A Nobel Prize winner, in fact. Stay in Ireland, Corrigan, because you’re on the wrong side in Bilin. And listen to the description of these peaceful protesters’ actions:

Nobel Peace Prize Mairead Corrigan has been injured during confrontations between security forces and left-wing activists protesting the security fence route near Bilin, activists said.

Corrigan, who won the prize in 1976 for her work in encouraging a peaceful solution to the Northern Ireland dispute, was hit in the leg by a rubber bullet and was transferred to a hospital for treatment. She was also said to have inhaled large quantities of teargas.

Policemen and soldiers used teargas grenades and rubber bullets to disperse the routine Friday protest against the security fence near the Palestinian village of Bilin and were confronted by a hail of stones.

Two Border Guard policemen were lightly injured by stones.

The security forces say the area where activists hold their protest is a no-access military zone which they have to evacuate of Palestinian and Israeli protesters every Friday.

That’s funny. I thought these were peaceful protesters, and yet, every week, they throw stones and hurt Israeli security force personnel.

The guy voted most likely to star in the next remake of Planet of the Apes, Mahmoud Al-Zahar, said that Hamas will never, ever, ever recognize Israel. Because it’s against the Koran.

Former PA foreign minister Mahmoud A-Zahar of Hamas said Friday that recognizing Israel’s right to exist contradicts the Koran, Israel Radio reported.

In an interview with a Hamas-affiliated Web site, A-Zahar said that Hamas had not given up on the principle that all of Palestine is Muslim land.

Someone want to please tell me again why Israel needs to negotiate with these terrorists?

It’s Friday. “Peace” protesters are attacking the IDF.

Two border policemen were lightly wounded on Friday after left-wing protesters pelted them with stones in the West Bank village of Bil’in, near Ramallah.

Some 200 Palestinians, Israelis and foreigners were gathered in the village for the weekly protest against the building of the security fence, despite the area being a closed military zone.

I’d reallly like to see the breakdown of foreigners to Palestinians for these protests.

It is time to name Gaza what it really is: Another lost strip of land filled with terrorists and criminals that are running the show, paying lip service to actually being governed—in part, because those “governing” Gaza are also, for the most part, thieves and murderers. For instance, did you know that the Durmush clan is the “group” that is holding kidnapped BBC correspondent Alan Jones? Did you know that they are also holding Gilad Shalit? Did you further know that they are the ones responsible for kidnapping the two Fox reporters, for whom a million-dollar ransom was paid? And one last item of import: The media are covering up kidnappings, and they no longer are covering Gaza.

The foreign press corps has abandoned the Gaza Strip in the five weeks since the kidnapping of BBC reporter Alan Johnston, leading to a significant decrease in coverage.

[...] The official number of journalists kidnapped for any period of time has been 22, but it is probably much higher since many of those abducted and swiftly released prefer not to publicize their abduction so as not to jeopardize their future coverage of Gaza.

Most abductions have been resolved discreetly, usually with the intervention of the PA or one of the main armed organizations, but now some of the smaller groups, with suspected ties to al-Qaida, are trying to emulate the kidnapping of foreigners in Baghdad.

In the meantime, the foreign press are boycotting Gaza, which leaves only Palestinian stringers covering the news. And Palestinian stringers have an agenda.

In the absence of the foreign reporters, the news still getting out of Gaza is coming almost exclusively from Palestinian stringers. Some of the major organizations that in the past preferred to rely as little as possible on stringers have signed them on and equipped them with additional recording equipment. But using only stringer-produced material is problematic.

“The people who use the stringers have to sift their material very carefully,” says Jay Bushinsky, a veteran member of the Foreign Press Association. “You have to be naive to believe that in a place like Gaza you can be a fair-minded reporter. They have a mission and they don’t give anything detrimental to their leadership.”

So what else is the foreign press association doing to help things along? This is precious: They managed to condemn the NUJ boycott from both sides of their mouths.

In its meeting on Tuesday, the FPA also condemned the decision by Britain’s National Union of Journalists to boycott Israeli goods. In its statement, the FPA said the boycott “runs counter to the core journalistic values which we are here to uphold and defend, namely objectivity and balance” and that it “may prejudice our membership’s already difficult task here in striving to interact effectively with all sectors of Israeli and Palestinian society.”

The Foreign Press Association also criticized the boycott resolution for failing to mention the plight of Johnston.

But then the NUJ couldn’t get their quid pro quo!

Can we please stop even trying to pretend that journalists are objective? Can we just slap labels on them like we have on food? “Warning: This newspaper contains left-leaning and anti-Israeli opinions masquerading as objective news pieces.” Or “Warning: This article contains conservative, pro-Israel opinions.”

I’d be happy with warning labels. At least then we could stop pretending that the media strive for objectivity.

Now Carter is telling Americans to have a litmus test for presidential candidates. Of course, it concerns the “Israel lobby.”

As long as American politicians are seen as “knee-jerk supporters” of Israel, the country’s role as the principal Mideast peace broker will be endangered, former President Jimmy Carter told a crowd Wednesday at the University of Iowa.

[...] “I wrote this book to describe the plight of the Palestinians,” he said. “And because I was convinced that we need a debate about where we are and where we need to go.”

Carter told the crowd that he chose Iowa out of the 100 university lecture invitations he received because Iowa caucus voters have the power to select candidates who will bolster peace efforts after six years of what he sees as inaction by the Bush administration.

“The main reason I came to Iowa is to make sure you knew you could shape an outcome in the 2008 presidential election. At least you can screen out candidates,” he said. “Make them pledge to you … that they will take a balanced position between Israel and Palestinians.”

In response to accusations that he’s biased, Carter noted his work with Israeli and Jewish groups. But he said that unlike current U.S. politicians and diplomats, he’s not subject to pressure from interest groups such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

Uh-huh. And the tens of millions of dollars that the Carter Center has received from the Saudis and other Arab nations has nothing to do with his views toward Israel. Nothing at all.

And just in case you think Jimmah is alone in his views, read the sole comment on the article:

don adams wrote on April 19, 2007 3:03 PM:”Why does anyone pay any attention to Dennis Ross. He is a card carrying member of the Israel Lobby so his comments can be assumed before he speaks.

The Israel Lobby is the new dual loyalty charge, for the new century. Thank you, Walt & Mearsheimer. Thank you, Jimmy Carter. You have given the Jew-haters their newest euphemism and raised the art of Jew-hating to new heights, all while pretending to take the moral high ground.

The boycott of Israeli goods decided upon by the British National Union of Journalists (NUJ) caused several interesting responses. Of course, being the Guardian’s fan of long standing, I cannot hide my astonishment by the extraordinary act of the Guardian’s editor:

“The Guardian disapproves of these kinds of boycotts and does not think they serve a useful purpose. It was a misguided motion,” editor of the British daily Alan Rusbridger told Haaretz by telephone last night.

I am looking forward (not) to a sleepless night, trying to make up my mind about this statement. The similar statement made by the U.K. Foreign Office Minister is also quite interesting.

Of course, this strongly worded post by Meryl admirably expresses my initial feelings about the whole production by NUJ. So, all things considered, we could declare the case closed till the next outbreak of the British boycotts plague and plainly forget about it. And yet…

In the linked Haaretz’ article there is a quote from what Zvi Heifetz, Israel’s ambassador in London, said about the NUJ motion:

It is a shame that an organization that represents journalists threatens to boycott goods from Israel only one day after worrying rumors surfaced about the fate of one of the union’s own members.

This caused me to take a closer look at the NUJ boycott resolution, and here it comes, without any attempt to hide it:

The call for the boycott in part related it to the kidnap of Alan Johnston. The Palestinian journalists union has given huge support to the campaign for his release - holding demonstrations and strikes against the Palestinian authority to demand more action from them. We work closely with the Palestinian union through the International Federation of Journalists and the boycott call was a gesture of support for the Palestinian people - notably those suffering in the siege of Gaza, the community Alan Johnston has been so keen to help through his reporting.

So, I hope that the situation is clear now: this boycott motion was a transparent attempt to get on the good side of the Johnston’s kidnappers. And really, when the concern for the fate of one of their own motivates people to make some compromises, it is difficult to judge them. And in general, one does not judge people in their moments of trouble and desperation. So, ignoring some cynical remarks I wanted to make (but wouldn’t now), like:

• The fate of Alan Johnston will not be influenced a bit by a resolution some infidels made in the far away London - the people who kidnapped him hate the Brits just marginally less than they hate the Jooz
• The resolution itself is a rare public confession by people who are ready to sell their principles for some imaginary profit, no matter how humane the profit is presented to be
  
• The timing of the resolution was not very clever
• The text of the resolution is pitiful, clearly showing the tangled and tortuous “thinking” behind it
• Maybe we should behead a British journalist or two (in the best Middle Eastern tradition) the next time our soldier or civilian gets kidnapped? I know about one official of our government who will gladly volunteer for the mission…
  
• Etc.

I would like to express my hope that Johnston will be freed as soon as possible, and to ask these 66 NUJ representatives who voted for the resolution:

Whom are you going to sell next?

Cross-posted on SimplyJews.