Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Tuesday, October 14, 2014

U of Manchester to decide whether to extend "twinning" with jihadist university

In 2007, University of Manchester students voted to "twin" with An Najah University of Ramallah, a hotbed of Hamas terrorism.

Already at that time An Najah had hosted an exhibition celebrating the Sbarro's pizza shop suicide bombing.

Has the twinning made An Najah more peaceful and supportive of a two-state solution? Of course not.

Here are some of the stories I've reported about An Najah University since then:

Professors from the school presented at a conference celebrating the poetry of Moammar Qaddafi,
One professor posted some antisemitic material on his own website.
One of their lecturers went on TV to say that Moses led Muslims out of Egypt to liberate Palestine.
Another of their professors, a "human rights" activist, posted a celebration of a Hamas terrorist on his Facebook page.

Also:

Students at he university held a violent protest to stop the US consul from even visiting. Ironically, when security pushed back, the complained about their freedom of speech being violated.
Their Islamic Bloc student organization openly supports Hamas terror. Their logo is to the left.
That same pro-Hamas bloc gained 33 seats on the student council last year, a little behind Fatah.
Here is a video that the Hamas bloc released of students who were "martyred." Notice how many of them have guns.

The header on the school's Islamic Bloc Facebook page celebrates the kidnappers and murderers of the three Israeli teens.

TStarting this Friday, the students of Manchester will vote whether to extend their partnership with a university that has been the source and cheerleader of numerous terror attacks. It will also allow them to keep this only political poster visible in the Student Union building.

There is a (small) chance to defeat the motion to extend the partnership between Manchestor and Najah Terror U. The Jewish student association would prefer a three way partnership with a different Palestinian school, an Israeli university and Manchester. They also want this incendiary sign to be removed.

Let's hope that the students will choose co-existence over supporting terror.

10/14 Links Pt1: How the Donors Saved Hamas; So The Aye's Have It: Another British Betrayal

From Ian:

Khaled Abu Toameh: How the Donors Saved Hamas

Rebuilding or repairing infrastructure in the Gaza Strip is the best thing that could have happened to Hamas. Hamas knows that every dollar invested in the Gaza Strip will serve the interests of the Islamist movement. The promised funds absolve Hamas of all responsibility for the catastrophe it brought upon the Palestinians during the confrontation with Israel.
Hamas will now use its own resources to smuggle in additional weapons and prepare for the next war with Israel. Hamas can now go back to digging new tunnels and obtaining new weapons instead of assisting the Palestinians whose homes were destroyed as a result of its actions.
The biggest mistake the donor states made was failing to demand the disarmament of Hamas as a precondition for funneling aid to the Gaza Strip. Hopes that the catastrophic results of the confrontation would increase pressure on Hamas, or perhaps trigger a revolt against it, have faded.

Caroline Glick: Benny Gantz’s troubling assessments

The Left has followed Gantz’s lead and attacked the government for not opening Gaza’s borders and even participating in the Cairo conference.
But again, reality tells a different tale.
Israel has nothing to gain from participating in a Hamas funding drive.
It does however have an interest in influencing the international agenda. To do so, the most basic requirement for the government is to reject the lie that Israel is to blame for Hamas’s aggression. Israel’s leaders – elected and appointed – need to internalize the fact that the war this summer, like all previous acts of Hamas aggression against Israel stemmed not from privation and hopelessness, but from empowerment and hopefulness.
Hamas doesn’t attack Israel because it needs money. It attacks Israel because doing so empowers it and weakens Israel – as we saw in Cairo on Sunday.
Unfortunately, for as long as our unelected professional class is led by men who have internalized our enemies’ narratives, there is no way that Israel can act on these basic strategic truths regardless of whom voters elect. And as a result, we shall continue to witness our soldiers’ hard won victories being squandered by our leaders – in and out of uniform.

JPost Editorial: The Temple Mount

Instead of enforcing the law and protecting the rights of Jews and non-Jews to have access to the Temple Mount, the police caved in to the extremists.
The implication is that Jews who demand to exercise their right to visit the Temple Mount are to be held accountable for the violence committed by Muslim rioters. This line of thinking relieves rioters of responsibility for their actions and places the blame for their crimes on others.
But the fact remains that when someone instigates something, he or she intends for it to happen. If it is a riot, that person has fomented it. If it is murder, that person has colluded in it. People with free will orchestrated the rioting on the Temple Mount. No one forced them to behave the way they did.
By accepting the reasoning that Jewish visitors to the Temple Mount cause unrest and riots, police are essentially blaming the victim. It is similar to the argument Muslim extremists sometimes make that when women will not wear the veil, they provoke those who rape or disfigure them.
Backing down to religious fanatics leads to a number of bad, and potentially destructive, outcomes. Perhaps the most insidious is the abandonment of Western values in the face of threats from extremists who, if we let them, will send us all back to a medieval society based not on freedom but on religious fundamentalism.
In a way, religious extremists perform an important function. They challenge our core Western values and force us to stand up for what we too often take for granted.
We forget that much blood was spilled in the fight for these rights.

Melanie Phillips: Recognising Palestine won’t promote peace

Palestine has become the progressive cause of causes through an effective, decades-long campaign to twist western minds. It was Yassir Arafat who, in the 1970s, started to reframe the Palestinian Arabs as freedom fighters on the historically illiterate claim that they were the original inhabitants of the land.
Yet the Jews are the only people for whom Israel was ever their national kingdom, centuries before Islam invaded. Contrary to general assumption, the occupation and the settlements are legal, upheld both by the international law of defence against persistent belligerents and the unabrogated treaty obligations of the British Mandate for Palestine.
That will surprise many. For no other conflict has ever been so misreported and misrepresented; no other victims of a century of annihilatory aggression have been so demonised and delegitimised.
Last summer’s media coverage of the Gaza war, which caused a huge outbreak of anti-Jewish hatred, uncritically transmitted the Hamas falsehood that the vast majority of casualties were civilians. Analysis by Israel’s Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Centre shows that 49 per cent of fatalities were terrorists and 51 per cent civilians, a far lower civilian toll than in other wars.
Israel is the West’s one ally in the Middle East and is essential to British intelligence and military security. Passing today’s motion won’t itself change anything. But as a propaganda stunt, its capacity to do harm is immense. It will turn parliament into a human shield for Palestinian rejectionism, help to weaken and endanger Israel and incentivise yet more Palestinian hatred, mass murder and war.
In security terms, passing this motion would be an act of national self-harm. It would also be a moral stain on parliament and place Britain on the wrong side in the great battle for civilisation.

Some of the absurd anti-Israel arguments in British parliament

Yesterday, the British parliament voted in a symbolic gesture to recognize Palestine as a state.

Here are some of the more ridiculous things said during yesterday's debate in British Parliament:

Andrew Bridgen: Does my hon. Friend agree that, given that the political system of the world’s superpower and our great ally the United States is very susceptible to well-funded powerful lobbying groups and the power of the Jewish lobby in America, it falls to this country and to this House to be the good but critical friend that Israel needs, and this motion tonight just might lift that logjam on this very troubled area?

Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab): I call on right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House to give the Palestinians their rights and show the Israelis that they cannot suppress another people all the time. It is not Jewish for the Israelis to do that. They are harming the image of Judaism, and terrible outbreaks of anti-Semitism are taking place. I want to see an end to anti-Semitism, and I want to see a Palestinian state.

Mike Wood (Batley and Spen) (Lab):We have to grapple with the issue of what will happen if there are not two states. What does the one-state solution look like? We are told that the majority of the present Israeli Administration no longer accept a two-state solution. Mr Netanyahu has suddenly become a rather centrist pragmatist, holding together a coalition, many of whom are to the right of him, in wanting a one-state solution. Do they accept the genocide and ethnic cleansing that go along with that?

The situation is far worse than that in apartheid South Africa, which has been mentioned. It has been regularly referred to as a parallel to what is going on in Palestine, but the situation in Palestine is much worse than apartheid. The white junta in South Africa accepted that somewhere in the country—preferably not near them —there would be land for black people. It was the worst possible land and a long way from the ruling white group, but none the less the junta accepted that there would be a place for the blacks. A one-state solution in Israel does not accept such a thing. There is no place in Israel and Palestine for the Palestinians. We have to face squarely what that means and so do the Israelis.

...What Israel is looking at in a one-state solution is a continuation, year after year, of war and violence such as we have seen building in the past 20 years. The Israelis have just finished a third incursion into Gaza in 10 years. Are we suggesting that every two years another 1,500 people should be killed and another 100,000 people rendered homeless as a continuation of the process of driving everybody who is not Jewish out of what is considered to be greater Israel?

Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD):I support the motion for many reasons, but I will state three. First, for the Palestinians to turn away from the men of violence, they need hope, and this motion represents a degree of hope for them. Much is made of the failure of Hamas to recognise Israel, and we know about that, but let us imagine the sense of despair that ordinary Palestinians must feel at the failure of the international community to recognise their right to exist. My tweet on the firing of rockets out of Gaza and the previous comments by Baroness Tonge were never, of course, condoning terrorist acts by Palestinians; they were simply our recognition of the despair and sense of hopelessness that leads to terrorism.

Secondly, Israel is in breach of the contract set out in the Balfour declaration stating that

“nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”.

In the light of the Nakba and everything since, that seems like a sick joke. The failure of the international community to recognise the state of Palestine has helped Israel to ignore this commitment.

Thirdly, on a personal note, this Sunday at Eden Camp in north Yorkshire there will be a gathering of the Palestine veterans. They will parade at 1 o’clock, but many of them will not be able to walk very far, if at all—they are all over the age of 80. They went to that land in 1945 as a peacekeeping force, but lost over 700 members of the armed forces and 200 police. I believe that we owe it to them for tonight’s motion to succeed. Many were not conscripts; many were veterans of Arnhem, Normandy and Bergen-Belsen. Many felt, and still feel, betrayed by Israel and question the sacrifice that so many of their colleagues made. If this vote on recognising the right of Palestinians is won, they will very much welcome it, but it has been so long in coming.

On that last point, Great Britain tried very hard in 1947 and 1948 to ensure that Israel would never exist.

Alastair Sloan has written for The Guardian, The Independent, The Evening Standard and the Huffington Post. But to see how he really thinks, you need to check out his latest article at Middle East Monitor:

[W]e are ignoring the bigger problem. The crux of bringing the Israeli hawks to heel isn't so much about corporate investments – it's about political money, dripping from the campaign coffers of Western politicians bribed and briefed by Jerusalem cronies.

The funding is mysterious, ambiguous and seemingly unimpeachable, protected by anti-Semitism laws which forbid honest discussion of it, or by hasbara attack dogs who discredit any journalist or academic who speaks out.

But imagine the tabloid outcry if hundreds of millions in "Muslim" donations began pouring in to Western politics, Muslims with strong interests in the domestic or foreign policies of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or Iran.

You don't have to imagine – last month Qatar, the United Arab Emirates (and Norway) were caught funding influential foreign policy think tanks in Washington. And there was an outcry.

But many feel uncomfortable taking on the Israeli lobby – because it's scary. It comes with great risk – people have lost their jobs, careers and reputations. Nobody likes to be labelled an anti-Semite, which is their preferred mode of attack.

I'm unaware of any antisemitism laws that are used to keep donations to politicians secret when they come from Jews. But let's set aside Sloan's tenuous grasp of the truth for now.

Sloan is saying that there is a mysterious powerful Jewish cabal that secretly controls Western governments and media and forces them to do the nefarious will of the Zionists against their own best interests. He is so scared of it himself that he cannot bring himself to say the word "Jewish," but his audience knows very well what he means. "Jerusalem cronies," wink-wink.

But if I point that out, by using his own words, he says I'm a "hasbara attack dog" who is trying to silence him!

No, Mr. Sloan, I am not trying to silence you. On the contrary. I'm very happy that Middle East Monitor exists and publishes your hateful screeds. Because it provides a venue for Jew-haters like you to reveal your true feelings, feelings that you wouldn't dream of writing about in more mainstream media.

Thanks to fringe media like these, we now know that your carefully constructed anti-Israel arguments you publish in those other venues are really your trying to put a fig leaf on your hate. Your toxic feelings aren't a result of anything Israel does; your hate for Israel is a result of your bias against Jews that you have revealed so neatly here, for everyone to see.

No, Alastair, keep spewing your hate. Keep writing for MEMO, so we can point your own words out to your editors the next time you write for The Independent or HuffPo. They need to have full information about the writers they promote, don't you agree?

Free speech is a wonderful thing. That;'s why you chose to write this, and that's why I choose to reveal it to the people who don't read anti-Israel propaganda sites.

(h/t Lawrence)

Palestinians flip their allegiances: Gaza prefers Fatah, WB prefers Hamas

A new poll by the Arab World for Research and Development shows that support for Hamas is evaporating in Gaza - but strengthening in the West Bank. And support for the PA-led "unity government" that the world is pretending will save the Palestinian Arabs is disappearing in the West Bank.

The West Bank-Gaza divide on internal political issues is deepening. The present poll confirms a trend that has emerged over the past five years. The Gaza public appears to be growing increasingly disillusioned and unhappy with the Hamas administration; while in the West Bank the public is becoming similarly disillusioned and unhappy with the Palestinian Authority, led by Abbas and Fatah. Over the past several years, AWRAD’s public opinion data has been confirming these developments in what appears to be a classic case of ‘the grass is always greener on the other side’ mentality. The following results are indicative of this situation:

1) If a unified Fatah list runs for election in Gaza, it would win in a landslide:

Hamas is less trusted than Fatah by 53 percent among Gazans. 33 percent of Gazans hold the opposite view.

The present poll shows that Fatah’s support in Gaza is at 42 percent, compared to Hamas support of 27 percent.

Only 21 percent of Gazans are undecided or will not vote, indicating that the results of a future election are less vulnerable to the voting patterns of independent and ambivalent constituencies.

2) If Hamas runs in the West Bank, it could seriously challenge Fatah:

Fatah is less trusted than Hamas among 40 percent of West Bank respondents, while Hamas is less trusted than Fatah among 28 percent of West Bank respondents.

The present poll shows that Hamas’ popularity in the West Bank is 27 percent, equal to that of Fatah.

38 percent of West Bank respondents are undecided or will not vote, indicating that the results of a future election are highly vulnerable to the voting patterns of independent and ambivalent constituencies.

3) Abbas is more popular in Gaza while Haniyeh polls better in the West Bank:

Abbas receives the support of 49 percent of Gazans, while Haniyeh receives 26 percent.

Abbas receives the support of 31 percent of the West Bank, while Haniyeh receives 33 percent

In a hypothetical Abbas-Haniyeh contest, 25 percent of Gazans and 36 percent of West Bank respondents are undecided or will not vote, making President Abbas even more vulnerable in the West Bank in a race with Haniyeh.

4) A majority in Gaza want a Hamdallah-led government; much less support in the West Bank:

50 percent of Gazans prefer a Hamdallah-led government and only 24 percent prefer a Haniyeh-led government to run their region.

The pattern is the opposite in the West Bank where 35 percent prefer a Haniyeh-led government and 29 percent prefer a Hamdallah-led government.

More amazing footage of Muslims attacking Israeli police on Temple Mount

I showed a brief clip Monday morning of Muslims shooting small rockets at Israeli forces from inside the Al Aqsa Mosque.

Here's video from the Israeli side, showing a huge number of incendiary devices and rocks - clearly stockpiled in the "holy site" - being shot and hurled at the police.

At the end, you can see the wild-eyed violent Jewish settlers storming the Mount and intimidating Muslims with their Talmudic rituals.

Oh, sorry - it looks more like a few peaceful Jews taking a stroll. But Arab media uses the other terminology consistently, so much so that the obvious lies are widely believed throughout the Muslim world.

10/13 Links Pt2: Syrian Jewish family smuggled to Israel; Rashid Khalidi Bashes J Street's Activism

From Ian:

Syrian Jewish family said smuggled to Israel

A Jewish family from Syria was secretly smuggled into Israel several months ago with the aid of a network of Israeli businesspeople and has begun a new life in the Jewish state, according to a Monday report.
The family, one of the few remaining Jewish families in Syria, arrived in Israel “with nothing,” according to a Netanya businessman who helped them immigrate, Army Radio reported.
“In the first stage, the mother and daughter arrived, then the whole family came,” the businessman, identified only as David, told the station. The family arrived with no possessions, so “we donated to help them with everything they needed… we did our best to help them in their acclimation to Israel,” David added.
The businessman is part of a network of Israelis of Syrian origin who helped the family. MK Yisrael Hason of Kadima, who was born in Damascus and came to Israel at age seven, is part of the group. MK Shaul Mofaz of Kadima, who was born in Iran, hosted the Syrian family in his sukkah on Sunday.

Israelis and Palestinians join forces to combat Ebola

Israeli and Palestinian officials met at the weekend to draw up an action plan to prevent the Ebola epidemic from spreading to the territories they control, the Israeli military said Sunday.
"During the meeting (on Saturday evening), updates were exchanged between the parties, and transfer of information was agreed upon by way of additional meetings to take place in order to further track the issue," said COGAT, the defence ministry unit responsible for Palestinian civilian coordination.
One proposal to combat the disease was for Israel to provide courses in advanced epidemiology for Palestinian and Jordanian medical staff, a health ministry official said on condition of anonymity.

Rashid Khalidi Bashes J Street's Activism

Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, well-known for his anti-Israel rhetoric, slammed J Street, an organization which claims to be pro-Israel, for failing to adequately oppose Israel's military actions in Gaza during Operation Protective Edge.
Speaking at the "Open Hillel" conference, Khalidi said that J Street "needs more radical critique...if it wants real change,"Jeremy Pressman wrote on Twitter. One Jewish Voice for Peace activist noted that Khalidi stated to J Street that "if u [sic] call Israel's attacks on Gaza 'self defense' you can't be agents of change." Khalidi's remarks were met with strong applause.
Over the summer, Israel was forced to defend itself from over 3,000 rockets fired by Hamas, an internationally recognized terrorist organization, which has been in control of the Gaza Strip since 2007.
According to one attendee, J Street U members in attendance huddled together at the conclusion of the speech, were "visibly upset" and could be overheard reassuring each other not to worry about Khalidi's demands. (h/t MtTB)

Hamas newspaper Felesteen has an article by Professor Saleh Alrqub, a senior Hamas figure as well as a Muslim Brotherhood leader, where he explains exactly why Jews are so evil.

Some highlights:

The destruction in Gaza was the worst the world has seen since World War II.

Any researcher of Jewish psychology will easily realize that the culture and education of the Biblical racism created the aggressiveness of the Jewish character of Israel towards others, including Palestinians and Arabs, it is religious heritage (Jewish Torah and Talmud) that inspires the aggressive spirit that leads them to commit massacres.

The Jewish Bible in Samuel I says that God commanded Jews to kill Amalek, and all Palestinians.

To Jews, war means the brutal extermination and murder of children and infants, women and men, and killing animals and burning crops and vineyards.

Well, he didn't say that Jews drink children's blood, so he must be one of those moderates we've been hearing about.

I found this document, titled "The historical development of human rights throughout history," at an UNRWA Arabic website dedicated to human rights.

It goes through the human rights postures of a number of civilizations, from ancient times to today. It is dated June 2014.

Here is what it says about human rights in Judaism:

Judaism is a heavenly religion revealed to the Prophet of Allah Musa [Moses], peace be upon him, included human rights through its focus on the goal of liberating the individual and the community. The right to freedom from oppression is a supreme value highlighted in Jewish holy books (Rashidi: 2005: 60). The commandments of Moses, peace be upon him, include prohibiting murder, adultery and theft.

But if we look around us at communities supposedly protecting human rights and at well-known oases of democracy we do not see [human rights] but instead charges that the victim was a terrorist or supporter of terrorism, and also pornography justified freely as rights. We see monopoly and fraud justified by the right of ownership and earnings in any form (Mokbel: 2005: 5) All of this happened as a result of distortion and misinformation by the Jewish clergy. The Jews in the sixth and seventh centuries promoted social corruption (1981: 39), and the claim that they are God's chosen people demonstrates that the Jews did not know anything about human rights.

Of course, it has nothing bad to say about human rights in Islam.

I cannot tell if this is an official UNRWA curriculum or if it is merely considered good enough to be posted on the UNRWA human rights website as reference material. The author appears to be an UNRWA human rights instructor, so it seem likely that this is being taught, today, in UNRWA schools.

The last time I pointed out that UNRWA Arabic websites included things that were clearly against UN principles, the sites were quietly removed without UNRWA admitting anything. On the contrary; UNRWA still insists that it is a liberal organization that supports human rights and does not teach hate.

Let's see what happens this time.

10/13 Links Pt1: Rebuilding Gaza is rebuilding terrorism; The defender of the beheaders

From Ian:

Rebuilding Gaza is rebuilding terrorism

If someone could promise us that the money would help the citizens of Gaza, I might even have sent over my own modest donation. After all, "Far better a neighbor that is near than a brother far off" (Proverbs 27:10). But with Hamas still in the picture, and Abbas competing with Haniyeh over who is more extreme in his policies on Israel in order to win the hearts of Gazan voters, it is clear that the donor conference is not going to build a new Middle East, or even a new Gaza.
It is difficult for the world to grasp that Israel has its own sizeable interest in Gazans having good lives, because we are close by, and when a Gazan sneezes, we have to blow our noses, and vice versa. This is not the case with the British, the Russians, the French or the Koreans.
$4 billion for the residents of Gaza? Yes. $4 billion for Hamas terrorists? No. If only naivete could be bought with money. What will we do when we run out of that commodity?

Ben-Dror Yemini: The defender of the beheaders

To get to the crux of the matter in just a few words: Rimon-Or bases her support for the Islamic State murderers on the claim that they are only responding to the misdeeds of the Americans, who are killing a lot more people with their tools of destruction – and "the more primitive and vulgar means" of the Jihad are nothing compared to that.
Before any of her students adopt this pseudo-sophisticated nonsense, one should remind them that the thousands who are being murdered in the name of Jihad in general, and the Islamic States' victims in particular, are in fact Muslims and Arabs. Only a handful are Westerners. But that's enough for her. Because the postcolonial school of thought is essentially racist.
It absolves "the others" of any responsibility. It rants and raves about the fact that two or three Westerners have been murdered. It turns the Jihad into an entity concerned with protest or the righting of social wrongs. It disregards the mass-murder festival. It ignores the fact that girls and women are being turned into sex slaves.
Whether any of that is of interest to her is doubtful. Rimon-Or, like many of her fellow followers of the same school of thought, is stuck like a scratched record in an anti-colonial model that has long since lost touch with reality. And the truth of the matter is that all the Jihad offshoots, from Boko Haram and through to the Taliban, operate with the same degree of barbarity, with or without Americans or Zionists in the vicinity. The Jihad groups perpetrate massacres against blacks and Muslims after all.

Palestinian Al-Aksa Mosque preacher to NATO’s Arab partners: Kill the Jews instead.

It is sentiments like these that persist not just throughout Hamas but throughout the more respected Palestinian Authority of Mahmoud Abbas.
Here is a clip that was broadcast on Palestinian Authority television in which the PA Mufti of Jerusalem Muhammad Hussein urges his followers to kill Jews.
So are our own Parliamentarians really going to vote to recognise “a state of Palestine” that has religious leaders and an official television network that propagates the message that Jews should be murdered?
If that is today’s outcome then Britain’s Parliament should hang its head in shame.

Palestinian Preacher Criticizes Int'l Coalition against ISIS in Impromptu Al-Aqsa Mosque Address

Jordan warns that allowing Jews to visit the Temple Mount can lead to a "religious war"

Here's the sequence of events on any random day:

Jews want to peacefully visit their holiest site.
Muslims start riots to stop Jews from visiting their holiest site.
Israeli police stop the Muslim rioters and protect the Jews.
The Muslims attack the police.
The police ban Muslims of fighting age from going to the site.
Muslims complain to the international community that they are being banned from their holy sites.
The media reports that there are "clashes" at the Al Aqsa Mosque.

Never, and I mean never, does anyone suggest that if Muslims simply allow Jews to visit the site - and even to say some quiet prayers - that there would be no police, no disruptions, no riots, no reactions and no limits on who can go there.

Instead, the Muslim world rushes to defend their supreme intolerance for the Jewish religion, and there isn't the slightest amount of shame for them doing so publicly. even worse, not a single "human rights" organization defends the Jews' right to their holy spots.

Today's example from Jordanian English-language media:

Jordan affirmed on Monday that it will take prompt action against any Israeli escalation against the holy place in occupied Jerusalem, Minister of State for Media Affairs and Communications Mohammed Al Momani said.

Momani, who is also the government spokesman, affirmed that the "Jordan will take the needed political and legal measures to end the seizure against Al Aqsa Mosque and push Israel to commit to the peace agreement." The alternative, Momani warned, "will be more extremism and seditions that could trigger a religious war in the region." Further, the minister condemned the ongoing Israeli aggressions against Arab Jeruselmites and the Al Aqsa Mosque. "These aggressions constitute a flagrant violation against Jordan and a breach of heavenly religions and international norms," the minister affirmed.

The spokesman deplored the Israeli occupation forces' attacks against worshippers, mostly elderly people, at the Al Aqsa Mosque, and their action of arresting some of them. Momani also denounced the storming of the Al Aqsa Mosque's yards earlier today and use of force to vacate the mosque of the worshippers to allow settlers to break into the holy place.

The minister, meanwhile, condemned the Israeli forces' use of stun grenades and tearbombs against worshippers as well as they action of smashing the windows of the mosque in order to ensure that the shrine is vacated.

Here are the "elderly" people shooting small rockets at Israelis from inside the mosque today.

NPR's "On the Media" hosted a discussion of media coverage of Israel:

On the heels of this summer's war in Gaza, Jerusalem-based journalist Matti Friedman published an essay in Tablet magazine titled “An Insider’s Guide to the Most Important Story on Earth.” Drawing from his experience as a reporter and editor for the AP’s Jerusalem bureau from 2006 to 2011, Matti argues that the western press is far too focused on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and that its framing distorts our perceptions of Israel. New York Timesdeputy national editor Ethan Bronner, who covered Israel-Palestine in the eighties for Reuters, in the nineties for theBoston Globe, and for the Times as Jerusalem bureau chief from 2008 to 2012, sees the coverage of the conflict in notably different ways. Brooke moderates a debate between Ethan and Matti.

You can hear it here.

Some highlights:

MATTI FRIEDMAN: As for the America's friendship with Israel, it's undeniable of course. But, for example, America has 30,000 servicemen in South Korea, and those are American citizens who are supposed to die to protect a foreign country from attack and I would argue that is a commitment exponentially more significant than the US commitment to Israel, and yet if there has been obsessive South Korea coverage, I've missed it. I think the friendship argument is true in part but it's not enough to explain the phenomenon. There's certainly a huge amount of interest in this place because of its historical connotations, but the kind of coverage we're seeing here is not massive coverage of Biblical archeology or religion. What we're seeing is extremely critical of the actions of the Israeli government and I would argue that this interest in the Holy Land I think that there's a very thin line between that and the development of a hostile obsession with the moral failings of Jews which as we know is a very deep thought pattern in the West.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: You have both made a distinction between the coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the European press and the American press. Ethan, how would you describe the difference? And then Matty.

ETHAN BRONNER: Broadly speaking, I would say that in the United States, coverage of Israel takes as a given that it is a legitimate country, that it has problems, that it has issues, that relations with its neighbors and Palestinians need to be written about, but the core question of whether Israel is a legitimate country is not asked over and over. I would say that much of European coverage gets to the question of the legitimacy of Israel as a project from the beginning and questions it. I also would say that American media coverage of Israel tends to explore Israeli society not necessarily all in a bad way, and take it seriously as a culture and as a society and that's much less true in Europe.

MATTI FRIEDMAN: I think Ethan's right. I think there's more poisonous press coverage in Europe. But I think that the difference between American and European coverage has eroded, that's been my experience. I think that you have a press corps here and it's a social group, people know each other, people move between the organizations. If we look at the Gaza coverage from the last summer, I don't think you'll see a lot of difference between coverage in the States, in the mainstream media organization and in Europe.

ETHAN BRONNER: The truth is that the coverage I've seen most closely is that of the New York Times, I haven't examined that of others, but I would say, that the New York Times coverage of whether the victims were civilians or fighters quite seriously. The notion that Hamas operates from among civilian buildings and organizations was repeated frequently in the coverage so it may be true that the locals who move between Reuters and AP are not very different, but I do think that the outlook of the organization is different. A colleague of mine from Britain who came through who wanted to write a story of the evolution of the Hebrew language told me that his newspaper said, we have no interest in this at all, you're there to cover the conflict. And that is never something that an editor would tell a reporter in Israel.

MATTI FRIEDMAN: I think the New York Times's coverage of Gaza this summer was one-sided. We saw photographs of Israeli soldiers and Israeli tanks and dead Palestinian civilians. The story that Hamas wants to be told out of Gaza is that there are no Hamas fighters. That there is no Hamas strategy and that all the dead are civilians and that is the story that media organizations including the New York Times told this summer.

ETHAN BRONNER: With regard to pictures of fighters in Gaza, first of all I don't think it's true that Hamas would like the world to think that it doesn't have fighters. I'm certain that that's not the message that they want to get out. What did happen in this war, as happened in '08-'09 and in '12 is that when the war begins, Hamas goes underground, and they're actually impossible to find. When the journalists were crossing the border from Israel, there weren't even Hamas guys to stamp their passports as there typically are. The idea that journalists in Gaza were not taking pictures because they either didn't want to send the message that there were fighters or they were afraid of the fighters I think is a misunderstanding of what happens when you operate underground in Gaza in a conflict.

MATTI FRIEDMAN: I think that would be true if we didn't have examples of reporters who did.

ETHAN BRONNER: We have very few Matty we have like four, four moments because they're rare to find, it's not because everybody else is turning away from it.

MATTI FRIEDMAN: I think one of the most striking images that came out of Gaza this summer was shot by a Indian TV crew and you can find it on YouTube. They saw in the middle of the day, Hamas crew setting up a rocket outside of their hotel. So how did these intrepid Indian journalists get this great footage?

ETHAN BRONNER: They weren't intrepid they were lucky.

MATTI FRIEDMAN: If some of the 700 reporters I think who arrived in Gaza to cover the conflict had their eyes perhaps a bit more open we would've seen more images like that. But of course the reporters in Gaza are there to report a very simple story, they're reporting a story of Israeli aggression against civilians. So they won't show things that contradict the story and they will accept the Hamas death toll and pass it on to their readers as fact, which the New York Times did too.

Friedman is, of course, correct - and the Indian reporter who broke that story says it explicitly:The reporters in the area witnessed a rocket being shot from that exact same spot, in the middle of the hotels that they were staying in, a few days earlier. They knew quite well that it was going to happen again. But they self-censored out of fear of Hamas. (Even the NDTV reporter waited until he was out of Gaza to release the video.)

Bronner is engaging in CYA journalism, not in objectively looking at how his fellow reporters do their jobs.

To see the devastating truth about how skewed the NYT coverage was of Gaza, just re-read this scathing piece by Richard Behar. Friedman's great but he didn't analyze the NYT coverage the way Behar did, and no one can refute what Behar wrote.

(h/t EBoZ)