Muslim ERA/medieval punishment watch

Posted on 10/18/2010 by Meryl Yourish

Those tolerant Muslims in the United Arab Emirates—the nation you may remember due to the voluminous Mossad hit squad activity there when a Hamas terrorist was killed—have had its highest court rule that it’s just ducky for a man to beat his wife and children, as long as he doesn’t leave any marks.

Islamic sharia law allows a man to “discipline” his wife and children provided that he does not leave physical marks, according to a ruling by the supreme court in the United Arab Emirates.

The judgment was made in the case of a man who slapped and kicked his daughter and slapped his wife, injuring both slightly. But the federal court in Abu Dhabi, capital of the UAE, also said that their bruises were evidence that the father had abused his legal right.

Say, do you think the UN Human Rights Committee will bring this up under special investigation? Do you think that Ban Ki-Moon will comment on it? Do you think that the world media will spend the next 72 hours writing scathing articles about legalizing domestic abuse?

Of course not. Because it wasn’t a court in Israel. Remember this next time you hear about those intolerant “ultra-Orthodox” Jews.

Posted in Israeli Double Standard Time, Religion | Tagged | Comments Off on Muslim ERA/medieval punishment watch

The AP whitewash of the week

Posted on 10/17/2010 by Meryl Yourish

I was under the weather the last 24 hours, which precluded me from posting on this little tidbit I found yesterday, on a story about new negotations for Gilad Shalit’s release:

The militant group is leading the negotiations, demanding the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails in exchange for the soldier. Those prisoners include top-level Hamas militants who oversaw or planned attacks that killed Israelis in years of fighting.

“Years of fighting” is now the AP pseudonym for terror attacks, suicide bombings, and shooting attacks on civilians. Let me review a few of those “attacks that killed Israelis in years of fighting”:

  • Aug 31, 2004: 16 people were killed and 100 wounded in two suicide bombings within minutes of each other on two Beersheba city buses, on route nos. 6 and 12.
  • May 14, 2004: Ten people were killed and 16 wounded in a double suicide bombing in the area of the Ashdod Port. Hamas and Fatah claimed responsibility for the attack.
  • January 14. 2004: A female suicide bomber killed four people and wounded 20 at the Erez Crossing in the Gaza Strip. Hamas and the Fatah Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades claimed responsibility for the attack.

There are many, many more, up to and including the current year. These aren’t examples of “fighting.” But then, I never expect any less of a whitewash from Ibrahim Barzak, the author of the article. Note that in the updated piece, the “years of fighting” has become:

The most recent talks broke down over Israel’s refusal to release a number of prisoners who carried out deadly attacks on civilians because of fears they would return to violence. Hamas insists these prisoners be part of any deal.

The update was written by Aron Heller. What a difference an author makes. And oh, yeah—they’re back to the “traditionally Arab east Jerusalem” crap. Because the Temple Mount, which is in the eastern half of Jerusalem, is so totally traditionally Arab that I guess there weren’t two Jewish Temples on the Temple Mount before the Arabs built their mosques there.

It’s all in our imagination.

Posted in AP Media Bias, Hamas, Israel | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

The week of living busily

Posted on 10/15/2010 by Meryl Yourish

Yes, it’s been rather busy at work, and I’m very grateful to my co-bloggers for picking up the slack.

The good news is that it’s probably going to go from really busy to only mostly busy.

Sigh.

Posted in Life | Comments Off on The week of living busily

Accepting Jewish history; accepting Israel

Posted on 10/15/2010 by Soccerdad

In a departure for the New York Times op-ed page, they included “An end to Israel’s Invisibility” by Ambassador Michael Oren. It’s a case for Israel being recognized as a Jewish state by the Palestinians as a condition for peace.

Affirmation of Israel’s Jewishness, however, is the very foundation of peace, its DNA. Just as Israel recognizes the existence of a Palestinian people with an inalienable right to self-determination in its homeland, so, too, must the Palestinians accede to the Jewish people’s 3,000-year connection to our homeland and our right to sovereignty there. This mutual acceptance is essential if both peoples are to live side by side in two states in genuine and lasting peace.

So why won’t the Palestinians reciprocate? After all, the Jewish right to statehood is a tenet of international law. The Balfour Declaration of 1917 called for the creation of “a national home for the Jewish people” in the land then known as Palestine and, in 1922, the League of Nations cited the “historical connection of the Jewish people” to that country as “the grounds for reconstituting their national home.” In 1947, the United Nations authorized the establishment of “an independent Jewish state,” and recently, while addressing the General Assembly, President Obama proclaimed Israel as “the historic homeland of the Jewish people.” Why, then, can’t the Palestinians simply say “Israel is the Jewish state”?

Ambassador Oren answers:

The reason, perhaps, is that so much of Palestinian identity as a people has coalesced around denying that same status to Jews. “I will not allow it to be written of me that I have … confirmed the existence of the so-called Temple beneath the Mount,” Yasir Arafat told President Bill Clinton in 2000.

Matthew Yglesias, recently returned from Israel as smug and incurious as ever responds (via memeorandum):

The point is that bringing up this sort of demand to a foreign audience is the sort of thing you do when you’re not really interested in having talks move forward but are looking to avoid the blame for breaking them off. People looking to make a deal work talk principles rather than positions.

If Yglesias knew anything, he’d know this is a principle.

Here is article 20 of the Palestinian National Charter:

The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong.

Palestinian nationalism is predicated on the denial of Jewish nationalism. So the question is have the Palestinians given up that principle. Because if they haven’t, no number of concessions will be enough. As long as the Palestinians continue to deny the historical and legal bases for Israel there will continue to be grievances about Israel’s existence.

Ari Shavit, a columnist for Ha’aretz, but one who retains some sanity gives the reasons why Oren is right. (via Daily Alert Blog) I won’t quote them all, but I especially liked this:

Third reason: The avalanche will be stopped. Over the past 20 years, a grave process has been underway. As Israel continues to recognize more and more of the Palestinians’ natural rights, its own citizen’s natural rights are being abrogated. Its ideological concessions do not work for it, but against it. When Ehud Olmert’s Israel turns out to be less legitimate than Yitzhak Shamir’s Israel, there is no true incentive to continue to give in. Only recognition of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people will stop the avalanche and create mutual legitimacy – Israeli and Palestinian.

I am not sure that I necessarily agree with his last sentence. But this is what an honest Israeli leftist has to acknowledge. That even after 17 years of concessions – often dangerous concessions – it’s ridiculous that Israel is more of a pariah now than it was when the peace process began. If Yglesias were intellectually honest, or even curious, he’d have reached similar conclusions. But then his trip to Israel was simply to reinforce his prejudices and provide a patina of authority to his already accepted ideas; not to challenge his own thinking.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in Israel | Tagged | Comments Off on Accepting Jewish history; accepting Israel

Thanks, Adrian…

Posted on 10/15/2010 by SnoopyTheGoon

As a middle aged (to be PC, of course) person, I thought that my ability to be surprised is somewhat dulled by the years. So, in a way, I should be thankful to one Adrian Hamilton for the Indy article Israel has no future as a purely Jewish state. It did surprise me – as an astonishing example of nincompoopery.

One can start one’s fisking with the headline of the article, specifically that “purely Jewish” term. Whatever meaning the author assigned to it, he is, probably, unaware of the ethnic structure of Israel, nor did he read the Israeli declaration of independence , which clearly states that, while being a Jewish state, it will also “will uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex“. How well is this promise kept is another matter, but definitely better than the world batting average.

One can also take an exception to the statement that the infamous loyalty oath – as stupid an idea as any politico gave birth to lately, agreed – “is a case of racist discrimination on any interpretation“. I bet that Mr Hamilton will be hard pressed to prove it – simply because it isn’t racist and there is nothing in his arsenal of poor logic to help him out…

But really, the above is small change. Trifles. Bubkes. What really takes the cake is the following:

The more closely you define Israel as a uniquely “Jewish” state, the less room there is for it to act as a co-operative member of a Muslim majority Middle East.

Amazing. Jaw dropping. Fan-effing-tastic. A member of multi-cultural progressive British elite who in any other situation will risk his life for your right to express your personal ethnic “I”, even if that expression includes… nevermind, this guardian of human rights states that it’s not really a good idea to be “uniquely Jewish” in the midst of a Muslim majority. Not to dwell on the fact that Israel was already defined (in 1948, see above) as “uniquely Jewish” – how does the multi-culti soul of Mr Hamilton allow him even to think in such – really racist this time – terms? How does his soul allow his stomach to keep his lunch while writing this revolting racist crapola? That is, assuming that he has written it after lunch, of course. Because, being a clever man, he has done it, most probably, well in advance of the meal. 

OK. Let’s move on. Because I have misled you, my dear reader. I have withheld the best part for later. Because, while the previous quote takes the cake, this one takes the cherry from that delicious dollop of whipped cream on top. It’s a promise:

Its [Israel’s] role becomes that of an enclave which views itself as not just separate but in clear opposition to everyone else about it.

So, being Jewish state is just the ticket to be viewed as “opposition to everyone else about”. Mmm… good, even brilliant job of exhibiting your inner self, Mr Hamilton, I would say…

Now is the time for a short experiment: in the two quotes above  replace “Israel” by “Scotland”, “Jewish” by “Scottish” (or “Scotch” – what the heck do I know?) and, of course, “Muslim majority Middle East” by “British majority United Kingdom”. Try it out and see if it’s palatable…

Cross-posted on SimplyJews

Posted in Israel Derangement Syndrome, Media Bias | 8 Comments

Wise Words Forgotten

Posted on 10/14/2010 by Rabbi Kaufman

Rabbi Stephen S. Wise in a sermon “Can we win the war without losing America” delivered May 20, 1917 at Carnegie Hall wrote:

We have gone into the war not because of the Lusitania nor yet because of the Sussex, nor in truth because of any single ferocity of under-sea warfare, but because these and similar things represent a type of national mind or rather of governmental theory which will either subdue and conquer the world or be overcome by it…

In a sense, it is true that we fare forth into the world of war on behalf of the American ideal. But we war not in order to impose the American ideal–for that were after the more Germanico–but to save the peoples of the earth from the abhorrent necessity of yielding to the attempt of a masterful sovereignty to impose its will and even its way upon their national existence….

May we not put the matter in the simplest terms? We fare forth to shield the souls of nations from destruction by a brutalizing sovereignty.

Stephen Wise went on to discuss the things that America needed to safeguard as it waged the war including freedom of speech and the protection of workers, especially keeping children safe from exploitation by industry. However, the beginning of the speech quoted above is one of the best explanations of American involvement in foreign conflicts that I have yet seen and applies to this day. We do not go to war because of single attacks, but in order to “save the peoples of the earth from the abhorrent necessity of yielding to the attempt of a masterful sovereignty to impose its will and even its way upon their national existence.” Could there be a better explanation of our role in the fight against Radical Islam and our presence in the Middle East? In the fight against Soviet Era Communism? In fighting against the Fascism of Nazi Germany?

Yet Wise himself neglected this concept before the second World War, refusing to support acting upon it until it was far too late. To “save the peoples of the earth from the abhorrent necessity of yielding to the attempt of a masterful sovereignty to impose its will and even its way upon their national existence” is exactly the necessary role of America in the modern world, has been for over 100 years, and acting upon that necessity is the only thing preventing another world war. Failure to realize that fact, one could argue, led directly to World War II. The failure to realize it at the end of the 20th Century led to the rise of a new “brutal sovereignty” seeking to “impose its will and even its way” and even resulted  in our suffering new “Lusitanias,” including the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Posted in Israel | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Hamas’s “good government” charade is over

Posted on 10/14/2010 by Soccerdad

A few years ago there was a trend in newspapers to write flattering accounts of Hamas and its commitment to good government. It was as if there was a campaign to say that “Hamas is basically good, you can ignore the silly Jew hatred stuff. They’re really for making life better for their people.”

Last week the UAE’s National newspaper ran a story about how Hamas if oppressing Gazans. Now another paper The Herald Scotland reports (via Daily Alert Blog):

The real issue, of course, is not whether women can or cannot smoke sheesha in public; it’s an increasingly widespread perception among ordinary Gazans – men and women – that Hamas is bullying and silencing them. Hamas is still a moderate Islamic movement. But, due to its increasing international isolation, including the continuing embargo by America and the European Union, radical elements within the movement are gaining momentum.

So are all those news organizations that wrote about now benign and benevolent Hamas was now going to reverse themnselves?

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in Israel | 10 Comments

The Mad Mahmoud Lebanon trip news roundup—with snark!

Posted on 10/14/2010 by Meryl Yourish

Um, two miles from the border is NOT a stone’s throw away: Looks like Mad Mahmoud won’t be hitting Israel with a stone anytime soon—not unless he can throw one two miles. So it’s all media hype. Figures. Bet he throws like a girl, too.

Awesome! Israelis are Masters of Juvenile Scorn, too: For every stone Mad Mahmoud throws, Israelis will build another home. Say, wasn’t that in a Frank Capra movie or something? The only way that could be more in-his-face is to make sure they’re in “settlements” like Ma’ale Adumim.

Lebanon is a school for “peaceful struggle”? Think the people who keep lying about “jihad” meaning “inner struggle” and not “holy war” are going to tell us that Mad Mahmoud means Lebanon is a school for inner struggle? Let’s go to the quote.

“Lebanon is the an example and school for unwavering resistance to the world’s tyrants and a university for Jihad.

I’m struggling mightily with that “inner struggle” definition, but nope. I don’t think it’s a university for inner struggle that he means. What? CAIR is lying? No!

Of course he feels like home, he bought and paid for it years ago: Mad Mahmoud says he feels “right at home” in Lebanon. See title.

The State Dept.’s keen grasp of the obvious: Seriously? Seriously?

“[We] have strong suspicions about the motives of Iran and its – you know, the groups that it supports who do not have Lebanon’s long-term interest at heart.”

Thank you, Captain Obvious. In other State Department news, they’re pretty sure North Korea is a dictatorship.

Posted in Iran, Israel, Lebanon | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

The tarnished halo effect

Posted on 10/13/2010 by Soccerdad

The New York Times ran a Reuters report Israel Says Flotilla Detainees Were Treated Well, yesterday. Really nothing surprising about that.

What is is surprising is this (via Daily Alert Blog):

In a TV interview, Turkish journalist Şefik Dinç, who was on the Mavi Marmara and wrote a book about it, said that no shots were fired from the Israeli helicopters and that IDF soldiers did not open fire until their lives were in danger. The interview clearly contradicts the IHH narrative.

Dinç’s testimony is important. He’s sympathetic to the flotilla. And yet for some reason the mainstream media doesn’t pick it up. Of course Israel will defend its soldiers, but when one of its enemies does, that’s real news!

And what’s true about the media is also true about NGO’s.

Based on previous examples, little attention will be paid to the political ideologies of these NGOs, as well as the funders to which they answer.

The political role of the NGO network was evident during and immediately after the flotilla incident, and continues to be highlighted in ongoing delegitimization campaigns.

Regarding the attacks on soldiers upon boarding the flotilla, B’Tselem claimed that this “information is based solely on statements of soldiers.” In actuality, the video evidence of violent extremists attacking soldiers with knives and clubs clearly supports the soldiers’ claims.

PHR-I also issued a statement referring to passengers on the flotilla as “human rights and peace activists, journalists and members of parliament.” Nowhere in the statement did it reference the connection to IHH, the main flotilla organizer and a member of Union of the Good, an umbrella of 50+ Islamic organizations that was designated by the US government as “an organization created by Hamas leadership to transfer funds to the terrorist organization.”

And Gisha used the flotilla incident as an opportunity to claim that “this incident is proof that despite claims to the contrary, Israel never ‘disengaged’ from the Gaza Strip but rather continues to control its borders – land, air and sea,” ignoring the mass weapons smuggling from Iran and Syria that necessitate such policing.

The media and these NGO’s have been protected by a “halo effect” that protects them and their agenda from serious scrutiny. And yet they are all too often interested, not in the truth, but in attacking Israel.

Åžefik Dinç may hate Israel, but he at least has integrity. That’s more than many of these defenders of freedom can claim.

Crossposted on Yourish.

Posted in Israel, Israeli Double Standard Time, Media Bias | Tagged | 2 Comments

Oh, NOW Europe doesn’t care who is a Jew

Posted on 10/12/2010 by Meryl Yourish

For century after century, in country after country, Europe was obsessed with dispossessing the Jews among its citizens. European nations created the Pale of the Settlement, the ghetto, the Nuremberg Laws. European nations committed pogroms, forced conversion of Jews, and happily went along with Hitler’s Final Solution. Europe shunted Jews from one place to another, set laws mandating which professions Jews could not take part in, forbade them from owning land, and made Jews unequal citizens throughout the history of the Diaspora.

So now, excuse me while I point out the height of hypocrisy of this statement by the European Union:

Asked to comment on Netanyahu’s call for the Palestinian leadership to recognise Israel as the national state of the Jewish people, a spokeswoman for EU diplomatic chief Catherine Ashton said: “We support the two democratic states living side by side in peace and security.

“We also stress that the future states of Palestine and Israel will need to fully guarantee equality to all their citizens,” she added.

“Basically in the case of Israel this means whether they are Jewish or not,” said spokeswoman Maja Kocijancik.

This is in response to Bibi Netanyahu stating that the Palestinians need to recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.

Of course that’s too much for Europeans to stomach. They’ve spent over 2,000 years trying to eradicate the Jewish people. Why would they suddenly change their minds, just because a few decades ago, they felt a bit of shame over murdering two-thirds of world Jewry?

Can you say “hypocrites”? I knew you could. I can say a lot of other things, but I decided not to swear (much) on this blog.

Posted in Israeli Double Standard Time, World | Tagged , | 5 Comments

Never – When the Palestinian Authority will Recognize the Jewish State

Posted on 10/12/2010 by Rabbi Kaufman

Today, I published an article for We Are For Israel in which I talked about today’s article from Haaretz in which the PA leaders repeated their statement that they will “Never” recognize Israel as a Jewish state. You might want to view the entire article which includes several quotes here, but if you want the gist of it, it boils down to this.

President Abbas believes that the nation of Israel as recognized by the UN as a state exists, but he does not accept its Jewish nature now or in the future. He believes that it can exist solely within its recognized borders pre-1967. This is a position that has no chance to achieve peace because it has no chance to meet any of the most basic concerns of Israel including of note that the 1967 border was no where near secure and did not include most of Jerusalem on the Israeli side. The entire Old City would be on the Palestinian side.

In looking at no few recent articles including the one from Haaretz mentioned above, we find the concept, the ridiculous notion to be more accurate, that among the Palestinian concessions is the Right of Return of refugees and their descendants from 1948, much less 1967, to their homes within what would be Israel after a peace agreement. This makes no sense and cannot be understood as a concession. The only realistic option in addressing these refugees concerns is restitution, compensation for lost property.

The Right of Return as a peace concession amounts to “If you let us kill you this way, we won’t kill you the other way.” It is absurd as a notion, much less as a demand. More insane than this is the fact that the Palestinians and the Arab world act as if it is a demand that they cannot concede!!! It is an invalid and impossible demand to begin with!!! It simply cannot be done unless the goal is to eliminate the Jewish state and replace it with a Palestinian one. Thus, Israel cannot possibly agree to it. If that is true, it is not a valid negotiating position. It would amount to going to a car dealer to negotiate about the purchase of a car and the dealer only offering options that involve the car remaining in their possession after the sale.

The peace process is about the creation of two states for two peoples. One must be a state for the Jewish people. If that is not being discussed, there is no peace process.

Posted in Israel | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

A public service announcement about chain emails

Posted on 10/12/2010 by Meryl Yourish

Just in case my readers didn’t know this, I would like to state plainly and clearly so that there can be no misunderstanding: Passing along chain letters will not make you any money. Not now, not ever.

An interesting fact about October 2010:

This OCT. has 5 Fridays, 5 Saturdays and 5 Sundays, all in 1 month. It happens once in 823 years. These are considered money bags months. Pass them to 8 good people and money will appear. Based on Chinese fengshui.

Whoever stops this will experience none

I stopped it, bad grammar and all. I will experience none.

I did not pass the chain letter along to 8 good people. Or 8 bad ones. Or even 8 indifferent ones. The only way I ever pass along chain letters is when I respond to someone who has sent them to me. There are generally insults about the sender’s intelligence involved. And maybe a swear or three.

And what do you know: This chain letter has made the rounds before.

This message is just a revamped version of another “interesting fact” that circulated earlier in the year that informed recipients that August 2010 was special because it boasted 5 Sundays, 5 Mondays and 5 Tuesdays. The August version also falsely claimed that the “event” only took place once every 823 years.

In fact, any month that has 31 days will have three consecutive days that occur five times in the month. Such combinations are commonplace and occur each and every year. For example, October 2011 will have 5 Saturdays, 5 Sundays and 5 Mondays.

Huh. Imagine that. A chain email with wrong information. Who’da thunk it?

Oh. Wait. I would.

Posted in Computers, Juvenile Scorn | 4 Comments

Even the losers write history sometimes

Posted on 10/11/2010 by Soccerdad

I am no historian. But I can’t help the feeling that the New York Times’s account of the recdently declassified transcripts of the Israeli government’s deliberations over the war wasn’t presented in academic fashion, but rather to promote the view of the Times and editors. First we learn:

The transcripts of the meetings show Mr. Dayan, the unflappable eye-patch-wearing defense minister, at the edge of desperation. As Syrian tanks rolled toward the Galilee unimpeded, he understood that he had misread the signals.

“I underestimated the enemy’s strength, I overestimated our own forces,” he is quoted as saying in an early meeting with Prime Minister Golda Meir and others. “The Arabs are much better soldiers than they used to be.” Then: “Many people will be killed.”

But of course, this being the New York Times, what’s important are the lessons learned.

In an editorial titled “Old Wounds, New Lessons,” the left-leaning Haaretz newspaper said that the leaders in 1973 “failed to see the limitations of Israel’s use of force and the possible forms its enemies’ operations would take.”

This was followed by:

Not surprisingly, the military chief of staff now, Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, weighed in Friday with somewhat different observations in the newspaper Maariv.

“I believe that the intelligence failure and the sense of existential uncertainty that the war brought served as important lessons for the military enterprise, the understanding of the importance of its mission, and the great responsibility that rests on our shoulders,” he wrote. “This is the explanation for the Sisyphean efforts to increase the strength and capabilities of the army. This is why after 62 years of independence we continue to enlist every boy and girl. This is why we place the reservist soldiers at the core of the army. And this is also why they come.”

This is the New York Times, of course, so the article couldn’t end there with a balance of views – one from a highly ideological newspaper and the other from a military officer who knows what he’s talking about. So the reporter, Ethan Bronner, brings out “Yehezkel Dror, one of Israel’s most distinguished political scientists” for the final word.

“They did not understand that the Egyptians realized they didn’t stand a chance of destroying Israel,” he said. “They used the war for a political goal. Why didn’t we understand this? Because we didn’t think politically. He who thinks only militarily does not understand that the other side sees the army as a political tool, not to conquer but to reach a better deal on the Sinai.”

Mr. Dror added that when a Turkish flotilla last May tried to breach Israel’s sea blockade of Gaza, the government’s use of military force led to deadly consequences. He said that what is needed in leadership is both subtlety and clarity. Israel’s approach to the peace process with the Palestinians was an example, he added — “the main question of what Israel wants is unclear.”

Distinguished professors in Israel, of course, promulgate the exact same views as reporters and editors of the New York Times! They must be right.

Okay, but may I ask some questions? If Israel was too quick to fight, couldn’t the same reasoning be applied to the Egypt and Syria? After all Israel didn’t attack preemptively, it waited to be attacked! Or is it okay for Arabs to attack and kill Israelis but not okay for Israelis to defend themselves. Is there a Yechezkol Dror in Egypt or in Syria telling the populations there that attacking Israel was wrong and that had their countries entered into negotiations with Israel they could have gotten back most of the land they lost without firing a shot?

There’s another lesson that the Times hasn’t considered. Distinguished blogger Daled Amos concluded:

Letting world opinion dictate Israeli security concerns was nearly disastrous then.
If anything, the problem has only gotten worse.

Blogger Double Tapper remembers the Yom Kippur War.

The Yom Kippur War was fought from October 6 to 26, 1973, between Israel and a massive coalition of Arab states backing Egypt and Syria. The war began with a joint surprise attack on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in Judaism. The obvious reason for choosing the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur to stage a surprise attack on Israel was that on this specific holiday (unlike any other) the country comes to a complete standstill. Yom Kippur is the holiest day in the Jewish calendar; both religiously observant Jews and most of the secular majority fast, abstain from any use of electricity, engines, communications, etc., and all road traffic ceases. Many soldiers also went home from military facilities for the holiday, and Israel was more vulnerable with much of its military on leave.

If the point of the war was to recover territories lost in 1967, why go to war on the day that Israel was prevented from striking back immediately? Doesn’t the choice of Yom Kippur suggest that the Arab attack was intended to destroy Israel?

The view of the New York Times seems to be that Israel would have been better off losing the Yom Kippur War. But if Israel had followed that losing mentality, it would not be around now to write the history.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in Israel, Juvenile Scorn, Syria | Tagged | 7 Comments

Columbus Day briefs

Posted on 10/11/2010 by Meryl Yourish

Liar Liar Pants on Fire 1: You can start laughing now.

Iran’s top nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili said Monday that Tehran is to reveal proof of how nuclear material enriched by United States was delivered to the Islamic republic’s arch-foe Israel.

I don’t know what’s more ridiculous: Iranian claims like this, or the fact that AFP actually thinks they’re newsworthy enough to publish.

Liar Liar Pants on Fire 2: On top of announcing that the Mossad told him to stop investigating or die, the Dubai police chief (I think his name in English is Clouseau) says that they’ve got the man what done it. You can stop laughing now. I know, it’s difficult. But try.

Facebook status: Dead. I don’t know that this has anything to do with the killing, but it’s pretty funny all the same. Hamas apparently warned its people to stay off the Facebook page of the man who killed the four civilians in Hebron in August. Two days later, the murderer was dead.

Terrorists they can both agree on: Erdogan is meeting the Dorktator in Damascus this week to discuss terrorism. Against Turkey. Syria will be cracking down on the PKK. That’s the Islamist definitoin of terrorism: If it isn’t against Westerners, Jews, infidels, or Israelis, it’s terrorism. All else is “resistance.”

Posted in Iran, Israel Derangement Syndrome, Juvenile Scorn, News Briefs | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Columbus Day briefs

When a reporter’s opinion is news

Posted on 10/10/2010 by Soccerdad

Friday’s effort at smearing Israel in the Washington Post is called For Israeli army, tests of accountability and it is written by long time slanderer Joel Greenberg. First Greenberg writes about the recent video of Israeli soldiers dancing around a Palestinian prisoner.

A YouTube video showing a dancing Israeli soldier shimmying near a bound and blindfolded Palestinian woman went viral on the Internet this week, embarrassing the Israeli military and fueling fresh debate about morals and accountability in the armed forces.

In any organization there will be bad actors. But to take this case and generalize about the army is absurd. But that’s just what Greenberg does.

As even Greenberg notes, the army is now investigating this incident. But that’s not enough.

The conduct of Israeli soldiers in the ongoing conflict with the Palestinians had already stirred discussion this week after a military court convicted two former servicemen for using a boy as a human shield during Israel’s 2008-09 war in the Gaza Strip against the militant group Hamas. The soldiers had ordered the boy to open bags they suspected had been booby-trapped.

The conviction, the first for a combat action during the war, served as an indicator of how effectively the military is addressing alleged violations of international law a year after a U.N. fact-finding mission accused both Israel and Hamas of war crimes. The war left as many as 1,400 Palestinians dead, hundreds of them civilians. Ten Israeli soldiers and three civilians were killed.

Again, what discussion? That Israel has a system of justice that deals with those violate society’s laws. And what does the disparity in casualties have to do with the issue at hand? For Greenberg it is presumably an implicit indictment that Israel’s army doesn’t take proper care to avoid civilian casualties. For objective people it would raise questions about the asymmetric nature of the warfare Israel is forced to engage in.

Israel’s civilians are targeted by terrorists who themselves hide among civilians. Israel thus has two choices: to leave its citizens unprotected or to fight its unscrupulous enemy.

Now presumably some of the deterrent effect of Operation Cast Lead has worn off and rockets are once again flying towards Israeli civilians. Does it say anything about Hamas that it targets civilians? Does it say anything about Greenberg that it doesn’t bother him?

For Greenberg though, his job apparently isn’t to report the news but to raise questions about Israel’s conduct.

After going through the various cases that Israel’s military justice system has adjudicated Greenberg writes:

Still, there is a wide discrepancy between the number of criminal prosecutions and the reported cases of killing and wounding of noncombatant civilians, as documented by human rights groups, the media and the U.N. fact-finding mission, which was headed by South African jurist Richard Goldstone.

And why does Goldstone’s “fact finding mission” have any more credibility than the IDF? Because he accepted exaggerated figures from Hamas and its sympathizers without even bothering to check their accuracy? That he ignored evidence that was in his hands? That he ignored testimony from a victim of Hamas terror? To present the questions of organizations who routinely condemn Israel with the benefit of hindsight and unaffected by the fog of war as a contradiction to Israeli claims is dishonest. And Greenberg goes on to quote an Israeli IDF spokeswoman only to elicit dismissals from the professional Israel bashers. Presumably, B’tselem and HRW speak for Greenberg.

And that’s the problem. Two weeks ago, Greenberg wrote about questions about the killing of a member of Hamas. Nowhere in the article did he produce any evidence or even a credible suggestion that the IDF acted improperly. The questions Greenberg referred were his own, cloaked in phony gravitas.

In fact it appears that what bothers Greenberg is any action the IDF takes. The questions are his own. They are not news.

This is not to excuse the soldiers who were mocking detainees. But perspective is needed. Greenberg’s questions distort; they don’t enlighten.

Israelly Cool! points out that the claims of the detainee have changed quite a bit. While the scene recorded is accurate, would Greenberg spend any time investigating her claims and seeing which are true? Or is Israel the only party to such scrutiny?

Finally Charles Krauthammer wrote during Cast Lead:

Israel is so scrupulous about civilian life that, risking the element of surprise, it contacts enemy noncombatants in advance to warn them of approaching danger. Hamas, which started this conflict with unrelenting rocket and mortar attacks on unarmed Israelis — 6,464 launched from Gaza in the past three years — deliberately places its weapons in and near the homes of its own people.

To which James Taranto added:

The moral asymmetry is so great that Israel is on the right side even by Sting’s standards.

(Sting was the guy who sang “The Russians love their children too.”)

Folks like Greenberg – and B’Tselem and HRW – have made it their lifes’ work to deny the asymmetry. But that’s not reporting, that’s activism.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in Israel, Israeli Double Standard Time, Media Bias | Tagged , | 1 Comment