Over the last few weeks and months, a spurious lie has been spreading. Nothing new, perhaps, lies are told the whole time. But this one is a particularly important lie, and it needs quashing with immediate effect.
The lie goes as follows. The Palestinian people want to live in peace. They want to live in peace, alongside Israel. They want to live in peace, alongside Israel, the Jewish state. They want to live in peace, alongside Israel, the Jewish state, but Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is an extremist and prevents them from doing so. Benjamin Netanyahu and his cohorts, the lie goes, are the sole reason why the peace process appears to be dead in the water.
To understand the claim better, we must go back some time. Earlier this year, Wikileaks collaborated with the Guardian to reveal hundreds of secret documents online. The Guardian went through the archives and found an astonishing incident. In an article entitled, "Israel spurned Palestinian offer of 'biggest Yerushalayim in history'", we are told that "Leaked papers reveal [Palestinian] negotiators proposed concessions on East Jerusalem settlements, Sheikh Jarrah and Old City holy sites" and that Palestinian chief negotiator, Saeb Erekat said the following: "It is no secret that … we are offering you the biggest Yerushalayim [the Hebrew word for Jerusalem] in history." The Guardian had a field day with this quote, using it as proof that the Palestinians were ready to make mass concessions. What was not mentioned in the headline, or in the analysis articles, was that Erekat went on to say, "But we must talk about the concept of al-Quds [Jerusalem in Arabic]."
The Guardian is quick to inform us that an "unprecedented offer” was made “on the East Jerusalem settlements”, carefully picking and mixing quotes that painted a story of Palestinian negotiators adopting a conciliatory approach, going so far as to propose "that Israel annex all Jewish settlements in Jerusalem except Har Homa." Put like this, it sounded very much like the Israelis were acting unreasonably, wantonly even.
In the ensuing debacle, Israel was roundly criticised for deliberately missing an opportunity to forge a real, lasting peace with the Palestinians. Had this been the end of the story, I would no doubt have not been writing about Palestinian lies, but about Israeli ones.
But the story does not end there. There is much that the Guardian neglected tell us in its editorials or headlines. For while Israel was indeed offered concessions by Palestinian negotiators, they were rendered obsolete and utterly invalidated when placed in the context of the greater plan put forward. Deep in the article, toward the end, we are told that Israel's negotiator was "recorded as dismissing the offer out of hand because the Palestinians had refused to concede Har Homa, as well as the settlements at Ma'ale Adumim, near Jerusalem, and Ariel, deeper in the West Bank." As this crucial fact was not afforded anywhere near the same level of prominence, Israel's reaction appears totally unreasonable.
Intriguingly, we are told that "Israel's position was fully supported by the Bush administration." Whatever one might say about the Bush administration, is worthy of note that the Israeli position was fully supported. No reservations were expressed. It was clear as day to the Americans that an offer on Jerusalem offset by a situation in which Ma'ale Adumim and Ariel would have to be ceded by the Israelis to Palestinian control was wholly unacceptable.
Not only this, but we might bear in mind recent statements made by Maen Rashid Areikat, the Palestine Liberation Organization's ambassador to the U.S., who said that the future Palestine should be free of Jews. After the firestorm that followed, Areikat then incriminated himself further when reiterating his position to the left-leaning Huffington Post stating that "Israeli soldiers and settlers -- 'persons who are amid an occupation, who are in my land illegally' -- would be rejected from the new Palestinian state." So, not only would Israel have to give Ariel and Ma'ale Adumim over to the Palestinians, but in excess of 56,000 people would be forcibly ejected from their homes and compelled to find a new place to live. Is it any wonder that Israel rejected such a proposition? The peace process is dead in the water, but not for lack of Israel trying. It is dead in the water because the Palestinian leadership has led us so far up a futile and fruitless path that there is nowhere else to turn but to yet more ridiculous measures. By acting like a petulant child, not only is the Palestinian leadership dismissing Israel's concerns and requirements, but it is effectively sabotaging the demands and needs of its own people, too.
For almost two decades now, there has been an implicit understanding that negotiations will take place based on the cease-fire line of 1949 commonly known as the "1967 borders". This line was never intended to constitute a border. How it came to be regarded as sacred has been one of the greatest deceptions of our time. So when President Obama states that Israel will need to find a solution based on this line, this is a massive break with previous agreements and understandings. Instead of focusing on the abominable racial incitement and insidious accusations of land theft being propagated by the Palestinians, a blind eye is turn to such indiscretions and the heat is turned on Israel for having the gall to demand that tens of thousands of people not be uprooted from their homes.
It is revealing that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas saw fit to select Latifa Abu Hmeid, the mother of several terrorists involved in multiple attacks on Israeli civilians, to be the ambassador for the Palestinian independence bid. Abbas might be a moderate relative to his predecessor Yassir Arafat, but there can be no doubt that he is absolutely not moderate. In choosing such a person to endorse the bid, we are told everything we need to know about his vision and aspirations.
It would be bad enough if this was an aberration from the norm. But it’s not. Previously, Abbas has overseen the dedication of a town square near Ramallah to another Palestinian national icon, Dalal Al Mughrabi, the terrorist who killed 37 people, including 13 children, after hijacking an Israeli bus in 1979. At least two schools and numerous summer camps are amongst the recipients of having the dubious honour of being named after this murderer. Such are the heroes of the Palestinian people.
Even more disturbingly, you might have missed such enthralling television as this, in which little children are shown dressing up as suicide bombers and clutching mock AK-47 rifles. Similarly, another odious clip depicts a little girl facing the screen telling viewers that Israel “stole” all the land, and “changed the names”. It’s bad enough that the current generation make unreasonable demands of Israel. Much, much worse is that the current generation are being indoctrinated before our eyes, being led to believe that Israel – in its totality – has no right to exist at all.
So. Do the Palestinian people want to live in peace? To be fair, I imagine the answer is that many do. Most people in the world do. But do the Palestinian people want to live peace alongside Israel? Well, no, not if repeated attempts to portray the residents of Tel Aviv, Haifa, west Jerusalem and other internationally undisputed Israel-controlled areas as land thieves and aliens are anything to go by. As long as the entire Jewish state is repeatedly deemed illegal and a travesty of justice, then it follows that the Palestinians are not prepared to accept an Israeli state alongside it. As long as such agitation reigns unchecked, what hope is there for peace?
It would take someone with all the vision of a Cyclops to believe that Netanyahu is responsible for Abbas’s endorsement and glorification of terror and his subsequent refusal to engage in negotiations. Benjamin Netanyahu's fault? Israel wilfully spurning opportunities to make peace? Palestinians forced to a final resort? Hardly. Don’t believe the lie, no matter how many times you hear it.
Showing posts with label Palestine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Palestine. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Friday, August 19, 2011
A letter I wrote to the British media...
Sir,
As a Londoner who has made his home in Jerusalem, I write to you with a tear in my eye. Yesterday's dreadful attack on Israeli citizens was not the first, nor will likely be the last, in a long chain.
September draws closer and the possibility of a Palestinian state becomes imminent, it is pertinent for us to ask ourselves whether the Palestinian leadership truly desire to live in peace with their Israeli neighbours. For all the talk of the evil of the occupation, Israelis have no assurances that the Palestinians seek to root out terrorism. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas might sound moderate, but scratch the surface and we see that terrorism is still glorified in the Territories. Just last year, Abbas dedicated a town square in the memory of Dalal Al-Mughrabi, a terrorist who hijacked a bus and murdered 37 Israelis in cold blood in 1978. Two summer camps also have the dubious honour of being named after this woman. It is evident that the Palestinian leadership is not interested in peaceful relations with Israel. Peace will only come when the Palestinians demonstrate their commitment to bring to justice and cease raising their children in an atmosphere of hate. Why is the Palestinian government not being pressured more to stop this wicked incitement? And why is Israel expected to allow a state characterised by such evil to arise?
Yours sincerely,
Elan Miller
Jerusalem
As a Londoner who has made his home in Jerusalem, I write to you with a tear in my eye. Yesterday's dreadful attack on Israeli citizens was not the first, nor will likely be the last, in a long chain.
September draws closer and the possibility of a Palestinian state becomes imminent, it is pertinent for us to ask ourselves whether the Palestinian leadership truly desire to live in peace with their Israeli neighbours. For all the talk of the evil of the occupation, Israelis have no assurances that the Palestinians seek to root out terrorism. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas might sound moderate, but scratch the surface and we see that terrorism is still glorified in the Territories. Just last year, Abbas dedicated a town square in the memory of Dalal Al-Mughrabi, a terrorist who hijacked a bus and murdered 37 Israelis in cold blood in 1978. Two summer camps also have the dubious honour of being named after this woman. It is evident that the Palestinian leadership is not interested in peaceful relations with Israel. Peace will only come when the Palestinians demonstrate their commitment to bring to justice and cease raising their children in an atmosphere of hate. Why is the Palestinian government not being pressured more to stop this wicked incitement? And why is Israel expected to allow a state characterised by such evil to arise?
Yours sincerely,
Elan Miller
Jerusalem
Monday, June 07, 2010
How to Start a Blood Libel in Four Easy Steps
This is a guest post by Yedidya Kennard.
STEP ONE - WRITE THE STORY
This is important. This is the story that you will have to stick to till the end, no matter what. It helps if part of the story is already well known - not true, but well known. For example, if your target is known to be an agressor, whether he is or isn't, this saves you a lot of work. For this reason it is important to keep a running campaign of libels, making all of them easily accepted.
The setting for your story is important. Boats are good, they bring to mind sun, beaches, deck chairs etc. If you can make it look like your target is bringing violence to a peaceful place, its always good. Of course, if your target is an army, you have an added advantage - soldiers are always associated with violence.
Try to link words with yourself that are associated with non-violence, that way even if you clearly are shown to be violent people will still be more inclined to believe you. Words like 'humanitarian' are good. Try and create a name for yourself involving words like 'freedom' or similar. It doesnt have to be relevant or true in any way, but if you can make it stick in the media they won't change it, no matter how clearly it is wrong.
STEP TWO - THE ACTION
It is important to be seen to lose. People like an underdog. Most people won't care who started or what happened; the main thing is the result. It may seem strange, but here you only win if you are seen to lose. After that, nothing else is really important. Also important is equipment, again you want to be seen here as the underdog. Words again are key. 'Guns' sounds bad, 'sticks' sound like a playground fight - even if you can kill people with them. 'Slingshots' are great too, remember, they are effective, they were once the long range weapon of choice, but now they sound like toys. Even knives and broken bottles sound harmless when put against guns. If you have to provoke at long range then you can still use this - call your rockets 'homemade' and all people will see is Grandma baking cookies. Harmless.
STEP THREE - GET YOUR STORY OUT FAST.
Speed is key here. Once the story is out there it won't stop being out there. Remember, journalists need stuff to report all the time, so if you get your story out there even 2 or 3 hours before the target gets his version out, you have a massive advantage. Journalists wont check if your story is true or not, as long as it is said by someone, they can report it. Once it is out there and there is no response from the other side, it becomes accepted as fact. It is far harder to change a story, or to challenge an established narrative, than it is to start one.
STEP FOUR - STICK TO THE SCRIPT!
This is perhaps the most difficult and most critical part. Once the other side get their act together they will of course challenge your account, and may even have evidence to back themselves up. What you have to understand here is that evidence is irrelevant. A story, however obviously wrong, will never die. However, some skill is needed to keep it as the mainstream version of events. You need to be able to lie with a straight face, despite the evidence against being right in front of you. You can practise this by looking at the sky and declaring 'The sky is green!". Once you can say this and even believe it, try to make other people believe it.
Remember, someone out there already believes your story; he will want to keep on believing it instead of seeing it being proven wrong. Help him - if he sees someone else denying the evidence, then it's easier for him to do so as well.
A great tactic to use here is emotive language. Put evidence against emotion, emotion always wins. Words again are key. If your side is seen using violence, call it 'passive resistance', it sounds good even if it's wrong. It has the word 'resistance' in it so it sounds plausible. If you can say it enough times, instead of seeing your person stabbing someone, all the viewer will see is an old wisened man in a loincloth. Also, if your words stick, then anyone challenging them is seen to be obviously changing the accepted version of events, which is very hard to do.
That's it! It all comes down to the words, whether they have any bearing on reality at all is totally irrelevant. Get your story out first, get the media to accept your words and the story will run and run. Of course, if you have a media and a population for some other reason ready to accept your version, so much the better! Always remember, the truth is irrelevant, it's the Story that counts.
STEP ONE - WRITE THE STORY
This is important. This is the story that you will have to stick to till the end, no matter what. It helps if part of the story is already well known - not true, but well known. For example, if your target is known to be an agressor, whether he is or isn't, this saves you a lot of work. For this reason it is important to keep a running campaign of libels, making all of them easily accepted.
The setting for your story is important. Boats are good, they bring to mind sun, beaches, deck chairs etc. If you can make it look like your target is bringing violence to a peaceful place, its always good. Of course, if your target is an army, you have an added advantage - soldiers are always associated with violence.
Try to link words with yourself that are associated with non-violence, that way even if you clearly are shown to be violent people will still be more inclined to believe you. Words like 'humanitarian' are good. Try and create a name for yourself involving words like 'freedom' or similar. It doesnt have to be relevant or true in any way, but if you can make it stick in the media they won't change it, no matter how clearly it is wrong.
STEP TWO - THE ACTION
It is important to be seen to lose. People like an underdog. Most people won't care who started or what happened; the main thing is the result. It may seem strange, but here you only win if you are seen to lose. After that, nothing else is really important. Also important is equipment, again you want to be seen here as the underdog. Words again are key. 'Guns' sounds bad, 'sticks' sound like a playground fight - even if you can kill people with them. 'Slingshots' are great too, remember, they are effective, they were once the long range weapon of choice, but now they sound like toys. Even knives and broken bottles sound harmless when put against guns. If you have to provoke at long range then you can still use this - call your rockets 'homemade' and all people will see is Grandma baking cookies. Harmless.
STEP THREE - GET YOUR STORY OUT FAST.
Speed is key here. Once the story is out there it won't stop being out there. Remember, journalists need stuff to report all the time, so if you get your story out there even 2 or 3 hours before the target gets his version out, you have a massive advantage. Journalists wont check if your story is true or not, as long as it is said by someone, they can report it. Once it is out there and there is no response from the other side, it becomes accepted as fact. It is far harder to change a story, or to challenge an established narrative, than it is to start one.
STEP FOUR - STICK TO THE SCRIPT!
This is perhaps the most difficult and most critical part. Once the other side get their act together they will of course challenge your account, and may even have evidence to back themselves up. What you have to understand here is that evidence is irrelevant. A story, however obviously wrong, will never die. However, some skill is needed to keep it as the mainstream version of events. You need to be able to lie with a straight face, despite the evidence against being right in front of you. You can practise this by looking at the sky and declaring 'The sky is green!". Once you can say this and even believe it, try to make other people believe it.
Remember, someone out there already believes your story; he will want to keep on believing it instead of seeing it being proven wrong. Help him - if he sees someone else denying the evidence, then it's easier for him to do so as well.
A great tactic to use here is emotive language. Put evidence against emotion, emotion always wins. Words again are key. If your side is seen using violence, call it 'passive resistance', it sounds good even if it's wrong. It has the word 'resistance' in it so it sounds plausible. If you can say it enough times, instead of seeing your person stabbing someone, all the viewer will see is an old wisened man in a loincloth. Also, if your words stick, then anyone challenging them is seen to be obviously changing the accepted version of events, which is very hard to do.
That's it! It all comes down to the words, whether they have any bearing on reality at all is totally irrelevant. Get your story out first, get the media to accept your words and the story will run and run. Of course, if you have a media and a population for some other reason ready to accept your version, so much the better! Always remember, the truth is irrelevant, it's the Story that counts.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Evil Zionists At It Again
My brother just posted the following link to his Facebook page. The title, "Palestinian Fatah Fighters Rehabilitate in Israel", only hints at the many hours of effort and the masses of resources that the Israeli government has invested in nursing these fighters; men committed to a cause that yearns for Israel's destruction.
It makes me wonder how Israel time and again is portrayed in such a negative light when things like this are routine in Israel. Yes, Israel engages in scary, dangerous and often lethal military operations, but it does not embark on these missions lightly; we care passionately about life and our fighting is to protect it, not to endanger it.
It makes me wonder how Israel time and again is portrayed in such a negative light when things like this are routine in Israel. Yes, Israel engages in scary, dangerous and often lethal military operations, but it does not embark on these missions lightly; we care passionately about life and our fighting is to protect it, not to endanger it.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Help the poor people of Gaza!
Supported by trendy-lefties*, hippies and anarchists, a new flotilla has set sail from Western Europe with the aim of "breaching the Israeli blockade" of Gaza and providing much needed supplies to the residents of the Gaza Strip.
Of course, this now well-established PR stunt will serve to stoke the anti-Israel rhetoric and will most likely give people whose moral compasses are somewhat wonky a chance to holler their crazed beliefs and consipracy theories into the microphones of the world's press.
Unfortunately for them, their efforts are unlikely to help the average Gazan on the street, as it were. Aside from relentlessly shooting rockets at Israeli villages and cities and public executions of anyone who publicly disagrees with its extreme religious or political stance, Hamas should also be known for its repeated stealing of supplies intended for the very citizens it is supposed to be governing and looking after.
But this does not concern the jolly group of solidarity activists; this is more about decrying Israel as a despicable country that perpetrates war crimes than it is about supporting and caring for their fellow human beings. No, if they really cared, they would go to countries where real abuses of human rights take place, where no one is permitted to strike a balance for minorities, where there is no journalistic freedom, where there is no judicial review. They could go to Sudan, Somalia, Zimbabwe but that none of these are a real cause celebre is telling.
Meanwhile, 97 trucks laden with building materials were permitted into the Gaza Strip earlier today. And this is no one-off. So much aid has been entering Gaza, that MFA Spokesman Yigal Palmor announced earlier today that, "Since the ceasefire in January 2009, well over a million tons of humanitarian supplies entered Gaza from Israel - that is almost a ton of aid for each man, woman and child in the Strip." (Source: here)
If this is a siege, Israel's mighty and imperious evil war machine isn't exactly doing its job efficiently, is it? The truth is that there is no seige of Gaza, there is no blockade, there is no illegal collective punishment being wreaked upon the Palestinian people. There undoubtedly are shortages of many goods, but none to the point where people are desperate for them. In any case, for as long as the tunnel industry is able to smuggle in items as large as cars, (in addition to augmenting Hamas's massive stockpile of rifles, rockets and other weaponry) it is quite clear that Gazans are not in a dire need for anything. The unfortunate truth is that the blockade is a lie; something these activists are unwilling to admit.
So it seems to me like these "pro-Palestinian" activists are no more than a rowdy bunch of hate-filled nuts who need to mouth off about the "despotism" of the Israeli government. I would say that they would be better served by reading the news, but no doubt they'd find some way to twist what they read to their agenda, too.
In the meantime, I post this video below. It makes for highly recommended viewing and serves to set the record straight about the people these activists plan to meet with.
* You know the type; the kind who invariably have immense trouble placing Israel on a map, let alone answering correctly questions about its size relative to the countries surrounding it. Or indeed those who posit that Israel has a population of over 100 million or some such exorbitant figure, that it's national language is Jewish and that it practices apartheid. You can spot them a mile away; they like to wear designer spectacle, T shirts bearing slogans such as "End Poverty Now!" (any suggestions on how to overthrow corrupt African regimes without sparking a war, sweethearts?) and with that most sickeningly omnipresent of fashion statements — the keffiyeh — carefully draped around their necks.
Of course, this now well-established PR stunt will serve to stoke the anti-Israel rhetoric and will most likely give people whose moral compasses are somewhat wonky a chance to holler their crazed beliefs and consipracy theories into the microphones of the world's press.
Unfortunately for them, their efforts are unlikely to help the average Gazan on the street, as it were. Aside from relentlessly shooting rockets at Israeli villages and cities and public executions of anyone who publicly disagrees with its extreme religious or political stance, Hamas should also be known for its repeated stealing of supplies intended for the very citizens it is supposed to be governing and looking after.
But this does not concern the jolly group of solidarity activists; this is more about decrying Israel as a despicable country that perpetrates war crimes than it is about supporting and caring for their fellow human beings. No, if they really cared, they would go to countries where real abuses of human rights take place, where no one is permitted to strike a balance for minorities, where there is no journalistic freedom, where there is no judicial review. They could go to Sudan, Somalia, Zimbabwe but that none of these are a real cause celebre is telling.
Meanwhile, 97 trucks laden with building materials were permitted into the Gaza Strip earlier today. And this is no one-off. So much aid has been entering Gaza, that MFA Spokesman Yigal Palmor announced earlier today that, "Since the ceasefire in January 2009, well over a million tons of humanitarian supplies entered Gaza from Israel - that is almost a ton of aid for each man, woman and child in the Strip." (Source: here)
If this is a siege, Israel's mighty and imperious evil war machine isn't exactly doing its job efficiently, is it? The truth is that there is no seige of Gaza, there is no blockade, there is no illegal collective punishment being wreaked upon the Palestinian people. There undoubtedly are shortages of many goods, but none to the point where people are desperate for them. In any case, for as long as the tunnel industry is able to smuggle in items as large as cars, (in addition to augmenting Hamas's massive stockpile of rifles, rockets and other weaponry) it is quite clear that Gazans are not in a dire need for anything. The unfortunate truth is that the blockade is a lie; something these activists are unwilling to admit.
So it seems to me like these "pro-Palestinian" activists are no more than a rowdy bunch of hate-filled nuts who need to mouth off about the "despotism" of the Israeli government. I would say that they would be better served by reading the news, but no doubt they'd find some way to twist what they read to their agenda, too.
In the meantime, I post this video below. It makes for highly recommended viewing and serves to set the record straight about the people these activists plan to meet with.
* You know the type; the kind who invariably have immense trouble placing Israel on a map, let alone answering correctly questions about its size relative to the countries surrounding it. Or indeed those who posit that Israel has a population of over 100 million or some such exorbitant figure, that it's national language is Jewish and that it practices apartheid. You can spot them a mile away; they like to wear designer spectacle, T shirts bearing slogans such as "End Poverty Now!" (any suggestions on how to overthrow corrupt African regimes without sparking a war, sweethearts?) and with that most sickeningly omnipresent of fashion statements — the keffiyeh — carefully draped around their necks.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Some thoughts on Yom Yerushalayim
Last night, about an hour before the commencement of Yom Yerushalayim (Jerusalem Day), I updated my Facebook status to: "Elan Miller has changed his profile picture to the Jerusalem flag in support of the Jewish people's eternal right to live in Jerusalem, the eternal capital of the Jewish people. To deny Jews the right to live in their home on the basis of their religion and ethnicity alone is wrong."
Soon after, somebody I met last summer commented. The person in question is someone I don't know too well, save to say that they were working for Haaretz on a summer internship. Their response seemed somewhat disapproving of my original statement: "To deny Palestinians the right to live in their home on the basis of their religion and ethnicity alone is (also) wrong."
Immediately, a number of my friends and acquaintances jumped at this oppositional perspective. Concerned that the person who left the comment would feel besieged, I got in touch right away to explain my own personal position. The remainder of this blog entry is comprised of the subsequent conversation we had. I hope you find it thought-provoking. Feel free to comment below; I'd be interested to hear what you have to say, too.
Soon after, my friend responded:
The strength of this last statement stunned me somewhat. While the views expressed by some of my friends are firmly held, I honestly don't consider them a threat to peace talks. In essence, they pointed out that the overwhelming proportion of the lands of the Middle East are Arab-owned, and that Israel deserves its own patch. I consider this argument is overly simple as it does not take into account the myriad other factors involved, but I also don't consider such a point to be one that strikes a lethal blow to the peace process.
Having said that, I understood my friend; people with such strongly held convictions certainly seem to be opposed to listening to other views. I immediately set about penning my response in turn, copied below.
That, at least thus far, is the end of our conversation. What do you think?
Soon after, somebody I met last summer commented. The person in question is someone I don't know too well, save to say that they were working for Haaretz on a summer internship. Their response seemed somewhat disapproving of my original statement: "To deny Palestinians the right to live in their home on the basis of their religion and ethnicity alone is (also) wrong."
Immediately, a number of my friends and acquaintances jumped at this oppositional perspective. Concerned that the person who left the comment would feel besieged, I got in touch right away to explain my own personal position. The remainder of this blog entry is comprised of the subsequent conversation we had. I hope you find it thought-provoking. Feel free to comment below; I'd be interested to hear what you have to say, too.
Hey :)
Thanks for your comment. Excuse the quick protest put up by my friends and associates, please don't take their comments personally.
You should know that I'm not an extremist at all, and I actually agree with your sentiment to a large extent, if not fully. Your point is heard loud and clear, and bothers me too.
I am conflicted and torn when it comes to the Palestinians' rights. First and foremost, I am a human being and a Jew; one who wishes no evil or discomfort on any other caring, living, loving human being. Let there be no doubt that I wish the Palestinians any suffering. But at the same time, I cannot countenaence Israel giving up control over Jerusalem. For over 3,000 years Jerusalem has been a united, undivided city. For 19 years, however, it was a divided city with a wall down the middle, dividing Jews from Arab. That time was when the Jordanians annexed East Jerusalem and put up a wall to prevent the Jews of Israel from entering. It pains me to think that Jerusalem should ever be divided again.
As to the rights of the Palestinians, I consider two things as crucial to fully understanding the matter. Firstly, that the Palestinians' claim to the land it's historically sketchy, but second, that it doesn't make a lot of a difference; they have nowhere else to go now that Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq have made it abundantly clear that they won't accept the Palestinians living amongst them. If they have lived in their present location for three generations already, my thinking is that Israel should try to ensure their safety and afford them defensible and contiguous borders. There need be no reason to stop Palestinians from living in Jerusalem; plenty already live in Haifa, Jaffa and Acre; Palestinian access to (, and land ownership in,) Jerusalem should be no barrier to peace.
Hope all's well with you.
Best regards,
-Elan
Soon after, my friend responded:
Hi Elan,
Thanks for your response, it means a lot to me. I will not bother in entering into a discussion with those people, as such a difference in basic moral, will not lead to a fulfilling conclusion.
I do not want to lecture you on my views, but I believe that when human beings (no matter their ethnicity or religion) are evicted, either through force or verbal discrimination from their houses, it should be considered a crime. My time at Haaretz showed me that there were two prevalent standards in Israel, one for Jews and one for Muslims, but one day I hope we can move past that and qualify each other first and foremost as human beings. That is exactly what my comment referred too. Racism and discrimination towards either Jews or Palestinians must end. As Jews have suffered throughout history at the hand of others, one would hope that they hold some sort of moral superiority or even conscience.
It is because of people like your friends and associates that the process towards peace will be elongated.
I hope all is well with you too.
The strength of this last statement stunned me somewhat. While the views expressed by some of my friends are firmly held, I honestly don't consider them a threat to peace talks. In essence, they pointed out that the overwhelming proportion of the lands of the Middle East are Arab-owned, and that Israel deserves its own patch. I consider this argument is overly simple as it does not take into account the myriad other factors involved, but I also don't consider such a point to be one that strikes a lethal blow to the peace process.
Having said that, I understood my friend; people with such strongly held convictions certainly seem to be opposed to listening to other views. I immediately set about penning my response in turn, copied below.
Hi,
Thank you. It's a shame that you don't enter into a discussion with them. Although I know that two of them will almost certainly not change their minds, it is entirely possible that one really will consider what you have to say.
I agree with you that evictions without due documentation and/or reason constitute a heinous crime and assure you that the overwhelming majority of Israelis agree with you, too.
I disagree with you about double-standards, however. Although there are most certainly double-standards vis-a-vis state relationships to Jews and Muslims, it should be noted that Muslim women living in Israel are afforded more rights than anywhere else in Middle East. There are many positive aspects for both Muslims living in Israel and Palestinian Muslims whose lives are essentially regulated by the Israeli occupation*.
Jews have indeed suffered throughout history and your point bothers me, too - Jews should hold themselves to a higher standard. I note with pride organisations like B'Tselem and Rabbis for Human Rights who make a point of protecting equality and human rights in Israel and the territories. While Israel is not yet perfect, I believe that we should take a long-term view. We must not forgive its errors and inadequacies, but neither should we condemn them without consideration for all the positive work being done. I really do believe that peace will eventually come to the region, but for that to happen, it is essential not to appropriate blame. Two reasons as to why; firstly, there is no such thing as a single reason for something going wrong here, and secondly, because no-one likes being blamed and pointing the finger only serves to embitter and entrench people's positions.
Feel free to let me know if you agree/disagree with what I say. I live and learn from everyone.
Best,
-Elan
*See, I'm no blind rightist, I acknowledge the occupation and deplore it, too. I'm actually more or less dead centre of the political spectrum.
That, at least thus far, is the end of our conversation. What do you think?
Thursday, April 15, 2010
More willful distortion courtesy of the BBC
I've taken umbrage with BBC reporting before, but this time I'm really mad.
The story in question, Religious row holds up Israeli hospital", is one that I was actually rather glad to see being reported upon as it was a story that carried national significance within Israel and made for good material on Israeli life and local affairs, as opposed to yet another one of the BBC's identikit pieces on the ongoing conflict which serves to make the region look like nothing but a bleak war zone. True, this story stems from a conflict of interest between the religious and secular factions in Israel, but I welcomed the BBC's decision to examine some other aspect of Israeli life.
The article explains that "new unit was to be fortified against the rockets often fired into Israel by Palestinian militants" because the hospital is located only 12km from the Gaza strip, well within reach of the Kassam and Grad rockets fired from there.
I was happy that the BBC would write this, but my initial feelings gave way to one of disbelief when I read an outrageous following lie slipped in the next sentence: "Nearly three-quarters of the hospital's patients had to be evacuated during Israel's military operation in Gaza last year, as there was nowhere safe for them to stay as the rockets fell in response."
To say my eyes nearly popped out of my head would be an understatement. Really? I never knew that the rockets fired at Israeli cities and towns were a response to Israel's attack on Hamas... Oh, how thoughtless of us! If only we'd known that earlier, we would have stopped attacking those poor Hamasniks. What a terrrible misunderstanding!
Of course, the truth is that the rocket fire on Israel predated Operation Cast Lead by a mere eight years. Operation Cast Lead was a response to the rocket fire, not the other way round. If the BBC wants to spread muck it should be more careful. Israel's detractors have apparently decided that the best way to do this is to malign Israel's intentions, disparaging us as wayward war criminals who wantonly kill the defenceless. The tactic works; such claims are difficult in the extreme to disprove.
But this time it would seem that the BBC hacks were a little too excited to share their perspective with the world and allowed their excitedness to get the better of them. If I'll give them the benefit of the doubt, I can only imagine that they've come to the point that they believe their own distorted perception of reality that they've forgotten that the operation was initiated after Hamas repeatedly allowed a six-month ceasefire to be broken, with the last straw coming after Israel realised that Hamas were using the lull to build tunnels with the aim of capturing more Israeli soldiers.
So they've either bought their own claptrap or they've decided to dispense with their normal method of working with reality and then spinning it to fit their own anti-Israel agenda. Either way, I'm appalled that the BBC can rewrite history like this.
Hamas struck first? No. Sod that. If the facts are inconvenient, just change them to suit your own ends. Who cares about the truth, anyway?
Oh, and another thing; do these rockets look "crude" or "home-made" (as the BBC loves to describe them) to you? Thought not.
The story in question, Religious row holds up Israeli hospital", is one that I was actually rather glad to see being reported upon as it was a story that carried national significance within Israel and made for good material on Israeli life and local affairs, as opposed to yet another one of the BBC's identikit pieces on the ongoing conflict which serves to make the region look like nothing but a bleak war zone. True, this story stems from a conflict of interest between the religious and secular factions in Israel, but I welcomed the BBC's decision to examine some other aspect of Israeli life.
The article explains that "new unit was to be fortified against the rockets often fired into Israel by Palestinian militants" because the hospital is located only 12km from the Gaza strip, well within reach of the Kassam and Grad rockets fired from there.
I was happy that the BBC would write this, but my initial feelings gave way to one of disbelief when I read an outrageous following lie slipped in the next sentence: "Nearly three-quarters of the hospital's patients had to be evacuated during Israel's military operation in Gaza last year, as there was nowhere safe for them to stay as the rockets fell in response."
To say my eyes nearly popped out of my head would be an understatement. Really? I never knew that the rockets fired at Israeli cities and towns were a response to Israel's attack on Hamas... Oh, how thoughtless of us! If only we'd known that earlier, we would have stopped attacking those poor Hamasniks. What a terrrible misunderstanding!
Of course, the truth is that the rocket fire on Israel predated Operation Cast Lead by a mere eight years. Operation Cast Lead was a response to the rocket fire, not the other way round. If the BBC wants to spread muck it should be more careful. Israel's detractors have apparently decided that the best way to do this is to malign Israel's intentions, disparaging us as wayward war criminals who wantonly kill the defenceless. The tactic works; such claims are difficult in the extreme to disprove.
But this time it would seem that the BBC hacks were a little too excited to share their perspective with the world and allowed their excitedness to get the better of them. If I'll give them the benefit of the doubt, I can only imagine that they've come to the point that they believe their own distorted perception of reality that they've forgotten that the operation was initiated after Hamas repeatedly allowed a six-month ceasefire to be broken, with the last straw coming after Israel realised that Hamas were using the lull to build tunnels with the aim of capturing more Israeli soldiers.
So they've either bought their own claptrap or they've decided to dispense with their normal method of working with reality and then spinning it to fit their own anti-Israel agenda. Either way, I'm appalled that the BBC can rewrite history like this.
Hamas struck first? No. Sod that. If the facts are inconvenient, just change them to suit your own ends. Who cares about the truth, anyway?
Oh, and another thing; do these rockets look "crude" or "home-made" (as the BBC loves to describe them) to you? Thought not.
Friday, April 09, 2010
Latma's modern take on Chad Gadya
I know it's a little late, but this pointed clip, produced by Latma, is slowly and painfully making the rounds here. If you are not Israeli you will miss a little of its meaning, sensitive and controversial as it is.
An English version of the clip is available too, but I suggest you try watching the Hebrew as well if you understand.
An English version of the clip is available too, but I suggest you try watching the Hebrew as well if you understand.
Thursday, April 01, 2010
Saw this a while ago
I'd seen the map below a while back, but only ever thought of it as a useful educational resource. It seems highly accurate and very well put together, with good graphics to boot. Despite all this, I didn't think I'd need to look at it again. But having seen a recent blog entry by Daled Amos, I've realised that this map isn't simply a useful one-dimensional educational resource, but also an important one that quite clearly presents the history of the region and allows viewers to understand the scale of the territory being fought over today.
Often I have debates with people about the legitmacy of the Jewish claim to the land of Israel and I wonder whether these people have any idea about the size of the land of Israel relative to the surrounding states or the historic presence of the Jewish people. Assuming that this map is indeed accurate, I would highly recommend all to view it as it really is very enlightening.
Additionally, as Daled Amos (quoting Israellycool) challenges: "See if you can spot when a Palestinian state existed".
Often I have debates with people about the legitmacy of the Jewish claim to the land of Israel and I wonder whether these people have any idea about the size of the land of Israel relative to the surrounding states or the historic presence of the Jewish people. Assuming that this map is indeed accurate, I would highly recommend all to view it as it really is very enlightening.
Additionally, as Daled Amos (quoting Israellycool) challenges: "See if you can spot when a Palestinian state existed".
Monday, October 05, 2009
Monday, September 21, 2009
A cause for hope
Although I blog fairly regularly, I don't think I've ever posted an entry of a personal nature here. Last week, I attended the Nefesh b'Nefesh International Jewish Bloggers Convention in Jerusalem (read my report for the Jerusalem Post here) and one of the speakers mentioned that while blogs often have specific topics, it's still nice to write those "slice of life" entries and share your experiences with others. The speaker went on to explain that for a person living in Efrat, for example, it might not seem all too interesting at first to describe one's daily commute, but to someone living on the other side of the world the idea of waking up and facing the Judaean hills, driving through biblical landscape on the way to work in the knowledge that the only traffic jam one might encounter would be from a wayward flock of sheep - well, that might be almost exotic to some. With this in mind, I've decided that it's high time that I share some of my experiences.
The first thing I want to relate is an event that occured last Monday. I had locked my bike outside the Shuk and after retrieving it, noticed that somebody had touched my gears, as they had been reset from 21st gear (3 and 7) to something like 8, as the numbers were lower around 2 and 4. I was a little bit annoyed, but I soon became genuinely irritated when I saw that the gear chain had been knocked off, too. For those readers who haven't had to put a bike's chain back on the gears, I should explain that you get your hands dirty and oily from touching the greasy chain. After realising that I had no option, I set about fixing the bike.
Just as I was about to get started, an elderly man stopped to ask me if I could help him by taking his heavy bags as he walked to the bus stop on the other side of the road. I told him that I needed to fix my bike, but that I would be with him in a second. The man was rather insistent, but I explained that I would need a little time first.
Putting a bicycle chain back in place (illustrative)
After fidgeting with the bike's chain for a few seconds to no avail, an Arab teenager, almost certainly one of the many Arab workers in the Shuk, strode towards my bike, took it from me gently and in a split-second had the chain back on. Hugely impressed and appreciative of his kindness, I thanked him and shook his hand. It was truly heartening to see that despite what the media makes out to be total disharmony between Jews and Arabs, there's still co-operation between the two groups and away from the media spotlight, there are still instances like this that give you hope. But the boy, unaware of my goofy smile, then turned round to the old man, took his bags and walked him across the road. If there's one thing I can take from this it is that while we can never work with extremists, there will definitely be people "on the other side" who are not extreme and who want peace too. It is up to us to find a way of working with them and alienating terrorists and those who incite hatred and violence against us.
The first thing I want to relate is an event that occured last Monday. I had locked my bike outside the Shuk and after retrieving it, noticed that somebody had touched my gears, as they had been reset from 21st gear (3 and 7) to something like 8, as the numbers were lower around 2 and 4. I was a little bit annoyed, but I soon became genuinely irritated when I saw that the gear chain had been knocked off, too. For those readers who haven't had to put a bike's chain back on the gears, I should explain that you get your hands dirty and oily from touching the greasy chain. After realising that I had no option, I set about fixing the bike.
Just as I was about to get started, an elderly man stopped to ask me if I could help him by taking his heavy bags as he walked to the bus stop on the other side of the road. I told him that I needed to fix my bike, but that I would be with him in a second. The man was rather insistent, but I explained that I would need a little time first.
Putting a bicycle chain back in place (illustrative)After fidgeting with the bike's chain for a few seconds to no avail, an Arab teenager, almost certainly one of the many Arab workers in the Shuk, strode towards my bike, took it from me gently and in a split-second had the chain back on. Hugely impressed and appreciative of his kindness, I thanked him and shook his hand. It was truly heartening to see that despite what the media makes out to be total disharmony between Jews and Arabs, there's still co-operation between the two groups and away from the media spotlight, there are still instances like this that give you hope. But the boy, unaware of my goofy smile, then turned round to the old man, took his bags and walked him across the road. If there's one thing I can take from this it is that while we can never work with extremists, there will definitely be people "on the other side" who are not extreme and who want peace too. It is up to us to find a way of working with them and alienating terrorists and those who incite hatred and violence against us.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Bibi responds to Obama
A few hours ago, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu spoke at Bar Ilan University in his first major public appearance since Barack Obama's "message of peace" at Cairo University last week. Netanyahu's reaction was hotly anticipated, and he certainly did not let the press down, stating for the first time in Israel's history, support for the creation of a Palestinian state. The one caveat to this support is that it must be a demilitarised state - a suggestion that many will find unacceptable.
Overall, the reaction from Israelis has been one of appreciation and approval. My facebook page was swamped with messages posted such as "Have we found a leader?" and "Bibi gave a good, eloquent and uplifting speech." Such sentiments seem typical of the general Israeli reception of the speech. Whereas the biggest story in the foreign press was the historic call for the Palestinians to finally have a state of their own, Israelis seemed generally unperturbed by such a statement; even if hasn't actually happened yet, most Israelis have accepted the need for a two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Because Israel has never seen true peace, its Prime Ministers have tended to be men who previously served as high ranking officers in the IDF. Moreover, as the prospects of a Palestinian state being formed next to Israel become more and more realistic, Israelis increasingly feel that any leader who gives land to the Palestinians must not be construed as "weak." As such, Benjamin Netanyahu stands in a different category entirely to the competition - he is trusted by a large swathe of the public in a way that no other politician in Israel is. There is no doubt that he cares desperately. Although Netanyahu does not make a habit of mentioning his late brother, Yoni, (a hero who was the sole casualty of an extraordinary IDF rescue mission in 1976) today he did. Speaking as one who understands the pain and emotion his country has undergone, Netanyahu said clearly "I do not want war. No one in Israel wants war" to great applause. Whereas often Israelis feel that displaying our exhaustion is a interpreted by our enemies as a sign of weakness, Netanyahu sounded absolutely honest and crucially avoided coming across as sounding weak or resigned to American coercion.
While Prime Minister Netanyahu's statement was the first time an official had gone on record to lend support to a future Palestinian state, it is not really a shock. Last week, I read newspaper headlines saying that Netanyahu "may give in to Obama's demands," or "cave to American pressure," but here the reality couldn't be further from the truth; in 1997 Yassir Arafat and Benjamin Netanyahu, during his first stint as the Israeli PM, agreed to hand over control of Hebron to the PA. This was well before Obama came to power. The withdrawal from this city was made against huge internal pressure, and serves to prove that Netanyahu, a man who is perceived as being right-wing and hawkish, actually wants a Palestinian state to be built alongside Israel.
For a Prime Minister's first major policy speech, it is undeniable that Mr. Netanyahu spoke extremely well and made a very solid case for Israel, but I still have reservations as to whether he has done enough. Many people in the western world are misinformed (or worse) and believe that the settlements are a major stumbling block to peace in the region, whereas many Israelis know that this simply isn't the case. Despite this, Netanyahu conceded that settlement building needs to stop - a statement that should go some way to appeasing Obama's insistence on a freeze on all settlement activity. Truth be told, Netanyahu only presented a minor bargaining chip there - even though no he agreed that no more settlements can be built, and that Israel is obligated to dismantle a number of settlements, he refused to make the natural growth of existing settlements illegal. I think that the majority of Israelis agree with this position, and that even those who don't (on either extreme of the political spectrum) will be able to deal with this solution.
And yet, I was disappointed with the speech. It's not that Netanyahu said anything wrong - far from it - without understatement I can say that I agreed with every word. Importantly, Netanyahu set Barack Obama straight on the issue the historical rights of the Jewish People to the Land of Israel, including Judea and Samaria. (Something which is not connected to the Holocaust.)
There's an element of Israelis and Jews who are convinced that Obama is anti-Zionistic and anti-Semitic. They refer to his middle name, Hussein, and his religious background, and say that he either is a Muslim, or at the very least sympathises with Muslims. I don't buy into this theory at all. I prefer to believe that Obama is an highly ideological man, a true liberal who wants to see both Palestine and Israel flourish. Unfortunately, no matter how much Barack Obama wants to bring peace to the Middle East, he will only be allowed to fulfill his dream if the Palestinians want to share in his vision. For as long as the Palestinian people are engaged in terrorism, they compromise their ability to be true partners in a real peace process, and forcing Israel to accept a two-state solution at such a time is recklessly naive. Netanyahu has invited the Palestinians to talk peace, but we all know that talking peace is cheap - doing peace is so much more expensive. At the present time, we have no signs that the Palestinians are ready for peace, neither spoken or in action, and as such it would be foolish to create a Palestinian state at this moment in time.
It is not by chance that Netanyahu spoke at the Begin-Sadat Center, which was named after the Israeli and Egyptian leaders who signed the historic 1979 Egypt-Israel Peace treaty. The centre was named after two leaders who put an end to a longstanding bloody conflict with the declaration of "no more wars," a statement that resonates deeply within the Israeli psyche. This centre is part of Bar Ilan University, a campus universally recognised as the most conservative in Israel. Yet, no one objects to the naming of a peace research institute after an Arab man. Such a thing would be unthinkable in an Arab state, but in Israel this is a cause for pride. Twice in his speech, Netanyahu mentioned Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin and expressed admiration for their work and Israel's hope that we can follow in their footsteps. Regrettably though, neither Mahmoud Abbas (leader of the PA) and Ismail Haniyeh, (one of Hamas' chief leaders) are good candidates for making peace with Israel. Both are committed to stifling a Jewish state from thriving - Haniyeh by taking the extremist and belicose stance, and Abbas by playing the role of the reasonable moderate who argues that a Jewish state is racist.
I am disappointed that while Netanyahu expressed support for a Palestinian state and offered to meet Arab leaders "in any place and at any time, in Damascus, Riyadh and Beirut, and of course Jerusalem," he didn't at least mention his disappointment with the Arab world for their continued denial of the existence of the Jewish state and their stubborn refusal to even set foot in Israeli territory. I am disappointed that while Netanyahu endorsed the creation of a future Palestinian state that will neighbour Israel, he didn't stress his dismay that Palestinian terrorism has killed hundreds, maimed thousands and bereaved families will be affected for the rest of their lives. Netanyahu invited the Palestinians to the table without any "pre-conditions," but shouldn't a pre-condition be that Hamas stops firing rockets at the civilians of Sderot and that Fatah accept the concept of Jewish sovereignty in Israel just as the overwhelming majority of Israelis accept that Palestinians deserve autonomy?
For all the sweet talk for Obama's benefit, Netanyahu's speech was met by disgust in the Arab world. To quote Melanie Phillips: "How can there be a ‘two state solution’ when the Palestinians refuse to accept the existence of Israel as a Jewish state? Quite obviously, such a solution is off the table as far as the Palestinians are concerned."
Overall, the reaction from Israelis has been one of appreciation and approval. My facebook page was swamped with messages posted such as "Have we found a leader?" and "Bibi gave a good, eloquent and uplifting speech." Such sentiments seem typical of the general Israeli reception of the speech. Whereas the biggest story in the foreign press was the historic call for the Palestinians to finally have a state of their own, Israelis seemed generally unperturbed by such a statement; even if hasn't actually happened yet, most Israelis have accepted the need for a two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Because Israel has never seen true peace, its Prime Ministers have tended to be men who previously served as high ranking officers in the IDF. Moreover, as the prospects of a Palestinian state being formed next to Israel become more and more realistic, Israelis increasingly feel that any leader who gives land to the Palestinians must not be construed as "weak." As such, Benjamin Netanyahu stands in a different category entirely to the competition - he is trusted by a large swathe of the public in a way that no other politician in Israel is. There is no doubt that he cares desperately. Although Netanyahu does not make a habit of mentioning his late brother, Yoni, (a hero who was the sole casualty of an extraordinary IDF rescue mission in 1976) today he did. Speaking as one who understands the pain and emotion his country has undergone, Netanyahu said clearly "I do not want war. No one in Israel wants war" to great applause. Whereas often Israelis feel that displaying our exhaustion is a interpreted by our enemies as a sign of weakness, Netanyahu sounded absolutely honest and crucially avoided coming across as sounding weak or resigned to American coercion.
While Prime Minister Netanyahu's statement was the first time an official had gone on record to lend support to a future Palestinian state, it is not really a shock. Last week, I read newspaper headlines saying that Netanyahu "may give in to Obama's demands," or "cave to American pressure," but here the reality couldn't be further from the truth; in 1997 Yassir Arafat and Benjamin Netanyahu, during his first stint as the Israeli PM, agreed to hand over control of Hebron to the PA. This was well before Obama came to power. The withdrawal from this city was made against huge internal pressure, and serves to prove that Netanyahu, a man who is perceived as being right-wing and hawkish, actually wants a Palestinian state to be built alongside Israel.
For a Prime Minister's first major policy speech, it is undeniable that Mr. Netanyahu spoke extremely well and made a very solid case for Israel, but I still have reservations as to whether he has done enough. Many people in the western world are misinformed (or worse) and believe that the settlements are a major stumbling block to peace in the region, whereas many Israelis know that this simply isn't the case. Despite this, Netanyahu conceded that settlement building needs to stop - a statement that should go some way to appeasing Obama's insistence on a freeze on all settlement activity. Truth be told, Netanyahu only presented a minor bargaining chip there - even though no he agreed that no more settlements can be built, and that Israel is obligated to dismantle a number of settlements, he refused to make the natural growth of existing settlements illegal. I think that the majority of Israelis agree with this position, and that even those who don't (on either extreme of the political spectrum) will be able to deal with this solution.
And yet, I was disappointed with the speech. It's not that Netanyahu said anything wrong - far from it - without understatement I can say that I agreed with every word. Importantly, Netanyahu set Barack Obama straight on the issue the historical rights of the Jewish People to the Land of Israel, including Judea and Samaria. (Something which is not connected to the Holocaust.)
There's an element of Israelis and Jews who are convinced that Obama is anti-Zionistic and anti-Semitic. They refer to his middle name, Hussein, and his religious background, and say that he either is a Muslim, or at the very least sympathises with Muslims. I don't buy into this theory at all. I prefer to believe that Obama is an highly ideological man, a true liberal who wants to see both Palestine and Israel flourish. Unfortunately, no matter how much Barack Obama wants to bring peace to the Middle East, he will only be allowed to fulfill his dream if the Palestinians want to share in his vision. For as long as the Palestinian people are engaged in terrorism, they compromise their ability to be true partners in a real peace process, and forcing Israel to accept a two-state solution at such a time is recklessly naive. Netanyahu has invited the Palestinians to talk peace, but we all know that talking peace is cheap - doing peace is so much more expensive. At the present time, we have no signs that the Palestinians are ready for peace, neither spoken or in action, and as such it would be foolish to create a Palestinian state at this moment in time.
It is not by chance that Netanyahu spoke at the Begin-Sadat Center, which was named after the Israeli and Egyptian leaders who signed the historic 1979 Egypt-Israel Peace treaty. The centre was named after two leaders who put an end to a longstanding bloody conflict with the declaration of "no more wars," a statement that resonates deeply within the Israeli psyche. This centre is part of Bar Ilan University, a campus universally recognised as the most conservative in Israel. Yet, no one objects to the naming of a peace research institute after an Arab man. Such a thing would be unthinkable in an Arab state, but in Israel this is a cause for pride. Twice in his speech, Netanyahu mentioned Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin and expressed admiration for their work and Israel's hope that we can follow in their footsteps. Regrettably though, neither Mahmoud Abbas (leader of the PA) and Ismail Haniyeh, (one of Hamas' chief leaders) are good candidates for making peace with Israel. Both are committed to stifling a Jewish state from thriving - Haniyeh by taking the extremist and belicose stance, and Abbas by playing the role of the reasonable moderate who argues that a Jewish state is racist.
I am disappointed that while Netanyahu expressed support for a Palestinian state and offered to meet Arab leaders "in any place and at any time, in Damascus, Riyadh and Beirut, and of course Jerusalem," he didn't at least mention his disappointment with the Arab world for their continued denial of the existence of the Jewish state and their stubborn refusal to even set foot in Israeli territory. I am disappointed that while Netanyahu endorsed the creation of a future Palestinian state that will neighbour Israel, he didn't stress his dismay that Palestinian terrorism has killed hundreds, maimed thousands and bereaved families will be affected for the rest of their lives. Netanyahu invited the Palestinians to the table without any "pre-conditions," but shouldn't a pre-condition be that Hamas stops firing rockets at the civilians of Sderot and that Fatah accept the concept of Jewish sovereignty in Israel just as the overwhelming majority of Israelis accept that Palestinians deserve autonomy?
For all the sweet talk for Obama's benefit, Netanyahu's speech was met by disgust in the Arab world. To quote Melanie Phillips: "How can there be a ‘two state solution’ when the Palestinians refuse to accept the existence of Israel as a Jewish state? Quite obviously, such a solution is off the table as far as the Palestinians are concerned."
Monday, May 25, 2009
More on the Security Barrier.
Further to my post on Israel's West Bank barrier last week, I stumbled across this cartoon online and had to share it with you:
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Land grab? NO!
Ever since construction of the West Bank barrier began, it has been the subject of controversy and intense debate. Although almost everyone agrees that it does serve to save lives, many people have dismissed the barrier's building as an unnecessarily strong and permanent measure; one that effectively takes away land from Palestinians.The issue here is one of intent; while Israel claims it's intention is to save lives by denying suicide bombers access to Israeli cities and towns, this has been rejected as a front by Palestinians and anti-Zionists who have dubbed the move a "land grab."
While many accuse the barrier of effectively isolating Palestinians and cutting them off from their land, it is my belief that the West Bank barrier was not designed as a stealthy lang grab, and truly is a worthy method of reducing the effectiveness of terrorism. As recently as last week I mentioned to a member of my family how I can't remember the last time a terrorist infiltrated Israeli security and successfully bombed Jerusalem or Tel Aviv, thank God. During the intifada, terrorism was something Israelis had almost become used to, even though the IDF were doing their best to prevent suicide bombers and the like from entering into Israel. Love it or hate it, the effectiveness of the wall in saving Israeli lives is indisputable.
With this in mind, I was intrigued to read this story on the BBC website yesterday morning. The BBC reports the head of Israel's security service, Shin Bet chief Yuval Diskin as saying, "there is no security reason for continuing construction of Israel's barrier through the West Bank."
At first my reaction to what I had read was to reject Mr. Diskin's claim out of hand, dismissing him as an ideologically weak officer who had bowed to the pressure of the peace lobby without giving due consideration to Israel's security concerns. But the more I think about the issue, the more I feel compelled to agree with Mr. Diskin. If Israel is experiencing a calm period as a result of the wall, it would seem that the wall is doing it's job and that further building is not necessary.
Moreover, if Israel should halt construction of the barrier now it will conclusively prove to the world that the West Bank barrier is no land grab. While I cannot advocate tearing down the wall just yet - that would be reckless without at least assurances of prevention of terrorism from the Palestinians - I believe Israel is now in a position to halt construction of the barrier. If Israel's security remains as stable as it has been for the last two years or so, then maybe it would be possible to leave the wall as it is, without completing it as originally intended.
Ultimately Israel's most stubborn detractors will most likely continue to deny Israel's stated objectives of the barrier, decrying Israeli actions as an attempt to steal the Palestinians' olive groves and suchlike, but I believe the statement issued by Mr. Diskin proves Israel's real intention. I heard somebody talk about Israel on Sunday, and he said that there are only two ways to judge a country - by what it's officials say and by what it's officials do. What Israel's officials were doing when they commissioned the barrier is still being debated, but what they are saying is indisputable - this is no land grab. I only hope the world pays attention.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Media Boycott of Israel
Despite the fact that it is terribly subjective, the BBC website is typically my first port of call for checking the news. I can imagine a fair few readers might be disappointed by that, but you needn't worry too much though; I am familiar enough with the warped mindset of the politically correct British that I can "translate" the babble that passes as reporting into an educated guess as to what has actually occurred.
This afternoon I read an interesting story, detailing how the Edinburgh International Film Festival has returned a £300 grant to the Israeli government after a prominent film director called for the event to be boycotted. The director in question, one Ken Loach, is a socialist and was upset by the Israeli government potentially subsidising the cost of a film festival.
I wasn't particularly surprised that somebody who was involved in the arts had decided to boycott Israel - it's really rather trendy to be anti-Zionistic these days, and even more so if you are hatefully and intolerantly anti-Zionistic. Ken Loach, a man who described a report on rsing anti-semitism as a fraud and stating that: "If there has been a rise I am not surprised. In fact, it is perfectly understandable because Israel feeds feelings of anti-Semitism."
Funnily enough, actor and ex-Manchester United footballer Eric Cantona recently compared his famously vocal and blunt former manager, Sir Alex Ferguson to Ken Loach: "Ferguson and Ken Loach are where they are because they have an enormous amount of humility." Although Eric was being quite serious, his suggestion is hugely ironic given both parties' well-documented lack of humility.
While I am not surpised that a left-winger has decided to denounce Israel publicly and petulantly make a point that they know Israel will not be able to defend, I was slightly peeveed by the statement consequently put out by the spineless chaps at the Edinburgh International Film Festival: "Although the Festival is considered wholly cultural and apolitical, we always acknowledge and consider the opinions of the film industry as a whole, and as such accept that one filmmaker's recent statement speaks on behalf of the film community."
Unfortunately, being spineless doesn't detract from the festival boss's ability to be downright pompous and act as spokesmen for an entire industry. Their claim that Loach's objectionable statement is no less than a universal truth is an assertion that even the staunchest of anti-Zionists might realise as being rather uncredible.
Of course, if Mr Loach and the film industry want to make an example out of injustice and abuse in the Middle East, they need not look further than the case of Farfur the fake Disney mouse. Alternatively, they might want to sample the atttiude of Israeli children towards Palestinians (first video clip below) and contrast that with the way Palestinian children are brought up to regard Israel. (Second clip below.)
Ultimately, instead of dismissing Israel out of hand, the world would do well to pay close attention to what really happens in Israel, and try to understand what's happening when the TV cameras aren't rolling. This heart-warming video speak volumes about how Israel truly regards the Palestinians:
This afternoon I read an interesting story, detailing how the Edinburgh International Film Festival has returned a £300 grant to the Israeli government after a prominent film director called for the event to be boycotted. The director in question, one Ken Loach, is a socialist and was upset by the Israeli government potentially subsidising the cost of a film festival.
I wasn't particularly surprised that somebody who was involved in the arts had decided to boycott Israel - it's really rather trendy to be anti-Zionistic these days, and even more so if you are hatefully and intolerantly anti-Zionistic. Ken Loach, a man who described a report on rsing anti-semitism as a fraud and stating that: "If there has been a rise I am not surprised. In fact, it is perfectly understandable because Israel feeds feelings of anti-Semitism."
Funnily enough, actor and ex-Manchester United footballer Eric Cantona recently compared his famously vocal and blunt former manager, Sir Alex Ferguson to Ken Loach: "Ferguson and Ken Loach are where they are because they have an enormous amount of humility." Although Eric was being quite serious, his suggestion is hugely ironic given both parties' well-documented lack of humility.
While I am not surpised that a left-winger has decided to denounce Israel publicly and petulantly make a point that they know Israel will not be able to defend, I was slightly peeveed by the statement consequently put out by the spineless chaps at the Edinburgh International Film Festival: "Although the Festival is considered wholly cultural and apolitical, we always acknowledge and consider the opinions of the film industry as a whole, and as such accept that one filmmaker's recent statement speaks on behalf of the film community."
Unfortunately, being spineless doesn't detract from the festival boss's ability to be downright pompous and act as spokesmen for an entire industry. Their claim that Loach's objectionable statement is no less than a universal truth is an assertion that even the staunchest of anti-Zionists might realise as being rather uncredible.
Of course, if Mr Loach and the film industry want to make an example out of injustice and abuse in the Middle East, they need not look further than the case of Farfur the fake Disney mouse. Alternatively, they might want to sample the atttiude of Israeli children towards Palestinians (first video clip below) and contrast that with the way Palestinian children are brought up to regard Israel. (Second clip below.)
Ultimately, instead of dismissing Israel out of hand, the world would do well to pay close attention to what really happens in Israel, and try to understand what's happening when the TV cameras aren't rolling. This heart-warming video speak volumes about how Israel truly regards the Palestinians:
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Here we go...
And a little over a week after the one-week ceasefire was announced, what passed for peace here in Israel might be crumbling. I desperately hope not, but after events this morning, we'll have to wait and see. In case you didn't know, an Israeli soldier was killed and three were wounded this morning when the jeep they were in hit a mine during a standard patrol on part of the Gaza strip perimeter. Consequently Israel was drawn into a relatively low-key gun battle with terrorists and an Arab farmer caught in the crossfire was killed. A number of drones and helicopters were deployed on aerial patrols and one caused a sonic boom over Gaza by way of a statement from the IDF. (EDIT: Later on in the afternooon, 20 tanks and 7 armoured bulldozers backed up by air support entered Gaza but did not engage in heavy fighting. An air strike targeted a terrorist on a motorbike, causing him and a bystander severe injuries, but other than that nobody was reported injured.)
People have asked me whether the ceasefire will hold and I have told them that I am very pessimistic. Hamas undoubtedly want to attack Israel, and have never seen a ceasefire as a reason to actually cease their fire. During the six month period between June and December last year when an uneasy calm existed between Israel and Gaza, there were still over 300 rockets and mortars fired into Israeli terrirtory in defiance of the supposed "Hudna." If Olmert, Livni and Peres were serious when they said Israel had to change the status quo and that it will no longer tolerate such a threat and will respond to each and every rocket, then all Hamas has to do to grab the initiative is to fire a high volume of rockets into Israel. If we do not respond, we will be externally perceived as weak and internally perceived as unable to back up our assurances to the residents of Sderot and Ashkelon, and if we respond then the ceasefire will disappear and we will back in a war-like situation. I fully expect Hamas will most likely wait till closer to the elections and then step up rocket attacks once again to test this theory out. Either way, the Israeli government made a terrible mistake in withdrawing from Gaza as it did - it undermined a huge amount of progress. Hamas can now rebuild it's tunnels, (it already is, and furiously so,) and wait till the right time to attack again.
When will we learn?
People have asked me whether the ceasefire will hold and I have told them that I am very pessimistic. Hamas undoubtedly want to attack Israel, and have never seen a ceasefire as a reason to actually cease their fire. During the six month period between June and December last year when an uneasy calm existed between Israel and Gaza, there were still over 300 rockets and mortars fired into Israeli terrirtory in defiance of the supposed "Hudna." If Olmert, Livni and Peres were serious when they said Israel had to change the status quo and that it will no longer tolerate such a threat and will respond to each and every rocket, then all Hamas has to do to grab the initiative is to fire a high volume of rockets into Israel. If we do not respond, we will be externally perceived as weak and internally perceived as unable to back up our assurances to the residents of Sderot and Ashkelon, and if we respond then the ceasefire will disappear and we will back in a war-like situation. I fully expect Hamas will most likely wait till closer to the elections and then step up rocket attacks once again to test this theory out. Either way, the Israeli government made a terrible mistake in withdrawing from Gaza as it did - it undermined a huge amount of progress. Hamas can now rebuild it's tunnels, (it already is, and furiously so,) and wait till the right time to attack again.
When will we learn?
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
So who's fault is it?
Foreign governments trying to be "neutral" (see my earlier post about what that's all about,) experience real difficulty in admitting the reality of the current situation in and around Gaza, but ironically enough the Egyptians have no such qualms.
(Hat tip to Little Green Footballs and in turn, to Aaron.)
(Hat tip to Little Green Footballs and in turn, to Aaron.)
Monday, December 29, 2008
The trouble with "impartial" reporting.
Reporters working on the recently resumed hostilities in the Gaza strip on major news agencies, news websites and newspapers tend to take a supposedly neutral standpoint on events there. Unfortunately, what theey perceive as "unbiased" reporting, especially such as seen on the BBC website is particularly misleading. Allow me to explain.
The BBC website is good enough at taking isolated events of "Israeli oppression" and highlighting how Israel is relentlessly hounding the poor Palestinians. That kind of journalism is easy enough to single out as prejudiced or biased. This is mostly because even the BBC wouldn't argue against claims that these articles are one-sided; such articles are supposed to take one particular incident at a time and as such naturally tend to only examine one particular event.
What irks me however, is when the media reports on a chain of inter-related events in a fashion that does not make clear what the causes and effects are, consequently blurring the lines and equating the two. Additionally, the media repeatedly prints condemnation of Israel by the UN, even when such condemnation has no verifiable basis in reality. For example:
A UN human rights monitor accused Israel of "shocking atrocities".
Richard Falk - the special rapporteur for human rights in the Palestinian territories - said the international community must put more pressure on Israel to end its attacks on Gaza.
"Israel is committing a shocking series of atrocities by using modern weaponry against a defenceless population - attacking a population that has been enduring a severe blockade for many months," Mr Falk said in a BBC interview.
In a similar fashion, when we see quotes like this by clearly biased sources, we expect a minimal addendum to explain that Israel is, in actual fact, conforming to international law, and is not perpetrating any war crimes or otherwise:
The exiled leader of Hamas, Khaled Meshaal, has called for a new intifada, or uprising, against Israel.
Hamas's advisor on foreign policy, Dr Ahmed Yousef, warned that the Israeli operation could lead to suicide attacks.
"The scale of damage, they're destroying all the government buildings and mosques, schools, amenities," he told the BBC's World Tonight programme.
"When the people look to these crimes and the scale of damage that's happened here, yes, some of the people will go to get revenge."
Sensationalist language is something we expect to see in the tabloids, not in a publicly-funded internationally reknowned corporation the size of the BBC. Unfortunately, by refusing to place individual acts within context, time and again Israel is framed to appear aggressive and unreasonable when that is absolutely not the case. The only time I have seen mention of Hamas' continued use of human shields is at the end of one article, as a quote from a married Jewish couple. There are no statements of fact, only a quote by "biased Jews."
Similarly, after the ceasefire was broken in October, I read on the BBC website how there had been "a heavy reduction in rocket fire and Israeli incursions" during the ceasefire. Again, this happened today when the BBC published an article detailing the targeting of the Egypt-Gaza tunnels which are regularly used for smuggling weaponry. On the side of the page, a boxout details the "Run-up to Gaza raids." The page is available here. Below is a screen-grab of the page:
Notice the ambiguous wording which only partially decribes the situation accurately. The word "reduced" is employed in a way that cleverly decieves all but the most attentive of readers. Hamas has indeed overseen a reduction in rocket fire towards Israel. Israel however, has not similarly "reduced" incursions into Gaza. In fact, until the ceasefire fell apart, Israel suspended all violence towards Hamas. (Take note Hamas, ceasefire means ceasefire.)
While terrorists in Gaza made a mockery of the ceasefire, and from start to end launched rockets into (internationally recognised) Israeli territory, Israel did not Admittedly, there was a heavy reduction of these rockets being fired, but launching as much as one solitary rocket was a breach of the ceasefire. On the last day of the ceasefire, Noam Bedein of Sderot Media Center wrote that "377 missiles were launched towards Israel during the 'relaxation' period."
By grouping Israel and Hamas into one phrase together, the BBC made it seem as if we were equal in our efforts and commitment to the ceasefire. The reality was that this ceasefire had been repeatedly ignored by Hamas and that it had been respected by Israel, depsite the vast amount of rockets launched at her civilians. The phrasing suggested that Israel and Hamas had *equally* reduced attacks on one another. This was absolutely not the case.
It is totally wrong to equate Israeli air strikes on specific targets and Palestinian terrorists launching rockets at civilians in Sderot during the morning rush hour in an attempt to kill children on their way to school. Admittedly both are violent acts, but one is an act of unmitigated aggression and evil, whereas the other is an attempt by Israel to rid herself of an imminent threat to people's lives.
By refusing to overtly take sides, some media are placing the unssuspecting public in in the trap of condemning the Israelis and the Palestinians as being the same. I understand that people across the world will take sides in this war, but isn't it possible to condemn rocket strikes on a civilian centre like Sderot? Doesn't that appeal to the liberal mind, doesn't that equate to a humanitarian crisis, or do those only occur in Gaza at the hands of the Israeli aggressors? Do Jewish lives not count? The UN have condemned the attacks in Sderot, but only occasionally as an afterthought after vilifying Israel for defending herself.
It was interesting to read the following article a month or two ago:
Four Palestinians were killed during an Israeli air raid in the Gaza Strip, medical officials said. They were hit by an air-to-surface missile at the Shajaiye area of the city of Gaza. The Israeli military confirms the airstrike.
The dead were members of the Popular Resistance Committees. A spokesman for the group calling himself Abu Attaya conveyed the four were firing mortars into Israel when they were killed.
Earlier, two Palestinian rockets landed inside Israel on Sunday. According to Israeli reports, the rockets struck open areas and did not cause any casualties or property damage.
-Article quoted from albawaba.com
It was particularly pleasing to see that an Arab news agency has no problem telling the truth, and helps make chronological order of events clear: "the four were firing mortars into Israel when they were killed." Israel was responding to a terrorist attack, and they don't mind saying so.
Tim Franks, a reporter for the BBC has a page on their site called "Jerusalem Diary" - a blog on the BBC website documenting the news and people's views of current events here in Jerusalem. Tim particularly likes talking to settlers as he knows that their views clash with those of most Westerners, and making them sound extreme is easy fodder for him. Last month, he interviewed one man, Itamar Ben-Gvir, and the following quotes made it into this blog entry:
"The Jewish people don't have another country, and the Arabs have 21 countries. We have a small country, and from this they want to uproot us."
His wish is simple: "When you have a people that rise against you, kills you, massacres you, wants to take your home - you shouldn't let them stay. They should be deported."
The sub-headline was based on this last line (I suppose this should be unsurprising given his uncompromising stance is great fodder for journalists,) but was reworded and given a little twist. The end result - 'Deport The Arabs.'
Talk about quotes being taken out of context.
The BBC website is good enough at taking isolated events of "Israeli oppression" and highlighting how Israel is relentlessly hounding the poor Palestinians. That kind of journalism is easy enough to single out as prejudiced or biased. This is mostly because even the BBC wouldn't argue against claims that these articles are one-sided; such articles are supposed to take one particular incident at a time and as such naturally tend to only examine one particular event.
What irks me however, is when the media reports on a chain of inter-related events in a fashion that does not make clear what the causes and effects are, consequently blurring the lines and equating the two. Additionally, the media repeatedly prints condemnation of Israel by the UN, even when such condemnation has no verifiable basis in reality. For example:
A UN human rights monitor accused Israel of "shocking atrocities".
Richard Falk - the special rapporteur for human rights in the Palestinian territories - said the international community must put more pressure on Israel to end its attacks on Gaza.
"Israel is committing a shocking series of atrocities by using modern weaponry against a defenceless population - attacking a population that has been enduring a severe blockade for many months," Mr Falk said in a BBC interview.
In a similar fashion, when we see quotes like this by clearly biased sources, we expect a minimal addendum to explain that Israel is, in actual fact, conforming to international law, and is not perpetrating any war crimes or otherwise:
The exiled leader of Hamas, Khaled Meshaal, has called for a new intifada, or uprising, against Israel.
Hamas's advisor on foreign policy, Dr Ahmed Yousef, warned that the Israeli operation could lead to suicide attacks.
"The scale of damage, they're destroying all the government buildings and mosques, schools, amenities," he told the BBC's World Tonight programme.
"When the people look to these crimes and the scale of damage that's happened here, yes, some of the people will go to get revenge."
Sensationalist language is something we expect to see in the tabloids, not in a publicly-funded internationally reknowned corporation the size of the BBC. Unfortunately, by refusing to place individual acts within context, time and again Israel is framed to appear aggressive and unreasonable when that is absolutely not the case. The only time I have seen mention of Hamas' continued use of human shields is at the end of one article, as a quote from a married Jewish couple. There are no statements of fact, only a quote by "biased Jews."
Similarly, after the ceasefire was broken in October, I read on the BBC website how there had been "a heavy reduction in rocket fire and Israeli incursions" during the ceasefire. Again, this happened today when the BBC published an article detailing the targeting of the Egypt-Gaza tunnels which are regularly used for smuggling weaponry. On the side of the page, a boxout details the "Run-up to Gaza raids." The page is available here. Below is a screen-grab of the page:
Notice the ambiguous wording which only partially decribes the situation accurately. The word "reduced" is employed in a way that cleverly decieves all but the most attentive of readers. Hamas has indeed overseen a reduction in rocket fire towards Israel. Israel however, has not similarly "reduced" incursions into Gaza. In fact, until the ceasefire fell apart, Israel suspended all violence towards Hamas. (Take note Hamas, ceasefire means ceasefire.)
While terrorists in Gaza made a mockery of the ceasefire, and from start to end launched rockets into (internationally recognised) Israeli territory, Israel did not Admittedly, there was a heavy reduction of these rockets being fired, but launching as much as one solitary rocket was a breach of the ceasefire. On the last day of the ceasefire, Noam Bedein of Sderot Media Center wrote that "377 missiles were launched towards Israel during the 'relaxation' period."
By grouping Israel and Hamas into one phrase together, the BBC made it seem as if we were equal in our efforts and commitment to the ceasefire. The reality was that this ceasefire had been repeatedly ignored by Hamas and that it had been respected by Israel, depsite the vast amount of rockets launched at her civilians. The phrasing suggested that Israel and Hamas had *equally* reduced attacks on one another. This was absolutely not the case.
It is totally wrong to equate Israeli air strikes on specific targets and Palestinian terrorists launching rockets at civilians in Sderot during the morning rush hour in an attempt to kill children on their way to school. Admittedly both are violent acts, but one is an act of unmitigated aggression and evil, whereas the other is an attempt by Israel to rid herself of an imminent threat to people's lives.
By refusing to overtly take sides, some media are placing the unssuspecting public in in the trap of condemning the Israelis and the Palestinians as being the same. I understand that people across the world will take sides in this war, but isn't it possible to condemn rocket strikes on a civilian centre like Sderot? Doesn't that appeal to the liberal mind, doesn't that equate to a humanitarian crisis, or do those only occur in Gaza at the hands of the Israeli aggressors? Do Jewish lives not count? The UN have condemned the attacks in Sderot, but only occasionally as an afterthought after vilifying Israel for defending herself.
It was interesting to read the following article a month or two ago:
Four Palestinians were killed during an Israeli air raid in the Gaza Strip, medical officials said. They were hit by an air-to-surface missile at the Shajaiye area of the city of Gaza. The Israeli military confirms the airstrike.
The dead were members of the Popular Resistance Committees. A spokesman for the group calling himself Abu Attaya conveyed the four were firing mortars into Israel when they were killed.
Earlier, two Palestinian rockets landed inside Israel on Sunday. According to Israeli reports, the rockets struck open areas and did not cause any casualties or property damage.
-Article quoted from albawaba.com
It was particularly pleasing to see that an Arab news agency has no problem telling the truth, and helps make chronological order of events clear: "the four were firing mortars into Israel when they were killed." Israel was responding to a terrorist attack, and they don't mind saying so.
Tim Franks, a reporter for the BBC has a page on their site called "Jerusalem Diary" - a blog on the BBC website documenting the news and people's views of current events here in Jerusalem. Tim particularly likes talking to settlers as he knows that their views clash with those of most Westerners, and making them sound extreme is easy fodder for him. Last month, he interviewed one man, Itamar Ben-Gvir, and the following quotes made it into this blog entry:
"The Jewish people don't have another country, and the Arabs have 21 countries. We have a small country, and from this they want to uproot us."
His wish is simple: "When you have a people that rise against you, kills you, massacres you, wants to take your home - you shouldn't let them stay. They should be deported."
The sub-headline was based on this last line (I suppose this should be unsurprising given his uncompromising stance is great fodder for journalists,) but was reworded and given a little twist. The end result - 'Deport The Arabs.'
Talk about quotes being taken out of context.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
