-
-
- SF officials describe ‘apartheid’ label as ‘intolerance alienating the Jewish … 9
- In electric atmosphere, Medea Benjamin takes over the president’s speech 1
- Bradley Manning blows chance to have a gay wedding 1
- Weiner’s Park Ave apartment belongs to man whose ‘only agenda’ … 7
- UN and Hunter College events feature plight of Bedouin refugees, … 1
- AIPAC promotes Netanyahu on two states (and ignores the statements … 0
- Jamal al-Dura calls on Israeli government to bring him his … 5
- Kerry faults Israelis for complacency — peace isn’t ‘on the … 14
-
- Two friends meet for 5 minutes in Jerusalem 1709
- Palestinian-American Raed Zidan plants flag on top of Everest, dedicates … 1361
- Christians denounce Israel’s manhandling of worshipers at Holy Sepulcher on … 952
- Barbara Boxer’s visa bill for Israel comes under concerted attack 810
- In photos: Gaza marches and rallies mark 65 years of … 442
- Washington Post’s racism map omits Israel 438
- Israeli report on al-Dura case is vengeful and ‘surreal,’ says … 401
- International Criminal Court opens preliminary investigation into attack on Mavi … 355
-
- Kennedy’s insistence on right of return prompted Ben-Gurion to rewrite … 104
- International Criminal Court opens preliminary investigation into attack on Mavi … 96
- Abulhawa declines to ‘balance out’ several Israelis in ‘Al Jazeera’ … 94
- Barbara Boxer’s visa bill for Israel comes under concerted attack 93
- Washington Post’s racism map omits Israel 73
- Uncompromising hope inspired by Ghassan Kanafani 63
- Biden says Jewish ‘influence’ behind American cultural politics is ‘immense… … 56
- Two friends meet for 5 minutes in Jerusalem 53
-
- SF officials describe ‘apartheid’ label as ‘intolerance alienating the Jewish community’ http://t.co/gygE6OQrnP, 6 hours ago
- RT @MaxBlumenthal: Cpl Goldberg slams "veteran smear artist" https://t.co/Uc4sMIIv7E Yeah, about that... http://t.co/dTO4wxGpLF, 8 hours ago
- Voskamp on .@medeabenjamin: Obama’s chf of staff sitting behind me,seemd unfazed & wondered if he shd call off guards http://t.co/PUqQE1DDA0, 10 hours ago
- In electric atmosphere, Medea Benjamin takes over the president’s speech http://t.co/PUqQE1DDA0, 10 hours ago
- Bradley Manning blows chance to have a gay wedding http://t.co/I6Luwltzkq, 11 hours ago
-
Recent Comments
click link to see last 100 comments- Weiner’s Park Ave apartment belongs to man whose ‘only agenda’ is Israel (7)
- Bradley Manning blows chance to have a gay wedding (1)
- David Samel: Love the satire, Susie. My guess is that Lisa Williams is regretting her bonehead move because she has...
- Video: Medea Benjamin interrupts Obama speech on US drone policy (23)
- Inanna: Damn it Obama, stop saying what we want to hear and start doing what you say you’ll do. Medea is...
- SF officials describe ‘apartheid’ label as ‘intolerance alienating the Jewish community’ (9)
- Annie Robbins: why didn’t i think of that?
- Annie Robbins: ritzl, i’m going bonkers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =wAhB72Q0D2w
- ritzl: …they should do something about it…” Amen, yt. I think it’s coming. The light bulbs...
- Israel cracks down on American travel to West Bank by requiring tourists to obtain military permit (49)
- Sumud: All Arab countries agree to accept the Green Line as Israel’s border with Palestine. Yes I know, but that...
- Jamal al-Dura calls on Israeli government to bring him his son (5)
- ToivoS: Larry Derfner at 972mag has a good article on this Israeli al Dura report. He makes a pretty good case that...
- CBS stands by Bob Simon, blowing off CAMERA’s charges of anti-Semitism (12)
- eGuard: What exactly was that four-sentence reply from CBS?
Our Writers
- Philip Weiss
- Adam Horowitz
- Allison Deger
- Annie Robbins
- Kate
- Today in Palestine
- Alex Kane
- Eleanor Kilroy
Blogroll
The War of Ideas in the Middle East
"As of 2008, about half of all potential conscripts did not enlist due to various exemptions, according to Israeli army officials,"
Of these, how many are genuine 'refusniks' - ie refusing to serve in the army for reasons of conscience - and how many just can't be bothered? My bet is that the latter constitute by far the larger group.
As many readers will be aware by now, EI has reported that Al J English has pulled Joseph Massad's article on Zionism. None of us who have followed Al J since its inception will be surprised by this, or by their having a programme on the Nakba which is told almost entirely from the Israeli point of view. It's been clear for some time that Al J is no longer the channel which brought us such brave, on-the-spot coverage of the Egyptian uprising and the assault on Gaza. That channel has disappeared, and in its place a bland CNN-style outlet, ever on the look-out for not touching Zionist 'sensitivities' is here. And what, I ask you, is the point of that?
Did Dershowitz defend OJ? I thought that was Johnny Cochrane. He definitely defended Claus Von Bulow, and bigged up his role in 'Reversal of Fortune'.
''Archbishop Desmond Tutu is one of the most evil men in the world.''
Am I the only one who thinks Dershowitz is suffering from some sort of mental illness? I'm being serious here. I mean, here is a man who became rich and famous for succesfully defending criminals - most notoriously, Claus Van Bulow - whom he admits he knew to be guilty. And yet here he is talking about Desmond Tutu, a man of heroism and integrity, and saying he is 'one of the most evil men in the world'. Disagreeing with his position on Palestine would be one thing but this just smacks of borderline insanity, particularly when it is said in defence of a country which Dershowitz has never had the slightest desire to live in.
How does Dershowitz even get away with this sort of thing? Who does he think he is, other than a plagiarising criminal lawyer? Who accorded him any sort of moral authority?
It is Perez - or whoever was dishing out the invitations to this glorified hasbara fest - who 'brought Hawking into this' by inviting him in the first place. Maybe next time, they should restrict invites to schmooze with possible war criminals only to those they know will appreciate the 'honour'?
Thanks for those - interesting reading.
Neither of them wholeheartedly support Hawking, however, and both say they are against the BDS movement (as though it were a unified entity). So I'd say it's grudging support at best.
It's a bit like how, when one of the regular Hasbarists posts on CiF threads, they'll have amassed a huge number of 'recommends' before anyone's even had the time to read their post! Of course, as I've pointed out in these threads many times, they could easily get round this by allowing only registered users to 'recommend'. But they don't seem interested.
Genuine question: Does anyone know of any 'liberal Zionist' who has come out in support of Hawking? I don't mean simply defending him from abuse, but actually applauding his decision?
Exactly! Without a doubt, there are serious human rights abuses in several 'Islamic countries' (bit vague, no?) but that does not equate to 'apartheid'. And what does she mean by 'Islamic states'? To me, that implies a country where only Islam is the state religion. How many such countries are there, anyway? KSA, yes, Iran, yes, but I don't see either getting too much US aid - in fact the latter actually pays good money for the US weaponry it gets, which is more than can be said for Israel.
But the interesting thing is that it shows that the Muslim haters/Israel firsters are the ones doing the running here. The BDS campaign has put them on the backfoot big time. They're no longer controlling the narrative, and they can't stand it.
'' If there are Israelis who are innocent in the sense of not to blame for what is happening to the Palestinians it would surely be those who have made their disapproval of Israeli policies plain – and I would think that they will, if they are at all logical, rejoice in the fact that an important outsider has endorsed the views which they, a minority in their own context, advance.''
Exactly! Those (few) white South Africans who genuinely wanted apartheid to be dismantled actively welcomed sanctions against their country. The same would be true in Israel, but, I suspect, those who GENUINELY want the occupation to end are even fewer than those whites who opposed apartheid in SA. We hear a lot of talk about how moderate and liberal most Israelis are, but if so, they keep awfully quiet about it. You'd almost think they barely existed at all.
There's also the question of just how 'innocent' people can be in a democracy (which Israel is, for its Jewish citizens) where people can choose their leaders, and where almost everyone serves in the army. Given that Israelis consistently choose leaders who advocate war and occupation - to the point that there is not a single mainstream party which opposes the occupation - then surely 'ordinary Israelis' must share in the blame. Nobody is advocating anything like the sadistic siege these 'ordinary Israelis' seem happy to see imposed on Gaza, but I don't buy the argument that they are innocent and should be shielded from the consequences of their actions.
I like some of Raimondo's work, but this could have been written by any run of the mill 'liberal Zionist'.
It relies on two non-truths:
1) The notion (disproved on these pages and elsewhere) that the chip that powers Hawking's communication technology was produced in Israel. It wasn't.
2) The notion that there is some 'liberal Israel' just waiting to get out, and that it's our job to coax them along by holding their hand and telling them how wonderful they are. In other words, the old cliches about the importance of 'engaging' with Israelis, despite the fact that decades of 'engagement' have led to ever growing 'settlements', the siege of Gaza, and routine killings of Palestinians, with barely a whimper from all these 'liberal Israelis' who are supposedly just waiting for us to 'engage' with them.
Speaking of the siege, and Raimondo's belief that it's wrong to 'collectively punish' a people - how do you deal with a nation which itself indulges in collective punishment, to a far, far greater degree than anyone in the BDS movement wishes to see imposed on Israelis? Why should the world sit back and watch Israel - with the consent, if not outright support, of the vast majority of Israelis - starve the ordinary men, women and children of Gaza? In other words, when Israel itself practices colelctive punishment on a grand scale, why should they be immune from it?
''Didn’t Prince Bandar bin Sultan toy with the idea Saudis would turn to Russia for primary source of weapons, support, etc?''
I think 'toy with' is the right phrase here. He may have said something like that for public consumption (though I've never heard it) but 'Bandar Bush' is about the last person to put the Saudi-US alliance at risk.
''What do you think the Saudis can do to get Israel out of the West Bank and Golan Heights?''
If the Saudis wanted to put pressure on Israel, they could do a hell of a lot, given the fact that they are the most important nation in the Arab world. They could reduce their strategic and economic dependence on America, and work on improving relations with Russia, China or other emerging powers, and condition any resumption of business as usual with the US on the latter's putting genuine pressure on Israel. Ditto oil sales. They could condition oil sales on support for the Palestinians. They could put pressure on the Arab league to suspend membership to any country which has a peace deal with Israel. And lots besides.
Given the immense power KSA has in the Arab world - not least the fact that the royal family directly or indirectly control most Arab media - the rest of the Arab world would follow by example.
KSA is the major reason the Arab world is in the mess it's in.
''Would love to know the real reason Wadah Khanfar resigned as AJ Director in 2011, I suspect it was a response to the leaders of Qatar interfering with their editorial freedom.''
Have to disagree. Khanfar pens articles in the Guardian's 'Comment is Free' blog fairly regularly. Without exception, he parrots the official Qatari line on everything, even down playing Israel's latest act of war, despite the fact that he is Palestinian himself. He has become, essentially, a mouthpiece for the Emir, which is a shame really.
As for this '4+1' it is new only in the fact that the Saudis and others are becoming increasingly open about it. In reality, the 'moderate' Gulf states and Israel have been in cahoots for a long time. I lived in KSA until quite recently, and used to get the English-language 'news'papers delivered to me (I wouldn't pay for those rags!) You would see almost nothing about the Palestinian struggle, and when you did, the suggestion invariably was that the Palestinians themselves were to blame for their own plight. You would, however, see blanket coverage on the Syrian war, with even a call for boycott of Russia and China (!) because they vetoed a UN resolution which called for intervention. And, of course, lots about Iran and how evil they are - mostly, and most hypocritically coming from the Saudis, as regards their treatment of women.
It is obvious to me that the ground is being prepared to play up petty nationalism, deepen the sectarian divide with Iran, and 'soften up' public opinion towards Israel, with a view to an open - as opposed to de facto (the current reality) normalisation with Israel. I would like to think it has no chance of success, but Saudis are imho politically naive for the most part, so it's possible it might just work.
Two men who never met an Israeli war crime they didn't like.
Entirely fitting that they should lend their smarmy presence to this hasbara fest.
Yup - among them such renowned heavyweights in the world of science as Barbra Streisand and the philandering Prince of Monaco.
Here's a very interesting story about Palestinian collaborators in Al Akhbar English:
link to english.al-akhbar.com
It points out that many collaborators don't set out with the conscious intention of betraying their people, but that Israel's exploitation of their desperation leads them into a web from which they cannot escape:
''The Shin Bet uses many methods to ensnare and recruit collaborators, including exploiting the poverty of some Palestinians by offering financial incentives.
Once caught in the trap, these collaborators rarely escape it alive, according to Abu-Hassan, who once helped a relative turn himself in after he confessed to getting caught up in the Israelis’ web.
“My cousin was never an immoral person, but he was a victim of poverty and destitution,” said Abu-Hassan. “He could not tell us about what he was doing, nor could he break free from what he was involved in. He found himself getting sucked in deeper and deeper.”
Also, the article mentions that some collaborators who are discovered and pardoned by Hamas, later end up being 'eliminated' by.... Israel.
''“When the government in Gaza offered amnesty to repenting collaborators, he became fearful about becoming further entangled in spying for Israel, especially since he was not involved in any assassinations,” he continued. “He came to me and told me everything, seeking my advice. I told him immediately that he should turn himself in, and later went with him to the government where he gave himself up in return for amnesty.”
Abu-Hassan said his relative was sentenced to one year in prison, since he was not involved in any killings.
But the Israelis would not let their former agent be, and he was killed by an Israeli airstrike that targeted his home in the northern Gaza Strip.''
So do those hasbarists who cried crocodile tears over collaborators killed by Palestinians also decry their murder by Israel? Or are they no longer worthy of sympathy when Israel has no further use for them?
''widespread Palestinian murder of collaborators''
''Widespread?'' Really? It's well known that the OPT is riddled with collaborators, something which should surprise nobody, given that the Palestinian people are at the mercy of Israel for everything, including medical care for their families. However, correct me if I'm wrong, but only a relatively small number of those collaborators are killed. And the fact of the matter is that EVERY resistance movement, throughout history, has dealt with collaborators in an extremely harsh manner. The much romanticised French resistance often used to kill not only the collaborator him or herself, but their entire family too. In fact, you might even say that, by historical standards, Palestinian treatment of spies and collaborators has been relatively mild by comparison. Yet those who will find excuses and 'explanations' when Israel kills entire families in Gaza will still weep crocodile tears when collaborators receive the same treatment collaborators have always received. Some of us are wise enough to see through this.
It's been obvious for a while that the 'West' and Israel - using the services of Jordan and the Gulf dictatorships, and under the cover of the 'Arab spring' - are aiming for the Lebonisation of Syria. They want to see what was once a unified and strong state dissolve into a mess of tiny, sectarian, perpetually warring statelets. So it's not that they desire regime change in Syria, so much as that they want to destroy Syria as a functioning state, and hence to deprive Iran of a powerful ally.
Because these days, it's always - always - about Iran.
''Sharkiya, dressed like her classmates in Islamic headscarves.''
What the hell does it matter what, if anything, she was wearing on her head? Would USA Today also see fit to tell readers if a Jewish Israeli was wearing a kippah? Are we supposed to take away the message that Sharkiya is not like 'us' because of her weird headgear?
And of course the word 'realistic' will be used, complete with patronising finger wagging. As in, Palestinians have to be 'realistic' and understand that any form of justice for them is never going to happen and it's unfair to give them false hope. Because that wouldn't be 'realistic'.
''Only a suicidal Turkish government will – cuz believe you and me, the Turkish people by and large DO NOT consider themselves friends of israel.''
Exactly.
Does anyone have any links to Turkish reaction to this news? Generally speaking, the Turkish people are very pro-Palestinian. They are also very nationalistic, and don't take at all kindly to their citizens being murdered by maurading dopes on ropes on the high seas. So I would say Erdogan's acceptance of this non-apology 'apology' is highly risky from an electoral point of view.
Absolutely. If this is confirmed (and I have my doubts) then it will just prove what many of us have been saying all along: that Erdogan's 'anti-Israel' rhetoric was for display purposes only. In reality, he and his government never intended to cut ties with Israel, and if it wasn't for the obtuse arrogance of Netanyahu et al, would have 'normalised' relations long ago. If Erdogan accepts a mere verbal -and conditional - 'apology', without any form of compensation for the deaths of the Turkish citizens, he deserves contempt.
I had to scroll up the page to check that he actually said that. He did. Absolutely disgusting. He is essentially saying that the birth of babies of the 'wrong' ethnicity is a threat to the 'Zionist dream'. Which sounds more like a nightmare. Unbelievable. And yet... not.
There has NEVER been a resistance against occupation which has been non-violent. Ever. Sure, some resistance movements may use non-violent tactics, but no national resistance has ever entirely eschewed the use of violence. Those who complain about the Palestinians' use of violence (against an infinitely more violent Israeli occupation) don't really mean it when they say they object to violence, but would support a 'non-violent' resistance. What they mean is that they don't want Palestinians to resist the occupation. At all.
Maybe when the Israelis tell the Palestinians they have no claim on their land, and will be guided by the wishes of the people who live there? Sort of like the British government did with regard to Northern Ireland?
Notice how the language is so much more cautious when dealing with Israeli rather than Palestinian crimes (putting aside the whole issue of who is ultimately responsible for any violence in that part of the world, the obivous and only answer being Israel).
''Some of OHCHR‟s concerns related to the apparent failure''
''the possible failure to take all necessary precautions,''
''Concerns were also noted in relation to incidents in which media offices were destroyed and members of the media killed and injured.''
What does that last sentence even mean? 'Concerns were noted'? And look at the use of the passive rather than saying who the culprit was: Israel of course. If that tone is typical of the entire report, I think we may have another Goldstone on our hands - people are realising it's just not worth the hassle of seeming to 'pick on' poor ol' Israel.
BTW The Guardian, which has either ignored or buried stories of the Palestinian hunger strike, the death of the Palestinian prisoner, bus segregation - and much else besides - has featured this story on its front page.
Reminds me of an interview I saw (on Sky News!) with some hasbarist. The (second) Qana massacre, which killed 28 people, 16 of them children was, he said, 'a tragedy'.
For Israel.
If I were American, I'd be pretty annoyed at my Vice Prez telling agents of a foreign state that minority ethnic groups (or is it only one, special ethnic group?) were not safe amongst us. Seriously, that is extremely insulting to Americans.
And the ironic things is that all the AIPAC schmoozers talk of how there must be a 'Jewish state' independent of foreign powers, while attending the conference of an organisation whose sole aim is to pressure a foreign power to submit to their every demand. In reality, Jews in Israel are far more dependent on the whims of foreign leaders than are Jews in the 'diaspora' who are just ordinary citizens. Without the goodwill of Western powers, Israel would collapse. And indeed, as time moves on and Western powers lose the ability to dictate events in the Middle East, that is precisely what will happen to the Zionist experiment.
I second the posters above. Can the waitress forward her bank account details so we can all make up the tip she lost from the AIPAC low-lifes. And then some.
''A gay pride parade in Tel Aviv cannot indicate relative security for gays but only planned hasbara to cover other crimes.''
Perhaps if Israel's apologists didn't make such a point of 'pinkwashing' the occupation by going on and on about how wonderfully liberal and gay-friendly they are, then pro-Palestinians would be happy to admit that, for all its many many crimes, Israel is at least relatively friendly to gays. But when gays are used as some sort of Potemkin village by Israel, then yes, we are right to be cynical about it.
Oh, and Dershowitz never 'simply makes a point'. Ever. He is always looking to spin things to make Israel seem like a put-upon victim. Always.
During the Soviet era, 'fellow travellers' who praised the Soviet system were often hit with the retort: ''If you love the USSR so much, why don't you go and live there?''
A bit glib, no doubt, but it still makes a valid and not easily answerable point. Could it be that these 'Communists' enjoyed their lives in a prosperous Western democracy just a little too much?
So I would like to say to 'diaspora' Zionist hoodlums like Dershowitz: ''If you love Israel so much, why don't you go and live there?'' Could it be that you enjoy your life among the gentiles, in a prosperous Western democracy, just a little too much?
Yeah, well spotted. And BTW where exactly did any of the Stones 'condemn Israel'? I thought the Jerusalem concert was still on?
... but I like it!
I think the main difference is one of style - it's certainly not substance. How many 'libZios' claim to find Netanyahu repellant, yet when you ask them to name which of his actual policies they find so objectionable, they're at a loss. That's because, as far as the Palestinians are concerned, Netanyahu is no different from 'moderates' like Barak or Livni. It's not his actions that bother the libZios, it's the fact that he's up-front about them in a manner which makes them distinctly uncomfortable. Why can't Israel be a bit more subtle about its long-term plans for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine?
''They cling to the cozy fiction that the Palestinians fled because they did not want to live with the Jews or because the Arab nations sent out broadcasts telling them that they should flee and return triumphant on Egyptian tanks.''
Alternatively/in addition, they hold on to the Joan Peters fantasy of a 'land without a people' ie that Palestine was virtually uninhabited (except, conveniently, for a few Jewish communities) until the Zionists came and made the desert bloom. In other words, the Palestinians (or 'Arabs' as they prefer to say) are just blow-ins with no greater attachment to the land than Jews from Germany or Ukraine.
But I agree that even - no, especially - 'liberal' Zionists cannot bring themselves to own up to Israel's original sin - that it was built on another people's land, and, necessarily, involved their expulsion. To admit that Israel is the product of a great injustice foisted on another people would be to admit that the whole Zionist project is inherently unjust. And that is something no 'liberal' Zionist can do.
She wasn't denied entry into 'the Jewish state'. She was denied entry into the occupied Palestinian territories.
It also further weakens the case against an academic/cultural boycott of Israel.
One of the fundamental requisites of a state is the ability to defend itself.
Therefore a 'demilitarised state' is a contradiction in terms. A 'demilitarised state' is not a state at all. The Zionists know this perfectly well, of course. They're just hoping that the rest of us are daft enough to go along with this farce.
Meh. I see this as yet more empty saber rattling. Israel is NOT going to attack Iran. If it was, it would have done so years ago, and without publicising their intent in front of the world for years on end. The IDF are pretty nifty when it comes to harassing teenagers and pregnant women, but there is no way they'd have the guts to take on an enemy which could actually fight back.
Describing Jerusalem as 'co-ethnic' (whatever that is) makes it sound as though two or more ethnic groups were living in harmony, when in fact the policy of the Israeli govt has, for years, been to Judaise the city and minimise any Palestinian presence - demographic, cultural or historical.
And if Israelis are fatigued by violence, they have an awfully strange way of showing it.
Oh god I DETEST that mealy-mouthed term 'disputed'. It's used so often by hasbarists as a way to claim that this is all just a little border dispute which could easily be settled if both parties just agreed to 'negotiations'. But those damn Palestinians keep 'setting pre-conditions' so the Israelis, much as it pains them, just have to go back to building on 'disputed' land.
Perhaps the one thing I can say is that, awful though 'disputed' is, it's not quite as appalling as 'administered', as in 'the West Bank is under Israeli administration'. Yup. Complete with torture centres and armed 'settlers'. That kind of 'administration'.
Absolutely. I'm sure Clooney's concern over Darfur is sincere, but we all know neither he nor anyone else in Hollywood would ever dare express a word of concern over Palestine. Not even Michael Moore, for all his friendship with Emad Burnat, would take on the Lobby directly.
And yeah, Affleck has all the charisma and character of a Ken doll.
Don't get me wrong, I think Affleck is a complete tool, but I very much doubt he wrote the blurb about the nominees himself. You have the Academy to blame for that. Speaking of which, the use of the neutral term 'West Bank' is a nice way for the Acedemy to avoid having to hold their collective noses and utter the word 'Palestine'.
So he's waiting for Israel to investigate Israel and find Israel not guilty.
Just like the last time, and the time before that...
Ah, but that would be 'anti-Semitic' wouldn't it? It's OK for Zionists to 'fear' others, but the reverse just isn't allowed.
Huh???
Europe is not 'Christian', and hasn't been for decades. Most Europeans are secular, as are pretty much all European governments. No European state refers to itself as a 'Christian state' or gives preferential treatment to Christians, while treating non-Christians as second class citizens. Moreover, all major Western European countries - Britain, France, Germany - are multi-cultural these days, and if you're a citizen, you're a citizen. Sure, there's unofficial discrimination against minorities, but NO European country officially considers one 'ethnicity' to be more valuable than another. In other words, you're talking nonsense.
''you’ll see that Arab parties will not be excluded from governing coalitions any longer, because there will be less societal fear that they are a fifth column,''
What a pile of rubblish. So it's up to the indigenous people of the region to soothe the 'fears' of the colonists that they're not a 'fifth column'? Any chance that Israelis might try to convince the rest of the region that they're not aggressive racial supremacists, despite all evidence to the contrary?
Day by day, the mask is slipping from the face of 'the Middle East's only democracy'. How long can the hasbarists try to convince us that these ever more frequent incidents are the work of 'bad apples' and do not reflect Israeli society as a whole? Can you imagine if a group of Palestinians grabbed a Jewish womand and tried to pull off her wig? It would be all over the Western media, and there'd be no excuses about 'drunkenness' or 'high feelings'.
While The Guardian may still be better than just about any mainstream US newspaper, it really does not deserve any praise for its coverage of Israel/Palestine. It used to be quite good - at least as far as mainstream media goes - but in the past year or so, it's painfully obvious that it has massively toned down any implied criticism of Israel. Harriet Sherwood's reports, which used to be quite informative, now read as though they've been pre-approved by the IDF's censors - which they probably have, figuratively if not literally, although her tacky little puff piece about an American who served in the IDF was indeed literally pre-censored by IDF 'monitors'. Also, 'moderation' of Comment is Free threads is ridiculous, with the mods zapping anything which runs foul of the gang of hasbarists who stalk those threads. But most of all, coverage of what is actually going on in Palestine is conspicuous by its absence: the hunger strikes have barely been covered at all, and the death of Arafat Jaradat received only a brief mention.
My theory is that The Guardian's avowed wish to expand in the US market is largely responsible for its very obvious swing towards a more Israel-friendly viewpoint. Also, it's come under extreme pressure from Zionist hoodlums such as CiF Watch, though you'd think a major publication like the Graun would be able to hold its own against them. In any case, it's almost impossible to believe that this is the paper which, only two short years ago, published the Palestine Papers.
Agreed. The sheer, murderous contempt Zionists show for any and all outsiders is frightening to behold.
What's even more frightening is that the 'dopes on a rope' aboard the Mavi Marmara were not 19 year old conscript grunts, but 'elite commandos', supposedly the creme de la creme of 'the world's most moral army'. And to think that these dudes believe they can take on Iran? Yeah right.
''Please spare us the next piece of propaganda passing as a cinematic masterpiece! We’re not that stoopid! ''
Sadly, many/most people are.
When I visited Iran a few years ago, I spent time with an American woman who like Betty Mahmoody (the author of 'Not Without My Daughter') was married to an Iranian man, living in Tehran. She knew Mahmoody, as they both frequented the same 'American women in Tehran' group. My friend says that she never heard Mahmoody complain about her situation at all. She also says that Mahmoody worked for the State Dept at the time, though I've no evidence for this.
Also, Mahmoody's husband, the late Sayyed Bozorg Mahmoody, made a documentary film called 'Without My Daughter' which contradicted every detail of his wife's story, claiming that she knew she was going to Iran to live, and that she was free to leave at any time. Now, I've no idea who is telling the truth - my guess is it's probably somewhere in the middle. But let's just say there's good reason to doubt Betty Mahmoody's story.
Can't say I'm surprised. A nomination is one thing, but there is no way the Academy would risk having a real live Palestinian (!) on stage. They'd be utterly terrified lest he do a Redgrave.
Then there's also the fact that a Palestinian doctor was present at the autopsy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not believe Israel makes a practice of inviting Palestinians to such procedures. It's almost as though they were hoping that the fact that they'd tortured a man to death would be announced to the world. Yes, the more I think about it, the more it seems that Israel is deliberately trying to stir up an intifada to make themselves appear the victim. Just when you thought they couldn't sink any lower, they surprise you. Again.
I suspect you may be right.
According to Jaradat's family, the IDF kidnappers also told him something along the lines of 'Say goodbye to your children. You wont' be seeing them again'. It does appear that this was premeditated, for reasons which go beyond pure sadism (though that can never be ruled out with the IDF). When you put this alongside Israel making the big gesture of handing over the tax revenues they had stolen from the PA, and basically saying this was a bribe for them to calm down the protests in the West Bank, you do get the impression that Israel is deliberately trying to provoke another intifada, to provide cover for god knows what.
Am watching Al Jazeera English now and this story is way down the line - behind the Italian elections, the Pope's farewell speech and the scandal over a British cardinal. Although the report itself was quite good, it was fairly brief, with no interviews or live coverage.
Seems like my theory was correct - Al J is toning down its coverage of Palestine in an effort to get American approval.
Firstly, they'll announce an 'investigation' to avoid the need for any immediate conclusion. In a few months times, I think they'll likely admit that he was tortured (after lying through their teeth) and will say that 'mistakes were made' and the perpetrator - who is of course a lone 'bad apple' will be 'disciplined' (ie fined a few shekels). Then they'll add that it's a sign of what a vibrant, western-style democracy Israel is that such 'mistakes' could be identifed and dealt with so early on. And that will pretty much be that and the world will move on and only notice when some IDF tank gunner gets himself 'kidnapped'.
And the English language media, which obsessed over the 'kidnap' of an IDF tank gunner in Gaza - a perfectly legitimate target who was relatively well-treated by his captors - responds to this outrage with utter silence. Not a word from 'The Guardian' which treated us to minute by minute updates on the tank gunner's release.
Quelle surprise. Not.
Again, as I've said, my comments were not in any way intended to be a criticism of you or the article, and I've already apologised if I mistakenly gave that impression.
And I'd love to be optimistic that this latest arrest will lead to a seachange in attitudes, but I doubt it. My guess is that he'll be quietly released, with some excuse about how 'mistakes were made' and the story will vanish from whatever headlines it ever occupied. Meanwhile, the media silence will go on... and on. Obviously, if Sabanaah gets released, that's great: it's one less unjustly detained prisoner in an Israeli jail. But while I'd love to think this latest outrage will change mainstream opinion, sadly I have to doubt that it will.
I'm not criticising the article, and sorry if I gave that impression.
I'm criticising those who have suddenly discovered the fact that Israel engages in arbitrary arrest only when a young artist (who got the State Dept seal of approval) is kidnapped. They don't give a damn when ordinary men, women and children are kidnapped by the occupation forces every single day.
But as you know, Palestinians (men women and children) - many of whom have no 'connections to militias' - are arrested on completely spurious grounds every single day. I fail to see how this one arrest is worse than the arrests which happen routinely in Palestine. And clearly, if the US State Dept invited him to Washington, he cant' be all that radical, or AIPAC would have blocked his visa.
Obviously, it's great that there's something of an international outcry over Sabaaneh's kidnap. But there should be the same outcry when ANY Palestinian - not just those who once got invited to Washington - is kidnapped and detained by the occupation forces.
Good question. According to Al Akhbar, Burnat has been in the US several times in the past year, without incident, so it would be interesting to know what/who provoked his detention this time round.
link to english.al-akhbar.com
Come on Michael Moore. Follow up your expose of the Busch clan with an expose of the lobby.
Then we'd know the tide of American opinion is turning.
As'ad Abu Khalil (aka The Angry Arab) opines that Ziegler may have been handed over to Israel by the Dubai authorities when he (allegedly) blew Mossad's cover over the Al Mabhouh murder. Now, it's been an ope secret for years that Israel enjoys good 'security cooperation' with the Gulf dictatorships, but there is of course no way these governments could openly admit that, as officially they maintain the facade of opposition to Israel.
I've no idea if Abu Khalil's theory is correct, but it might explain the extreme secrecy around him, compared to which Vanunu got the 5***** treatment. It can't just have been about a few foreign passports, which has been known about for years.
Plus, Goldstone's 'recantation' was actually very mild and very partial, if you actually read what he had to say instead of the exaggerated headlines. And it was amazing to see how he was transformed from the 'hanging judge' of the Apartheid era (because we know Zionists have always condemned Apartheid, lol) to a reasonable and just man just as soon as he caved into months of despicable bullying.
Yup. The 'can't we just get along?' narrative, which presents the occupation as two (equal) peoples with a bit of a land dispute going on, is extremely damaging to the Palestinian cause. That's one of the great things about BDS: it takes the debate away from the 'two sides' nonsense and presents it for what it is - racial oppression of a native people by a racist, colonial government. And that is why Israel is so terrified of it.
This is such a spectacular own goal from the lobby.
Their thuggish bullying and blatant attempt to stifle freedom of speech are out in the open, and they are undeniable. The whole point of lobbying is that it goes on behind closed doors in the corridors of power, away from the eyes and ears of ordinary plebs. Once your bullying goes public, and - worst of all - fails to achieve the desired result, you've lost the battle. Here's hoping they lose the war too.
Well put. It's become increasingly impossible to maintain the position that 'ordinary Israelis' 'want peace' and are 'against the settlements'. If so, they're awfully shy about making themselves heard. Perhaps BDS will give them a required nudge in the right direction.
@mondonut
Typical maudlin scare-mongering. When the Soviet Union ceased to exist, were all Soviet citizens annililated? When the apartheid RSA was abolished, were all Afrikaners lined up and shot? When the DDR ceased to exist, were all East Germans wiped out?
And so on and so forth. Nation states come and go, and many have done just that in my lifetime, and I'm hoping the racist state of Israel will go the same way in my lifetime too. Anyone who can't see the difference between the ending of a racist regime and the murder of all its citizens is either stupid or deliberately obtuse.
Exactly. And since when does a college have a 'position' on an extraneous matter like BDS? How is it even possible for a college to 'endorse' or 'oppose' any movement? Do prospective students have to sign a document stating that they are opposed to BDS or they won't be allowed to study there?
Unfortunately, it does sound like capitulation of sorts. Granted, she's in a horrible position, and the important thing is that the event goes ahead. But it's sad to see that she feels she has to grovel to the lobby who have done their best to bully and intimidate her.
Quiet? Apart from the Israel jets which violate Lebanese air space on a regular basis?
That sort of quiet?
Anyway, the 'border' had also been fairly quiet in the years between the July war and Israel's 2000 defeat in Lebanon. So your point is rather silly.
I remember during that war, all the talk, on both sides of the Atlantic, was about allowing Israel to 'get the job done'. Then we had the repulsive Condi Rice and her horrid talk of 'birth pangs of the new Middle East'. It's so obvious that Israel provoked this war - with the full knowledge of the US and other Western powers - in the belief that they could 'crush' Hizballah and, as a result, greatly weaken Iran. When it then became equally obvious that no 'crushing' would take place, they looked for a ceasefire. Despite Condi's predictions, the Middle East remained pretty much as it was, except that Israel's enemies were newly emboldened and Hizballah's status rose greatly in Lebanon.
A roaring success. Not.
A nomination is one thing, but I just cannot see the Academy giving an Oscar to a - gasp! - Palestinian! Certainly not without an iron-clad assurance from him that he won't take the stage and do a Vanessa Redgrave, and instead would have to pitch the whole thing as a cute little bit of ''holding hands across the barricade'' schmaltz, with Israelis and Palestinians being seen as equal victims. Oh, and of course the film would have to be labelled 'Israeli' or at best 'Israeli-Palestinian'.
Dershowitz is a thug and a bully. And not even a skilled one. He should go back to what he's good at: defending those he knows to have committed the most serious crimes. Oh wait, that's exactly what he's doing.
Great link. Thanks for it. Greenwald is one of the few voices of sanity in The Guardian's increasingly New York Times-ish (non) coverage of Israel/Palestine. I particularly liked this quote:
''Imagine being elected to public office and then deciding to use your time and influence to interfere in the decisions of academics about the types of campus events they want to sponsor.''
Says it all.
''The Apartheid comparison is not exactly correct.''
True. The Israeli system is much worse that Apartheid ever was.
Absolutely.
Given that for several years UEFA and FIFA have been organising high-profile (and often extremely patronising) anti-racism campaigns, it's utterly ridiculous that they are even thinking about staging a tournament in Israel. Quite apart from the fact that, despite Israel's ever expanding borders, it's not even IN Europe! Having said that, in one sense I'm quite happy Israel plays in Europe rather than its logical group, West Asia. That's because Israeli football is nowhere near good enough to compete at European level, and Israel hardly ever makes the finals of the World Cup or the Euros. If they were playing the likes of Jordan or Saudi Arabia, they might have a chance of qualifying. Then again, they might not.
Good point. I think many of us here have long suspected that at some level at least, the ''rebels'' are in cahoots with the Zionist enemy. But these developments will make that all the more obvious, and this could play into Assad's hands.
And while I've still not quite figured out the rationale for this strike (assuming there is one) if Israel is hoping Syria and/or Hizballah and/or Iran will grant them a nice little casus belli, they are going to be sorely disappointed. Despite the common perception of them being crazy fundos, all of the above are cautious, rational actors. Any strike they make on Israel will be done at a time of their own choosing, not when it suits Israeli designs in the region.
Exactly. Which makes me even more skeptical about these 'reports'.
Also, if Israel really were going to attack a weapons convoy, would they go to the trouble of hinting at just that on the radio only days previously? I'm sure there are people in Syrian intelligence who monitor Israeli broadcasts.
There's also the fact that an attack on a 'chemical weapons convoy' would surely cause a lot of environmental damage. But none has been reported. So I'm calling BS on this one.
This ''analyst's'' opinion is an informed guess, nothing more.
The reality is that nobody, other than those directly involved, know what - if anything - was hit by Israel yesterday. And yet, the line that this was a ''convoy transporting chemical weapons to Hizballah'' is already being accepted as gospel truth. Typical Israeli news management: Get their story spread by an always- compliant media, in the knowledge that if and when the truth is revealed, and revealed to be less favourable to the Israeli PR line, it will have long since vanished from the headlines, as instances of Israeli aggression always do.
''Late Tuesday evening Israeli planes bombed a weapons convoy in Syria destined for Lebanon, marking Israel's military entry into the now two-year crisis in Syria. ''
The Syrians have confirmed that Israel hit a 'research centre' near Damascus, but is there any independent verification of the claim by 'unnamed Western diplomats' that a 'weapons convoy', or any other sort of convoy, was also hit? For what it's worth, The Lebanese have denied it.
Don't put too much faith in The Guardian. It used to be quite good, but has been steadily morphing into the New York Times for about a year or so, with coverage of Palestine basically vanishing from its pages. Look at its 'Middle East live blog' today, with a photo of a grinning Israeli soldier carrying a gas mask because Israelis are 'in fear' (they certainly don't look it, going by that photo).
Pure Israeli PR, pure NYT.
OK. Just for you, I'll repeat one more time:
The article *clearly* said that Brooklyn College '' has not endorsed those of previous visitors to our campus with opposing views''. In other words, it seems that they had previously hosted one of your precious 'pro-Israel groups'. In any case, the notion that Zionists are some poor, persecuted minority in Brooklyn (!) is so ridiculous as to not even require a response. It's transparent straw-manning to try to cover up your obvious unease at the notion that pro-Palestinian viewpoints just might be given a public airing.
Well, according to the email above:
''Each semester, student clubs, academic departments, and other groups on our campus host events and invite speakers on a broad range of topics. At times, the issues discussed may be challenging and the points of view expressed may be controversial.''
And this:
''Brooklyn College does not endorse the views of the speakers visiting our campus next week, just as it has not endorsed those of previous visitors to our campus with opposing views.''
So I'm guessing the college DOES ''routinely sponsor political events, regardless of their orientation.'' And I'm also guessing that, despite your claims to the contrary, you DO have a problem with it.
Transparent whataboutery. Did you honestly think anyone here was going to fall for it?
You're right that the story seems unspinnable, but believe me they will try.
My guess is that they'll go for the 'Israel is a democracy and our institutions are working' line. They'll stress the fact that the Health Ministry has instructed the agencies to stop administering the contraceptive, and cite this as evidence of how, unlike in the Arab world, Israel is subject to the rule of law and everyone is overseen by the appropriate organisations and so on and so forth.
It'll be filed under 'mistakes were made' in the hope that most people will just leave it be. As if.
In other words, you can vote in Spanish elections if you are a Spanish CITIZEN. Being 'ethnically' Spanish (whatever that is) does not automatically grant one the right to vote - or any other rights in Spain. Pretty much like every other state - citizens can vote, non-citizens cannot. In the land controlled by Israel, however, the right to vote is based on ethno-religious identity, so a non-Jew, unlike his Jewish neighbour, can vote in Israeli elections. See the difference?
You need to come up with a better comparison than that.
Unfortunately, I agree. Any government headed by Lapid would have policies almost identical to those of 'Bibi' but will take care to mask them with conciliatory talk of 'moderation' and the 'peace process'. This will give Israel the excuse to continue its policies of land theft and apartheid, while also offering the rest of the world an excuse - and they are so happy to grab any excuse where Israel is concerned - to continue with the myth of the 'two state solution'. Bibi and the other far-righters exposed the moral decay at the heart of Israel. A so-called 'left' or 'centrist' party provides a veil of respectability over it. And that's not good at all.
At least the NYT is covering the story. It has been conspicuously absent from the pages of The Guardian. The extent to which the Graun has 'modified' its stance on Palestine to placate CiF Watch is sad to behold.
Finally the Guardian has woken up to this story, but of course the headline, and the article itself, is written very much from the Israeli point of view. The word 'occupation' is not used except in a direct quote from one of the activists, and the land is referred to as 'highly sensitive'. Ya think. Also, just like the Beeb, the Guardian is comparing the native Palestinians to illegal foreign colonists:
''The protesters' actions echoed the tactics of radical settlers when establishing wildcat outposts in the West Bank.''
link to guardian.co.uk
Harriet Sherwood used to be a fairly decent reporter. These days you get the definite impression that she has someone from the Israeli govt proof-read her articles before publication.
''but so good of israel to ‘staunch an intifada’!!!! who could believe this garbage!''
The answer to that question, sadly, is 'very many'. There are a lot of idiots out there. Always have been, and always will be.
@ Annie
Of course I'm not accusing you yourself of using that term. However, it's in the Times of Israel article that you quote:
''According to the Times of Israel, the raids and targeted arrests are part of a greater effort to staunch the momentum that might lead toward a Third Intifada.''
Keep up the good work!
''targetted arrests''
Seems we have a new example of Hasbara speech here - a companion for that old stalwart, 'targetted (as opposed to untargetted?) assassinations''. I mean, aren't all arrests 'targetted' in the sense that you don't just pick up a random person on the street and throw them into prison without charge. Oh wait.......
The lobby really have nothing to fear. Though it's still better than most other English-language news channels, Al J has clearly been toning down its criticism of Israel for some time now. I strongly suspect that its expansion into America will see Al J move further towards the American norm of adopting a softly-softly approach to the Holy State.
No, there are limitations as to what you can say and do - IF you want to keep on side with the Hollywood hot shots. There are plenty of people who speak out about Israel in the US - though such sentiments do not go hand in hand with a career in the mainstream media.
Michael Moore is now powerful and high-profile enough that he would certainly be able to make an independent film about Palestine. Sure, he wouldn't get the backing of the big studios, and no doubt would be ostracised by them, but the mere fact that someone as well-known as Moore made such a film would be big news.
Is this the same Michael Moore who never once mentioned the word ''Israel'' in ''Fahrenheit 911''? The same Michael Moore who pandered to anti-Arab stereotypes by exaggerating and caricaturing America's relationship with Saudi Arabia (damaging though that is)? The same Michael Moore who never saw fit to even consider the influence of AIPAC on the decision to invade Iraq?
Let him do a film exploring the Israel lobby and its pernicious influence on American politics, and then maybe I'll take him seriously.
Funnily enough, those Indians look to me like.... Indians. ''Lost tribes''? Too absurd for words. And yet, expect more and more 'lost tribes' to be magically 'discovered' as the Palestinian 'demographic threat' looms ever more largely, and as it becomes ever more obvious that the Jews in the 'diaspora' of advanced Western nations might support Israel in an abstract sense, but would never in a million years actually move there in order for their ethnically correct selves to redress that terrifying 'demographic threat'.
After years of little progress - at least on the surface - BDS now seems to be snowballing. Exactly the same process happened with the boycotting of Apartheid South Africa. After years of being told they were fighting a hopeless case, momentum became unstoppable. Let's hope the same will happen here.
I reckon the IDF need to employ better translators. The intro at the start says 'Attack OF Border Police Officer'. Or maybe that was a Freudian slip? You'd think that with all those American 'settlers' in the Hebron area, they could get the thing checked by a native speaker?
Do we even know the young man in the video is Mohammed Salayme? Also, as far as I can see, there is no timeline on this video. It could be a complete fabrication for all we know. And if the IDF had this video available all along, why the delay in releasing it?
To be honest, I'd have more respect for the Egyptians if they ever bothered to make any meaningful protests about the HOMES which Israel regularly demolishes, rather than some silly monument.
'' Israeli soldiers at the checkpoint were detaining a child, who had a plastic pistol. ''
WTF??? Detaining a child for having a plastic pistol? And then planting it on a murdered teenager? And holding his body? And then dictating where he be buried?
Just when you think you can no longer be sickened by Israel's behaviour, they go and surprise you.
My head is spinning trying to keep up with the ever changing spin.
Am I correct in saying this is Ms Liebovitch's evolving story:
1) IDF says it targetted 'correct' house'. Nothing to see. Move on.
2) IDF says no, we fupped up. We meant to target the Bad Guy next door. Oopsies.
3) Actually no, we DID mean to target the Dalou home, but we thought only the Bad Guy (aka policeman) was home and none of his many relatives were there. Yah sure.
4) Scratch that. We DID target the 'right' house. Policemen are terrorists. As are their kids and other relatives.
5) Actually, since you ask (and we'd much prefer you didn't, to be honest) we haven't the remotest clue who we 'targetted'. If anybody. I mean, they're all Palestinians, aren't they? Who's keeping count?
Have I left anything out?
''Perhaps Wiesel’s ambitions were too grand for Israeli society to support. Wiesel probably felt the only way for him to make it big was in a non-Jewish majority country where the Holocaust could become a story narrated to his advantage.''
Good point. In Israel, Wiesel is just another Holocaust survivor, one of thousands. In America, he is a secular saint - albeit one amply rewarded in this life.
'' in what sphere is Wiesel a moral leader?''
Wiesel is an ethno-supremacist wrapped in the pious mantle of The Holocaust. I find his whole persona rather disturbing, tbh. And wasn't he a member of the Irgun? I suppose that's OK because he was fighting for the rights of 'traumatised Holocaust survivors'.
''So when you hear people telling you how worried the Gulf states are about Iran, and how they support our efforts to keep tightening the screws, remember that it’s not just about geopolitics, or the historical divide between Sunnis and Shiites or between Arabs and Persians. It’s also about enabling certain ruling families to keep writing checks''
+1
I get fed up hearing all the half-baked orientalist krap about this 'Sunni-Shia divide' as though there were something inevitable about it. In reality, as you say, the GCC countries' rivalry with Iran has got far more to do with the mundanities of oil prices, and the fact that the conservative Arab states will do ANYTHING to prevent democratisation.
Yeah, it occurred to me too that it might be Qatar. It'll certainly be one of the 'moderate Arab states', that's for sure. Not sure if Abdullah would want to be seen hosting Obama right now, given the recent upheaval in Jordan.
''Obama will be headed over to Israel, and one other country in the region to be decided.''
Am I the only one who finds this sentence a bit funny? It's like they're saying, 'Israel is the essential country, but all those Aye-rab countries are interchangeable. One set of towelheads is as good as another'.
I strongly suspect the 'other country' will be either Egypt or Saudi Arabia, probably the former.
Good post.
I've always thought Wiesel to be a slimy used-car salesman sort of character. I think it was the late Peter Novick who has lamented the fact that Wiesel, rather than someone with the intelligence and introspection of Primo Levi, became the 'official spokesman' for the Holocaust in America.
As'ad Abu Khalil - aka 'the Angry Arab' - has also listed the various 'errors' in Wiesel's work. However, with Wiesel being something of a secular saint, it would be career suicide for a mainstream journalist to investigate him. He's the Mother Teresa of Holocaust 'memory'.
'me and mine'
What, Russians?
I'll repeat what I wrote on another thread: Regarding Meshaal, isn’t it obvious that he must have entered Gaza with the tacit permission of Israel? Rhetoric aside, I suspect Hamas may be evolving into another Fatah, funded by Gulf (specifically Qatari) money in return for essentially giving up on the resistance.