Tuesday, September 30, 2014



Why I Had Enough With The Damn Lies About Israel! A Very Politically INCORRECT Post! 2d copy/w video links
http://www.jewishpress.com/blogs/israel-shield/why-i-had-enough-with-the-damn-lies-about-israel-a-very-politically-incorrect-post/2014/09/30/0/?print



Published: September 30th, 2014
Definition-Apartheid.jpg

I am so sick and tired of all the lies and propaganda against Israel. I have had it and it is time to expose and debunk them!

The truth is, I have no clue why anyone with a soul or a brain would possibly choose to support those that Israel is fighting. Is it Israel that has been responsible for multiple hijackings over the past 50 years? Have the Jews blown up buildings or threatened Western society in any way? Does Israel have an ideology to take over the world or implement Jewish law over the White House?

lies+about+israel.jpg

In fact the only thing Israel has given the world is good! I am not talking only in the moral sense of the word but actual contributions that came out of Israel. Whether it be technology or medical, Israel has been at the forefront on innovation.

See:  Made in Israel -- Medicine  11:36
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20Zfk8uQXak#t=14





When it comes to Nobel Peace Prizes, Israel towers over ALL Islamic regimes and ALL Arab countries combined! There are over 1.4 billion Muslims in the world and around 13 million Jews. There have been over 168 Jewish Nobel Prize winners and only 6 Muslim ones. Israel alone has 12 Nobel Prize winners.

What The HELL Do You Want From ISRAEL? Stop the "occupation"?

STOP THE LIES!

ENOUGH ALREADY!

Israel NEVER in the history of the world occupied an Arab country called Palestine! Palestine was a geographical area that the British governed and NEVER was it an Arab country or national land.

The Romans coined the name Palestine when they occupied Israel from the Jews! So if you are holding the flag of 'give back occupied land', we agree!
SOME FACTS FOR YOUR PROPAGANDA GARBAGE!

In 1948 Arab countries attacked Israel and refused a UN partition plan. (Not Palestinians but Arab countries).  When the war ended there was a ceasefire line. This was not a treaty nor a border, it was simply where and when the Arabs stopped fighting .

armistice_map.gif

Jerusalem, the entire West Bank, Gaza, the Golan heights and all the "territories" the "Palestinians" claim was theirs were in Arab hands, but no Palestine State was declared. Gaza was part of Egypt and the West Bank and Jerusalem were under Jordanian rule while the Golan was part of Syria.

There was not a single inch of land that belonged to an Arab Palestine national entity of any kind, EVER! 

Resolution 242 makes no mention of a Palestinian people and the areas that were "occupied" were occupied from Egypt and Jordan, NOT Palestine! The "Palestinians" have no legal, national or religious claims over the areas they claim were stolen from them.

The Difference Between Israel & Her Neighbors

Take a good hard look at the map of the Middle East and tell me you sincerely believe that Arabs have a right to demand of the small and ONLY Jewish State in the world to relinquish land!

arabwld3.gif

While the majority of Islamic regimes surrounding Israel favor the total destruction of the small Jewish State, Israel's declaration of independence offers Arabs, both Muslims and Christians, full civil and religious rights.

If I had a dollar for every time some troll called Israel an Apartheid State I would be a very wealthy man!

The fact is, Israel has more Arab lawyers, teachers, doctors and even Supreme Court Judges than there are Jews in all the Islamic regimes combined! While Israel has 3

Arab parties in the Israeli Parliament and 20% of Israel's population are Israeli Arabs with FULL rights, there is not a single Islamic regime that offers their own people freedom of anything!


Israeli Arabs have FULL rights 

israeli+arabs.jpg

This is NOT Apartheid!                    

          Apartheid_ad.png



THIS IS!





abbas.jpg



The anti Israel lies have no boundaries. I have heard people compare the situation in Gaza to Nazi Germany. Either the person making that statement has no clue what went on in Nazi Germany or they do and they are flat out evil.

The Jews in Europe were very loyal to the countries they were living in and did not have an ideology to take over any country or destroy Germany. During the tightest weapons blockade in Gaza, 2 malls, one 5-star hotel and a water park were opened up, for God sake! I do not remember my grandparents telling me about them sliding down a water slide in Auschwitz!

See:  The Humanitarian Crisis of the Gaza Mall 1:47
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxaDmAyt84g

 SEE



If the Muslims are already going to mention their friend Hitler, they might want to be reminded of the fact that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was a HUGE fan of the Fuehrer and had big plans for the Jews in the area!

Mufti-Nazi.jpg

What About The Recent War In Gaza?

What about it?! Israel left Gaza in '05 and instead of building a normal society, the Arabs voted in Hamas who shot over 16,000 missiles and rockets at civilian populations in Israel!

ISRAEL FINALLY REACTED AFTER 9 YEARS OF MISSILE FIRE FROM GAZA!

Do not tell me those rockets are ineffective because of our Iron Dome! You don't shoot 16,000 rockets at a civilian population and expect no response!

Yes, civilians in Gaza were killed and even children and it is a terrible tragedy, but do not attempt to color a picture as if Israel was targeting innocent civilians! The only missiles that were targeting civilians were those of Hamas! You want to know why civilians in Gaza were killed and hurt in the fighting?

 SEE HERE!  France24 Exposes Hamas Using Human Shields  1:36
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABwLwSNwCeU




Jews and Muslims Got Along Fine Till The State of Israel

I thought it was the settlements of 1967 that were the reasons for Islamic terror on Israel?! Then again, in 1929 Muslim mobs attacked, maimed, slaughtered and expelled ALL the Jews in Hebron and I am pretty sure there were no settlements yet.

Of course we can go back in history to when Mohammad himself slaughtered the Jews of Medina for not accepting his new book, although I don't think that had anything to do with occupation or settlements!

We can talk about the Dhimi tax in Muslim lands that deems every none-Muslim a second class citizen or perhaps the law that a synagogue could not be higher than a mosque. I do believe if Israel implemented laws like those Muslims had against Jews long before the State of Israel existed, the "peace" activists would be screaming racism before you could say BULL****

Of course there are these collection of lies:
9/11 was an inside job
Al Qaeda is a US organization
ISIS is not Muslim
ISIS created by the US and Israel
and the lies go on and on and on!

The truth is very simple! Israel is a beacon of light in a sea of darkness and religious oppression. We are the ONLY country in the area that offers full freedom to all citizens irrelevant of age, sex or religion. Israel has been attacked time and time again and if the tables were turned and the Arabs would have won any of the wars, they would not have left any hint of a Jewish State. We have given up land, expelled Jews from their homes in the hope for peace. We trusted terrorists like Arafat and Holocaust deniers like Abbas in the hope for peace! We have done more than any other country has ever done to make peace with those who seek our destruction so dear world, GET OFF OUR BACK! 

There is absolutely no logical reason you would support or believe the fanatic Muslims who have been carrying out terror against Israel for the past 66 years over Israel that has given you nothing but good, so just cut it out!
---

Monday, September 29, 2014


FULL TEXT OF PRIME MINISTER  NETANYAHU’S SPEECH AT UN   9-29-14

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:
 Thank you, Mr. President.
I feel deeply honored and privileged to stand here before you today representing the citizens of the state of Israel. We are an ancient people. We date back nearly 4,000 years to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. We have journeyed through time. We’ve overcome the greatest of adversities.
And we re-established our sovereign state in our ancestral homeland, the land of Israel.
Now, the Jewish people’s odyssey through time has taught us two things: Never give up hope, always remain vigilant. Hope charts the future. Vigilance protects it.
Today our hope for the future is challenged by a nuclear-armed Iran that seeks our destruction. But I want you to know, that wasn’t always the case. Some 2,500 years ago the great Persian king Cyrus ended the Babylonian exile of the Jewish people. He issued a famous edict in which he proclaimed the right of the Jews to return to the land of Israel and rebuild the Jewish temple in Jerusalem. That’s a Persian decree. And thus began an historic friendship between the Jews and the Persians that lasted until modern times.
But in 1979 a radical regime in Tehran tried to stamp out that friendship. As it was busy crushing the Iranian people’s hope for democracy, it always led wild chants of “death of the Jews.”
Now, since that time, presidents of Iran have come and gone. Some presidents were considered moderates, other hard-liners. But they’ve all served that same unforgiving creed, that same unforgiving regime, that creed that is espoused and enforced by the real power in Iran, the dictator known as the supreme leader, first Ayatollah Khomeini and now Ayatollah Khamenei.
President Rohani, like the presidents who came before him, is a loyal servant of the regime. He was one of only six candidates the regime permitted to run for office. See, nearly 700 other candidates were rejected.
So what made him acceptable? Well, Rohani headed Iran’s Supreme National Security Council from 1989 through 2003. During that time Iran’s henchmen gunned down opposition leaders in a Berlin restaurant. They murdered 85 people at the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires. They killed 19 American soldiers by blowing up the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia.
Are we to believe that Rohani, the national security adviser of Iran at the time, knew nothing about these attacks?
Of course he did, just as 30 years ago Iran’s security chiefs knew about the bombings in Beirut that killed 241 American Marines and 58 French paratroopers.
Rohani was also Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator between 2003 and 2005. He masterminded the — the strategy which enabled Iran to advance itsnuclear weapons program behind a smoke screen of diplomatic engagement and very soothing rhetoric.
Now I know: Rohani doesn’t sound like Ahmadinejad. But when it comes to Iran’s nuclear weapons program, the only difference between them is this: Ahmadinejad was a wolf in wolf’s clothing. Rohani is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, a wolf who thinks he can pull the eyes — the wool over the eyes of the international community.
Well, like everyone else, I wish we could believe Rohani’s words, but we must focus on Iran’s actions. And it’s the brazen contrast, this extraordinary contradiction, between Rohani’s words and Iran’s actions that is so startling. Rohani stood at this very podium last week and praised Iranian democracy — Iranian democracies. But the regime that he represents executes political dissidents by the hundreds and jails them by the thousands.
Rohani spoke of, quote, “the human tragedy in Syria.” Yet, Iran directly participates in Assad’s murder and massacre of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in Syria. And that regime is propping up a Syrian regime that just used chemical weapons against its own people.
Rohani condemned the, quote, “violent scourge of terrorism.” Yet, in the last three years alone, Iran has ordered, planned or perpetrated terrorist attacks in 25 cities in five continents.
Rohani denounces, quote, “attempts to change the regional balance through proxies.” Yet, Iran is actively destabilizing Lebanon, Yemen, Bahrain and many other Middle Eastern countries.
Rohani promises, quote, “constructive engagement with other countries.” Yet, two years ago, Iranian agents tried to assassinate Saudi Arabia’s ambassador in Washington, D.C. And just three weeks ago, an Iranian agent was arrested trying to collect information for possible attacks against the American embassy in Tel Aviv. Some constructive engagement.
I wish I could be moved by Rohani’s invitation to join his wave — a world against violence and extremism. Yet, the only waves Iran has generated in the last 30 years are waves of violence and terrorism that it has unleashed in the region and across the world.
Ladies and gentlemen, I wish I could believe Rohani, but I don’t because facts are stubborn things, and the facts are that Iran’s savage record flatly contradicts Rohani’s soothing rhetoric.
Last Friday Rohani assured us that in pursuit of its nuclear program, Iran — this is a quote — Iran has never chosen deceit and secrecy, never chosen deceit and secrecy. Well, in 2002 Iran was caught red-handed secretly building an underground centrifuge facility in Natanz. And then in 2009 Iran was again caught red-handed secretly building a huge underground nuclear facility for uranium enrichment in a mountain near Qom.
Rohani tells us not to worry. He assures us that all of this is not intended for nuclear weapons. Any of you believe that? If you believe that, here’s a few questions you might want to ask. Why would a country that claims to only want peaceful nuclear energy, why would such a country build hidden underground enrichment facilities?
Why would a country with vast natural energy reserves invest billions in developing nuclear energy? Why would a country intent on merely civilian nuclear programs continue to defy multiple Security Council resolutions and incur the tremendous cost of crippling sanctions on its economy?
And why would a country with a peaceful nuclear program develop intercontinental ballistic missiles, whose sole purpose is to deliver nuclear warheads? You don’t build ICBMs to carry TNT thousands of miles away; you build them for one purpose, to carry nuclear warheads. And Iran is building now ICBMs that the United States says could reach this city in three or four years.
Why would they do all this? The answer is simple. Iran is not building a peaceful nuclear program; Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Last year alone, Iran enriched three tons of uranium to 3 1/2 percent, doubled it stockpile of 20 percent enriched uranium and added thousands of new centrifuges, including advanced centrifuges. It also continued work on the heavy water reactor in Arak; that’s in order to have another route to the bomb, a plutonium path. And since Rohani’s election — and I stress this — this vast and feverish effort has continued unabated.
Ladies and gentlemen, underground nuclear facilities, heavy water reactors, advanced centrifuges, ICMBs. See, it’s not that it’s hard to find evidence that Iran has a nuclear program, a nuclear weapons program; it’s hard to find evidence that Iran doesn’t have a nuclear weapons program.
Last year when I spoke here at the UN I drew a red line. Now, Iran has been very careful not to cross that line but Iran is positioning itself to race across that line in the future at a time of its choosing. Iran wants to be in a position to rush forward to build nuclear bombs before the international community can detect it and much less prevent it.
Yet Iran faces one big problem, and that problem can be summed up in one word: sanctions. I have argued for many years, including on this podium, that the only way to peacefully prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons is to combine tough sanctions with a credible military threat. And that policy today is bearing fruit. Thanks to the efforts of many countries, many represented here, and under the leadership of the United States, tough sanctions have taken a big bite off the Iranian economy.
Oil revenues have fallen. The currency has plummeted. Banks are hard-pressed to transfer money. So as a result, the regime is under intense pressure from the Iranian people to get the sanctions relieved or removed.
That’s why Rohani got elected in the first place. That’s why he launched his charm offensive. He definitely wants to get the sanctions lifted; I guarantee you that. But he doesn’t want to give up Iranians’ nuclear – Iran’s nuclear weapons program in return.
Now here’s a strategy to achieve this. First, smile a lot. Smiling never hurts. Second, pay lip service to peace, democracy and tolerance. Third, offer meaningless concessions in exchange for lifting sanctions. And fourth, and the most important, ensure that Iran retains sufficient nuclear material and sufficient nuclear infrastructure to race to the bomb at a time it chooses to do so.
You know why Rohani thinks he can get away with this? I mean, this is a ruse. It’s a ploy. Why does Rohani think he – thinks he can get away with it? Because – because he’s gotten away with it before, because his strategy of talking a lot and doing little has worked for him in the past.
He even brags about this. Here’s what he said in his 2011 book about his time as Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, and I quote: “While we were talking to the Europeans in Tehran, we were installing equipment in Isfahan.”
Now, for those of you who don’t know, the Isfahan facility is an indispensable part of Iran’s nuclear weapons program. That’s where uranium ore called yellowcake is converted into an enrichable form. Rohani boasted, and I quote, “By creating a calm environment – a calm environment – we were able to complete the work in Isfahan.” He fooled the world once. Now he thinks he can fool it again.
You see, Rohani thinks he can have his yellowcake and eat it too. And he has another reason to believe that he can get away with this. And that reason is called North Korea. Like Iran, North Korea also said its nuclear program was for peaceful purposes. Like Iran, North Korea also offered meaningless concessions and empty promises in return for sanctions relief.
In 2005 North Korea agreed to a deal that was celebrated the world over by many well-meaning people. Here’s what the New York Times editorial had to say about it, quote: “For years now, foreign policy insiders have pointed to North Korea as the ultimate nightmare, a closed, hostile and paranoid dictatorship with an aggressive nuclear weapons program. Very few could envision a successful outcome, and yet North Korea agreed in principle this week to dismantle its nuclear weapons program, return to the NPT, abide by the treaty’s safeguards and admit international inspectors.”
And finally, “diplomacy, it seems, does work after all. Ladies and gentlemen, a year later, North Korea exploded its first nuclear weapons device.”
Yet, as dangerous as a nuclear-armed North Korea is, it pales in comparison to the danger of a nuclear-armed Iran. A nuclear-armed Iran would have a choke hold on the world’s main energy supplies. It would trigger nuclear proliferation throughout the Middle East, turning the most unstable part of the planet into a nuclear tinderbox. And for the first time in history, it would make the specter of nuclear terrorism a clear and present danger. A nuclear-armed Iran in the Middle East wouldn’t be another North Korea. It would be another 50 North Koreas.
Now, I know that some in the international community think I’m exaggerating this threat. Sure, they know that Iran’s regime leads these chants, “death to America, death to Israel,” that it pledges to wipe Israel off the map. But they think that this wild rhetoric is just bluster for domestic consumption. Have these people learned nothing from history? The last century has taught us that when a radical regime with global ambitions gets awesome power, sooner or later its appetite for aggression knows no bounds.
That’s the central lesson of the 20th century. And we cannot forget it. The world may have forgotten this lesson. The Jewish people have not.
Iran’s fanaticism is not bluster. It’s real. The fanatic regime must never be allowed to arm itself with nuclear weapons. I know that the world is weary of war. We in Israel, we know all too well the cost of war. But history has taught us that to prevent war tomorrow, we must be firm today.
And this raises the question, can diplomacy stop this threat? Well, the only diplomatic solution that would work is one that fully dismantles Iran’s nuclear weapons program and prevents it from having one in the future.
President Obama rightly said that Iran’s conciliatory words must be matched by transparent, verifiable and meaningful action. And to be meaningful, a diplomatic solution would require Iran to do four things. First, cease all uranium enrichment. This is called for by several Security Council resolutions. Second, remove from Iran’s territory the stockpiles of enriched uranium. Third, dismantle the infrastructure for nuclear breakout capability, including the underground facility at Qom and the advanced centrifuges in Natanz.
And, four, stop all work at the heavy water reactor in Iraq aimed at the production of plutonium. These steps would put an end to Iran’s nuclear weapons program and eliminate its breakout capability.
There are those who would readily agreed to leave Iran with a residual capability to enrich uranium. I advise them to pay close attention to what Rohani said in his speech to Iran’s supreme cultural revolution — Supreme Cultural Revolutionary Council. This was published in 2005. I quote. This is what he said:
“A county that could enrich uranium to about 3.5 percent will also have the capability to enrich it to about 90 percent. Having fuel cycle capability virtually means that a country that possesses this capability is able to produce nuclear weapons.” Precisely. This is why Iran’s nuclear weapons program must be fully and verifiably dismantled. And this is why the pressure on Iran must continue.
So here is what the international community must do: First, keep up the sanctions. If Iran advances its nuclear weapons program during negotiations, strengthen the sanctions.
Second, don’t agree to a partial deal. A partial deal would lift international sanctions that have taken years to put in place in exchange for cosmetic concessions that will take only weeks for Iran to reverse.
Third, lift the sanctions only when Iran fully dismantles its nuclear weapons program. My friends, the international community has Iran on the ropes. If you want to knock out Iran’s nuclear weapons program peacefully, don’t let up the pressure. Keep it up.
We all want to give diplomacy with Iran a chance to succeed, but when it comes to Iran, the greater the pressure, the greater the chance. Three decades ago, President Ronald Reagan famously advised, “trust but verify.” When it comes to Iran’s nuclear weapons program, here’s my advice: Distrust, dismantle and verify.
Ladies and gentlemen, Israel will never acquiesce to nuclear arms in the hands of a rogue regime that repeatedly promises to wipe us off the map. Against such a threat, Israel will have no choice but to defend itself.
I want there to be no confusion on this point. Israel will not allow Iran to get nuclear weapons. If Israel is forced to stand alone, Israel will stand alone. Yet, in standing alone, Israel will know that we will be defending many, many others.
The dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran and the emergence of other threats in our region have led many of our Arab neighbors to recognize, finally recognize, that Israel is not their enemy. And this affords us the opportunity to overcome the historic animosities and build new relationships, new friendships, new hopes.
Israel welcomes engagement with the wider Arab world. We hope that our common interests and common challenges will help us forge a morepeaceful future. And Israel’s — continues to seek an historic compromise with our Palestinian neighbors, one that ends our conflict once and for all. We want peace based on security and mutual recognition, in which a demilitarized Palestinian state recognizes the Jewish state of Israel. I remain committed to achieving an historic reconciliation and building a better future for Israelis and Palestinians alike.
Now, I have no illusions about how difficult this will be to achieve. Twenty years ago, the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians began. Six Israeli prime ministers, myself included, have not succeeded at achieving peace with the Palestinians. My predecessors were prepared to make painful concessions. So am I. But so far the Palestinian leaders haven’t been prepared to offer the painful concessions they must make in order to end the conflict.
For peace to be achieved, the Palestinians must finally recognize the Jewish state, and Israel’s security needs must be met.
I am prepared to make an historic compromise for genuine and enduring peace, but I will never compromise on the security of my people and of my country, the one and only Jewish state.
Ladies and gentlemen, one cold day in the late 19th century, my grandfather Nathan and his younger brother Judah were standing in a railway station in the heart of Europe. They were seen by a group of anti-Semitic hoodlums who ran towards them waving clubs, screaming “Death to the Jews.”
My grandfather shouted to his younger brother to flee and save himself, and he then stood alone against the raging mob to slow it down. They beat him senseless, they left him for dead, and before he passed out, covered in his own blood, he said to himself “What a disgrace, what a disgrace. The descendants of the Macabees lie in the mud powerless to defend themselves.”
He promised himself then that if he lived, he would take his family to the Jewish homeland and help build a future for the Jewish people. I stand here today as Israel’s prime minister because my grandfather kept that promise.
And so many other Israelis have a similar story, a parent or a grandparent who fled every conceivable oppression and came to Israel to start a new life in our ancient homeland. Together we’ve transformed a bludgeoned Jewish people, left for dead, into a vibrant, thriving nation, a defending itself with the courage of modern Maccabees, developing limitless possibilities for the future.
In our time the Biblical prophecies are being realized. As the prophet Amos said, they shall rebuild ruined cities and inhabit them. They shall plant vineyards and drink their wine. They shall till gardens and eat their fruit. And I will plant them upon their soil never to be uprooted again.
Ladies and gentlemen, the people of Israel have come home never to be uprooted again.







Tuesday, September 23, 2014



The unleashing of the campaign of U.S. air strikes on terrorist targets throughout Syria last night may be the beginning of an offensive that will, as President Obama claimed this morning, “take the fight” to ISIS. If so, the bombings must be judged to be a commendable, if belated instance of presidential leadership. But as even the president’s cheering section at MSNBC and other liberal strongholds suddenly take on the appearance of being “war lovers,” it’s fair to wonder about one question that was uppermost on the minds of most of the media this past summer when other terrorists were being pounded from the air: what about the civilian casualties and infrastructure damage?

Accounts of the attacks on ISIS targets as well as those on the Khorasan group speak of strikes on bases, training camps, and checkpoints as well as command-and-control centers in four provinces and having been in the vicinity of several Syrian cities. Many terrorists may have been killed and severe damage done to the ability of both ISIS and the Khorasan group to conduct operations. The first videos of the aftermath of the bombings show members of the groups digging out the rubble and seeking survivors of the attacks. The surrounding area appears to be one of built-up structures. While some of these bases and command-and-control centers may well have been in isolated places, it is likely that many, if not most, were in the vicinity of civilian residences. All of which leads to the question that almost no one, at least in the American media, is asking today: what about civilian casualties or damage to infrastructure facilities that might severely impact the quality of life of those who live in these areas?
If we are being honest, the answer to such queries is clear: we don’t know. American forces conduct such operations under rules of engagement that seek to limit if not totally eliminate non-military casualties. But even under the strictest limits, civilians are killed in war. It is also to be hoped that all of the strikes were conducted with perfect accuracy, but that is the sort of thing that generally only happens in movies. In real life, war is conducted in an environment in which a host of factors make perfection as unattainable as it is in every other aspect of life. Which means it is almost certain that at least some Syrian civilians (a population that may include supporters of the terrorists and some who are essentially their hostages) were killed and wounded last night.
If anyone were thinking about that fact today, you wouldn’t know it from watching any of the cable news networks. The impact of the strikes on individuals in Syria or any potential damage to civilian infrastructure is of no interest to the commentators or the anchors. Instead, the conversation about the attacks on terror targets focuses solely on how effective the strikes have been, the role of U.S. allies, and whether these actions will be followed up with sufficient ground force actions that will make it possible to truly defeat ISIS or any al-Qaeda affiliates currently running riot in the region. The only criticisms being voiced are those about the president’s lack of a specific authorization from Congress for these actions, whether U.S. forces will have to fight on the ground there, or if the attacks have gone far enough.
All this is in stark contrast to the reaction to Israeli attacks on Hamas in Gaza this past summer.
Almost all of the targets struck by the Israelis were similar to those in Syria that were hit by the Americans. Moreover, unlike the case with ISIS and Khorasan, the Israeli efforts were not primarily preemptive in nature. After all, the U.S. is attacking ISIS in part because of its depredations in the region but also because of the very real likelihood that if they are left unmolested, they will eventually turn their barbaric attentions to attacks on the United States. Israel struck back at Hamas because the terror group doesn’t merely intend to destroy the State of Israel and slaughter its Jewish population but because it was launching thousands of rockets at Israeli cities and towns and seeking to use terror tunnels to kidnap and kill even more Jews.
But rather than give the Israelis the same benefit of the doubt about their good intentions and efforts to limit collateral damage, the international community denounced the Israeli counter-attacks. News coverage focused almost completely on civilian casualties and the impact of the war on ordinary Palestinians rather than, as is the case today with U.S. efforts, on the military question of how best Hamas might be defeated.
Why aren’t we talking about civilian casualties in Syria? There are a number of reasons.
The Western media has more or less ignored the horrific nature of the Syrian Civil War since its inception three years ago. Hundreds of thousands have already died but apparently the media sees little reason to start caring about it now just because Americans are involved.
Another is the lack of Western media on the ground in Syria. That is understandable given what has happened to some of the Western freelance journalists who were kidnapped and beheaded by ISIS. By contrast, Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists welcomed Western journalists into Gaza and allowed them to do their jobs in safety provided, of course, that they concentrated their efforts on reinforcing the narrative about the conflict that told only of civilian casualties while largely ignoring the presence of armed fighters and their attacks on Israelis. That the entire Western press corps adhered to these restrictions is a testament to both the ability of Hamas to intimidate journalists and to the fact that many in the press were all too happy to follow these instructions since they were compatible with their own views of the conflict.
Let’s concede that the circumstances of these conflicts are not identical. The Israel-Palestinian conflict is more specific and related to the desire of the Arabs to refuse to share the region with a sovereign Jewish state rather than the more amorphous desire of the Syrian and Iraqi Islamists to set up a new caliphate. Hamas is also a bit more media savvy and has more experience in manipulating its message to appeal to Westerners who are willing to be fooled by terrorists.
But the real difference between the ways these two conflicts are covered has a lot more to do with the identity of the foes of the Islamists than to any of those distinctions. Muslims may slaughter Muslims by the hundreds of thousands, as they have done in Syria, without the world paying much notice. But if a fraction of that number are killed by Israeli Jews, even in a war of self-defense, that is considered intolerable by a world that has always judged Jews and their state by a double standard that has never been applied to anyone else, including the United States. Israelis, who have watched as their efforts to defend themselves have been answered by a rising tide of anti-Semitism around the globe, may be forgiven for no longer giving a damn about international opinion.
The media should continue to focus its coverage on Syria on the question of whether the president’s actions are effective, not whether some accidents or mistakes by U.S. personnel resulted in civilian losses. But you can bet that the same sources will revert to the same stances they took this past summer when Hamas resumes its fight against Israel, as it will sooner or later. When it does, don’t expect any admissions by journalists that they are applying different standards to Israel than they did to U.S. forces. But that is exactly what they will be doing. The term by which such prejudice is usually called is anti-Semitism.

Sunday, September 21, 2014


By Arlene Kushner

Then, I want to share a level-headed and informed assessment of Mahmoud Abbas’s recent threats. You’ve heard much of this from me, but better still to hear it from an international lawyer.
Alan Baker – director of the Institute for Contemporary Affairs at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and director of the International Action Division of the Legal Forum for Israel – says, in his piece – “Is Abbas Serious?” – that (emphasis added):
“The Palestinian Authority leadership’s fixation on ‘internationalizing the conflict’ by ‘going back to the UN,’ joining various international conventions and taking Israeli political and military leaders to the International Criminal Court sounds dramatic and even threatening. But it involves a large degree of self-delusion
“The latest ploy by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas for frightening the Israelis – going to the UN Security Council with a resolution demanding withdrawal by Israel from ‘Palestinian territory’ to ‘the 1967 borders’ within three years and threatening to go to the International Criminal Court if it isn’t passed – would appear to be no less misguided legally, no less self-deluding and fraught with non-sequiturs than previous abortive Palestinian UN forays.
“Despite all the annual politically generated UN resolutions, which do nothing more than represent the political opinions of the states voting for them, the territories of Judea and Samaria and the Gaza Strip have never legally or historically been declared to be ‘Palestinian.’ There has never been a sovereign Palestinian state, and no treaty, agreement, or binding resolution has ever determined that the territories belong to the Palestinians.

“To the contrary, even the Palestinians themselves agreed in the 1993-1995 Oslo Accords, guaranteed by the US, the EU, Russia, Norway, Egypt and Jordan and endorsed by the UN, that the permanent status of the territories would be determined in negotiations. To determine in advance that these territories are Palestinian is to prejudge an agreed-upon negotiating issue.

“Similarly, there is no such thing as the ‘1967 borders.’ The parties have agreed to negotiate ‘secure and recognized boundaries,’ as demanded by UN Security Council Resolution 242, and the question of ‘borders’ is also an agreed negotiating issue pursuant to the Oslo Accords…

“Moreover, Abbas’s ostensibly serious ammunition – his threat to go to the International Criminal Court (ICC) and have Israeli leaders and military officers tried for war crimes in the event that his Security Council ploy fails – appears almost certain to backfire.

“Even if the ICC prosecutor, as she has promised, accepts a Palestinian request for standing in the Court…that, in and of itself, cannot guarantee that Abbas and his associates will be able to advance any serious criminal claims against Israeli political or military leaders.

“This is because of the Court’s complex evidentiary rules, specifically the rule of ‘complementarity,’ which prevents the Court’s exercising its jurisdiction if the case in question is already subject to investigation and potential juridical process by the nation state of the accused…Thus it is highly unlikely that any such attempt to bring Israeli leaders to trialwould succeed.

“Even more noteworthy is the likelihood that the Palestinian leadership, in giving the Court jurisdiction over the territories, including the Gaza Strip, would be placing itself – as well as senior Hamas commanders and tacticians – at the mercy of anyone who chooses to initiate claims against them for serious war crimes and terrorism.”


Saturday, September 20, 2014





  • http://www.israellycool.com/2014/08/24/assessing-the-ocha-gaza-crisis-atlas-2014-report/


http://www.israellycool.com/2014/08/25/further-analysis-of-gaza-crisis-atlas-2014-damage-clusters/

1.     Assessing The UN’s OCHA “Gaza Crisis Atlas 2014 Report
 August 24, 2014

  • http://www.israellycool.com/2014/08/24/assessing-the-ocha-gaza-crisis-atlas-2014-report/

2.     Further Analysis Of “Gaza Crisis Atlas 2014 Damage Clusters
 August 25, 2014
http://www.israellycool.com/2014/08/25/further-analysis-of-gaza-crisis-atlas-2014-damage-clusters/




Some Lessons From The War With Hamas

The same by any name

  • Nice fences do not stop missiles, rockets, and mortars.

  • Unless the Israeli military controls the ground on the other side of fences, those fences achieve nothing.

  • Complete removal of Israeli forces and Jewish settlers from an area merely signals Israeli weakness and invites escalated Arab terror and aggression.

  • Hamas (and Hizbullah and ISIS) cannot be defeated with air strikes. There is no effective alternative to ground invasion and ongoing military control of the ground retaken.

  • Goodwill gestures by Israel increase terror. They do not win Israel friends in the West but rather encourage outbursts of anti-Semitism.

  • Terror is caused not by Israeli settlements but by the removal of Israeli settlements.

  • Terror is caused not by Israeli military occupation but by the removal of Israeli military occupation.

  • The Likud is too cowardly to defeat Hamas.

  • The Israeli Left will oppose every conceivable act of Israeli self-defense.

  • Arab terrorists do not morph into statesmen.

  • It is impossible for two sovereign entities to exist between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

  • No matter how many concessions Israel makes, the world will always justify Arab terrorism because there will always be still one more capitulation Israel failed to make.

  • No matter how nice Israel is to its Arab citizens and no matter how many affirmative action programs it implements, Israel will always be accused of being an “apartheid regime.”

  • Israel is the only country in the Middle East that is not an apartheid regime.

  • The real enemy of Israel is not Arab fascism but Jewish leftism.

  • Israeli niceness and flexibility fan anti-Semitism.

  • Much of the world has no qualms about seeing Jewish civilians murdered by terrorists.

  • Many people around the world would not raise an eyebrow if Israeli Jews were shipped off to concentration camps in cattle cars – except perhaps to demand improved rail service.

  • Israel bashers do not care about dead Arab civilians, other than as a useful tool with which to bludgeon Israel.

  • Most Arabs will never accept an independent Israel within any set of borders, no matter how small. Hence reducing Israel's territory does nothing but signal weakness and destructibility.

  • The vast majority of Israeli Arabs and nearly all Israeli Arab politicians support terrorism and wish to see Israel destroyed.

  • The only country on earth expected to respond to the murder of its civilians by turning the other cheek is Israel.

  • The only country on earth that has spent years trying to defeat aggression and terrorism by turning the other cheek is Israel. It failed.

  • Israeli leftists, rather than learn from the failures of their policies and “ideas,” will always complain that their policies have not been applied thoroughly enough.

  • No matter how Israel responds to aggression and terrorism, it will always be denounced as a "disproportionate" response. The only "proportionate" response is complete capitulation by Israel.

  • If an Israeli coughs in the general direction of Gaza, it’s considered a disproportionate war crime and an act of genocide.

  • Those who claim anti-Zionism is different and distinct from anti-Semitism tend, on close inspection, to be anti-Semites themselves.

  • The only people on earth whom the Left believes should be denied the right to self-determination and self-defense are the Jews.

  • The moral and legal responsibility for every Arab civilian killed or injured in Gaza rests squarely on the shoulders of the Arab terrorists and their Western amen choruses.

  • There is no moral or legal reason for Israel to refrain from attacking terrorists and murderers when they hide among civilians.

  • There are no non-military solutions to the problem of terrorism.

  • There are no significant differences between the anti-Israel agenda of the Palestinian Authority and the anti-Israel agenda of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Muslim Brotherhood, and ISIS.

  • One cannot buy off anti-Semites and Islamofascists with trade concessions and subsidies.

  • One cannot make peace by pretending that war does not exist.

  • The only way to stop terrorism is to kill terrorists.

  • No terrorist has ever murdered anyone after he was executed.


About the Author: Steven Plaut is a professor at the University of Haifa. He can be contacted at steveneplaut@yahoo.com.


September 2014

….


During the last few months the world has seen several varieties of the same evil stretch out, assert themselves and proliferate. Last April 276 schoolgirls were abducted in north-eastern Nigeria by the terrorist group Boko Haram. The translation of their name is usually given as "Western Education is Forbidden" but "Non-Muslim Teaching is Forbidden" is a more accurate rendering. The world ignored this atrocity until the human interest angle of the story spurred people to virtual action.

But no political leaders were keen to explain why the group had taken the girls. Few media outlets explained the simple but crucial detail that the terrorist group was made up of Islamic fundamentalists and that their captives were Christians. Fewer still mentioned that the formal Arabic name of Boko Haram is Jama'atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda'Awati Wal-Jihad or "People Committed to the Propagation of the Prophet's Teachings and Jihad". Or that, as one of the group's leaders, Abubakar Shekau, explained for anyone who would listen, "This work that we are doing is not our work, it is Allah's work, we are doing Allah's work." 

A Twitter campaign was started. Numerous well-meaning celebrities including Michelle Obama and David Cameron posed with the Twitter hashtag #BringBackOurGirls. Months later and, with the exception of a few dozen who had managed to escape, the girls remained either in captivity or had been sold into slavery. And so the world's attention moved on, touched but unenlightened.

Then in July the now biennial war between Israel and Hamas arrived for its latest round. The world once again looked with horror at an exchange whose pattern seems unresolvable. The status quo (Hamas and other jihadist groups firing rockets into Israel) was interrupted by Israel retaliating. As in previous rounds, limited operational success was achieved by Israel until the international community insisted on a return to the status quo ante — that is for Israel to stop firing and permit Hamas to resume firing rockets unmolested. Once again the world focused on what the Israeli response was, but missed the opportunity to consider what Hamas are, why they exist or why they keep trying to fire missiles into Israel.

Of course there was some talk about the border disagreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians. There was talk of Hamas at one extreme and Israeli settlers on the other. Any consumer of the Western media could easily have come away from the latest round believing that there were still Jewish settlers in the Gaza Strip, that Israel had not in fact unilaterally withdrawn every citizen from Gaza almost ten years ago and that Hamas was firing rockets into "disputed" territory, rather than into territory which has been indisputably Israeli since 1948.

Through all of this it was very easy to find out that Hamas was a welfare organisation, very easy to find out it is designated in the West as a terrorist organisation but surprisingly difficult to find out that Hamas is an Islamic terrorist organisation dedicated, from its founding charter right up to its actions in the present day, to the most fundamentalist Islamic principles including the eradication not just of Israel but of all Jews worldwide. Not a small detail.

Limited to a border dispute? By no means. Article 7 of the Hamas charter, titled "The universality of Hamas" reads: "By virtue of the distribution of Muslims, who pursue the cause of the Hamas, all over the globe, and strive for its victory, for the reinforcement of its positions and for the encouragement of its jihad, the Movement is a universal one." The same section concludes with the famous saying of Muhammad about the end times quoted in the most authoritative collection of Muhammad's sayings (or hadith). "The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree."

In the first days of this latest war Israeli forces discovered the many tunnels built into Israel by Hamas with diverted international funds. These tunnels were, it transpired, to be used to carry out surprise attacks on Israeli families during the next Jewish holy day festival. Is it perhaps possible that this effort and others like it to annihilate the Jewish state are part of an ideological project with a defined and ideological end-goal?

The world barely had time to wonder because in August its attention was suddenly once again drawn to the progress of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS). Having rampaged through Syria, and taken several major Iraqi cities earlier this year, in August the now self-aggrandisingly, self-re-branded "Islamic State" was threatening not just any Shia Muslims in its path, nor only the Christians whom the group has been beheading in Syria and Iraq since its creation. In August ISIS became a sudden and immediate threat to the previously little-known sect known as the Yazidis, a part of that fascinating blend of cultures and faiths that Iraq has been crucible to (a sort of Jurassic Park of first-century religions) and which now lies in ruins. Reports came from the Yazidi villages of ISIS rampaging into their neighbourhood and saying, "Become Muslims by noon today or we kill all of you." Many were killed, many fled into the mountains where they would rather risk death by starvation than forcible conversion and then death (the fate of some Christians whom ISIS forced to convert at gunpoint and then murdered anyway).

No reporters were able to make it behind the ISIS lines, except a solitary film-maker called Medyan Dairieh. As the Yazidis were stranded up the mountains hoping for international help he wrote of the areas already controlled by ISIS: "This is not some disorganised bloodthirsty terrorist group or makeshift army. They are very organised. Islamic State fighters ruthlessly beheaded Assad's soldiers and spies on the front line. The IS men gave me a horrific video of decapitated soldiers' bodies, which were left lying on the pavement in the centre of Raqqa. Some of the dismembered heads were placed on spikes. They had prisons where they jailed people who had been caught drinking alcohol, and other small offences. I filmed young children telling me that they want to join the Islamic State and kill infidels."

Each of these three cases shocked the world out of its stupor for a short period. Boko Haram, Hamas and ISIS. The Christians, the Jews and the Yazidis. The underlying facts of each story were, in turn, avoided. But it is the unwillingness to tie these stories together, join the dots or work out the overall picture that is most startling.

The truth is that as well as living through a dramatic upsurge in Islamic radicalism around the globe, we are living through a period of strenuous refusal to acknowledge the problem. When there is nothing much to face up to then ignorance is indeed bliss. But when the world is seeing such continual eruptions of the same phenomena and persisting in not noticing, then we know we have a problem.

Anybody who focuses on this area will have noticed in recent months, even more, perhaps, than in recent years, that there is a concerted and active desire to avoid the joining up of these dots. Whenever I venture to mention that Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon or ISIS in Syria and Iraq are at root ideologically identical the same blizzard of denial comes out. "Don't I even know," they ask, "that Hezbollah are fighting ISIS in Syria?" Am I so stupid as to think that two armies which are actually engaged on different sides of a battlefield could share the same objectives?

It doesn't require anyone to think back very far in history to think of movements that had the same ideology but intensely fought each other. If you pick over the carcass of international Communism what stands out most clearly at this remove, apart from the utter awfulness of the whole wretched enterprise? Surely it is the fact of how hard it is today to work out why some of these sects ever disagreed or split with each other in the first place, from the splits involving Lenin and Trotsky right up to the internecine battles in the intellectual salons of North London after the death of the whole project. Reading up on these splits now you have to have the eyes of a hawk and the patience of a saint to work out who split off from whom and why. Historians and connoisseurs of a kind of masochism will doubtless rake over these sordid ashes for generations to come. But they would be missing something if they failed to notice that although this movement had many differences, it also had clear and defined common aspirations. From Leninism to (Gerry) Healeyism there are plenty of interesting byways. But it will be as a bloc that the Communist nightmare will be remembered — for what they all aspired to do, and tried to do, not for the differences between its factions.

And who today does these semantics with fascism? For sure there are fascinating fall-outs, disagreements and nuances in the attitudes of Mussolini, Franco and Hitler. But who at the time, let alone looking back at fascism's grotesque heyday, would spend too long focusing on the differences between this or that fascist? Certainly it is a subject of interesting academic study, but even the differences are only interesting if you know what unites them to begin with.

This uniting — this ideological dot-joining — has today become the thing almost nobody wishes to do. Academics, when they do dare to tread into this area, can become expert in one particular manifestation of the Islamist ideology. But if they add another to it, let alone treat the ideology as a whole, they become pariahs in the academy and rejected by their peers. Journalists and commentators seem to be allowed to cover one eruption of this horror — they might become an expert on the outrages of Boko Haram, for instance, but they almost fear this same expertise being transplanted and used to understand another manifestation of the same ideology.

And there is a problem here, because increasingly I get the sense that the public can join up the dots and see the similarities. As the British public were reading about the kidnapping of schoolgirls in northern Nigeria they were also reading the revelations of the Trojan Horse plot in Birmingham — an attempt to teach a culturally isolating and theologically fundamentalist version of Islam in schools in one of Britain's largest cities and further afield. "Non-Muslim teaching is forbidden" turned out not just to be the name of a group in Nigeria. It was the ideological base of some authorities in state-funded secondary schools in Birmingham. Nobody in Parliament wanted to say this. Almost nobody in the media wanted to say it. But when over the breakfast table the great British public could read what Boko Haram thought of education in Nigeria and what certain Muslim leaders in Birmingham thought of non-Muslims, women, Christians and the like, the similarities seemed far more striking than the differences.

And therein lies the challenge that will face us all in the years ahead. The years of avoiding joining the dots may yet lead to a period of joining them up too glibly or too fast, drawing a picture which is too wide or too shallow. Fail to notice the similarities between the fundamentalists in Birmingham, Mosul and Gaza today and you may yet find a movement unwilling to notice any differences between any types of Muslims tomorrow. Increasingly this becomes a fear of the future. A willingness to over-think the differences between the Islamists in our day is the best possible catalyst for people to under-think the problems of the future.

Friday, September 19, 2014



Responding to critics of my essay about Israel media coverage--Ongoing Controversy Around ‘The Most Important Story on Earth’
 By Matti Friedman|September 16, 2014 

http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/184707/ongoing-controversy-around-the-most-important-story-on-earth?print=1


My essay “An Insider’s Guide to the Most Important Story on Earth” touched a nerve far beyond my expectations—I didn’t think that in our times a 4,000-word essay would be shared 750 times on Facebook, let alone 75,000. A second essay will appear here soon.
The article drew a series of interesting responses. Richard Miron, a veteran of both the BBC and the United Nations, published a reflection on his own similar experiences. In Jerusalem the Israeli historian Gershom Gorenberg, from the left side of the local political spectrum, called it a “must-read, must think about,” and Rick Santorum endorsed it on Twitter from Pennsylvania. Some accused me of being an apologist for the Israeli right, and worse. A few former colleagues thought practicing journalism on journalists was a kind of betrayal; others were discreetly thrilled. I have made friends and enemies I’m not sure I need.
There has been no serious public response to the piece, however, from inside the system I’m criticizing—no denials of the examples I gave, no explanations for the numbers I cite, no alternative reasons for the problems I describe. This uncomfortable silence is an admission.
Here I would like to reply briefly to the closest thing to an official explanation that has emerged so far. This is a short essay published by Steven Gutkin, the AP’s former bureau chief in Jerusalem, in the paper he currently runs in Goa, India, and highlighted here at Tablet last week. The article is important for reasons I believe its author did not intend.
Steve, who chose to identify himself as one of the editors who appeared anonymously in my account, responds to my concrete examples with generalities, musings about the human condition, anecdotes, and much discussion of his own Judaism. He seems to believe this is about character—he is an experienced journalist, he writes, and is a Jew, albeit one who believes most in “humanity” (as opposed to the ones who, you know, don’t). We should thus believe him when he says my essay is “hogwash,” even if he can’t be bothered to actually disprove anything. I was a junior member of the staff, we are to understand, and spent less time in the international press corps than he, and I am Israeli. Of course all of this is true. But so what? I’m making a case about the coverage. Anyone hoping to dispute what I wrote has to provide, as I do, concrete information about the coverage. 
What I want, he thinks, is for Israel to be “left alone,” which is the usual response from people called out for their Israel obsessions. But of course I want no such thing: I want Israel to be covered, as I wrote, “as critically as any other place, and understood in context and in proportion.” Steve wants to believe that my argument is that the press corps is “teeming with anti-Semites,” because that makes me easier to dismiss. In no way is that my argument. What I believe, and wrote, is that old thought patterns centered on Jews are reasserting themselves in the West. I do not think anyone sensitive to events this summer, particularly in Europe, can believe otherwise. I think the press is central in all of this, consciously or subconsciously, and I show how this works using examples.  
Steve would like readers to think that my criticism of the media’s failures has something to do with being “blind” to the Palestinians, and wrote (incorrectly) that I had not once referred to the occupation of the West Bank in my article. In fact I had (he later corrected that detail), and I also wrote that the settlements are “destructive” and a “serious moral and strategic error on Israel’s part,” which doesn’t leave much room to err about my politics. The reason I don’t dwell on the occupation is not because I’m unaware of it, but because my essay is about the media, not the occupation. It’s also worth pointing out here that the only serious settlement-related investigation published by the AP’s Jerusalem bureau during Steve’s tenure, an article very critical of Israeli actions, was written by me . I’m proud of it.
Most strikingly, Steve is happy not only to confirm the media’s obsession with Jews but to endorse it. If he thinks there’s any journalistic problem in a news organization covering Israel more than China or the Congo, he doesn’t say so. He thinks, in fact, that Jews—the “people of the Bible,” or perhaps the “persecuted who became persecutors”—are really, really interesting. His piece is, in other words, a confirmation of my argument mistaking itself for a rebuttal. 
As for two of the most serious incidents I mentioned, a careful reader will note that Steve concedes them. Both have ramifications beyond the specifics of this story. 
1. To the best of my knowledge, no major news organization has publicly admitted censoring its own coverage under pressure from Hamas. A New York Times correspondent recently said this idea was “nonsense.” Responding to an Israeli reporter asking about my essay, the AP said my “assertions challenging the independence of AP’s Mideast news report in recent years are without merit.” But the AP’s former Jerusalem bureau chief just explicitly admitted it. He confirms my report of a key detail removed from a story during the 2008-2009 fighting—that Hamas men were indistinguishable from civilians—because of a threat to our reporter, a Gaza Palestinian. 
He goes even further than I did, saying printing the reporter’s original information would have meant “jeopardizing his life.” The censored information in this case is no minor matter, but the explanation behind many of the civilian fatalities for which much of the world (including the AP) blamed Israel. Steve writes that such incidents actually happened “two or three times” during his tenure. It should be clear to a reader that even once is quite enough in order for a reporter living under Hamas rule to fall permanently in line. This means that AP’s Gaza coverage is shaped in large part by Hamas, which is something important that insiders know but readers don’t. 
I’m not saying the decision to strike the information was wrong—no information is worth the life of a reporter. But I am saying that the failure to get it out some other way, or to warn readers that their news is being dictated by Hamas, is a major ethical shortcoming with obvious ramifications for the credibility of everyone involved. The AP should address this publicly, and all news organizations working here need to be open about this now.
2. I wrote that in early 2009 the bureau wouldn’t touch an important news story, a report of a peace proposal from the Israeli prime minister to the Palestinian president. This decision was indefensible on journalistic grounds. A careful reader will notice that Steve does not deny this. He can’t, because too many people saw it happen, and a journalist as experienced as Steve might assume, correctly, that at least some of them vetted my account before it was published. He merely quibbles with a marginal detail—the nature of a map that one of the reporters saw. I repeat what I wrote: Two experienced AP reporters had information adding up to a major news story, one with the power to throw the Israeli-Palestinian relationship into a different light. Israelis confirmed it, and Palestinians confirmed it. The information was solid, and indeed later appeared in Newsweek and elsewhere. The AP did not touch this story, and others, in order to maintain its narrative of Israeli extremism and Palestinian moderation.
Failing to report bad things that Hamas does, and good things that Israel does, which is what these examples show, creates the villainous “Israel” of the international press. That these failures mislead news consumers is clear. But they also have a role in generating recent events like a mob attack on a Paris synagogue, for example, or the current 30-year-high in anti-Jewish incidents in Britain. There are several causes behind such phenomena, and editorial decisions like these are among them. But this is one subject about which the AP bureau chief, for all of his Jewish ruminations, has nothing to say. The press corps is obviously not “teeming with anti-Semitism.” But neither is it teeming with responsibility or introspection, and the kind of thinking that has taken hold there should have all of us deeply concerned.
Tablet Magazine is a project of Nextbook Inc. Copyright © 2014 Nextbook Inc. All rights reserved