Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Friday, March 04, 2011

Great report from the J Street conference

Wonderful insights from Z-Street's Lori Lowenthal Marcus:

While attending the J Street conference I wondered whether I had entered some alternative dimension, where facts known by the rest of the world, and basic principles of reasoning, just didn't operate in quite the same way as they do on the rest of planet Earth. I think I know what's operating.

Psychologists teach that an obsession is "a persistent disturbing preoccupation with an often unreasonable idea or feeling." There is a persistent theme on J Street: a Palestinian State must be created RIGHT NOW ("PSRN"), and it's almost as if there is a complete memory block about the refusals of varying forms of the state, including the original offer by the United Nations of yet another Arab State in 1947.

That PSRN is J Street's obsession is revealed by the fact that unanimity on that "solution" co-exists with radical disagreement about the nature of the problem. Here's an abbreviated list of the ideological positions you pass as you walk down J Street:

...Around the corner we learn from Knesset member Shlomo Molla that bilateral negotiations between Israel and the Arab Palestinians are the only way to move towards peace in the region. Two houses down on the same street, Tom Dine of Search for Common Ground tells us that bilateral movement is impossible, and instead a regional approach is the only possibility for peace. And that the only choice open to Israel is to create a PSRN.

Just across J Street from these guys is New York Times reporter Roger Cohen who insists that the unrest in the Middle East is actually weakening Iran, while down the block we learn from the Saban Center's Shibley Telhami that Iran is the main threat in the region. Iran is weaker, says Cohen, so now is the time to create a Palestinian State, and Iran is the major threat, says Telhami, so now is the time to create a Palestinian State. Polar opposite reasoning, yet naturally both ineluctably lead to the conclusion that the only possible answer is the immediate creation of a Palestinian State.

Hebrew University professor Bernard Avishai berated Dennis Ross for wimpishly claiming that "bilateral negotiations is the only mechanism" for achieving peace. Avishai instead called for an "Obama Blueprint" in which the US uses its bully pulpit to galvanize "international momentum and pressure" (on Israel, of course), to create a Palestinian State. In the same building but down a few flights we heard from the ubiquitous Egyptian journalist Mona Eltahawy that the "West has become irrelevant" and that rather than the West, the region demands freedom and dignity for the Palestinians. Both agreed about one thing -- wait, I'm trying to remember -- oh yes, the need to create a PSRN.

Read the whole thing.

What "even-handed" means to the London School of Economics

We had touched on the controversy of the London School of Economics accepting a £1.5 million donation from Saif Gaddafi.

I had missed this great quote from the director of the school, Sir Howard Davies, made in the Times of London last Monday to defend the donation (quoted in Just Journalism):

Sir Howard defended the LSE’s new Middle East Centre, half of whose board support an academic boycott of Israel. “The biggest donor to the School in the past year is George Soros, who of course is of Jewish origin. We operate, I believe, a very balanced view.”’

We love taking money from both Jewish and Arab haters of Israel! How much more balanced can one be?

(Davis has just resigned over accepting the Libya donation.)

More details on Hamas' armed robbery of a Gaza bank

Yesterday, Ma'an did everything it could to avoid mentioning that Hamas had robbed a bank in Gaza. But now that others have made the accusations, Ma'an feels it can report on the story.

And it is a doozy.

The Palestinian governments in the West Bank and Gaza Strip are at loggerheads again after the Palestinian Monetary Authority accused security forces in Gaza of robbing a bank.

The PMA announced Thursday that all banks in the Gaza Strip would close following a robbery at the Palestine Investment Bank in Gaza City.

Authority deputy Muhammad Manasreh told Ma'an that Gaza government officials stole $340,000 from the bank over two days.

On Tuesday, an official from the Hamas-led Ministry of Interior seized $90,000 from the bank by force after bank employees refused to honor a check due to insufficient funds in the account, Manasreh said.

The following day, the same official tried to cash a check for $250,000. Again, bank staff refused to honor the check due to insufficient funds. An argument erupted and cashiers called senior Hamas officials who failed to resolve the dispute, the PMA official added.

He said the bank was later raided by armed government security forces who seized $250,000.

Can you believe that Israel is so intransigent as to refuse to negotiate with this wonderful, pragmatic, respected political group?

Fatah leaders demand that Fayyad get fired

From Reuters:

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' dominant Fatah political faction has demanded that he sack Western-backed Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, according to a letter shown to Reuters on Thursday.

The letter, signed by senior Fatah officials, was sent to Abbas on Saturday, but the president "did not take it seriously," a Fatah official told Reuters.

However, the request underlined deep political friction at the heart of the Palestinian Authority, with many Fatah activists clearly frustrated by Fayyad, who has no significant political base of his own but wields substantial power.

Fayyad, a former World Bank economist, is widely credited by Western governments with transforming the institutional landscape in the West Bank, successfully building the core structures needed for a planned independent Palestinian state.

As prime minister he controls finances and security, leaving many Fatah members to complain bitterly in private that his high-profile activities are overshadowing their own work.

"We suggest you reconsider re-appointing Dr. Fayyad and (instead) ask that a strong Fatah figure do the job," said the letter, backed by Fatah's central revolutionary council.

Hmmm. The president, who is ruling past his legal term limits by invoking emergency powers, can ignore the demands of his people. He ensures that unpopular, unelected officials who are politically valuable can keep their jobs. This president is considered moderate because he supposedly adheres to Western interests and brutally puts down the people who oppose him, but if he would let his people do what they want he would very possibly be replaced with a radical who would be anti-Western and/or Islamist. The West supports him to the hilt even though he is responsible for major human rights abuses and has shown no flexibility in deepening the peace treaty with Israel.

But enough about Mubarak.

Roger Cohen's latest anti-Israel screed a classic piece of propaganda

Roger Cohen in the NYT gives three reasons he thinks Israelis are anxious about the Arab world upheavals.

Israel is anxious. It preferred the old Middle Eastern order. It could count on the despots, like Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, to suppress the jihadists, reject Iran, and play the Israeli-Palestinian game along lines that created a permanent temporariness ever more favorable to Israeli power.

Notice "permanent temporariness." Cohen is implying that everyone knew deep down that there would be a wave of popular revolutions in the Arab world, and that Camp David was Israel's way of stopping that inevitability in order to impose its hegemony on the region.

I'd love to find the Roger Cohen columns from between 1979 and 2011 that gave us a glimpse of this inevitable Egyptian revolution.

Moreover, his very premise is that the Israel/Egyptian peace agreement was a means to ensure Israel's power. In the end, though, Israel is the only party that took a risk at Camp David - giving up a huge amount of territory for nothing more than a piece of paper. His characterization of the peace agreement as some sort of Israeli coup rather than a frightful gamble is ridiculous and borderline slanderous. (And nowhere in his article does he mention that likely Egyptian leaders are all calling to re-examine Camp David, something that gives great credence to the Israeli fears he likes to downplay.)

Israelis are doubly worried. They wonder, Mr. President, if you like them in a heart-to-heart way. You’ve been to Cairo, you’ve been to Istanbul, so what’s wrong with Jerusalem? Why won’t you come and kvetch with us, President Obama, and feel our pain?

What does this have to do with Egypt? It is true that Israel doesn't feel the same warmth from Obama that it felt from George W. Bush and from Bill Clinton. The reason is because it simply isn't there.

Israelis are triply worried. Elections are unpredictable — just look at Gaza — and now they may be held across the Arab world! There’s the Muslim Brotherhood talking a good line but nursing menace. And what if Jordan goes, too?

"Just look at Gaza?" Perhaps we need to remind this self-styled Middle East expert that Hamas was not only elected in Gaza but by Palestinian Arabs as a whole across the West Bank as well.

Here's a bit of education for Roger Cohen - the 2006 election results by district:

Hamas won in Jerusalem, Tulkarem, Nablus, Salfit, Hebron - and even Ramallah!

But Cohen ignores this and barrels on:

I find all the Israeli anxiety troubling for moral and strategic reasons. The moral reason is simple: What could be closer to the hearts of Jews than the sight of peoples fighting to throw off oppression and gain their dignity and freedom?

If Israel has come to such a pass that these noble struggles from Benghazi to Bahrain leave it not just cold but troubled, then what has become of the soul of the Jewish state?

The Middle East’s most vibrant democracy is missing the upside of the birth of new ones.

Cohen has now framed his argument by defining his list of Israeli fears and his criticism of those fears. And, like any good propagandist, Cohen does not base his framing on reality but on a skewed perception that serves his purposes.

Cohen does not deign to listen to what Israel's Prime Minister said explicitly.

Unlike Cohen's thesis that Israelis are against democracy in the Arab world, Netanyahu says flatly:

It is obvious that an Egypt that fully embraces the 21st century and that adopts these reforms would be a source of great hope for the entire world, the region and for us.

In Israel, we know the value of democratic institutions and the significance of liberty. We know the value of independent courts that protect the rights of individuals and the rule of law; we appreciate the value of a free press and of a parliamentary system with a coalition and an opposition.

It is clear that an Egypt that rests on these institutions, an Egypt that is anchored in democratic values, would never be a threat to peace. On the contrary, if we have learned anything from modern history, it is that the stronger the foundations of democracy, the stronger the foundations of peace. Peace among democracies is strong, and democracy strengthens the peace.

So much for Cohen's assertion that Israel opposes Arab democracy and "missing the upside of the birth of new ones."

But Cohen's list of Israeli fears ignores the actual fears that Netanyahu mentioned in his speech:

Far away from Washington, Paris, London – and not so far from Jerusalem – is another capital in which there are hopes.

In this capital, there are leaders who can also see the opportunities that change in Egypt could bring.

They also support the millions who took to the streets.

They too speak about the promise of a new day. But for the people in this capital, the promise of a new day is not in its dawn but in the darkness it can bring.

That capital is Teheran, and I assure you, that the leaders in Iran are not interested in the genuine desires of Egyptians for freedom, liberalization or reform, any more than they were interested in answering similar calls for freedom by the Iranian people, their own people, only 18 months ago...

The Iranian regime is not interested in seeing an Egypt that protects the rights of individuals, women and minorities. They are not interested in an enlightened Egypt that embraces the 21st century. They want an Egypt that returns to the Middle Ages.

They want Egypt to become another Gaza, run by radical forces that oppose everything that the democratic world stands for.

We have two separate worlds here, two opposites, two worldviews: that of the free, democratic world and that of the radical world. Which one of them will prevail in Egypt? The answer to this question is crucial to the future of Egypt, of the region and to our own future here in Israel...

Should the forces that wish to carefully reform and democratize Egypt prevail, I am convinced that such positive change would also buttress a wider Arab-Israeli peace. But we are not there yet .

Cohen also downplays the basic Israeli worry:

For over 30 years we have enjoyed peace on two fronts. One is a peaceful border with Egypt, and the second the peaceful border with Jordan... It has changed the world and it has changed the State of Israel. It changed our strategic situation.

That is why preserving the existing peace is vital for us.

Cohen does not even address Iran nor the basic problem of preserving the peace agreement - even though every frontrunner for Egyptian leadership has stated that they would revisit Camp David.

Instead, Cohen's solution for the Middle East is, yet again, to pressure Israel to give more concessions to a group that is increasingly anti-American and intransigent.

Cohen is knowingly ignoring facts, writing columns based on how he wants the world to be as opposed to how it is, and, as always, placing the blame on Israel.

MEMRI translates the Egyptian video on Mubarak's suit

In my scoop about Hosni Mubarak's vanity pinstripe suit, I had embedded an Arabic video.

MEMRI has now translated that video:

The problem with the Egyptian analysis is that they made it sound like the photo was taken very recently, although I can see from the photo's EXIF information that it was taken in October, 2009.

A prominent gay Jew defends Israel

From Michael Lucas in The Advocate:

I wish I could have been there to see it. Last Tuesday, a handful of anti-Israeli activists' heads exploded when they found out that New York's LGBT Center had canceled their planned Israeli Apartheid Week shindig and barred them from meeting at the center ever again.

The only explanation they could find for this horrible injustice: A porn star named Michael Lucas had used "his wealth and connections" to shut them down. While decrying characterizations of their group as anti-Semitic, they blamed rich Jews for forcing the LGBT Center's hand.

Their Jewish conspiracy theory allowed them to ignore the true reason the LGBT Center decided to disassociate itself from their cause: Their advocacy is hateful, runs counter to the cause of LGBT rights, and has no place at an organization established as a safe space for all members of the LGBT community.

Read the whole thing. It is actually a very good rebuttal to the many misguided LGBTs who embrace radical anti-Israel causes.

I am told that if enough people comment, the Advocate will be more likely to run Lucas' pro-Israel views in the future.

It is a shame that it is so hard to find liberal straight Jews who are as passionate about Israel as Lucas is.

Fascinating account of meetings between FDR and Ibn Saud

I stumbled across this small book at an anti-Israel site. Written by William Eddy, a State Department Arabist who facilitated and attended meetings between US Presidents and the leaders of Saudi Arabia.

While it was written from an unabashedly pro-Arab perspective, the details are believable.

The last sentence by Truman is what has made this a popular quote at Israel-hating sites.

It's a good thing that the Brotherhood can't sing

The Hamas newspaper Palestine Times shows a video of Muslim Brotherhood leaders in Cairo singing a song called "Birds of Guidance."

Seriously, you call this singing?

It's almost as bad as al-Qaradawi's song:

It's almost as if they got singing lessons from BDSers.

When Facebook becomes a weapon in the Middle East (NewsRealBlog)

My latest post on NewsRealBlog:

Arabs have historically been very susceptible to rumors, no matter how bizarre. (One only has to look at the many rumors about Zionist control of animals that I documented recently.) Much of the Arabic news media will happily pass on rumors as fact.

Now, Facebook and other social media tools can be used to make Arab rumor mongering much more effective.

I recently saw a rumor in an Arabic news source that there was an attempted coup in Oman a couple of weeks ago. Tracing it back, it appears to have been started on, you guessed it, Facebook:

Read the whole thing.

Afternoon links

It is not only Hamas that is dead-set against UNRWA teaching the Holocaust. Our moderate friends from Fatah are as well.

But it is unclear that UNRWA ever had any intention to teach it anyway.

IsraeliGirl asks why Amnesty International goes soft on Iran, not demanding the same arms emrbargo that it demands from other states whose human rights records are not close to being as bad as Iran's.

So just how pro-Israel are the attendees at J-Street's conference?

Abbas continues to insult the US, calling US demands for accountability of where he spends US money "extortion."

Literally under the radar: Syria's impending purchase of supersonic cruise missiles and what that means.

Honest Reporting gives us the top five arguments against Israel Apartheid Week.

Speaking of, my "apartheid?" posters have been making appearances. Here and at this French site.

An Italian site picked up on my story about the insulting Palestinian Arab walkout in Geneva.

The Top Ten Gaddafi Toads.

(h/t Zach N, Israel Matzav and a cast of thousands....)

The PR firm that helped Libya (Mother Jones)

Another article about the unseen hands that guide our news coverage:

In February 2007 Harvard professor Joseph Nye Jr., who developed the concept of "soft power", visited Libya and sipped tea for three hours with Muammar Qaddafi. Months later, he penned an elegant description of the chat for The New Republic, reporting that Qaddafi had been interested in discussing "direct democracy." Nye noted that "there is no doubt that" the Libyan autocrat "acts differently on the world stage today than he did in decades past. And the fact that he took so much time to discuss ideas—including soft power—with a visiting professor suggests that he is actively seeking a new strategy." The article struck a hopeful tone: that there was a new Qaddafi. It also noted that Nye had gone to Libya "at the invitation of the Monitor Group, a consulting company that is helping Libya open itself to the global economy."

Nye did not disclose all. He had actually traveled to Tripoli as a paid consultant of the Monitor Group (a relationship he disclosed in an email to Mother Jones), and the firm was working under a $3 million-per-year contract with Libya. Monitor, a Boston-based consulting firm with ties to the Harvard Business School, had been retained, according to internal documents obtained by a Libyan dissident group, not to promote economic development, but "to enhance the profile of Libya and Muammar Qadhafi." So The New Republic published an article sympathetic to Qaddafi that had been written by a prominent American intellectual paid by a firm that was being compensated by Libya to burnish the dictator's image.

The Nye article was but one PR coup the Monitor Group delivered for Qaddafi. But the firm also succeeded on other fronts. The two chief goals of the project, according to an internal document describing Monitor's Libya operations, were to produce a makeover for Libya and to introduce Qaddafi "as a thinker and intellectual, independent of his more widely-known and very public persona as the Leader of the Revolution in Libya."

In 2006 and 2007, Benjamin Barber, an author specializing in democracy studies and a senior fellow at Demos, a pro-democracy think tank, took three trips to Libya as a paid consultant to Monitor. On these visits, Barber met with Libyan lawyers, officials, and activists interested in democratic reform—and Qaddafi, too....

Barber says he believed that the main aim of the Monitor Group's Libya project was to stir reform there—trying to "turn Libya from a rogue state into a better state." He was encouraged by small steps he saw in the country. And in August 2007, Barber wrote an op-ed for TheWashington Post, noting that Libya had finally released five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor who each had been condemned to death for allegedly infecting children in a Libyan hospital with HIV. In the article—headlined "Gaddafi's Libya: An Ally for America?"—Barber wrote that his one-on-one conversations with Qaddafi had convinced him that the Libyan leader had arranged for their release to show his desire for "a genuine rapprochement with the United States."

"Libya," Barber noted, "under Gaddafi has embarked on a journey that could make it the first Arab state to transition peacefully and without overt Western intervention to a stable, non-autocratic government." He reported that Qaddafi, whom the United States and other governments had identified as a possible ally in the war against Al Qaeda, had been "holding open conversations" with Western intellectuals.

But Barber did not mention in the Post piece that he himself had been a paid consultant for the Monitor Group.

...Anthony Giddens, a leading British intellectual, made two Monitor-guided trips to Libya in 2007. According to Monitor documents, he published two articles about Libya after each trip. In one of those pieces—"My chat with the colonel," posted by The Guardian—Giddens noted, "As one-party states go, Libya is not especially repressive. Gadafy seems genuinely popular." He observed, "Will real progress be possible only when Gadafy leaves the scene? I tend to think the opposite. If he is sincere in wanting change, as I think he is, he could play a role in muting conflict that might otherwise arise as modernisation takes hold." The article did not mention the Monitor Group.

The document that Mother Jones from the Monitor Group unearthed shows that they were not only trying to influence journalists and intellectuals but politicians as well:

Many of the visitors Monitor brought to Libya have individually briefed all levels of the United States government including specifically the President, Vice President, Heads of National Security and Intelligence as well as the Secretary of State.

It also lists the people that the Monitor Group brought to Libya, along with their subsequent speeches of articles. They include Richard Perle, Anthony Giddens, Francis Fukuyama, Nicholas Negroponte, American Sheikh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani, Bernard Lewis, David Frost, Benjamin Barber and Joseph Nye. In addition, the Monitor Group maintained contacts with other influential people to get them to be more sympathetic to Libya, including George Soros, Fareed Zakaria, and Thomas Friedman.

Some of this is perfectly fine; it is not unusual for governments to invite influential people over. But the lack of transparency, especially for those who were paid consultants and published articles or gave speeches without proper disclosure, is really bad - and it makes one wonder what other autocracies are doing the same thing.

Could the Vogue reporter have been on the Syrian payroll?

(h/t Silke)

Why is Israel under pressure to help create an authoritarian state?

Here is a sentence in the New York Times by Isabel Kershner, from an article about Israel possibly proposing an interim peace plan:

With the Middle East in turmoil and the West eager to encourage moderate forces in the region, Israel is under pressure to show some movement on the Palestinian issue.

Let's parse this a bit.

The uprisings in the Middle East have been against unelected, authoritarian regimes over frustration over the economy and lack of freedoms.

The PA is an unelected, authoritarian regime with an economy that is wholly dependent on outside assistance and no freedom to criticize the regime.

According to the PA's own laws, Abbas' term as president expired in January 2009. Fayyad was never elected. The last elections brought Hamas into power.

Why is Israel under pressure to help create a new state that would not only be opposed to Israel's existence, but whose already existing institutions are illegal, undemocratic and anti-freedom? Aren't the exact same issues causing Arabs to revolt and demonstrate across the entire region?

The "peace process" has evolved into a religion, one not based on any logic or sense. This is only one tiny example where a statement that seems uncontroversial at first sight is in fact completely counter-factual.

Just no one in the media or in Western governments seems to have the ability to think beyond sound bites.

(h/t David G)

Oh, by the way, Gaddafi tried to rape a female reporter

A vignette in a Benny Morris article:

Which reminds me of a story a fine, young journalist once told me about her experiences in Tripoli. It was in the 1980s, I think. She had come to interview Qaddafi. She was ushered into the famous tent. Qaddafi sent his aides away and the two of them shared lunch. And then Qaddafi tried to caress her. Flustered, she got up to leave. He then chased her around the table, bent on rape. She was brave and apparently fit; she outran him, at least long enough for his aides to rush in at the sound of her screams. Rape averted.

And then he makes this astute observation:

It is a shame journalists did not usually publish their impressions of and experiences with Qaddafi. This no doubt facilitated Western and Arab acceptance of cooperation with this almost unique, base specimen of humanity.

Unfortunately, this is still happening today. Only after the people start revolting does the Western media wake up and say, "Oh, I knew about how evil that despot was for years!"

Of course, they never reported it at the time.

And usually they still refuse to. It is an insidious game where the reporters know much more than they are willing to report, because they want to push certain narratives more than they want to contradict them.

(h/t Silke)

Everyone is ripping off my Mubarak suit story

I knew that this story would be popular, so I put a watermark on the photo of the suit with his name on it to stop people from stealing it:

But I was not obnoxious enough....and my photo is being cropped by other bloggers without credit and are getting picked up in news stories again without any credit to me.

Alas, another scoop that got away from me.

Is there going to be a march from Cairo to Gaza?

Palestine Today reports that the "January 25th youth" will march from Cairo to Rafah tomorrow and attempt to enter Gaza in a bid to open the border between Egypt and Gaza and "end the siege."

The organizers say that the march will have some 100 Egyptians, "including leaders of the January 25th revolution," and about 100 foreigners.

Interestingly, a similar march was scheduled for February 26th, and seems to have fizzled out.

The distance from Cairo to Rafah is over 300 kilometers. Good luck with your march, guys.

Israel allows Gazans to export cherry tomatoes. The PA denies it.

From YNet:

Palestinian farmers will start exporting cherry tomatoes from the Gaza Strip this week, as part of a government decision from the end of 2010 to expand the Strip's agricultural exports.

The first stage will see some 50 tons of tomatoes sent to Europe through Israel. According to estimates, the exports will yield Gaza's farmers some €150,000 (about $206,500).

The Palestinian farmers will deliver the tomatoes through the Kerem Shalom crossing to Israeli agricultural export company Agrexco, which markets the produce in Europe. The money is transferred to agricultural cooperatives, which will hand it over to the Palestinian farmers.

The Agrexco company stresses that it has lists of the growers and ensures that the money reaches them.

As part of the exports, which began in November 2010, the Strip's farmers export strawberries, carnations and peppers. Meanwhile, the pepper exports have been halted due to technical problems.

So far, Gaza's farmers have exported some 367 tons of strawberries worth €1.8 million ($2.5 million), about 5.3 million carnations worth €850,000 ($1.17 million) and 6 tons of peppers.

The agricultural activity in the Strip is conducted with the help of the Dutch government, as part of a special project training farmers and providing them with infrastructure through a Palestinian agricultural company.

But the PA is saying that this is not true. From their official WAFA news agency:

Abdel Karim Ashur, head of Agricultural Relief Committee in Gaza Strip, denied news Wednesday about an Israeli permit to export vegetables and specifically tomatoes from the Gaza Strip to European markets.

However, Israeli media claimed that Israel allowed the export of tomatoes from Gaza into European markets through Karm Abu Salem crossing.

Ashur told WAFA that Israeli authorities allowed on Tuesday and for the first time the export of only two tons of cherry tomatoes, almost at the end of the tomato season, pointing out that Palestinian farmers agreed to that only to maintain their presence in European markets.

Ashur added that this permit is not a gift from Israel but is a result of pressure on Israel, by Dutch companies cooperating with Palestinian companies, to allow export of cherries, pepper and tomatoes.

Israel is still refusing to allow the export of tomatoes and other fruits and vegetables to European markets and even West Bank markets which offer better prices than Europe, according to Ashur.

He added these measures restrict economic development in Palestine and specially that of the agricultural sector.

Ummm...the photos seem to show otherwise:

A Palestinian worker checks a truckload of cherry tomatoes bound for Europe before it crosses into Israel at the Kerem Shalom crossing point near Rafah, in the southern Gaza Strip, March 2, 2011.

Boxes of cherry tomatoes from the Gaza Strip bound for Europe are seen at the Kerem Shalom crossing terminal March 2, 2011

Coral is the brand name of Palestinian Arab produce marketed by Agrexco to Europe.

And as I have shown recently, BDSers want the boycott of Israeli products to include Palestinian Arab produce as well!

Gaza banks close because of Hamas robberies

From Ma'an:

The Palestinian Monetary Authority announced Thursday that all banks in Gaza would close on Thursday, following the perpetration of a robbery by unknown gunmen who stole cash from the Palestine Investment Bank in Gaza City.

PMA officials did not report the amount of cash taken from the bank, but said the financial institutions would remain closed until the funds were returned.

A statement from the body condemned the robbery, saying the use of weapons against the people of Gaza was unacceptable. The PMA "resents, denounces and condemns the attack," the statement said.

While it is unclear who robbed the bank, it seems strange that the banks would close from an ordinary armed robbery. More likely the bank suspects that the robbers were none other than Hamas, as Ma'an explains has happened before:

[Last summer] the Palestine Islamic Bank in Gaza City reported three incidents of cash being "withdrawn by force" by Gaza government officials, and in June suspended operations in protest over the actions.

Palestine Press Agency adds that Hamas has also taken over the Palestinian Investment Fund's offices and cash, and that other tenants of the same building were forced to leave. The Fund was meant to be an independent institution to help out businesses in Gaza.

This is only the latest takeover by Hamas of previously private Gaza institutions. These takeovers are one major reason why a reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah are increasingly unlikely, as Hamas' control of Gaza is cemented.

UPDATE: The Jerusalem Post via Reuters fills in the blanks, and Ma'an is shown once again to dance around the truth so as not to upset Hamas (h/t T34):

Banks in Gaza closed on Thursday in protest against Hamas's seizure of $250,000 in cash in a dispute with the Palestinian Authority.

A banking official said Hamas police went to the Palestine Investment Bank on Wednesday and demanded the money from the account of the PA-backed Palestine Investment Fund, which Hamas alleged had been illegally transferring money out of Gaza.

"(Hamas police) said unless they were given the money, they would take it by force," the official told Reuters. He said the police left with bags of cash filled with Israeli shekels worth $250,000 after several hours of discussion.

"All banks closed their doors today to protest against Hamas's assault on the Palestine Investment Bank," said the official, who declined to be identified.

A West Bank official for the Palestinian Monetary Authority, which oversees banking in Gaza and the West Bank, said the Hamas police had committed "armed robbery." In a statement, the monetary authority demanded the return of the cash.

HRW founder Bernstein launches "Advancing Human Rights"

From the press release:

On February 24th, Human Rights Watch founder, Robert L. Bernstein, launched a new human rights organization called Advancing Human Rights (AHR).

"I believe that creating Advancing Human Rights is the most important thing I’ve done in my life," said Bernstein, who will serve as the organization’s Chairman. "I never imagined that at 88 years old I would be founding a new human rights organization, but I am doing it out of necessity because I believe there are trends which are doing great damage to democracies throughout the world."

At a pre-launch event attended by journalists, authors and human rights activists, Bernstein introduced the AHR team. "Leading our new organization as executive director is David Keyes. David and I started working together one year ago. He has built a phenomenal organization, CyberDissidents.org, which is a central part of our new human rights organization. It supports pro-democracy Internet activists throughout the Middle East and has been on the cutting edge of human rights."

AHR will return to the fundamentals of human rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. CyberDissidents.org and Straight Talk on Human Rights, a new platform for common sense analysis, will form the initial programs of AHR.

"We will focus on women’s rights and free speech," Bernstein noted. "These two rights—the spearhead of most totalitarian repression—are so important because where they are absent, achieving the other very important human rights is practically impossible. We will, of course, go into closed societies."

"Now that these closed societies are exploding," he continued, "they will need every ounce of the human rights community’s attention so that we don’t have another Iran."

Bernstein and Colonel Richard Kemp, former commander of British Forces in Afghanistan and one of AHR’s board members, announced the groups formation on Bloomberg TV on Friday. The AHR board includes famed Soviet dissident, Yelena Bonner, and former Canadian Justice Minister, Irwin Cotler, among others.

Bernstein also says on the website:

Some human rights organizations, like Human Rights Watch, do not condemn incitement to genocide, Arab hate speech being spewed daily in Gaza, particularly, and Saudi textbooks being taught to young children calling Jews “monkeys and pigs.” Hate speech is the precursor to genocide. I understand giving hate speech a lot of latitude in an open society where it is sure to be criticized - but in a closed society it goes unanswered and encouraged by the government, governments that control all the media.

If I’ve misinterpreted the positions of these human rights organizations, I’m happy to be corrected.

Human Rights Watch believes it is its job to protect civilians on both sides in a war. This is where we really disagree. In the Israel-Palestine conflict they cannot protect either side for reasons Colonel Kemp will address. Worse, their methodology which is to analyze a war after it is over is flawed and in my view its staff has little knowledge of the realities of asymmetric war and makes accusations of war crimes where others would understand the sad collateral damage of war. In the Israel-Palestine war, it seems to me, the Israelis are usually the party accused. Hamas, I believe, is fighting a war of attrition, and doesn’t subscribe to the Geneva conventions etc. I will leave the rest to Colonel Kemp.

The other reasons why a new organization is desirable will be spelled out in the near future when we will issue what I would call a “white paper” outlining them. We will then move on in our own way, leaving open societies to fend for themselves most of the time. When we are critical, we will note that while open societies must maintain the highest standards, even when they slip, they start from a much higher standard. In judging open societies you can be sure there will be more than one judge.

The Bloomberg video is here.

This is a great development, and I wish AHR well.

Story: Gazans forced to buy secondhand Israeli clothing

Firas Press has a lengthy article saying that the poor Gazans are forced to buy used Israeli clothing because they cannot afford to buy new clothes. It interviews that shamed customers, such as an engaged woman who doesn't want her fiancée to know that she bought the clothes second-hand.

Something is not making sense.

Last month, Hamas banned Israeli clothing from being imported into Gaza. So if used clothing is getting into Gaza, it seems to indicate that these are clothes that were sent by charities to be given away, not sold!

This would make sense, as Hamas already is known to confiscate medicines that are meant to be given away and sells them through pharmacies. Hamas uses the world's charity as a means to generate cash.

Pallywood, B'Tselem style (CAMERA)

CAMERA has a great expose of the latest Pallywood incident:

Sunday's Hebrew article by Elior Levi and the corresponding English version ("Video: 11-year-old Palestinian stone-thrower arrested") are based on a video that B'Tselem apparently supplied to Levi.

One wonders if the intrepid Ynet journalists, including both Levi, his editors, and English translators, even bothered to view the pre-packaged B'Tselem video before passing it off as journalism. The article states:

In the video the officers can be seen putting the boy, Karim al-Tamimi, in a police vehicle after chasing him down. The boy's mother pleaded with the officers to allow her to accompany him to the Sha'ar Binyamin police station, but her request was denied. . . .

The boy's father, Salah al-Tamimit [sic] told Ynet, "They took him without a chaperone, and by the time we arrived at the police station he was already being interrogated."

Yet, a careful viewing of the clip (with Hebrew and Arabic dialogue) reveals that the exact opposite was the case; the policemen invited the mother to accompany her child. At 2:07 minutes into the video, one of the policemen says to the mother, "Come, come, get in." The cop then asks one of the people standing nearby, "Is that his mother?" When the bystander answers in the affirmative, the policeman repeats, "Get in with him" (the boy). The door is opened for her and she is about to get into the vehicle, as the policemen are saying "get into the car," but then (2:27) the mother is pulled away from the car by the Palestinian man wearing a black jacket. After the policemen closes the van's door, a woman wearing a pink shirt pushes the mother towards the vehicle, and then the mother bangs on the door, a heartrending scene directed to the end. Here's the clip:

What possible explanation is there for the discrepancy between the article and the video? Perhaps Elior Levi received the video together with a B'Tselem press release which falsely claimed that the mother was denied permission to board the van with her son. Levi then copied the press release, without carefully reviewing the video, nevermind undertaking any field work.

A careful review of the video shows that the boy had been hidden behind a sign, blocking him from viewers' site as he threw stones at the moving vehicles. In addition, despite the fact that he had a number of options, the boy knew exactly where to run -- in the direction of the camera. And thus we have the perfectly dramatic shot of a skinny and frightened child running away from the big and scary police.

CAMERA translated the Arabic which is heard in the video, and the translation provides additional evidence that Levi's report is entirely erroneous and that the B'Tselem photographer, Nariman al-Tamimi, staged the scene.

When Karim's mother is about to enter the police van after the police tell her to board, one of the Palestinians clearly says to her in Arabic, "Don't get in," and then the Palestinian man in a black jacket pulls her away from the vehicle. This sentence proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is the Palestinians themselves who prevented her from joining her son in the van, while the Israeli police repeatedly urged her to get in.

It is also noteworthy that in the beginning of the clip videographer Nariman al-Tamimi shouts to the boy, "hurry, hurry, hurry" as he runs in her direction, yet another indication that the entire scene was planned in advance.

It appears that B'Tselem has some explaining to do regarding its "citizen journalists," the recipients of B'Tselem cameras, who fabricate news as opposed to document it.

Afternoon links

Iranian newspapers are still breathlessly talking about the gay, Freemason, Zionist, "silly" logo for the 2012 Olympics. (And the T-shirt I designed is already my best selling product in history!)

Leon Wieseltier at TNR on post-post-imperialism and the Arab world. (pass-through link courtesy TNR)

Israel Matzav draws a conclusion about the "peace process."

Liberal-leaning JTA is not thrilled with J-Street.

Speaking of, can anyone find a difference in the positions of J-Street and the American Task Force on Palestine? I think that the ATFP might be more pro-Israel than J-Street, which of course means that J-Street is not pro-Israel.

JPost piles on HRW's downplaying Libya's human rights record.

Azure has a thoughtful article about how international NGOs are affecting world politics, and not usually in a good way.

This article about a left-wing tour through Israel for journalists will hopefully be translated into English soon.

The BBC notices a different Arab lobby - but stops short

In a comment to my earlier story on the New York Times noticing the Arab lobby in America, Jed G notes a BBC piece about how Arab governments try to influence British journalism:

Over the past two months, as unrest spread across the Middle East, from Tunisia to Bahrain, many Western journalists were discreetly contacted by PR agencies acting for Arab leaders trying desperately to stem the flow of negative headlines.

The UK has become a global centre for this kind of international PR.

London is becoming a global hub for governments and world leaders - some of them with very questionable human rights records - who want to give their reputations in the west a bit of a facelift.

"I would imagine that all of those (countries) are represented in some way or another by a UK-based PR agency," Nick Allan told me in one of Soho's most exclusive clubs, as I showed him a list of Arab states that included Egypt, Tunisia, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.

Nick Allan spent 20 years working for Britain's Foreign Office. Now he is an independent PR consultant. Although he does not currently represent any foreign governments, he has in the past had to deal with what he calls "difficult regimes".

"The key is to change the narrative about that regime. So you can't change the fact that it's a dictatorship, there's only so much lipstick you can put on a dictator, but you can certainly try to change the narrative by pointing to as many positives as you can."

In practice, Mr Allan says, the work would include drafting and placing articles in newspapers, introducing journalists to members of the government in question, or organising trips to that country. Often the PR agency will also try to squash negative stories.

"Quite often what you're doing is just pure damage limitation. There's an article in the press that your client doesn't like, and they are screaming at you down the phone to 'close the story down', do whatever you can to make the story go away.

"A lot of PR agencies will employ media lawyers to do exactly this: to write to the editors, to put as much pressure as possible on the editor or the newspaper to not run the story."

The picture that is being painted is not pretty. We see that people are being paid by foreign governments to write their own articles in newspapers, presuambly without identifying their ties to their unsavory employers they are defending.

Even worse, we are seeing that these same PR agencies are hiring lawyers to threaten newspapers to pull stories that would make Arab dictators look bad.

In other words, they are doing everything they can to limit freedom of the press and transparency.

This is an important article, one that helps explain the incredible bias in UK journalism. But it is missing a key component - a component that makes one think that the problem is even worse than is being reported.

Why didn't the BBC reporter interview anyone from the BBC who has gotten pressured by these PR firms?

It is one thing to interview someone who (says that in the past he) applied pressure to tilt news stories towards his clients' viewpoints. But why not go into the BBC newsroom and find real reporters and editors and publishers who admit that they changed their stories in reaction to outside PR pressure?

This is a story about the media that doesn't bother to interview anyone from the media. Instead, it treats the PR firms as if they are the only ones who have to answer for their unethical behavior.

Certainly the reporter could have shielded the names of the journalists who succumbed to bribes, or threats, or more subtle forms of pressure. But that is the story, and the BBC completely missed the boat in framing it as only being about PR firms taking money from less than ideal clients.

The BBC can start by identifying its own offenders. And if they claim they have never given in to Arab pressure, let's hear examples of what failed.

The consumers of British news media deserve to know the truth about how the news is created and spun. By deflecting the argument, this story looks more like a whitewash of journalists than real journalism.

Louis Farrakhan, winner of Gaddafi Prize, calls Jews "Satan"

From JPost:

Nation of Islam leader says his comments on Jews are meant "to pull the cover off Satan" and "Zionists dominate the US government and banks."

Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan said Jews and Zionists are "trying to push the US into war" and are a cover for Satan, at the group's annual meeting near Chicago on Tuesday.

“President Obama," Farrakhan said, "if you allow the Zionists to push you, to mount a military offensive against Gaddafi and you go in and kill him and his sons as you did with Saddam Hussein and his sons, I’m warning you this is a Libyan problem, let the Libyans solve their problem among themselves.” Farrakhan called Muammar Gaddafi "my brother" and "my friend."

He also accused American Zionists of attempting to push Israel into war with Iran, adding that "Zionists dominate the government of the United States of America and her banking system."

One panel at the conference, titled "The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews," claimed that Jews were disproportionately involved in the slave trade and accused them of controlling the media.

“Some of you think that I’m just somebody who’s got something out for the Jewish people," Farrakhan said. "You’re stupid. Do you think I would waste my time if I did not think it was important for you to know Satan? My job is to pull the cover off of Satan so that he will never deceive you and the people of the world again.”

He also said "The Black people of America are the real children of Israel."

So how many anti-semitic motifs did Farrakhan manage to cram into his speech?

Jews control the banks
Jews control the government
Jews push other countries into fighting their wars for them
Jews control the media
Jews were responsible for the slave trade
Jews are Satan
Jews are deceptive
Jews aren't really Jews

Not bad!

Farrakhan was the 1996 winner of the Al-Gaddafi International Prize for Human Rights, which boasts such luminaries as Holocaust-denier Roger Garaudy, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

The keynote was over 4 hours long. Who wants to watch it and post at what times the good parts are?

(h/t Samson)

For years, they have been one of the most formidable lobbying forces in town: the elite band of former members of Congress, former diplomats and power brokers who have helped Middle Eastern nations navigate diplomatic waters here on delicate issues like arms deals, terrorism, oil and trade restrictions.

Just last year, three of the biggest names in the lobbying club — Tony Podesta, Robert L. Livingston and Toby Moffett — pulled off a coup for one of their clients, Egypt. They met with dozens of lawmakers and helped stall a Senate bill that called on Egypt to curtail human rights abuses. Ultimately, those abuses helped bring the government down.

Mr. Moffett, a former congressman from Connecticut, told his old colleagues that the bill “would be viewed as an insult” by an important ally. “We were just saying to them, ‘Don’t do this now to our friends in Egypt,’ ” he recounted.

Now the Washington lobbyists for Arab nations find themselves in a precarious spot, as they try to stay a step ahead of the fast-changing events without being seen as aiding despots and dictators. In Libya, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen, Egypt and other countries in the region, leaders have relied increasingly on Washington’s top lobbyists and lawyers, paying them tens of millions of dollars. Some consultants are tacking toward a more progressive stance in light of pro-democracy protests, while others are dropping their clients altogether because of the tumult.

Would the NYT, or anyone else, have written such an article had the Arab world not been rocked by mass demonstrations? it is not as if the human rights abuses of these governments were secret, after all. But only now does the mainstream media decide it is newsworthy.

But talking about the "powerful Israel lobby" is a staple of news coverage of the region.

Just another example of the media's double standard with respect to Israel.

Of course, the NYT does not touch the Palestinian Arab lobbyists. To even mention their existence would upset the meme that Israel has a stranglehold on the US government. Yet, in the Palestine Papers, we see that they did hire one - Bannerman and Associates, which features Ed Abington, Jr., former United States Consul General in Jerusalem.

The PLO, much of which is funded by the US to begin with, paid millions of dollars to retain this firm - to lobby the US.

While it appears that Bannerman and Associates is no longer lobbying for the PA, who took their place?

(h/t David G)

Israel refusing to sell Turkey spy satellite equipment?

Palestine Today quotes Turkish sources as saying that Turkey intends to send a satellite into space in order to watch activities of the PKK as well as help with environmental issues. It was getting equipment from an Italian company, which was subcontracting some of the cameras to an Israeli company.

According to the article, Israel is refusing to sell the equipment unless Turkey signs an agreement promising that it will not spy on Israel with the satellite.

Turkey is balking at this stipulation, and this has the potential to erupt into a "crisis," according to the sources.

The PLO is insulting the US - more examples

In the past week I highlighted two stories, all but unreported in the media, of explicit insults against the US by the Palestinian Arab leadership.

The first was a press release by the Palestinian Foreign Ministry saying that US actions were themselves "obstacles to peace" and that the US was not an honest broker in the negotiations.

The second was the Palestinian Arab delegation walking out during Hillary Clinton's speech at the UNHRC in Geneva.

There have been others, and Palestinian Media Watch caught them.

Mahmoud Abbas, January 24:

The US is assisting us in the amount of $460 million annually. This does not mean that they dictate to us whatever they want, because we do what we view as beneficial to our cause. I recall that they said, 'Don't go to the Arab Summit in Damascus,' but we went. They demanded that we should not sign the Egyptian reconciliation document [between Fatah and Hamas], but we sent Azzam Al-Ahmed to sign it.

Fatah's Jibril Rajoub said:

The American administration has chosen unilateral aggression against human rights.

PMW brings many editorials from the official PA media as well that is sharply critical of the US.

Yet these insults, which go way beyond the diplomatic pale and should be reserved for countries like Libya and Iran, have been ignored by the media that is emotionally invested in blaming Israeli intransigence alone for lack of progress in peace negotiations.

(h/t David G for reminding me of the PMW article.)

So what's being smuggled in the tunnels now?

Last week, a tunnel between Egypt and Gaza collapsed, injuring three people.

Today, another man working on a smuggling tunnel died from a fall.

In 2008 and 2009, there were a bunch of articles in the media about how the tunnels were Gaza's lifeline, how consumer goods were being smuggled in, and how the tunnel operators were heroically defying the blockade.

Now that Gaza has plenty of consumer goods, what exactly is being smuggled in the tunnels?

As was the case then, these intrepid reporters never bother asking about weapons smuggling. It is as if Chinese-made Grad rockets magically appear in Gaza, perhaps with the help of Aladdin's genie.

Video of "reformer" Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, Ph.D., brandishing a gun

From Babylon and Beyond:

Seif Islam, 39-year-old son of besieged Libyan leader Moammar Kadafi, was praised in some Western circles as a leading reformer in his country until recently. For the last decade, he has served as Libya's main interlocutor with the West. But he has been -- to put it mildly -- at odds with his image since the start of the popular uprising against his father.

After warning of mass violence and civil war if citizens sided with anti-government demonstrators in a chilling speech about 10 days ago, the London School of Economics-educated Islam has now apparently been caught on video swinging a weapon while promising to arm a crowd of whistling and cheering supporters.

Besides the praise given to Saif by Sarah Leah Whitson of Human Rights Watch a couple of years ago, I found this wonderful passage at the London School of Economic newspaper at the time that the school accepted a £1.5 million donation from Saif's foundation. After one professor publicly disagreed with accepting the money:

Professor Held defended the decision to accept the gift as a matter for the LSE/Council, reinforcing what he had said in the prior meeting, and that “a public signing ceremony had been undertaken, and that a u-turn at this juncture might affect the School’s relations with Libya and cause personal embarrassment to the Chairman of the Foundation, Dr Saif al-Islam Gaddafi”.

By the way, Saif's Ph.D. dissertation may have been ghostwritten, Professor Held was his mentor, and Held had been appointed a trustee of Gaddafi's foundation a few months before the donation.

(h/t David G)

Evening snippets

Only because I'll have forgotten about these tomorrow...

WSJ's Best of the Web yesterday has good stuff not only about how the current unrest in the Arab world destroys the idea of linkage, but also this gem:

Two Columnists in One!

"Paradoxically, a more democratic Iraq may also be a more repressive one; it may well be that a majority of Iraqis favor more curbs on professional women and on religious minorities. . . . Women did relatively well under Saddam Hussein. . . . Iraq won't follow the theocratic model of Iran, but it could end up as Iran Lite: an Islamic state, but ruled by politicians rather than ayatollahs. I get the sense that's the system many Iraqis seek. . . . We may just have to get used to the idea that we have been midwives to growing Islamic fundamentalism in Iraq."--Nicholas Kristof, New York Times, June 24, 2003

"Is the Arab world unready for freedom? A crude stereotype lingers that some people--Arabs, Chinese and Africans--are incompatible with democracy. . . . This line of thinking seems to me insulting to the unfree world. . . . It's condescending and foolish to suggest that people dying for democracy aren't ready for it."--Kristof, Times, Feb. 27, 2011

Julian Assange from Wikileaks is sounding a lot like Charlie Sheen in his bizarre, paranoid rants:

A report published by a British magazine on Tuesday said the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, suggested that British journalists, including the editor of The Guardian, were engaged in a Jewish-led conspiracy to smear his organization.

Yup, the Guardian is my number one source for Jewish conspiracies. Oh, wait....

Speaking of Charlie, you have got to take this hilarious Guardian quiz. I did horribly.

One way of fighting "Israel Apartheid Week" is with...Israel Peace Week! Some 50 campuses will be exposed to a positive message about Israel next week.

Speaking of apartheid - the real kind - three African countries are simultaneously releasing stamps honoring 12 Jews who were in the forefront of liberating African nations from apartheid and racism.

Beyond disgusting, the Telegraph finds a video of Afghan children playing an innocent game of suicide bomber:

Finally, Jeffrey Goldberg brings us "Jews! Jews! Jews! Jews! Jews!" But perhaps he is just trying to increase his search results in Google.

(h/t Zach N, Alex, Callie, The Jawa Report, Stan)

Why the cover-up of the Palestinian Arab insult to Hillary? (updated)

Ma'an Arabic reports the story we posted this morning about how the Palestinian Arab delegation to the Human Rights Council meeting in Geneva walked out during Hillary Clinton's speech, upset that she said that the UNHRC spends way too much time criticizing Israel.

The Palestinian Arab ambassador to the UNHRC, Ibrahim Khreisheh, was interviewed on the radio about the decision, complaining about Clinton's referring to the "structural bias" that the UNHRC has against only one state. He said that the speech referred to human rights violations against citizens of Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Bahrain, Yemen, and Iran, but not "Palestine."

However, Ma'an's English edition does not yet have this story.

It's been 24 hours since her speech and still no English language news outlet has covered the Palestinian Arab walkout.

A major insult to the US by the Palestinian Arabs is being knowingly covered up by the media.

UPDATE: Ma'an finally mentioned it. We'll see if anyone else does.

Afternoon linkdump

My list of things to post keeps getting longer...

Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs documents the Palestinian Arab political offensive against Israel, including the agreements they are breaking.

Challah Hu Akbar documents the anti-semitic undercurrents in the Libyan protests

Omri at Commentary asks, "So Who Exactly Thought Syria Engagement Would Work?"

Richard at Augean Stables shows how Turkey acts towards the West when they feel they have the upper hand. He also has a nice linkdump from yesterday as well as a thorough fisking of the Kristof piece I looked at on Sunday.

JCPA has a good interview with Dore Gold about the US veto of the UNSC resolution demonizing Israel.

Anne Bayefsky on the US trying to prop up the UNHRC.

Was financial terrorism responsible for the 2008 economic downturn? (h/t O)

The IDF successfully uses the Trophy tank defense system against an anti-tank missile in Gaza. (h/t Silke)

OBL's former mentor trying to turn Yemen into an Islamist state (h/t DM)

Charlie Sheen/"Chaim Levine" explained

One of the top stories in the US over the past couple of weeks has been the bizarre behavior of comic actor Charlie Sheen - possibly the highest paid TV star in the world - and the resultant stoppage of the popular TV show Two and a Half Men.

One of Sheen's rants has been towards the creator of the show, Chuck Lorre. He has been referring to Lorre in interviews as "Chaim Levine."

So where did that come from?

Entertainment Weekly finds the answer. It came from Lorre himself.

At the end of every one of his shows, Chuck Lorre flashes a dense screenful of text for about a half second, requiring people who want to read it to pause their DVDs. These "vanity cards" are often quite funny, as one can expect from the creator of two very funny shows (he is also the co-creator of The Big Bang Theory.)

On February 7th, Lorre's vanity card gave what was actually mostly a very nice and funny mini-essay about Israel and Jewish identity:

I'm writing this vanity card in Israel. I like it here. Not for the geography, or architecture, or even the history. No, I like it because for the first time in my life I'm surrounded with DNA much like my own. Until I got here, until I wandered around Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, I didn't realize how much my double helix yearned to be around similar strands. Now that's not to say that I don't occasionally have that very same genetic experience in Beverly Hills (particularly in Chinese restaurants on Sunday night). But the sheer homogeneity of Israel overwhelms any over-priced kung pao gathering at Mr. Chow's. The cop, the cab driver, the hotel concierge, the pilot, the waiter, the shoe salesman, the beautiful girl looking right through me as if I didn't exist -- all Jewish! If I had to sum it up, I'd say the sensation is like being at a B'nai B'rith summer camp that is surrounded by millions of crazy bastards who hate the sound of kids playing tetherball, and all the poor little camp has going for it is pluckiness and nukes. Anyway, I have to believe my visceral and very pleasant reaction is some sort of evolutionary, tribal thing. Some sort of survival gene that makes human beings want to stay with their birth group. Which raises the question, why have I spent a lifetime moving away from that group? How did Chaim become Chuck? How did Levine become Lorre? The only answer I come up with is this: When I was a little boy in Hebrew school the rabbis regularly told us that we were the chosen people. That we were God's favorites. Which is all well and good except that I went home, observed my family and, despite my tender age, thought to myself, "bull$#*!."

This is where Charlie Sheen, obsessively reading Lorre's vanity cards to find any insults to his star, found out Lorre's Hebrew name. Whether his use of that name is borderline anti-semitic is a topic for debate.

As for me, I like Chuck Lorre even more than I did before. (The humor on Two and a Half Men crosses the line a bit too often for my tastes - this season there doesn't even seem to be an attempt at subtlety in the myriad sex jokes - but The Big Bang Theory is brilliant. Of course, I'm a geek.)

Nice video on women's rights in the Middle East

From Honest Reporting Canada:

Is Hamas trying to stop rockets?

Even though the number of rockets from Gaza has accelerated in recent months, there are a number of reports that Hamas is trying to stop them.

The latest evidence is from an internal memo obtained by the anti-Hamas Palestine Press Agency that apparently shows a Hamas police directive to find rocket launchers and stop all rocket attacks against Israel, saying it is a severe violation of the law:

GANSO reports that Hamas police did discover and stop one rocket attack, on February 10th, from central Gaza. None of the recent rocket attacks have been claimed by Hamas.

One interesting incident mentioned in that same report occurred last month, when a test rocket was fired out to sea on February 8th. It is unclear if that was Hamas or another group. But it is possible that they were testing out a newer Grad rocket, as the rocket that hit Beersheba might have been a new rocket that was manufactured in China.

Is it plausible that the smaller Salafist groups or Islamic Jihad are importing longer-range Grads? Even if so, Hamas is certainly aware of it.

MSM roundup (David G)

From David G:

From NYT:

As Regimes Fall in Arab World, Al Qaeda Sees History Fly By

Scott Shane interviews Paul Pillar, Brian Fishman (from the New America Foundation), Steven Simon, Michael Scheuer and Christopher Boucek (from the Carnegie Endowment for Peace) for this news analysis.

The article is tailored to promote a view such as:

“These uprisings have shown that the new generation is not terribly interested in Al Qaeda’s ideology,” Mr. Simon said. He called the Zawahri statements “forlorn, if not pathetic.”

From what I read, Scheuer is the voice of reason. *gasp* (EoZ: Here's a video of Scheuer going on an anti-Zionist and cirtually anti-semitic rant on C-SPAN)

Mr. Scheuer says he believes that Americans, including many experts, have wildly misjudged the uprisings by focusing on the secular, English-speaking, Westernized protesters who are a natural draw for television. Thousands of Islamists have been released from prisons in Egypt alone, and the ouster of Al Qaeda’s enemy, Mr. Mubarak, will help revitalize every stripe of Islamism, including that of Al Qaeda and its allies, he said.

Boaz Ganor in the Jerusalem Post wrote

The revolutions and US euphoria

Talhami points out that it is still too early to tell where the Egyptian revolution is headed, but claims one conclusion is evident – this is Osama bin Laden’s nightmare, since peaceful masses, not the murder of innocents, overthrew the regime.

The loser is therefore al-Qaida, since it has tried to convince the Muslim masses that the only way to fulfill their ambitions is through violence.

This argument reflects an erroneous understanding of the essence and goals of al-Qaida. This terrorist organization, like most others, is not merely a group of bloodthirsty madmen who commit violence for violence’s sake. Al- Qaida carries out terror attacks to advance its religious-ideological goal – the foundation of a global Islamic caliphate governed by Shari’a. If the Egyptian process will eventually lead to an Iran-like state, al-Qaida will have gained greatly.

The assumption that the loser is al- Qaida may lead to the erroneous conclusion that the winner is the bloc opposing al-Qaida – the Western nations led by the US. Such a victory may yet prove to be Pyrrhic.

This is similar (though the particulars are different) to what Barry Rubin's written recently about the need to be realistic not optimistic.

The Times article is marked by that optimism. True it's a great story. Millions of disenfranchised people across the region bring down entrenched autocrats using little more than Facebook. With the Facebook angle it is a great story for this era. The bonus of defeating the terrorists would be a wonderfully happy ending. Too bad that real life doesn't always follow a Hollywood plot line.

For what it's worth another writer for the Times does present the only fly in the ointment. Not surprisingly Roger Cohen sees Israel as a possible obstacle to the democratic paradise emerging in the Middle East.

Evoking Emerson Lake and Palmer, Cohen wrote a Paean to President Obama, Oh What a Lucky Man.

(Does Cohen even understand the song? It's about a man of war, not the man of peace he is portraying.)

In one case, Cohen channels his inner Walt and Mearsheimer.

By contrast, the American right has found itself tied up in knots, wondering how to disentangle the words “freedom” and “Arab,” the first demanding its hard-wired allegiance, the second demanding its Israel-dictated skepticism. Pity the poor Republican newbies, once so full of certainties, confronted by a nuanced world.

Why is the skepticism "Israel-dictated?" One would think that the return of Yousef al Qaradawi to huge crowds, the new smuggling into Gaza or increased persecution of Copts as reasons for skepticism about the direction of Egypt revolution. Instead Cohen turns to the first refuge of the foreign policy scoundrel and blames Israel.

Later Cohen writes:

How can the West help forge the new regional safe house of emergent Arab democracies? Obama must bring the best minds to bear on that question and a related one: How to coax Israel from its paralyzing siege mentality into seizing this moment to seek peace?

"Siege mentality?" Israel negotiated with Arafat granting him land, arms and legitimacy while he encouraged terrorism. Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon only to see Hezbollah increase its influence and power and then saw the same thing happen when it withdrew from Gaza with Hamas. Now the major players in Egypt have made it clear that they view the peace treaty with Israel as a negative for their country. This isn't a "mentality" it's experience.

There's a lot more in Cohen's absurd op-ed. I'll leave it to others to fisk as an exercise.

Over at the Washington Post...The editors have questions, and they're pretty happy with the answers.

The Arab revolution swells

THREE QUESTIONS have driven discussion of the ongoing Arab revolt and how the United States should respond to it. Can it spread to all of the Arab states, including seemingly stable kingdoms, such as Saudi Arabia, and the most repressive police states, such as Syria? Can it be stopped with violence by regimes more ruthless than those of Tunisia and Egypt? And can entrenched power structures succeed in limiting the amount of change, through bribes or negotiation?

The answers are not yet in - but so far, the trends point toward a "no" to all three questions. That's an exciting prospect for supporters of democracy, above all young Arabs who yearn for their countries to refound themselves. But it also means more instabilility ahead in the region, along with some hard choices for the United States.

Richard Cohen (more and more he makes sense, what's happened?) has a different question. More importantly his question is based on history, and isn't asked (and answered) in a vacuum.

Can the Arab world leave anti-Semitism behind?

During World War II, the leader of the Palestinians lived in a Berlin villa, a gift from a very grateful Adolf Hitler, who clearly got his money's worth. Haj Amin al-Husseini, the grand mufti of Jerusalem and as such the titular leader of Muslim Palestinians, broadcast Nazi propaganda to the Middle East, recruited European Muslims for the SS, exulted in the Holocaust and after the war went on to represent his people in the Arab League. He died somewhat ignored but never repudiated.

Husseini might have been a Nazi to his very soul, but he was also a Palestinian nationalist with genuine support among his own people. The Allies originally considered him a war criminal, but to many Arabs, he was just a patriot. His exterminationist anti-Semitism was considered neither overly repugnant nor all that exceptional. The Arab world is saturated by Jew-hatred.

Some of this hatred was planted by Husseini and some of it long existed, but whatever the case, it remains a remarkable, if unremarked, feature of Arab nationalism. The other day, for instance, about 1 million Egyptians in Tahrir Square heard from Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, an esteemed religious leader and Muslim Brotherhood figure whose anti-Semitic credentials are unimpeachable. Among other things, he has said that Hitler was sent by Allah as "divine punishment" for the Jews. His al-Jazeera program is one of that TV network's most popular.