, but automatically loses custody of her children if she remarries. Inheritance Sharia rules of inheritance apply to Muslims. Women have a right to inheritance, but in many cases receive less than men. Daughters receive half the share that sons receive.
Polygamy: Polygamy is permitted.
Legal restrictions on women’s work: Some legal restrictions exist on women’s employment in certain industries that do not apply to men, such as mining.
The report seemingly went into a black hole. There are very few references to it online. Yet it is probably the most comprehensive report on women's rights in the Palestinian territories that exists.
Real Palestinian feminists would be screaming from the rooftops about this. But not the members of the "Palestinian Feminist Working Group."
The fact that Leila Khaled's PFLP actually murdered an Israeli girl last year doesn't diminish her "feminist" bona fides for some reason. None of these "feminists" condemned the murder of a Jewish girl.
These people aren't feminists. They are Jew-haters who use feminism as a justification for their bigotry and hate.
- Thursday, October 08, 2020
- Elder of Ziyon
For six months, the Palestinian Authority has refused to accept tax revenues that Israel owes them under existing agreements, ever since Israel said it would extend sovereignty over areas of Judea and Samaria. The amount being held by Israel is now up to $750 million.
Since then, the PA has been under severe financial pressure, paying workers a percentage of their salaries. But Abbas has been insisting that he doesn't want to cooperate with Israel including to accept money owed.
In order to make ends meet, Abbas has been asking the EU for loans to fund his budget.
Finally, after doing everything the PA has demanded of them for years, the EU has had enough.
From Axios:
The EU, France, Germany, the U.K. and Norway made clear that they consider annexation to now be off the table, and thus the Palestinians should accept the $750 million in revenues now held by the Israeli Ministry of Finance.After lower-level pressure on the Palestinians didn’t bear fruit, EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell called Abbas last Wednesday.He repeated the same message in the call, European diplomats say: Until the Palestinians resume the acceptance of tax revenues from Israel, the EU will not provide new loans or other financial assistance.Borrell also urged Abbas to relaunch security and civilian coordination with Israel, but Abbas was noncommittal, the diplomats say.Some Palestinian officials around Abbas think his decision to suspend all ties with Israel and the U.S. is self-defeating.But Abbas has so far fended off that pressure. He's betting that Joe Biden will win in November and bring with him a much different set of policies toward the Israeli-Palestinian issue.
This is another game changer. After the Arab world has shown willingness to criticize the Palestinian leadership publicly, the EU is starting to move in the same direction.
Mahmoud Abbas is acting like he always has. He's demanding money he doesn't deserve and he is waiting for a more palatable political environment to help him out.
Meanwhile, the PLO is getting chummy with terrorists from Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the interests of "unity." Abbas, missing the way the wind is blowing, remains tone deaf and making the wrong decisions.
For the first time, Europe is telling the Palestinians that they have to take responsibility for their decisions.
This is absolutely amazing to see.
- Thursday, October 08, 2020
- Elder of Ziyon
As a Palestinian-American historian, professor, and opinion writer, I know from my work and my personal experience that Palestinian viewpoints rarely appear in mainstream U.S. media outlets; I especially remember my frustration at the lack of Palestinian voices in U.S. publications during the Oslo years. But to what extent is this the case? How many opinion pieces in major media outlets have actively discussed Palestinians? How many of those pieces have been written by Palestinians? How has this trend changed over time?
I decided to crunch some numbers to find out more.So, how are American news readers encouraged to think about Palestinians? Using several news databases (Proquest, Gale, and Nexis Uni), I searched for the keyword “Palestinian,” limiting my results to editorials (written by the editorial board), columns (written by staff columnists), and guest opinion pieces.This trend was especially striking in the daily press. In the New York Times, less than 2 percent of the nearly 2,500 opinion pieces that discussed Palestinians since 1970 were actually written by Palestinians. In the Washington Post, the average was just 1 percent.
This historian and professor is either a very good propagandist or a very bad statistician. I tend to think the former.
The statistic of very few Palestinian authors is meaningless in a vacuum. To be meaningful, we would need to know how many editorials were written by Israelis. That is the only way to compare apples to apples.
If the number of Israelis writing these articles is, say 4% - which is probably a decent guess - then the disparity is not nearly as bad as Nassar is implying.
Beyond that, the newspapers would specifically recruit Israelis who are critical of Israel - but they will practically never publish Palestinians critical of their own leadership.
Her methodology is meant to stack the deck to minimize the percentage. She is including all newspaper editorials - which are 100% non-Palestinian (and non-Israeli.) She is including newspaper columnists - which are 100% non-Palestinian (and non-Israeli.) The hundred or so Thomas Friedman columns that mention Palestinians are all counted. All of these bring the percentage of Palestinian voices (and British, and Israeli, and French) voices down.
Her methodology implies that if less than 2% of editorial pieces are written by Palestinians, then 98% of them are anti-Palestinian. This is emphatically not true. When I used to follow the statistics, the number of anti-Israel op-eds in the New York Times outweighed the number of pro-Israel op-eds by at least 4-1. Which is why this entire article is deceptive from the start - it implies the exact opposite of the truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
