HOW THE ISRAELI (AND WESTERN) PRESS ARE LYING ABOUT THE SITUATION IN GAZA

media-lies1

*

THIS WAS THE HEADLINE

*

Finnish reporter sees rockets fired from Gaza hospital
*

THIS IS WHAT THE REPORTER REALLY SAID 

*

“I spent a night at the Shifa hospital in Gaza two weeks ago. I was covering the situation in Gaza for my newspaper.

“My story was about the Palestinian civilians who were victims of war. My article started with a story of four little boys who were killed on the beach the same day. The Shifa hospital was full of women and children who were victims of this ugly war. I described their stories in detail.

“During the night someone launched a rocket somewhere behind the hospital. Now this sentence from my article is spreading in the pro-Israeli medias. I mentioned this in my article because I’m a professional journalist. I try to cover the events truthfully as I see them and I strongly condemn these kind of actions.

“But I find it very disgusting how this one sentence was taken out context to be used as an excuse to target civilians in Gaza. My story became quickly a tool of propaganda. The people sharing this story are not even trying to understand the situation as a whole. They are just looking for excuses to Israeli actions in Gaza. I refuse to be part of this kind of propaganda.”

*

See the full report and video HERE

 

WHITEWASHING ISRAELI TERROR BY PINKWASHING

Relatives and friends of Mohammed Abu Khder, 16, carry his body to
the mosque during his funeral in Shufat, in Israeli-annexed East
Jerusalem on July 4, 2014 (AFP Ahmad Gharabli)
*
zionist fabricated rumors about a murdered Palestinian youth have caused even more anguish to his mourning family. Withing hours of his brutal murder (burnt alive) the lies appeared throughout  the Social Media pages in an attempt to whitewash the FACT that this brutal act was an act of zionist terrorism….

In the hours after his death, rumours appeared on Twitter that Mohammed had been killed by fellow Palestinians as part of a criminal gang feud or by his own relatives in a so-called honour killing amid unsubstantiated suggestions that he was gay. His family have dismissed such assertions out of hand and insist that he had no criminal connections or history of being in trouble. (From)

*

A Report of the horror from Ma’an New Agency (Make note of the last sentence in the report, the whitewashing continues via police reports)

*

Official: Autopsy shows Palestinian youth burnt alive

BETHLEHEM  — A preliminary autopsy report shows that 16-year-old Muhammad Abu Khdeir was burnt alive by his kidnappers, a senior Palestinian official said late Friday.

Attorney General Muhammad Abd al-Ghani Uweili told Ma’an Abu Khdeir’s autopsy showed soot in the victim’s lungs and respiratory tract, indicating he was alive and breathing while he was being burnt.

Abu Khdeir also had a head injury, but died from complications as a result of being burnt, Uweili said.

A final autopsy will be released later, he added.

The autopsy was conducted at Abu Kabir Forensic Institute in Israel in the presence of Palestinian coroner Dr. Sabir al-Aloul, the director of the Institute of Forensic Medicine at al-Quds University.

Palestinians say right-wing Israelis kidnapped and killed Abu Khdeir, whose body was found early Wednesday in a forest near West Jerusalem.

The murder is thought to be a revenge attack in response to the kidnapping and killing of three Israeli teens, who were buried the day before.

Israeli police say the circumstances behind Abu Khdeir’s killing remain unclear.

*
zionist Blogger gone mad!
*
The following is a segment of his ridiculous post
*
Immolation is a righteous form of martyrdom in Jewish tradition.  Rabbi Hanina ben Teradion, tradition tells us, was murdered by the Romans for teaching Torah in violation of an edict.  His punishment was to be wrapped in a sacred Torah scroll and burnt alive. The devilishly clever Romans soaked wool in water and covered his heart to prolong his agony. The trick didn’t work since, with his dying breath, he told his students in wonder that he saw the letters of the scroll flying up to heaven.
*
THERE IS NOTHING SACRED OR RIGHTEOUS  ABOUT ANY TYPE OF MURDER IN JEWISH TRADITION ….. “THOU SHALT NOT KILL!” …. THAT IS WHAT IS SACRED!!
*
Obviously the zionists see Judaism differently than the Jews do!
THERE IS A DIFFERENCE!!
*
zionism-is-not-judaism

MIND CONTROL AND THE MEDIA

Just who is doing the telling?

aa-corporate-news-we-write-what-were-told

*

Frightening as it may seem, we do not have the free will to think. Our thoughts are controlled by the mass media in ways that are not even realised by us.

This was the case during the Cold War, especially in regard to the Rosenberg Case which I wrote about yesterday.

Today I want us to take a look at how the media controlled our minds  then, and how it continues to this very day …

*

*

Is the Rosenberg Case closed?

*

*

THINK WHILE IT'S STILL LEGAL

ISRAEL VERY QUICK TO WHITE WASH AND DENY ITS LATEST WAR CRIMES

Image ‘Copyleft’ by Carlos Latuff
whitewashing-war-crimes

*

In record time, the IDF via the Israeli media has denied the FACT that they intentionally murdered two Palestinian youths last week …. WHICH WAS CAPTURED ON VIDEO.

*

The video in question ...

*

*

Their claim is as follows …

Responding to the new video, the IDF Spokesperson Unit said, “On Thursday, an illegal and violent disturbance occurred in Beitunia. The said video is edited in a tendentious manner and does not reflect the level of violence that occurred at the disturbance.”

The military added that an initial check of the incident and interviews of security personnel who dealt with it found that “no live fire” was used. At the same time, the military prosecution has ordered Military Police to launch a limited investigation into the incident.

*

It seems  that “no live fire” can also kill …. as it has done in the past ….

*

1o year old Abir Aramin was killed by a rubber bullet almost 8 years ago … just one of many.

ph_2179_7912

*

Initial Report from The Jerusalem Post

*


IDF: Video showing soldiers killing unarmed Palestinians ‘edited in a tendentious manner’

Defense for Children Palestine releases alleged footage of incident in which 2 teens were killed by IDF soldiers in Nakba Day protest.

*

The IDF rejected Palestinian claims that video footage released by a rights group Tuesday shows “the deliberate execution” of two Palestinian teens by Israeli soldiers last week.

The video clip, which was obtained by Defense for Children Palestine, shows two youths being shot during what appeared to be a lull in clashes between rock-throwing demonstrators and soldiers near the Ofer Prison in Beitunia, not far from Ramallah.

Responding to the new video, the IDF Spokesperson Unit said, “On Thursday, an illegal and violent disturbance occurred in Beitunia. The said video is edited in a tendentious manner and does not reflect the level of violence that occurred at the disturbance.”

The military added that an initial check of the incident and interviews of security personnel who dealt with it found that “no live fire” was used. At the same time, the military prosecution has ordered Military Police to launch a limited investigation into the incident.

The Palestine Liberation Organization condemned what it called “the deliberate execution” of the Palestinians teens.

“The images captured on video show unlawful killings where neither child presented a direct and immediate threat to life at the time of their shooting,” said Rifat Kassis, executive director of DCI-Palestine. “These acts by Israeli soldiers may amount to war crimes, and the Israeli authorities must conduct serious, impartial, and thorough investigations to hold the perpetrators accountable for their crimes.”

Hanan Ashrawi, who serves as a member of the PLO Executive Committee, released a statement on Tuesday condemning “the deliberate execution of two Palestinian teenagers (Mohammad Mahmoud Odeh and Nadeem Siam Nawara) who were fatally shot with live ammunition outside Ofer Prison last week.  Both boys were unarmed and posed no direct or immediate threat.”

“Israel’s use of excessive and indiscriminate violence and live ammunition at non-violent Palestinian demonstrations constitutes war crimes and crimes against humanity under international law.”

“Last week’s killings are part of a deliberate policy of escalation and of violence targeting Palestinian children.  Israel’s actions, in addition, are in direct violation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which Israel ratified in 1991.”

“We call on the United Nations, the European Union, and other members of the international community to take immediate action and adopt the necessary punitive measures and initiatives required to hold Israel accountable for the extrajudicial killing of Palestinian civilians, and for its use of live ammunition on Palestinian civilians, among other violations of international and humanitarian law,” concluded Dr. Ashrawi.

Last week, military sources said rubber bullets had been fired in the course of a riot involving 150 Palestinians who had gathered to mark “Nakba Day.” The rioters hurled Molotov cocktails, burning tires and rocks at soldiers and Border Police officers.

“The rioting was very serious,” an army source stated. “This was a very aggressive attack on security personnel,” the source added.

*

A Reuters Report via Ynet can be read HERE

*

Is THIS too much for a child to ask for?

ISRAELI RIGHT FAILS WORLD HISTORY 101

http://i0.wp.com/allthingsd.com/files/2011/09/improveyourmemorybook-feature-380x285.png?resize=380%2C285

*

How quickly they forget …..

*

That it was the Left who were in the forefront to defeat nazism and fascism in Europe ….

That it was the Left who were in the forefront to defeat apartheid in South Africa ….

That it was the Left (the Soviet Union in particular) that helped create the State of Israel ….

*

SO …..

*

Surely it will be the Left that will be in the forefront to change the evil face of zionism ….

*

BUT …..

*

Our resident Psycho Gal seems to have overlooked all of the above as she penned her poison pen column of the week….

*

This is her (logic) ….
*
And in this decade, the main foreign policy issue that galvanizes the passions and energies of the committed American Left is the movement to delegitimize Israel’s right to exist. (Perhaps it’s the Movement’s  aim to delegitamize apartheid and the occupation)
*
Holding a negative view of the Jewish state is a condition for membership in the ideological camp. It is an article of faith, not fact. (Shocking revelation)
*
For years, Dershowitz has been a non-entity in leftist circles. His place at the table was usurped by anti-Israel Jews like Peter Beinart. And now Beinart is finding himself increasingly challenged by anti-Semitic Jews like Max Blumenthal. (Are we expected to honour and praise this rightist pervert, defender of pedophiles in US Courts, aside from his record of supporting every attrocity commited by Israel?) It won’t happen!
*
Read the rest for yourselves, I guarantee a few chucles if you do.
*

The Left against Zion

The Left’s doctrinaire insistence that Israel is the root of all evil is not limited to campuses.

In the 1960s, the American Left embraced the anti-Vietnam War movement as its cri de coeur.

In the 1970s, the Left’s foreign policy focus shifted to calling for unilateral nuclear disarmament by the US and its Western allies.

In the 1980s, supporting the Sandinista Communists’ takeover of Nicaragua became the catechism of the Left.

In the 1990s, the war on global capitalism – that is, the anti-globalization movement – captivated the passions of US Leftists from coast to coast.

In the 2000s, it was again, the anti-war movement.

This time the Left rioted and demonstrated against the war in Iraq.

And in this decade, the main foreign policy issue that galvanizes the passions and energies of the committed American Left is the movement to delegitimize Israel’s right to exist.

This week has been a big one for the anti-Israel movement. In the space of a few days, two quasi academic organizations – the American Studies Association and the Native American and Indigenous Studies Association – have launched boycotts against Israeli universities. Their boycotts follow a similar one announced in April by the Asian Studies Association.

These groups’ actions have not taken place in isolation. They are of a piece with ever-escalating acts of anti-Israel agitation in college campuses throughout the United States.

Between the growth of Israel Apartheid Day (or Week, or Month) from a fringe exercise on isolated campuses to a staple of the academic calendar in universities throughout the US and Canada, and the rise of the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement to wage economic war against the Jewish state, anti-Israel activism has become the focal point of Leftist foreign policy activism in the US and throughout the Western world.

Every week brings a wealth of stories about new cases of aggressive anti-Israel activism. At the University of Michigan last week, thousands of students were sent fake eviction notices from the university’s housing office. A pro-Palestinian group distributed them in dorms across campus to disseminate the blood libel that Israel is carrying out mass expulsions of Palestinians.

At Swarthmore College, leftist anti-Israel Jewish students who control Hillel are insisting on using Hillel’s good offices to disseminate and legitimate anti-Israel slanders.

And the Left’s doctrinaire insistence that Israel is the root of all evil is not limited to campuses.

At New York’s 92nd Street Y, Commentary editor John Podhoretz was booed and hissed by the audience for trying to explain why the ASA’s just-announced boycott of Israel was an obscene act of bigotry.

Many commentators have rightly pointed out that the ASA and the NAISA are fringe groups.

They represent doctorate holders who chose to devote their careers to disciplines predicated not on scholarship, but on political activism cloaked in academic regalia whose goal is to discredit American power. The ASA has only 5,000 members, and only 1,200 of them voted on the Israel- boycott resolution. The NAISA has even fewer members.

It would be wrong, however, to use the paltry number of these fringe groups’ members as means to dismiss the phenomenon that they represent. They are very much in line with the general drift of the Left.

Rejecting Israel’s right to exist has become part of the Left’s dogma. It is a part of the catechism.

Holding a negative view of the Jewish state is a condition for membership in the ideological camp. It is an article of faith, not fact.

Consider the background of the president of the ASA. Curtis Marez is an associate professor in the Ethnic Studies Department at the University of California, San Diego. His area of expertise is Chicano Film and Media Studies.

He doesn’t know anything about Israel. He just knows that he’s a Leftist. And today, Leftists demonize Israel. Their actions have nothing to do with anything Israel does or has ever done. They have nothing to do with human rights. Hating Israel, slandering Israel and supporting the destruction of Israel are just things that good Leftists do.

And Marez was not out of step with his fellow Leftists who rule the roost at UCSD. This past March the student council passed a resolution calling for the university to divest from companies that do business with Israel.

Why? Because hating Israel is what Leftists do.

The Left’s crusade against the Jewish state began in earnest in late 2000. The Palestinians’ decision to reject statehood and renew their terror war against Israel ushered in the move by anti-Israel forces on the Left to take over the movement. And as they have risen, they have managed to silence and discredit previously fully accredited members of the ideological Left for the heresy of supporting Israel.

This week, Harvard Law Prof. Alan Dershowitz retired after 50 years on the law faculty. His exit, the same week as the ASA and the NAISA announced their boycotts of Israeli universities, symbolized the marginalization of the pro-Israel Left that Dershowitz represented.

For years, Dershowitz has been a non-entity in leftist circles. His place at the table was usurped by anti-Israel Jews like Peter Beinart. And now Beinart is finding himself increasingly challenged by anti-Semitic Jews like Max Blumenthal.

The progression is unmistakable.

The question is, is it irreversible? Must supporters of Israel choose between their support for Israel and their affinity for the Left? Certainly it is true that the more the issue of support for Israel splits along ideological and partisan lines, the more reasonable it is for supporters of Israel to move to the ideological camp and the party that supports Israel, and away from the ones that do not support Israel.

The average voter is not in a position to change the positions of his party or the dogma of his ideological camp. He can take it or leave it. With rejection of Israel now firmly entrenched in the Left’s dogma, and with the Left firmly in control of the Democratic Party under President Barack Obama’s leadership, for those who care about Israel, the Republican Party is a more natural fit.

So, too, the ideological Right is far more congenial to the Jewish state than the Left.

While the most sensible place for supporters of Israel to be today is on the political Right, it is also true that it is neither smart nor responsible to abandon the Left completely. Jews should be able to feel comfortable as Jews, and as supporters of Israel everywhere. Ideological camps that castigate Jews for their pride in the accomplishments of the Jewish state, and for their support and concern for its survival and prosperity, are camps in desperate need of fixing.

But we should not fool ourselves. Challenging the likes of Marez, or the Swarthmore students, or Max Blumenthal or Peter Beinart to a reasoned debate is an exercise in futility. They do not care about human rights. They do not care that Israel is the only human rights-respecting democracy in the Middle East. They do not care about the pathological nature of Palestinian society. They do not care about the Jewish people’s indigenous rights and international legal rights to sovereignty not only over Tel Aviv and Haifa, but over Hebron and Ramallah.

Being hypocrites doesn’t bother them either.

You can talk until you’re blue in the face about the civilian victims of the Syrian civil war, or the gender apartheid in Saudi Arabia and the absence of religious freedom throughout the Muslim world. But they don’t care. They aren’t trying to make the world a better place.

Facts cannot compete with their faith. Reason has no place in their closed intellectual universe.

To accept reason and facts would be an act of heresy.

Marez may be a hypocrite, and even a servant of evil. But he is no heretic.

The only real way to mitigate the hard Left’s devotion to Israel’s destruction is by changing the power balance on the Left. For the past decade, donors like George Soros have been open in their commitment to elect Democrats who oppose the US’s alliance with Israel. A decade ago, Soros and fellow Jewish American billionaire Peter Lewis funneled hundreds of millions of dollars into Moveon.org. Moveon.org became a clearinghouse for anti-Israel and anti-Jewish messages that became the stock in trade of the ideological Left, and of Democratic candidates in need of campaign funding.

It was due to then-Democratic senator Joe Lieberman’s refusal to get on the Soros- and Lewis-funded anti-Israel bandwagon in the 2004 elections, that they turned Moveon.org against Lieberman in the 2006 Democratic primary for his seat in the Senate. His Democratic challenger, Ned Lamont, who won the primary, ran a campaign laced with anti-Israel and anti-Jewish propaganda.

There are Democratic funders, like Penny Pritzker, Lester Crown and Haim Saban, who support Israel. If they were so inclined, they could use their considerable funds to change the power equation in the Democratic Party. They could cultivate and support pro-Israel Democratic candidates. They could take the Democratic Party back.

This week ended with Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer finally breaking his silence on Obama’s Iran deal and joining forces with his fellow Democrat Sen. Robert Menendez and Republican Sen. Mark Kirk to defy Obama on Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Given Obama’s floundering popularity, it is possible that Schumer’s move will open the door for a change in the Democratic Party.

In truth, there is no reason for the Democratic Party to remain in place. It isn’t ordained that the Democrats must cleave to the hard Left.

The rejection of Israel is not a natural component of leftist dogma. It’s just that for the past decade, the smart money and the rising power on the Left has been with those who oppose Israel’s existence as a strong, independent Jewish state.

While the ASA and its comrades are on the fringes of academia, they are not fringe voices on the Left. The Left has embraced the cause of Israel’s destruction. And its financial power has made it difficult for pro-Israel Democrats to act on their convictions, and those of their voters.

The combination of an exodus of supporters of Israel – Jews and non-Jews alike – from the Left and from the Democratic Party on the one hand, and generous funding for pro-Israel Democratic candidates on the other, can change the equation.

America lost the Vietnam War. The Sandinistas are back in change in Nicaragua. But if people are willing to stand up now and be counted, America need not harm Israel.

 

THE CLOSET ZIONISTS IN OUR MIDST

I like to know those things about writers. I think they’re important. It’s something I admire about Eric Alterman and Jeffrey Goldberg, they’ve always been out front about their Zionism. As I’ve been out front about my opposition to Zionism.

*

*

Journalists should tell their readers if they’re Zionists
 Philip Weiss

*

I take Roger Cohen seriously and so I’ve read a lot of his columns over the years, bought his book on the Balkans and read it. I leaped at the chance to debate the peace process with him in Qatar four years ago, and helped arrange his moderation of a debate over Israel with two congressmen in 2011.

But just a few months ago I learned something important about him. He’s a liberal Zionist. “I am one,” he said in confessing his “deep despondency” over Israel’s failure to end the occupation.

Shouldn’t I have known that before? I wondered. I regard Zionism as a core attachment, an intellectual/emotional/spiritual commitment that can be deeply binding. Back when Cohen was advocating the war in Iraq, for instance: Was his concern for Israel’s security part of his thinking?

I had the same feeling about Peter Beinart. He wrote a whole book about the need to liberate Iraq. The Good Fight: Why Liberals –and Only Liberals–Can Win the War On Terror and Make America Great Again. It doesn’t mention Israel once, per the index, and at the start, Beinart says he supported the war because it would

“help open a democratic third way in the Middle East between secular autocrats and their theocratic opponents–a third way that offered the best long-term hope for protecting the United States.”

Was that a sincere statement? We now know that Beinart cares deeply and passionately about Israel. He thinks about Israel almost as much as I do. He runs Open Zion, he has published a book called The Crisis of Zionism, he puts the Israeli flag on his boy’s wall, and he has published important pieces in the New York Review of Books on the failure of Jewish organizations in their support of Israel. So was he concerned about Israel when he was pushing the Iraq war? I think he was; and that he should have told his readers that.

Ian Lustick is someone else who’s declared lately. He wrote that he was once “spectacularly hopeful” about Zionism and it’s with “profound sadness” that he confronts the failure of the two-state solution. Lustick is an honest man and a realist, but I wish I’d known before now that he had such a profound attachment to the Zionist dream when I was reading all his excellent pieces.

Lustick himself pointed  out in Philadelphia the other day that writers and scholars are moved by passions, and have the duty to advance arguments that transcend those passions. Good point.

But I like to know about those passions.

I always felt that Ethan Bronner, the former Jerusalem bureau chief of the Times who had a son in the Israeli army, was a Zionist, but he never said so openly, and this created justifiable outrage in my community. In Philadelphia the other day, Max Blumenthal critiqued the claimed “objectivity” of the New York Times. He said that the present bureau chief, Jodi Rudoren, is married to an artist, Gary Rudoren, who’s “deeply immersed in Jewish Israeli society,” and she gets translation services from Myra Noveck, who works in the Times bureau, has two children in the Israeli army and is the wife of liberal Zionist Gershom Gorenberg. Blumenthal said:

“The idea that these people are objective is completely absurd to me but they’re operating under the veneer of objectivity when I’m completely out in the open with [my] quotidian beliefs… in a multicultural society where everyone has a fair shot regardless of ethnicity.”

I wonder about Rudoren. She comes out of the mainstream Jewish community, and I have found her to be culturally-bound, but is she a Zionist? She declined to answer that question a year back and then tweeted, “the only ist I use to describe self is journalist.” But I don’t think she’s being forthcoming. Rudoren also wrote proudly that she and her husband combined their last names because she refused to adopt a principle of the “patriarchy.” Surely that makes her a feminist.

I like to know those things about writers. I think they’re important. It’s something I admire about Eric Alterman and Jeffrey Goldberg, they’ve always been out front about their Zionism. As I’ve been out front about my opposition to Zionism.

Cohen, Lustick, and Beinart’s confessions are good. I want more journalists who write about the Middle East to declare on this question, in an acknowledgment of the public’s right to know. Zionism is a core component of the American Jewish relationship to Israel. It is a nationalist ideology involving religious identity, tribal concerns, and belief in the insecurity of Jews in the west. We all need to debate its premises and principles, Jews and non-Jews alike. It would help if those who subscribe to it told us so.

 

From Mondoweiss

IN RECORD TIME THE ZIONISTS FIND A WAY TO DEMONISE IRAN’S NEWLY ELECTED PRESIDENT

Image ‘Copyleft’ by Carlos Latuff
Demonizing+Islam (1)
*
It took less than a week to ‘uncover’ this, but the zionists claim to have found the first incident to discredit Iran’s newly elected President. The Jewish Press in Israel has the ‘story’ on their headlines Here and Here…. They came up with this tale in record time. The source cited is a ‘US Paper’ which claims that  Iran’s president-elect was on special government committee that plotted 1994 bombing of Jewish community center that killed 85 people.
*
Just who is the source? In their own words from ‘About Us’ The Washington Free Beacon, a project of the 501(c)4 Center for American Freedom, is a nonprofit online newspaper that began publication on February 7, 2012. Dedicated to uncovering the stories that the professional left hopes will never see the light of day, the Free Beacon produces in-depth and investigative reporting on a wide range of issues, including public policy, government affairs, international security, and media criticism. Whether it’s exposing cronyism, dissecting the relationship between the progressive movement and the mainstream media, finding out just who is shaping our domestic and foreign policy and why, or highlighting the threats to American security and peace in a dangerous world, the Free Beacon  is committed to serving the public interest by reporting news and information that currently is not being fully covered by other news organizations.
*
C’mon guys …. surely you can use a reliable source for your misinformation. As a proud segment of ‘the professional left’, DesertPeace takes pride that our reports are not fabricated and definitely do not serve the interests of zionism.
*
The ‘report’ can be found HERE ….
*

New Iranian President Tied to 1994 Bombing

85 were killed in bombing of Argentinian Jewish Center
Be sure to see THIS related post.

ISRAEL GETS AWAY WITH MURDER THANKS TO THE WESTERN MEDIA

 The awful truth of what happened this week lies outside stories in which gunned-down youths are identified by their intentions to trespass, and in which the wall is described as designed to keep out “terrorists.” Yet the BBC, The New York Times, Reuters and AP all deferred to Israeli military sources to report on the deaths of four young people. The result is that their readers are told that Israeli soldiers followed the proper protocol to protect Israel’s sovereignty and borders.
*

How the media let Israel get away with murder

Charlotte Silver*
* 

Relatives of Samir Awad mourn after the 17-year-old died of gunshot wounds on 14 January.

(Issam Rimawi / APA images)

Israel spends a lot of time talking about secure borders and how the need for them drives its policies regarding the Palestinians. With few exceptions, the media act as willing promoters of this perversion of reality.

Between 11 and 15 January, four young Palestinians — aged 17 to 22 — were shot dead by Israeli occupation forces. The murders took place in the Gaza Strip and at different points along Israel’s wall in the West Bank. In all instances the Israeli army justified the use of lethal force by invoking its need to protect the integrity of the wall and Israel’s borders.

On 11 January, 22-year-old Anwar Mamlouk was reportedly just outside the Jabaliya refugee camp in Gaza when Israeli soldiers gunned him down.

The next day, Odai al-Darawish, 21, was shot to death at three o’clock in the afternoon while crossing Israel’s wall in the West Bank to get to work in Israel. Initially, Israeli sources claimed the soldiers shot al-Darawish in his legs, in accordance with the “rules of engagement” (“Israeli troops kill Palestinian trying to cross barrier,” The Chicago Tribune, 12 January 2013).

But medical sources quickly revealed that he was hit in the back, indicating that he was likely shot while trying to run to safety (“Israeli forces shoot, kill worker south of Hebron,” Ma’an News Agency, 12 January 2013).

Al-Darawish was from the village of Dura, near Hebron, where in September last year a man attempted to immolate himself in a desperate protest of the dire economic conditions Palestinians face in the occupied West Bank (“Palestinian man attempts to set himself on fire in West Bank village of Dura,” Haaretz, 17 January 2013).

Mustafa Jarad was aged 21 and a farmer from Beit Lahiya in the northern Gaza Strip. He was shot in the forehead by an Israeli sniper on 14 January while working his land. But despite the Israeli gunman’s skillful marksmanship, Jarad was not killed immediately.

Doctors at al-Shifa hospital in Gaza City tried to remove the bullet from his severely injured brain, but Jarad died after surgery (“Mustafa Abu Jarad, murdered in Gaza, by the Israeli army,” International Solidarity Movement, 15 January 2013).

Shooting a schoolboy

On 14 January, Samir Awad, a 17-year-old from Budrus, a West Bank village located nearRamallah, was shot from behind in the head, torso and leg while running away from soldiers.

Samir had just completed his last exam before school break and had joined a group of boys to protest the wall. Samir’s family has lost five acres of land with 3,000 olive trees due to the construction of Israel’s wall; Samir had also been jailed three times for his participation in demonstrations (“Israeli forces shot youth in the back as he ran away, say Palestinians,” Guardian, 15 January 2013).

English-language reports of these murders have been scant where they exist at all. For example, the press is in disagreement over the circumstances of Anwar Mamlouk’s death. Reuters reported that Anwar’s brother, Hani, stated that Anwar had been studying outdoors when he was shot (“Israeli forces kill Palestinian along border with Gaza: Hamas,” NBCNews, 11 January 2013).

The BBC, however, relayed only the Israeli military’s version of events and reported that Anwar had entered the “forbidden area” along Gaza’s boundary with dozens of other Palestinians (“Gaza: Palestinian farmer killed by Israeli gunfire,” 11 January 2013).

Shifting the blame

The New York Times took the murder of Samir Awad, the fourth in the spate of Israeli willful killing of unarmed Palestinians, as an opportunity to remark on the “growing unrest” in the West Bank, bizarrely shifting culpability for the deaths onto Palestinians (“Israeli forces kill Palestinian at barrier,” 15 January 2013).

It must be noted that when 17-year-old Muhammad al-Salaymeh was slain by a border police officer in Hebron on his birthday in December 2012, The New York Times remained silent.

Reading the New York Times’ coverage of the murder of Palestinians by Israelis is an apt lesson for any aspiring spin-doctor on the language of equivocation.

The paper’s reporter Isabel Kershner pivots the focus of Monday’s murder in Budrus away from Israel’s trigger-happy soldiers operating in a world of endless and unquestioned impunity and onto Palestinians’ “simmering restiveness”; their increased participation in “disturbances” of the “relative stability” that Israel has tried to maintain; and their “dire financial crisis that has prevented the Palestinian Authority … from paying … government workers.”

Notably there is no explanation provided as to why the PA has not been able to pay its tens of thousands of workers, namely that Israel has stolen the Palestinians’ tax and customs duty funds.

Omitting key facts

This is how The New York Times turns the cold-blooded murder of a teenage boy into a deliberately obfuscating story that describes an opaque haze of “tensions” and “growing unrest.”

This exonerating cloud of ambiguity is kept afloat by the newspaper’s methodical omission of facts: not only the facts of the recent murders of Odai al-Darawish, Muhammad al-Salaymeh and Anwar Mamlouk, but those of the countless incursions, demolitions and violence that Israel perpetrates against Palestinians every week (“Weekly report on Israeli human rights violations in the occupied Palestinian territory,” Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, 10 January 2013).

These are the kind of facts that, if properly reported by the journal of record, would allow readers to know that it is Israel who is the violator of the terms of the country’s own precious “borders.” Proper reportage would give stark and unassailable lie to the notion that it in order to protect these borders, it must shoot and kill innocent men and boys, or women and girls.

Deferring to Israel

The awful truth of what happened this week lies outside stories in which gunned-down youths are identified by their intentions to trespass, and in which the wall is described as designed to keep out “terrorists.” Yet the BBC, The New York Times, Reuters and AP all deferred to Israeli military sources to report on the deaths of four young people. The result is that their readers are told that Israeli soldiers followed the proper protocol to protect Israel’s sovereignty and borders.

With the notable exception of British newspapers the Guardian and The Independent (see “Did Israeli troops deliberately provoke boy, only to shoot him in the back?” 16 January 2013), the media dutifully joined ranks with the State of Israel, grinding out the useful fiction that implicates these dead young Palestinians as menaces to the security and stability supposedly maintained by the chimera of separation.

As for borders, it’s exceedingly likely that the grief-stricken parents of the slain youths would love to see the existence of any kind of boundary on Israel that might protect their children from the presence of a threatening, violent and usurping entity.

*Charlotte Silver is a journalist based in occupied Palestine and San Francisco.

Written FOR

ASSOCIATED PRESS DECIDES FINAL STATUS OF JERUSALEM

Even The New York Times seems to disagree with their report;

Hours after the publication of this post, the text of the AP report on The New York Timeswebsite was changed removing the reference to Jerusalem as an “Israeli” city. It now states:

Hamas, meanwhile, has gained new support among Palestinians following eight days of fighting with Israel in November, during which Israel pounded the seaside strip from the air and sea, while Palestinians militants for the first time lobbed rockets toward Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.

*

Propaganda or news? Associated Press names Jerusalem an “Israeli” city

Submitted by Ali Abunimah

A Palestinian man and his son walk in front of the rubble of their house after it was demolished by Israeli occupation authorities in the east Jerusalem neighborhood of al-Tur on 5 November 2012.

(Mahfouz Abu Turk / APA images)

*

The Associated Press today seemingly awarded Israel sovereignty over Jerusalem.

An AP report posted by The New York Times and numerous other publications, on a rally held by the Fatah movement in the Gaza Strip today, claims:

Hamas has gained new support among Palestinians following eight days of fighting with Israel in November, during which Israel pounded the seaside strip from the air and sea, while Palestinians militants lobbed rockets toward the Israeli cities of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv for the first time.

Another instance of the AP report, published on the Time website refers to “the heartland Israeli cities of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.”

No country in the world, including the United States, formally recognizes Jerusalem as part of “Israel.”

The AP’s influential stylebook states:

Jerusalem stands alone in datelines

In other words, no country is identified. It is one of only a handful of non-US cities for which the stylebook makes this exception.

Fear of the facts

Under the 1947 UN Partition resolution (181) which Israel alleges grants it international legitimacy, the entirety of the city of Jerusalem was designated a “corpus separatum” – an international zone belonging to neither the Arab nor the Jewish states that the resolution envisaged, but which were never created according to its terms.

During the 1947-48 Nakba, as Zionist militias conquered most of historic Palestine far beyond the boundaries envisaged in resolution 181, they ethnically cleansed and conquered western Jerusalem, expelling its Palestinian residents and seizing and settling their property.

Many countries, for example the UK since 1950, recognize Israel as having “de facto authority” but not “de jure” sovereignty over the areas of Jerusalem occupied by Zionist militias in 1947-48.

No legal validity

In 1967, Israel conquered eastern Jerusalem then annexed it, an action that has been rejected unanimously and repeatedly in international law. UN Security Council Resolution 465 of 1980, for instance, declares:

all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel’s policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East.

Israel, endlessly indulged and coddled by the so-called “international community,” has been able to flout this and many other resolutions with total impunity, as it continues its violent process of ethnic cleansing, land theft and settlement, with the goal of turning Jerusalem into an exclusively Jewish city.

A major part of its effort to violate Palestinian rights and international law has been to market Jerusalem – in defiance of legal, geographical and demographic facts – as an “Israeli city.”

Many media organizations – intimidated by constant bullying by Zionist groups – have succumbed to referring to Jerusalem as “disputed” rather than “occupied” in order to mask the facts and appease anti-Palestinian critics.

It looks like the influential AP has gone a step further and is now fully on board with Israeli propaganda.

Update 20:12 UTC: New York Times deletes reference to Jerusalem as “Israeli” city in AP report

Hours after the publication of this post, the text of the AP report on The New York Timeswebsite was changed removing the reference to Jerusalem as an “Israeli” city. It now states:

Hamas, meanwhile, has gained new support among Palestinians following eight days of fighting with Israel in November, during which Israel pounded the seaside strip from the air and sea, while Palestinians militants for the first time lobbed rockets toward Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.

No editor’s note or correction documents the change but it is confirmed by screenshots made by The Electronic Intifada.

The change has not been made on other major publications carrying the AP report including Time and USA Today.

Written FOR

BY OMISSION, THE NEW YORK TIMES WIPES ISRAEL’S CRIMINAL RECORD CLEAN

001 (1)
Truth, Lies, and Omissions
*
According to The New York Times, there is no siege of Gaza, no occupation of the West Bank, and never was there a  Nakba (the 1948 ethnic cleansing of Palestine). Three recent articles erase these key Israeli crimes from the historical record.
*

How The New York Times erases Israel’s crimes

Robert Ross* 
*

The New York Times keeps the American public in the dark about the true nature of Israel’s occupation.

(Nedal Eshtayah / APA images)

According to The New York Times, there is no siege of Gaza, no occupation of the West Bank, and never was there a Nakba (the 1948 ethnic cleansing of Palestine). Three recent articles erase these key Israeli crimes from the historical record.

In a 13 December 2012 article entitled “Hamas Gains Allure in Gaza, but Money is a Problem,” Steven Erlanger explores the reasons for Gaza’s increasingly debilitating poverty. Never once in this 1,300-word piece does Erlanger even mention the Israeli siege on Gaza or the 2008 and 2012 Israeli bombardments as factors (much less the principal causes).

Instead, Erlanger goes through a long list of regional developments (the weakening of the Assad regime in Syria, sanctions on Iran) and, most emphatically, decisions by Hamas(new taxes and fees), which have supposedly left Palestinians in Gaza not only increasingly impoverished but also more resentful than ever of Hamas. “Gazans recognize that there is more order here,” Erlanger explains, “more construction and less garbage. But many resent the economic burden of financing Hamas and, implicitly, its military.”

No siege

So to the extent that the most recent Israeli onslaught is considered at all, it is Hamas’rockets, once again, that are blamed for Gaza’s misfortune. As if to prove his point, a 43-year-old butcher says to Erlanger, “things have steadily declined in Gaza.” Another Gaza resident adds, “it is a life of depression and deprivation.”

Erlanger does include the word “siege” in his analysis, but only amidst a quoted laundry list of problems Palestinians in Gaza now endure: “poverty, mismanagement, siege,unemployment, little freedom of movement,” Mkhaimar Abusada is quoted as saying.

And the siege, among these other conditions, is implicitly attributed not to Israel, but to Hamas: “If it can’t deal with these same issues,” Abusada concludes, “Hamas will find itself in the same position as it was before the war.” While Abusada, a political scientist at Al-Azhar University, certainly knows the origins of these conditions, Erlanger’s placement of his quotation makes it seem that even Abusada blames the siege on Hamas.

Either way, Erlanger does not provide any sense of how totalizing and devastating a ground, air and naval blockade (much less the two recent military assaults) of the densely populated territory actually is. An uninformed reader could easily conclude that the siege is something for which Hamas is responsible, not an imperially-imposed form of collective punishment foisted upon Palestinians by Israel, and not something that is directly responsible for Gaza’s poverty and “little freedom of movement.”

Thus, according to The New York Times, Hamas is responsible for Gaza’s problems; Israel has nothing to do with it.

No Nakba

Times article about Palestinian refugees in Syria published three days after Erlanger’s Gaza story obscures the reason that Palestinians are refugees in the first place (“A Syrian airstrike kills Palestinian refugees and costs Assad support,” 16 December 2012).

With just eight words, the Times absolves Israel of any responsibility for the ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians to make way for a Jewish state.

Reporting on the Syrian regime’s recent attack on Yarmouk camp in Damascus, home to thousands of Palestinian refugees, the Times explains that the Palestinians there were “refugees from conflict with Israel and their descendants.” The Nakba, the original sin ofZionism and the State of Israel, is thus smeared into obscurity. It is transformed into something it is not, changed from the wholesale removal of one group of people by another to a conflict between two presumably equal sides, from which a bunch of Palestinians evidently fled.

The newspaper of record does not, of course, go on to explain that while UN Resolution 194 specifically grants the Palestinians in Syria (as well as those in Lebanon, Jordan and elsewhere) the right to return to their homes in what is now Israel, the Israeli government has always — and, at times, violently — denied this right.

No occupation

An article published the following day, on the so-called E1 land east of Jerusalem in the occupied West Bank, fails to mention that this land and the broader territory of which it is part, is considered by international law to be a Palestinian territory currently under Israeli occupation (Steven Erlanger, “West Bank land, empty but full of meaning,” 17 December).

Reporting on Israel’s recent declaration to build settlements on E1, Erlanger reproduces the oldest Zionist myth in the book: that this is an “empty” land, over which now the “two sides” are struggling: “E1 [is] a largely empty patch of the West Bank,” Erlanger writes. And the “fight” over E1 “speaks to the seemingly insurmountable differences, hostility, and distrust between the Israelis and the Palestinians,” Erlanger informs us.

Thus, the occupied Palestinian West Bank, with all its illegal Israeli settlements, Jewish-only roads, Israeli checkpoints, Israeli military incursions and Israeli demolitions of Palestinian homes, is reduced to a territory to which two different groups are laying equally legitimate claim. The closest Erlanger gets to even hinting at the occupation is where he writes toward the end of the article that E1 is “largely state land.”

But this, like the unidentified and unexplained “siege” in Gaza, is far too vague for an uninformed reader to understand which “state” controls this land, under which conditions, and against whose rights, livelihood and sovereignty.

So there you have it: no siege, no Nakba, and no occupation. Such reporting is, at best, delusional. At worst, it is intentionally misleading. In any case, The New York Times serves Israel’s interests by keeping the American public in the dark about the true nature of Israel’s occupation.

It is easy to understand why so many Americans find the situation so apparently confusing when the people who report on it are themselves confused about the very basic historical, geographic and political realities.

*Robert Ross is an Assistant Professor of Global Cultural Studies at Point Park University, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. His research and teaching focus upon the political-economic geographies of Israel, Palestine, Lebanon and the United States. He is also a member of the Pittsburgh Palestine Solidarity Committee and the Israel-Palestine Mission Network of the Presbyterian Church (USA)

Written FOR

THE NEW YORK TIMES SUCCUMBS TO ZIONISM*

  After the New York Times’ editorial page lashed out at Israel over its construction plans in an area called E-1, the paper issued a correction on Sunday morning, stating that the expansion would neither cut off Ramallah and Bethlehem from Jerusalem, nor divide the West Bank.
*
Correction or zionist LIE?
*

*
*

NYT retracts claims that E-1 construction plans would divide West Bank

Correction note regarding Jerusalem Bureau Chief Jodi Rudoren’s December 1 article clarifies that piece ‘referred incompletely to the possibility of a contiguous Palestinian state’.

By Chaim Levinson
E1
The Judea and Samaria Police headquarters in the E1 area near Ma’aleh Adumim. Photo by Emil Salman

After the New York Times’ editorial page lashed out at Israel over its construction plans in an area called E-1, the paper issued a correction on Sunday morning, stating that the expansion would neither cut off Ramallah and Bethlehem from Jerusalem, nor divide the West Bank.

In an article entitled “Dividing the West Bank, and Deepening a Rift,” published on December 1, Jerusalem Bureau Chief Jodi Rudoren wrote that the construction plans would make travel between Ramallah and Bethlehem impossible, and in effect, cut the West Bank in two.

The correction notice in Sunday’s newspaper clarifies that: “The article about Israel’s decision to move forward with planning and zoning for settlements in an area east of Jerusalem known as E1 described imprecisely the effect of such development on access to the cities of Ramallah and Bethlehem from Jerusalem, and on the West Bank. Development of E1 would limit access to Ramallah and Bethlehem, leaving narrow corridors far from the Old City and downtown Jerusalem; it would not completely cut off those cities from Jerusalem. It would also create a large block of Israeli settlements in the center of the West Bank; it would not divide the West Bank in two.”

“And because of an editing error, the article referred incompletely to the possibility of a contiguous Palestinian state. Critics see E1 as a threat to the meaningful contiguity of such a state because it would leave some Palestinian areas connected by roads with few exits or by circuitous routes; the proposed development would not technically make a contiguous Palestinian state impossible,” adds the correction.

Source

WESTERN PRESS DEMONISING HAMAS’ LEADERSHIP

 Of course Zionists and Israelis are free to interpret Meshaal’s words according to their wildest fantasies and fears, but supposedly impartial news organizations like the AP never claim that by attacking Gaza and killing and injuring thousands of people, and destroying public buildings and infrastructure, that Israel is “wiping Gaza off the map.”
*
Image ‘Copyleft’ by Carlos Latuff
Demonizing+Islam
*
When Israel says ‘jump’, much of the Western Press says ‘how high’? When Israel says ‘lie about what is being said by Hamas’ leadership’, that same press says ‘no problem’!*As Hamas gains popularity among the Palestinian people, both in Gaza and in the Occupied West Bank, the zionists have swung into ‘fast forward’ trying to demonise the Movement by attacking its leadership.
*
So here we have it …. first from Britain’s Observer; UK’s Observer adds “kill Jews” to Hamas leader Khaled Meshal’s Gaza speech when he did not say it …. that was on Sunday …
*
Then on Monday AP follows the lead with …
*
  • AP tries to put “wipe Israel off the map” into Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal’s mouth

  • *By Ali Abunimah

  • *

Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal is driven to the Rafah border crossing by Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh at the end of Meshaal’s first ever visit to Gaza, on 10 December 2012.

 (Mohammed Ostaz / APA images)

After the Observer mistranslated a section from Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal’s speech during his historic visit to Gaza last week, to falsely insert the words “kill Jews,” a report from Josef Federman of the Associated Press (AP) includes this:

Making his first trip to the Hamas-ruled territory over the weekend, Mashaal delivered a series of speeches to throngs of supporters vowing to wipe Israel off the map.

Although Federman does not attribute the words directly to Meshaal, who did not say them, the phrase “wipe Israel off the map” is notorious and provocative since it is the phrasecontroversially attributed to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and used to falsely claim that Ahmedinejad or Iran had threatened to attack Israel unprovoked to destroy it, which neither has ever done, or would do so if they had the chance.

The phrase has been used emotively by Israel and its propagandists to stir up war fever against Iran under the pretext of stopping Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. In no way can this phrase be seen as a neutral or descriptive term.

Listening to the speech

In his speech, Meshaal did restate a refusal to recognize the legitimacy of Israel, spoke about liberating all of historic Palestine and praised resistance. Does that amount to “wiping Israel off the map”?

“Liberation” of course can mean many things, especially ending a racist and oppressive system and freeing the people who live under it.

As I pointed out previously, Meshaal talked about resistance as a means, not an end, and a necessity for an occupied people who are offered no other path to regaining their rights.

Meshaal was also very clear in his speech that he accepted all forms of struggle, including political and diplomatic, but argued that in light of recent events armed resistance provided a base of strength that no other form of struggle could match at the present time.

It is an arguable point of view, but undoubtedly strengthened by the fact that the only serious negotiations Israel has conducted with Palestinians in recent years have been with Hamas, over the prisoner swap last year, and the Gaza ceasefire last month.

Meshaal and other Hamas leaders view it as a “victory” that they forced Israel to negotiateand reach an agreement closer to their terms. They are under no illusion that they can achieve their goals by strictly military means.

Meshaal’s comments about historic Palestine, meanwhile, should be understood as a direct rebuttal to recent and wildly unpopular remarks by Mahmoud Abbas claiming that only the West Bank and Gaza Strip were “Palestine”.

Double standards

Of course Zionists and Israelis are free to interpret Meshaal’s words according to their wildest fantasies and fears, but supposedly impartial news organizations like the AP never claim that by attacking Gaza and killing and injuring thousands of people, and destroying public buildings and infrastructure, that Israel is “wiping Gaza off the map.”

I’ve never seen an AP report that matter-of-factly states that Israel is “wiping Palestine off the map” by continuing its construction of settlements in the occupied West Bank.

Nor have I ever seen a news organization use the phrase “wiping Palestine off the map” even though it would be a pretty accurate description of the Nakba, the 1947-48 ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

Look at schoolroom maps and atlases from before 1948 and they all say “Palestine.” That word was erased from most maps after 1948.

More recently, Israel has begun stamping passports of visitors to areas nominally controlled by the Palestinian Authority with the words “Judea and Samaria,” a nomenclature intended to assert Jewish nationalist claims to the land and, well, wipe Palestine off the map – or ensure it doesn’t get back on to any maps.

Yet no AP writer would dare use the phrase “wipe Palestine off the map” in a manner similar to how Federman used “wipe Israel off the map.”

Meshaal and the 1967 borders: missing context

AP’s report highlights the broader problem of the media’s refusal to put Meshaal’s speech, or indeed any Palestinian politics, into a broader and Palestinian context, and the insistence, instead, on sticking to simply storylines.

Although Meshaal did not talk about it in his Gaza speech, he and other Hamas leaders have a long record of implicitly edging toward the so-called “two-state solution.” In 2009, for example, Meshaal told the New York Times:

We are with a state on the 1967 borders, based on a long-term truce. This includes East Jerusalem, the dismantling of settlements and the right of return of the Palestinian refugees.

As The New York Times noted:

Apart from the time restriction and the refusal to accept Israel’s existence, Mr. Meshal’s terms approximate the Arab League peace plan and what the Palestinian Authority of President Mahmoud Abbas says it is seeking. Israel rejects a full return to the 1967 borders, as well as a Palestinian right of return to Israel itself.

Meshaal’s interview with The New York Times was part of a concerted effort to build a bridge to the new Obama administration and mark Hamas’ way into the international political fold.

Yet these openings by Hamas were completely rejected, and the Obama administration maintained and even increased its support for Israel’s siege on Gaza, where Hamas has its stronghold.

So given that context there was absolutely no reason to expect Meshaal, in Gaza of all places, in the wake of Israel’s recent savage attack, to reiterate far-reaching concessions that had gotten him no credit or reciprocation previously.

If Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu were making what media would typically call a “hardline” speech, you’d expect all sorts of excuses and justifications about how he needed to shore up his base, or appeal to his right-wing. Palestinians, apparently, don’t have politics.

The AP’s eagerness to paint Meshaal with the same brush as Ahmedinejad and replicate the wild misreporting and fear-mongering about Iran suggests the organization’s Jerusalem bureau is more interested in churning out propaganda than helping readers understand the world.

 

Written FOR

A VIEW FROM JERUSALEM: PRESENTING THE NEWS IN THE FORM OF A NOVEL

 IN DEFENSE OF INSANITY
*
*
One can say many things about the lack of journalistic integrity at the Jerusalem Post, but one cannot say that much of the ‘news’ presented in their pages is anything close to the truth. It is often said that the truth can be seen in articles if one reads ‘in-between the lines’, not so in the JP.
*
One of their regular columnists is a Jerusalem based novelist named Naomi Ragen. Her views are quite right of centre as would be expected in a regular at that paper, but her latest piece of dribble is nothing but a work of fiction, not even attempting to present the facts concerning the incidents she speaks of.
*
She starts her tirade with The recent YouTube video showing Lt.- Col. Shalom Eisner, deputy commander of the Beka’a Brigade, striking an aggressive ISM foreign national in the mouth with the clip of his rifle, has made waves all over the world. As usual, as in the Mohammed al-Dura incident, the pictures, taken out of context and played without explanation, are hard to for those who love Israel to combat. After all, no one wants to attempt to justify the killing of a child (even though in the al-Dura case, it was staged and completely false) or the violent attack on a handsome blond Danish “peace activist.”
*
The camera lied??? Here’s a clip of that same soldier attacking 5, not 1, peace activists… a video obviously not a part of her column…
*
Read my post dealing with this HERE
*
The right has been complaining recently about the use of video cameras at demonstrations where soldier’s violent actions are recorded for the world to see. Now their tactic is to try and discredit the videos as nothing but lies, by using lies as proof. A good example is THIS report from Ynet News…  

The inflated camera threat

Op-ed: Good news for Israel – in the past foes aimed guns at us; today they aim iPhones

*
Back to the JP…the heading of Ragen’s article is Consider this: Duoes, dummies and useful idiots , but if you read the following paragraph from it you can clearly see who the dummy and useful idiot is…
When I first looked into this, what interested me was who these young people are who are willing to drop everything, hop onto a plane and fly to a country they have no connection with to attack IDF soldiers and risk Israeli lives on the roads. After all, they looked normal, like young people everywhere, filled with the same eager idealism that fuels the Occupy Wall Streeters and DCers, and Arab Springers. What is it that motivates them? What are they trying to accomplish? And so I did a little check on the organizers of the “Welcome to Palestine Campaign.”
*
And what did she find?
*
The Al-Awda Center in Beit Sahour, another campaign organizer, describes itself as “a broad-based, non-partisan, democratic, and charitable organization of grassroots activists and students committed to comprehensive public education on the rights of all Palestinian refugees….”However, according to the Anti-Defamation League, Al-Awda – The Palestine Right to Return Coalition, is actually a grassroots organization that opposes Israel’s right to exist, is responsible for coordinating numerous rallies, demonstrations and events to condemn Israel and its policies.The village of Beit Sahour, known for harboring dozens of Bethlehem-area gunmen, including senior Hamas, Tanzim, and Al-Aksa Martyrs Brigade terrorists, was infamously involved in the violent siege of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem in 2002, imprisoning 49 clergy and 45 unarmed civilians. In 2011, a terrorist cell was discovered in the village and its members put on trial for attempted murder, production of weapons and weapons trade, military training, throwing Molotov cocktails, attacking a Border Police vehicle… shall I go on, oh peaceful activists? OF COURSE, the part played by these organizations in the Welcome to Palestine provocation is minor compared to that of the International Solidarity Movement. So brush your golden locks out of your ears and eyes, Mr.starry-eyed Danish ISM activist, and listen up.Calling itself a “non-violent human rights organization that opposes terrorism and supports a two-state solution,” ISM openly incites violence and supports “armed struggle” against Israeli “occupation,” defined by ISM spokesman Raphael Cohen in 2003 as “The Zionist presence in Palestine.”
*
The above according to the Anti-Defamation League …. that’s journalism??
*
It’s pretty sad to see a newspaper staffed with Psycho Gals, Duoes, dummies and useful idiots, but I guess their readership prefers a poorly written novel to the truth over their morning coffee.
*
Her column can be read HERE if you have the stomach for it.

DEFAMATION OF A MARTYR

*
Just a week short of the 9th anniversary of the murder of Rachel Corrie, the zionist press had the audacity to defame her and make a mockery of her martyrdom.
*
It is nothing less than SICK!
*
Are they not satisfied that they killed her once already? Do they have to do it again??
*
The Rachel Corrie myth

Op-ed: Killed ‘peace activist’ one of the most powerful tools in anti-Israel propaganda campaign

*
Read it if you want … but have a barf bag ready at your side.
*
Leave your comments on Ynet’s site… let them know how you feel about this.

ZIONISM’S ATTEMPT TO TURN LIES INTO TRUTH

My response to the critics of BDS
*
 One example of the lies they spread….
*
The Boycott Movement, Israeli Anti-Apartheid Week in particular, seems to have certain sections of the zionist community literally chasing their tails to get attention these days …
Lets start with a report from HaAretz which appeared a week ago; its main claim was that although BDS activists have convinced many to cancel performances here, the movement has not been able to exert the economic pressure on Israel it wishes to achieve. I posted my own response to that ridiculous claim in THIS post.
*
Today a new report appears in HaAretz claiming that The Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement is mounting its annual Israeli Apartheid Week. Yet this year, there is something different – people have begun telling the truth about BDS.
*
What is interesting is the main source they use as the ‘truth teller’….
The door was opened by author and lecturer Norman Finkelstein. Earlier this month, Finkelstein, one of Israel’s harshest critics, rocked the BDS movement with a critique devastating in its candor.
 

Finkelstein said he loathed the movement’s duplicity and disingenuousness in hiding the fact that a large part of its membership “wants to eliminate Israel.”
“I support the BDS,” Finkelstein said, but “it will never reach a broad public until and unless they’re explicit in their goal. And their goal has to include the recognition of Israel, or it’s a nonstarter.”

Instead, he said, the movement insists that it’s “agnostic” on whether or not Israel should exist. “No, you’re not agnostic! You don’t want it! Then just say it! But (BDS leaders) know full well, that if you say it, you don’t have a prayer of reaching a broad public … And frankly, you know what, you shouldn’t. You shouldn’t reach a broad public, because you’re dishonest.”

Though BDS constantly claims successes, “it’s a cult, where the guru says ‘We have all these victories’ and everyone nods their head,” Finkelstein said. “People promote it as if it’s proven itself and we’re on the … verge of a victory of some sort. It’s just sheer nonsense. It’s a cult. And I, personally, I’m tired of it.”*

In the case of Norman Finkelstein, there too I posted my response in THIS post. Finkelstein  ends his tirade with the words “I’m tired of it.” So are we! We are tired of the lone voices from the ‘Ivory Towers’ trying to dictate to the activists what is right and what is wrong. It’s not only Finkelsein that is guilty of this behaviour, Noam Chomsky, as well, has been playing at that game for years. In both cases, as ‘friends’ of the Pro Palestinian Movements. Friends do not act or speak like they do. We expect this from the Dershowitzes and others connected with the ADL, but when this nonsense comes from supposed friends, all it does is give amunition to the enemy as can be seen in the two HaAretz reports linked. Do read the second link and see for yourself the weakness of those who dare accuse BDS of dishonesty. Their only defence is dishonesty on their own part.*

Here you can see and hear the truth about the BDS Movement and what it is doing in Israel…
*

HOW TO DESTROY THE OWS MOVEMENT ~~ A GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED

*
Since day one of the Occupy Wall Street initiatives, the right-wing media was set on destroying them, Fox News in particular. The right-wing media have engaged in a relentless smear campaign against the Occupy Wall Street movement, including calling the protesters socialists and Marxists, saying they represent the “fringe of the fringe of the fringe,” and claiming they “sound like the Unabomber,” among other attacks.
*
A Website called MediaMatters recently published a list which they call A Guide To The Smear Campaign Against Occupy Wall Street. It includes the following…. (clicking on the headings will direct you to the reports)
*

The Protesters Are “The Fringe” And “Lunatics”

OWS Website Reads Like “The Ravings Of … The Unabomber”

They’re Only “Little Rascals” And “Petulant Little Children” …

… Who Don’t Know What They Want …

… But We Know They’re Socialists, Marxists, And Anarchists Bent On “Destroy[ing] Capitalism” …

… And They Don’t Even Pay Taxes!

They’re Not Diverse Enough (Maybe) …

… But They Sure Are Anti-Semitic

Their Protests Are Astroturfed

Iran And Chavez Support The Protests …

… And So Do Nazis!

The Protesters Don’t Shower Enough

So Don’t Support The 99% — Support The 53%

It was expected of the commercial media to attempt the destruction of the Movement, after all, the advertisers and corporate sponsors of these outlets represent the very 1% that the 99% have been going after.*

It’s a completely different ‘game’ when the attempt to destroy seemingly comes from within the Movement itself. Those involved are definitely ‘plants’ of the enemy and must be isolated and stopped from participating (destroying) in what is left of the Movement. The following is yet the best piece written on this subject, it is definitely worth reading…

*The Cancer in Occupy

By Chris Hedges

he Black Bloc anarchists, who have been active on the streets in Oakland and other cities, are the cancer of the Occupy movement. The presence of Black Bloc anarchists – so named because they dress in black, obscure their faces, move as a unified mass, seek physical confrontations with police and destroy property – is a gift from heaven to the security and surveillance state. The Occupy encampments in various cities were shut down precisely because they were nonviolent. They were shut down because the state realized the potential of their broad appeal even to those within the systems of power. They were shut down because they articulated a truth about our economic and political system that cut across political and cultural lines. And they were shut down because they were places mothers and fathers with strollers felt safe.

Black Bloc adherents detest those of us on the organized left and seek, quite consciously, to take away our tools of empowerment. They confuse acts of petty vandalism and a repellent cynicism with revolution. The real enemies, they argue, are not the corporate capitalists, but their collaborators among the unions, workers’ movements, radical intellectuals, environmental activists and populist movements such as theZapatistas. Any group that seeks to rebuild social structures, especially through nonviolent acts of civil disobedience, rather than physically destroy, becomes, in the eyes of Black Bloc anarchists, the enemy. Black Bloc anarchists spend most of their fury not on the architects of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) or globalism, but on those, such as the Zapatistas, who respond to the problem. It is a grotesque inversion of value systems.

Because Black Bloc anarchists do not believe in organization, indeed oppose all organized movements, they ensure their own powerlessness. They can only be obstructionist. And they are primarily obstructionist to those who resist. John Zerzan, one of the principal ideologues of the Black Bloc movement in the United States, defended “Industrial Society and Its Future,” the rambling manifesto by Theodore Kaczynski, known as the Unabomber, although he did not endorse Kaczynski’s bombings. Zerzan is a fierce critic of a long list of supposed sellouts starting with Noam Chomsky. Black Bloc anarchists are an example of what Theodore Roszak in “The Making of a Counter Culture” called the “progressive adolescentization” of the American left.

In Zerzan’s now defunct magazine Green Anarchy (which survives as a website) he published an article by someone named “Venomous Butterfly” that excoriated the Zapatista Army for National Liberation (EZLN). The essay declared that “not only are those [the Zapatistas'] aims not anarchist; they are not even revolutionary.” It also denounced the indigenous movement for “nationalist language,” for asserting the right of people to “alter or modify their form of government” and for having the goals of “work, land, housing, health care, education, independence, freedom, democracy, justice and peace.” The movement, the article stated, was not worthy of support because it called for “nothing concrete that could not be provided by capitalism.”

“Of course,” the article went on, “the social struggles of exploited and oppressed people cannot be expected to conform to some abstract anarchist ideal. These struggles arise in particular situations, sparked by specific events. The question of revolutionary solidarity in these struggles is, therefore, the question of how to intervene in a way that is fitting with one’s aims, in a way that moves one’s revolutionary anarchist project forward.”

Solidarity becomes the hijacking or destruction of competing movements, which is exactly what the Black Bloc contingents are attempting to do with the Occupy movement.

“The Black Bloc can say they are attacking cops, but what they are really doing is destroying the Occupy movement,” the writer and environmental activist Derrick Jensen told me when I reached him by phone in California. “If their real target actually was the cops and not the Occupy movement, the Black Bloc would make their actions completely separate from Occupy, instead of effectively using these others as a human shield. Their attacks on cops are simply a means to an end, which is to destroy a movement that doesn’t fit their ideological standard.”

“I don’t have a problem with escalating tactics to some sort of militant resistance if it is appropriate morally, strategically and tactically,” Jensen continued. “This is true if one is going to pick up a sign, a rock or a gun. But you need to have thought it through. The Black Bloc spends more time attempting to destroy movements than they do attacking those in power. They hate the left more than they hate capitalists.”

“Their thinking is not only nonstrategic, but actively opposed to strategy,” said Jensen, author of several books, including “The Culture of Make Believe.” “They are unwilling to think critically about whether one is acting appropriately in the moment. I have no problem with someone violating boundaries [when] that violation is the smart, appropriate thing to do. I have a huge problem with people violating boundaries for the sake of violating boundaries. It is a lot easier to pick up a rock and throw it through the nearest window than it is to organize, or at least figure out which window you should throw a rock through if you are going to throw a rock. A lot of it is laziness.”

Groups of Black Bloc protesters, for example, smashed the windows of a locally owned coffee shop in November in Oakland and looted it. It was not, as Jensen points out, a strategic, moral or tactical act. It was done for its own sake. Random acts of violence, looting and vandalism are justified, in the jargon of the movement, as components of “feral” or “spontaneous insurrection.” These acts, the movement argues, can never be organized. Organization, in the thinking of the movement, implies hierarchy, which must always be opposed. There can be no restraints on “feral” or “spontaneous” acts of insurrection. Whoever gets hurt gets hurt. Whatever gets destroyed gets destroyed.

There is a word for this – “criminal.”

The Black Bloc movement is infected with a deeply disturbing hypermasculinity. This hypermasculinity, I expect, is its primary appeal. It taps into the lust that lurks within us to destroy, not only things but human beings. It offers the godlike power that comes with mob violence. Marching as a uniformed mass, all dressed in black to become part of an anonymous bloc, faces covered, temporarily overcomes alienation, feelings of inadequacy, powerlessness and loneliness. It imparts to those in the mob a sense of comradeship. It permits an inchoate rage to be unleashed on any target. Pity, compassion and tenderness are banished for the intoxication of power. It is the same sickness that fuels the swarms of police who pepper-spray and beat peaceful demonstrators. It is the sickness of soldiers in war. It turns human beings into beasts.

“We run on,” Erich Maria Remarque wrote in “All Quiet on the Western Front,” “overwhelmed by this wave that bears us along, that fills us with ferocity, turns us into thugs, into murderers, into God only knows what devils: this wave that multiplies our strength with fear and madness and greed of life, seeking and fighting for nothing but our deliverance.”

The corporate state understands and welcomes the language of force. It can use the Black Bloc’s confrontational tactics and destruction of property to justify draconian forms of control and frighten the wider population away from supporting the Occupy movement. Once the Occupy movement is painted as a flag-burning, rock-throwing, angry mob we are finished. If we become isolated we can be crushed. The arrests last weekend in Oakland of more than 400 protesters, some of whom had thrown rocks, carried homemade shields and rolled barricades, are an indication of the scale of escalating repression and a failure to remain a unified, nonviolent opposition. Police pumped tear gas, flash-bang grenades and “less lethal” rounds into the crowds. Once protesters were in jail they were denied crucial medications, kept in overcrowded cells and pushed around. A march in New York called in solidarity with the Oakland protesters saw a few demonstrators imitate the Black Bloc tactics in Oakland, including throwing bottles at police and dumping garbage on the street. They chanted “Fuck the police” and “Racist, sexist, anti-gay / NYPD go away.”

This is a struggle to win the hearts and minds of the wider public and those within the structures of power (including the police) who are possessed of a conscience. It is not a war. Nonviolent movements, on some level, embrace police brutality. The continuing attempt by the state to crush peaceful protesters who call for simple acts of justice delegitimizes the power elite. It prompts a passive population to respond. It brings some within the structures of power to our side and creates internal divisions that will lead to paralysis within the network of authority. Martin Luther King kept holding marches in Birmingham because he knew Public Safety Commissioner “Bull” Connor was a thug who would overreact.

The Black Bloc’s thought-terminating cliché of “diversity of tactics” in the end opens the way for hundreds or thousands of peaceful marchers to be discredited by a handful of hooligans. The state could not be happier. It is a safe bet that among Black Bloc groups in cities such as Oakland are agents provocateurs spurring them on to more mayhem. But with or without police infiltration the Black Bloc is serving the interests of the 1 percent. These anarchists represent no one but themselves. Those in Oakland, although most are white and many are not from the city, arrogantly dismiss Oakland’s African-American leaders, who, along with other local community organizers, should be determining the forms of resistance.

The explosive rise of the Occupy Wall Street movement came when a few women, trapped behind orange mesh netting, were pepper-sprayed by NYPD Deputy Inspector Anthony Bologna. The violence and cruelty of the state were exposed. And the Occupy movement, through its steadfast refusal to respond to police provocation, resonated across the country. Losing this moral authority, this ability to show through nonviolent protest the corruption and decadence of the corporate state, would be crippling to the movement. It would reduce us to the moral degradation of our oppressors. And that is what our oppressors want.

The Black Bloc movement bears the rigidity and dogmatism of all absolutism sects. Its adherents alone possess the truth. They alone understand. They alone arrogate the right, because they are enlightened and we are not, to dismiss and ignore competing points of view as infantile and irrelevant. They hear only their own voices. They heed only their own thoughts. They believe only their own clichés. And this makes them not only deeply intolerant but stupid.

“Once you are hostile to organization and strategic thinking the only thing that remains is lifestyle purity,” Jensen said. ” ‘Lifestylism’ has supplanted organization in terms of a lot of mainstream environmental thinking. Instead of opposing the corporate state, [lifestylism maintains] we should use less toilet paper and should compost. This attitude is ineffective. Once you give up on organizing or are hostile to it, all you are left with is this hyperpurity that becomes rigid dogma. You attack people who, for example, use a telephone. This is true with vegans and questions of diet. It is true with anti-car activists toward those who drive cars. It is the same with the anarchists. When I called the police after I received death threats I became to Black Bloc anarchists ‘a pig lover.’ “

“If you live on Ogoni land and you see that Ken Saro-Wiwa is murdered for acts of nonviolent resistance,” Jensen said, “if you see that the land is still being trashed, then you might think about escalating. I don’t have a problem with that. But we have to go through the process of trying to work with the system and getting screwed. It is only then that we get to move beyond it. We can’t short-circuit the process. There is a maturation process we have to go through, as individuals and as a movement. We can’t say, ‘Hey, I’m going to throw a flowerpot at a cop because it is fun.’ “

Posted AT

SHALIT NOT QUITE THE HERO THEY TRIED TO CREATE

Israel’s Army Radio tried to make a hero out of Gilad Shalit earlier this week …. but his dad set the record straight this morning …. once again proving that the media lies!

*
Noam Shalit also said that in the second part of his imprisonment, in which he was better treated, Gilad ate Middle Eastern food, “hummus, pita, sometimes chicken,” and that he conversed with his captors in Hebrew, Arabic, and English.
*
*
*Gilad Shalit didn’t go on hunger strike in Hamas captivity, father says

Noam Shalit says reason for son’s deteriorated physical state was conditions of captivity, adding that sporting events were a source of positive ties with Hamas guards.

Gilad Shalit did not go on hunger strike while in Hamas captivity, Shalit’s father Noam said in a media conference on Monday, adding a few more details concerning his son’s 5-year imprisonment in the Gaza Strip.

Shalit was released in October in exchange for 477 Palestinian militants. Another 550 Palestinians jailed in Israel are to be released later this month, under the deal mediated by Egypt.

On Sunday, Israeli media reports claimed that Shalit had ceased eating while a Hamas prisoner in order to pressure the militant group into negotiating his release. The abducted Israel Defense Forces soldier refused to eat, the report claimed, and consequently forced Hamas to take steps toward his release, out of fear for his life.

However speaking at the Eilat Journalism Conference on Sunday, Noam Shalit denied these reports, affirming, nonetheless, that his son’s health was failing.

“He was in such a deteriorated physical state that they had to connect him to an IV. It wasn’t the result of a hunger strike, but of an array of factors having to do with the conditions of his imprisonment, such as a years-long lack of daylight.”

When asked whether Gilad spoke of his relationship with his Hamas captors, Noam Shalit said that his son was “in a process with officials asking those questions. He doesn’t tell us much. When they’re done with the process he’ll probably tell us more.”

“It wasn’t a picnic in the first part, but the treatment bettered with time. In 2008 he received a radio and listened to Israel Radio, Army Radio, and Radio South. He knew of our activity, which goes to show the role of radio is far from over in the 21st century.”

Shalit added that if there was any positive interaction he was aware of between Gilad and Hamas guards it was probably related to sports, “which was why he was able to take a look at sports games every once in a while.”

“It’s like the television we used to have 30 years ago, fuzzy,” Shalit added.

Noam Shalit also said that in the second part of his imprisonment, in which he was better treated, Gilad ate Middle Eastern food, “hummus, pita, sometimes chicken,” and that he conversed with his captors in Hebrew, Arabic, and English.

Shalit also spoke of his first meeting with his son, responding to what some considered to be a less than warm encounter.

“My first meeting with him was supposed to be off camera, and I breached protocol. He arrived accompanied by several bodyguards, the prime minister, the defense minister, so I didn’t feel free to leap into his arms and break into tears.”

“He was also quite down after the ambush from the Egyptian [reporter], which was successful as far as she was concerned. I wanted to bring him to his mother before I provided a scene for the camera.”

 

Source

 

NEW YORK TIMES FEARS SHALIT DEAL WILL HARM ISRAEL’S SECURITY

*
While applauding the fact that Shalit is now home with his family, a picture of gloom is painted regarding the Palestinian prisoners that were released in yesterday’s swap. In today’s editorial, the New York Times makes it clear what their position on Israel is, basically, the hell with Palestine. Their concern for Abbas and his ilk and total negation of the FACT that Hamas was the Party elected by the Palestinian people shows a total disregard for the hopes and aspirations of those people … Now that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel has compromised with Hamas, we fear that to prove his toughness he will be even less willing to make the necessary compromises to restart negotiations. And we fear that the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, and his Fatah faction, who were cut out of the swap altogether, will be further weakened.
*
Perhaps the time has come for the New York Times and other pro zionist news outlets to reexamine the situation and present the facts, rather than their distorted opinions and lies.
*
Gilad Shalit’s Release

We share the joy of Israelis over the release of Sgt. First Class Gilad Shalit, who was held by Hamas for five years. We will leave it to the Israeli people to debate whether the deal — which includes the release of more than 1,000 Palestinian prisoners — will make their country safer or lead to more violence or more abductions of Israeli soldiers or other citizens.

We are already concerned that the deal will further thwart an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement, the only real guarantee of lasting security for both sides.

Now that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel has compromised with Hamas, we fear that to prove his toughness he will be even less willing to make the necessary compromises to restart negotiations. And we fear that the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, and his Fatah faction, who were cut out of the swap altogether, will be further weakened.

Both Mr. Netanyahu and Hamas were looking for a political win after Mr. Abbas grabbed the international spotlight — and saw his popularity soar — when he asked the United Nations last month to grant his undefined country full membership.

Mr. Netanyahu twisted himself in an ideological knot to get this deal. Only five months ago, he wanted to cut off tax remittances to the Palestinian Authority and urged the United States to halt aid because Mr. Abbas tried to forge a unity government with Hamas, which controls Gaza.

One has to ask: If Mr. Netanyahu can negotiate with Hamas — which shoots rockets at Israel, refuses to recognize Israel’s existence and, on Tuesday, vowed to take even more hostages — why won’t he negotiate seriously with the Palestinian Authority, which Israel relies on to help keep the peace in the West Bank?

Mr. Netanyahu’s backers claim that his coalition is so fragile that he can’t make the compromises needed to help revive peace negotiations. But he was strong enough to go against the grief-stricken families of those Israelis killed by the Palestinian prisoners he just freed. “I know that the price is very heavy for you,” he wrote to them. Why can’t he make a similarly impassioned appeal for a settlement freeze for the sake of Israel’s security?

The United States and its partners should keep trying to get negotiations going. Mr. Abbas should see the prisoner swap for what it is — a challenge to his authority and credibility. The best way to bolster his standing is by leading his people in the creation of a Palestinian state, through negotiations. As for Mr. Netanyahu, we saw on Tuesday that the problem is not that he can’t compromise and make tough choices. It’s that he won’t. That won’t make Israel safer.

Source

ISRAEL STILL POINTING FINGERS IN ALL DIRECTIONS


IDF Spokesperson: We DIDN’T say PRC was behind Eilat attack

By Joseph Dana

Yesterday morning, I wrote a piece questioning the journalistic ethics of some in the Israeli media and, to a larger extent, the entire international press corps over of their rush to adopt the Israeli government claim that Gaza-based terror organization Popular Resistance Committees (PRC) were behind Thursday’s triple terror attack near Eilat. As the terror attack was unfolding, Israeli warplanes were warming up to carry out airstrikes in the Gaza strip without revealing any concrete proof  to the public confirming that the culprits of the attack were from Gaza.  After a night of bombing, a number of senior operatives in the PRC were killed along with a handful of civilians including children.

*

*

The Real News Network’s Lia Tarachansky asked IDF Spokesperson Lt. Colonel Avital Leibovitz  for evidence that the PRC was, indeed, responsible for the Eilat terror attack. Liebovitz responded that the Israel “did not say that this group was responsible for the terror attack.” This quote  distanced the IDF spokesperson from the public statements Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made on the evening of the attack placing clear responsibility on the PRC.  Backtracking in the interview, Liebovitz said,

We did not say that this group was responsible for the terror attack. We based this on intelligence information as well as some facts that [we] actually presented an hour ago to some wires and journalists. Some of the findings that were from the bodies of the terrorists, and they are using, for example, Kalashnikov bullets and Kalashnikov rifles [which] are very common in Gaza.

In response to this quote,  Paul Woodward at War in Context responded “So, the IDF says it “knows” the gunmen came from Gaza because they were using Kalashnikovs. That’s about as logical as saying they know they came from Gaza because they appeared to be Arabs.”

*

*

The simple yet difficult to answer question remains open, who is responsible for the Eilat terror attacks? If the PRC and Hamas, both of which have denied responsibility, are not the culprits, as Lt. Col Avital Liebovitz alleges in the Real News interview, why is Israel attacking targets in Gaza with overwhelming force?  Why are senior members of the Israeli and international press corps reporting unsubstantiated Israeli government claims as fact without doing the necessary legwork of revealing sources and providing verifiable proof of their material.

If the PRC episode is a harbinger of how the media is going to handle the next Israeli offensive in Gaza one sorry conclusion can be made, Prime Minister Netanyahu will be left unmolested with obloquy demanding that his government provide factual evidence to support their rationale for war.

 

Written FOR

FILLING IN THE BLANKS ON ‘TERROR’ ATTACK

STILL TOO EARLY TO TELL WHAT HAPPENED IN ISRAEL …. SO LET’S MAKE UP THE STORY

*

We’ve even learned how to ‘doctor’ photos ;)
*
It is still too early to tell whether the terrorists who carried out Thursday’s attacks exited Egypt, passed through Sinai and headed south toward the region of Eilat, or if this was the action of a terrorist cell of Islamic origins, acting for some time already in Sinai. In any case, it is clear that the Egyptian revolution that began in Tahrir Square and spread through other Arab states has now made its way into Israel.
*
That’s not the version we were fed yesterday by the Israeli press… now it’s ‘We don’t know what happened’.
*
Mubarak’s fall will lead to Israel’s demise? Is that what they want us to believe now? Read the following from HaAretz to see this viewpoint…
*

Mubarak falls, Sinai terror rises

The series of terror attacks near Eilat on Thursday indicate that the Egyptians are losing their grip on Sinai.

The series of terror attacks that took place early Thursday afternoon on the road leading from the Israeli-Egyptian border to Eilat did not come as a surprise to Israel’s senior security officials. They had expected it would occur at some stage or another.

The escalating security situation in the Sinai Peninsula, continuous work on the new border barrier and the frustration of terror groups within the Gaza Strip who – for some time now – have not managed to successfully carry out a terror attack from within the Strip, all pointed at the likelihood of an attempt to attack via the Egyptian border.

It is still too early to tell whether the terrorists who carried out Thursday’s attacks exited Egypt, passed through Sinai and headed south toward the region of Eilat, or if this was the action of a terrorist cell of Islamic origins, acting for some time already in Sinai. In any case, it is clear that the Egyptian revolution that began in Tahrir Square and spread through other Arab states has now made its way into Israel.

Over the past few months, Israel has allowed the Egyptian army to increase its forces in Sinai a number of times, allowing much larger Egyptian forces there than the Camp David Accords allowed for, including the entry of thousands of Egyptian soldiers and tanks in the El Arish region and northern Sinai, within the framework of a widespread mission against al-Qaida. It is now evident that the Egyptian efforts alone are not enough, and that the Israel Defense Forces – who over the past three decades has been able to reduce its forces along the Egyptian border, focusing instead on reinforcing the northern border, West Bank and Gaza Strip – will now have-to strengthen its presence in the south.

This is not just a case of transferring security forces. There is a far greater need to complete the construction of the southern border and its fortification via advanced observation posts, which requires hundreds of millions of shekels in increased funding for the security budget. The Finance Ministry’s spin two days ago about halving the security budget ended within 48 hours, as the gunmen opened fire near Eilat.

Beyond the financial aspect, Israel’s security heads will need to get used to a state in which, as it seems, they cannot depend on its ally, the Egyptian army, to protect its southern front.

Source

*

‘Terror Timetable’ … also from HaAretz

*

Timeline / Eight hours of terror in southern Israel

A series of terrorist attacks took place near Eilat on Thursday, killing at least six people and wounding dozens.

* 12:00 P.M. – Terror cell fires at Egged bus from a private vehicle, 7 hurt

* 12:30 P.M. – IDF forces called to the scene of the attack hurt by explosive device

* 12:35 P.M. – Mortar shells fired from Egypt into Israel, no one hurt

* 13:10 P.M. – Terror cell fires anti-tank missile toward private vehicle near border, 7 hurt

* 13:11 P.M. – Another anti-tank missile fired toward private vehicle, six people killed

* 18:00 P.M. – IDF begins military strike on Gaza, killing at least six Palestinians

* 19:00 P.M. – Fresh firefights erupt in southern Israel, 2 people gravely injured

*

Solution….. BOMB GAZA!

Why?

Because they can!

 

*
Photo Essay of Victims of Israeli strike on Gaza ( click HERE to view)
*


« Older entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,142 other followers