Nobel laureate calls for Israel’s UN expulsion

Posted on 11/20/2008 by Meryl Yourish

It isn’t anti-Zionism. It’s anti-Semitism. And here’s why:

Nobel Peace Prize laureate Mairead Maguire says the United Nations should suspend or revoke Israel’s membership.

Maguire, in a news conference Thursday, said that it’s time for the international community to take action against Israel. She claimed Israel should be punished for ignoring a series of United Nations resolutions over the years.

Maguire, who won the 1976 peace prize for her work with Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland, is currently visiting the Palestinian territories to protest Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip.

Interestingly, Maguire never called for the UN to revoke or suspend Ireland’s membership in the United Nations. I didn’t hear her call for the suspension of Iraq’s membership during the decades when Saddam Hussein was violating binding UN Security Council resolutions. I didn’t hear her call for the suspension of Iran’s membership as they continue to violate UN resolutions as well. Nor is she calling for the expulsion of Lebanon, which recently brought Hizbullah into their government and absolutel refuses to disarm the group, as per UNSC 1701.

Funny, how the only nation she thinks should be thrown out of the UN is Israel.

By the way, Israel is not ignoring any binding UN Security Council resolutions. She is ignoring General Assembly resolutions, which are nonbinding and utterly meaningless, considering that the OIC bloc controls the voting and actually runs annual anti-Israel resolutions that get voted up every year. Check the list, which grows bigger every year.

Time for the Yourish.com mantra: Anti-Semites of the world, just die already. And that includes Nobel Laureates, too.

Posted in Anti-Semitism, Israel Derangement Syndrome | Tagged , | 9 Comments

Rule of law in Egypt

Posted on 11/20/2008 by Soccerdad

There’s an observation in this article, Court in Egypt Annuls Deal With Israel on Gas Supply, worth mentioning:

The case has raised difficult political issues for Egypt. Officials must walk a tightrope between maintaining relations with their neighbor and mollifying public opinion, which is often hostile to the Jewish state.

No doubt public opinion in Egypt is driven by the vilification of Israel in the official press. Maybe if the government would promote a more positive view of Israel, there wouldn’t a tightrope.

via Daily Alert.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in Israel Derangement Syndrome | Tagged | Comments Off on Rule of law in Egypt

The Duh Factor

Posted on 11/20/2008 by Meryl Yourish

Hold on to your hats, kiddies. The crack editorial staff at the AP has come up with the most astonishing headline of the decade:

Jobless claims jump unexpectedly to 16-year high

They’re right. Financial crisis, credit crunch, homebuying down, construction down, Circuit City going into Chapter 11, auto dealers going out of business—who would have thought that the number of people registering for unemployment benefits would go up?

New claims for unemployment benefits jumped last week to a 16-year high, the Labor Department said Thursday, providing more evidence of a rapidly weakening job market expected to get even worse next year.

The government said new applications for jobless benefits rose to a seasonally adjusted 542,000 from a downwardly revised figure of 515,000 in the previous week. That’s much higher than Wall Street economists’ expectations of 505,000, according to a survey by Thomson Reuters.

I see that they changed the headline to one much less, well, stupid.

Stocks point lower after jobless claims jump
Investors list of worries is growing following a government report that weekly unemployment claims have unexpectedly increased.

Stock futures contracts have wavered Thursday as investors worry about the fate of Detroit’s big automakers and juggle broader fears about the struggling economy. But a jump in new claims for unemployment benefits to a 16-year high has added to investors unease.

The Labor Department’s report has reported that new applications for jobless benefits rose to a seasonally adjusted 542,000 last week. Thomson Reuters says analysts expected 505,000.

But this is bad. Get ready for Dow 7,000. Oil’s down around $50 a barrel, too (which is not bad for consumers). Gas is down to $1.62 in the Richmond area.

Posted in Media | Comments Off on The Duh Factor

Unintelligent sharing

Posted on 11/20/2008 by Soccerdad

Deja Vu observed the other day:

Never mind, Miliband holds a joint news conference with the Syrian FM who blames Israeli bombs for the processed uranium UN inspectors uncovered. Miliband assures reporters that Syria is a good country, a true force for stability in the Middle East.

Why? He and Sarkozy dream of driving a wedge between Iran and Syria. The Syrian FM was not silly enough to disabuse him of the dream.

According to the Telegraph he’s gone a step further (via Daily Alert).

Britain re-established high-level intelligence links with the Syrian authorities as David Miliband made his landmark visit to Damascus yesterday, according to senior Syrian officials.

Further on in the Telegraph, it points out that this thawing could be a result of the American election.

Washington has long insisted on isolating Syria but with a change of administration – and attitude – looming, Britain and France are leading efforts to lure Damascus out of the solitude it has found itself in since it was implicated in the murder of the former Lebanese Prime Minister, Rafiq Hariri, three years ago.

And Joshua Landis is quoted:

Joshua Landis, an American expert on Syria, said the visit was “a message from the British to Obama. Like the French, they want the US to push Syrian-Israeli peace. Negotiations between Syria and Israel began last May, but the Bush Administration was unhappy about the dialogue and refused to support them.”

According to this, the Israeli negotiations with Syria, have been effectively protecting Syria from international pressure. But the naive premise of that Syrian-Israeli peace is that – as Deja Vu noted above – it would have the effect of drawing Syria out of Iran’s orbit. More likely Syria, seeing how much the West values peace with Israel, will use that as leverage to generate more pressure and continue its ties with Iran.

Mere Rhetoric on Miliband last year concluded with:

This is almost identical to what Hillary said in April – complete with the “obviously this won’t work but we should do it anyway.” Because engaging Syria feels good. Just like fiddling with Israeli security because it might tangentially maybe be connected to AQ’s popularity feels good. And what’s the worst that could happen?

Martin Peretz has more on MIliband’s pedigree.

via Daily Alert.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

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

This is a public service announcement

Posted on 11/19/2008 by Meryl Yourish

Do not waste your money on the 100-calorie Klondike bars.

Trust me. You would do nothing for one of those, once you taste it.

What a waste. I thought they’d just be little bitty Klondike bars, not little bitty Klondike bars that suck.

Posted in Juvenile Scorn | 1 Comment

All the Hamas lies fit to print

Posted on 11/19/2008 by Meryl Yourish

Say, remember last year, when the news media took pictures of Hamas members sitting around a table in the dark, without telling us that the picture was shot in the daytime, with the curtains drawn, to make it seem like the Israeli refusal to ship more fuel to Hamas was actually affecting them?

Well, they’re doing it again.

“There’s no shortage of fuel in the Gaza Strip and the Electricity Company is continuing to function normally,” said a PA official. “Our people in the Gaza Strip have told us that the blackouts are all staged as part of the Hamas propaganda.”

Another PA official noted that Hamas’s lies reached their peak last January when its legislators held a meeting in a darkened hall of the Palestinian Legislative Council – while light could be seen coming in through the curtained windows.

If that’s not enough, Elder of Zion has more. These shots of Palestinians shopping in the Rafah bazaar—at the same time the UN is screaming to Israel that the poor, poor, pitiful Pals are starving—don’t get any public airing by the news services. Only shots of empty shelves and sad stories.

Elder of Zion also notes that the Palestinian press is reporting that Israel is allowing in food aid, including aid for UNRWA. So what do we see in the news today? UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon calling Ehud Olmert and telling him he needs to open the Gaza border crossings. Why?

“The secretary-general today telephoned Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to express his deep concern over the consequences of the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Gaza,” the UN press office said in a statement.

“He strongly urged the prime minister to facilitate the freer movement of urgently needed humanitarian supplies and of concerned United Nations personnel into Gaza,” it said.

Olmert’s response:

Olmert denounced the continuing rocket fire into Israel from Gaza, but “agreed to look seriously into the urgent matter” raised by Ban, the statement said.

The prime minister made it clear to the UN chief that Hamas was responsible for the violations of the truce deal. According to Olmert, Hamas is attempting to present an extreme picture of the Gaza crisis in order to renounce its responsibility.

“Israel has prevented and continues to prevent a humanitarian crisis, but as long as Israeli lives are threatened on a daily basis, Gaza’s residents can only address their complaints to the Hamas government,” he added.

Let ’em smuggle goods from Egypt. Shut the crossings from Israel entirely. They’re doing just fine on their own.

Pictures posted on a Hebrew website specializing in Arab news showed a bustling market in Rafiah (Rafah) filled with goods of all kinds, from food to electronics, apparently belying the claims of dire shortages. Rafiah is located in southern Gaza, on the border with Egypt.

Not that the world and Ban are going to let facts get in the way of their certainty that Gazans are sitting in the dark. Starving.

Posted in Gaza, Hamas, Media Bias, United Nations | Tagged , | Comments Off on All the Hamas lies fit to print

AP defines “personal struggle” as “holy war”

Posted on 11/19/2008 by Meryl Yourish

That’s funny. I keep hearing all those Arab groups saying that jihad means “personal struggle,” and yet, the AP managed to translate it from an Al Qaeda tape as “holy war.”

Al-Zawahri did not threaten specific attacks, but warned Obama that he was “facing a Jihadi (holy war) awakening and renaissance which is shaking the pillars of the entire Islamic world; and this is the fact which you and your government and country refuse to recognize and pretend not to see.”

But—but—they keep telling us that jihad means personal struggle!

Maybe they’re lying?

This was deep within an article that carried the lead of al-Qaeda insulting Obama by calling him a “house slave.”

Al-Qaida No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahri insulted Barack Obama in the terror group’s first reaction to his election, calling him a demeaning racial term implying that the president-elect is a black American who does the bidding of whites.

The message appeared chiefly aimed at persuading Muslims and Arabs that Obama does not represent a change in U.S. policies. Al-Zawahri said in the message, which appeared on militant Web sites Wednesday, that Obama is “the direct opposite of honorable black Americans” like Malcolm X, the 1960s African-American rights leader.

So, if you don’t advocate violence, you’re dishonorable. Yeah, that sounds about right for al-Qaeda. And so does this:

Al-Zawahri also called Obama – along with secretaries of state Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice – “house negroes.”

Speaking in Arabic, al-Zawahri uses the term “abeed al-beit,” which literally translates as “house slaves.” But al-Qaida supplied English subtitles of his speech that included the translation as “house negroes.”

So, about that religion of peace, equality and freedom: That’s 0-for-3 so far.

Posted in Religion, Terrorism | 2 Comments

Redneck Orthodox Jews

Posted on 11/19/2008 by Soccerdad

Rabbi Reuven Tradburks as “Are we Jewish rednecks?” – referring to the Orthodox Jewish community – and effectively answers “yes.” His point is that Orthodox Jews, overall, did not vote for President-elect Obama and he attributes that to a simplistic world view.

Gary Rosenblatt addressed an issue in his column in the Jewish Week, which we don’t like to admit. In both the lead up to the election and the aftermath of the election of Barack Obama, orthodox Jews expressed opposition to Obama that had little to do with his policies or his political ability. He is a muslim, he will be terrible for Israel, he doesn’t like Jews, I am suspicious, who knows what he will do.

I reject this premise. Yes there were e-mails that President-elect Obama was a Muslim, but how many people in the Orthodox Jewish community didn’t support him on that basis? From what I can tell not many. For the most part Orthodox Jews are politically conservative and President-elect Obama is, perhaps the most liberal – or leftist – politician to run for President.

There is a tendency, I believe, in our world to paint the world in the paradigms of Yaakov and Esav – good versus evil. But we often paint the wrong people with the Esav label.

There are Esavs in the world. There are people who display principles and attitudes that are dark and evil. Arafat, Hamas, Hizbulla, Aryan Nation, Ahmenidijad.

But Obama is not one of them.

I’ll agree with that. But I also see that President-elect Obama doesn’t quite see 4 of those 5 in through the same prism as Rabbi Tradburks. For example he was quoted as referring to the “legitimate claims” of Hamas and Hezboallah. Did he mean that? Or is it just reflective of his thinking that there might be reasonable elements in either organization? Even if the latter, such thinking indicates that he would not oppose these terrorists with the necessary toughness that I think is required.

“I am concerned about a leader with insufficient experience”. That is a fair statement. “He will be terrible for Israel” is totally speculative and unjustified.

Why is the latter unjustified? I am familiar enough with periodicals like “The Nation” or “The New York Review of Books.” It’s pretty clear that President-elect Obama’s worldview is consistent with the one presented in those publications. Those publications are relentlessly critical of Israel. I would go so far as to call them hostile to the Zionist enterprise. So yes, while it’s speculative, I believe that the available evidence shows that President-elect Obama would not be very sympathetic to Israel. Taken together with his statement in Cleveland that he doesn’t see being pro-Israel as being the same thing as being pro-Likud – using a code word that Israel’s critics use – and advisers who have been hostile to Israel in the past and I think a pretty strong case can be made that Israel is in for a rocky relationship with the United States for the next four or eight years. That’s especially true if Binyamin Netanyahu is elected PM and isn’t as flexible in making what the Obama administration considers to be reasonable compromises.

Obviously we can’t know the future, but we make our decisions to vote based on the best available evidence and that tells me and apparently many in the Orthodox Jewish community that John McCain was the better choice for President if the standard was which candidate would be better for Israel.

I am not going to address other issues but on an issue by issue basis, I can think of few if any that I preferred the views of President-elect Obama to those of Sen. McCain. I know I wasn’t a redneck. And from conversations with similarly minded friends, I found their opposition to President-elect Obama to be based on being informed on the issues not based on some simplistic notion of good and evil in which he ended up on the side of evil.

Finally, there’s something about the historic nature of President-elect Obama’s win that’s troubling. Well I can tell you that I proudly voted for the first female governor of the state of Maryland twice – in 1994 and 1998 – and the first African American senator from the state two years ago. The problem was the historic nature of their candidacies were barely mentioned in the media. It certainly wasn’t a major part of the media coverage of those campaigns. That’s because Ellen Sauerbrey and Michael Steele are Republicans and, so, it seems, the former isn’t really female and the latter not really a minority, at least not for electoral purposes. There’s something perverse about the idea that only Democrats can be pioneers.

Throughout the campaign I’ve seen statements from Obama’s supporters or in the media suggesting that only someone who’s mentally deficient or bigoted could possibly consider not voting for Barack Obama. Unfortunately, I don’t find Rabbi Tradburks’ analysis was any more convincing than those dubious charges.

I see from Dr. Helen, that the urge to marginalize those who did not support President-elect Obama, is not limited to Orthodox Jews. (via memeorandum)

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in Israel | Tagged | 1 Comment

Walkin’ on J-Street

Posted on 11/18/2008 by Soccerdad

In a poll this past summer pro-Palestinian lobbying group, J-Street, found (MS Word file):

Jews want America to be much more aggressive in its Middle East peace efforts than it is today. We conducted an extensive exercise in the survey, first asking people whether they supported the United States playing an active role in helping the parties resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. Initial support for this general statement was a remarkable 87 percent. Then, we asked if they would still support America assuming an active role if it meant the U.S. taking tough positions such as publicly disagreeing with both the Israelis and Arabs or exerting pressure on both parties to make compromises. Support remained very strong after these harder tests that gauged reactions to public disagreement (75 percent) and pressure (70 percent). “Firm support” – that is, the number of people who supported all three statements – was 66 percent and represents an extraordinarily strong base of people who seek active American engagement. After we presented a mixture of hawkish and pro-peace messages, we re-asked this series of questions and the “firm support” number was unchanged. In other words, when the debate is engaged by both sides, Jews strongly support America taking major steps to pursue peace between the Israelis and Palestinians.

Hmm. Well a new poll shows something else.

In addition, 66 percent said America should be a supporter of Israel, with just 6 percent saying America should be a supporter of the Palestinians. Some 80 percent of those who called themselves Republicans and 59 percent of Democrats said America should support Israel.

Not that the United States should be even-handed as J-Street’s poll supposedly says, but that the United States should support Israel.

Ron Kampeas of the JTA has taken to doing J-Street’s work for them and quotes the organization’s Jeremy Ben Ami without responding.

Why does the Israel Project insist on asking Americans to choose sides between the Israelis and the Palestinians in a conflict that the United States is uniquely positioned to help resolve?

The right question is what percent of Americans support active U.S. leadership to resolve the conflict in order to provide both sides with security and peace. Perhaps knowing that that number would have been above 80 percent, the Israel Project chose not to ask that question.

Now you know the problem. Ben Ami’s premise is false. If he were right we’d have had peace by the end of President Clinton’s second term. President Clinton did what J-Street’s ancestors advocated and applied political pressure to Israel when Netanyahu was Prime Minister. For nearly his entirely two terms President Clinton was actively involved in the peace process, even pushing negotiations once the “Aqsa intifada” had started at the end of his term. If Ben Ami were correct, we’d be living now in Messianic times.

The current machinations of Fatah should be enough to disabuse J-Street of their faith that American involvement will automatically bring peace. In the end the Palestinians need to accept Israel’s presence in the Middle East and recognize that they are not going to get everything they – or the Saudis – claim. No amount of American money, encouragement or cajoling is going to change Palestinian resistance to Israel. And pretending that it’s “settlements” and not Palestinian rejectionism that is the primary obstacle to peace only serves to justify that very same rejectionsim and the accompanying violence.

See more at Israel Matzav, who (more or less) correctly predicted J-Street’s response. Daniel Pipes wrote about a similar divergence 11 years ago.

UPDATE: I’ve added a bit to the original post.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in Israel | Tagged | 3 Comments

European anti-Semitism: Alive and kicking Jews

Posted on 11/18/2008 by Meryl Yourish

Anti-Semitism has never left Europe. It never will, even if every single Jew in Europe moves to another continent. And it seems to be in vogue again. And why not, when the European press demonizes Israel at every opportunity?

A wave of anti-Semitism and attacks against rabbis has been plaguing Eastern and Western Europe, and in just two weeks three rabbis in three different cities were harassed by locals.

The first incident took place in Berlin, Germany, when 36-year-old Rabbi Yehuda Teichtel was driving eight of his students in a minivan. Local police reported that two unknown persons in a Mercedes passed the van and blocked it from proceeding, crying insults of an anti-Semitic nature.

The driver of the vehicle then threw a molotov cocktail at the van, but luckily it did not explode and rabbi and students remained unharmed.

Gee, going after a van full of Jewish students… what does that remind you of?

Two other attacks, in Russia and Prague. The one in Prague had an unexpected result:

“One of them kicked me. I tried to defend myself; I was in the army and I still remember a bit of ‘krav maga’. Then I returned to the restaurant and called for help. Meanwhile they threw two stones; one of them hit my foot and the other hit the door of the restaurant.

“We threw the stones back at them. They started to run but bumped into the Jewish community’s security officers, who called the police. The men were arrested and confessed that they had come to hurt Jews.”

Please note that it was the Jewish community security officers that stopped the attack. And name another religious group that has to supply its own security throughout the world. I don’t think you can.

Meanwhile, Germans are busy desecrating Jewish cemeteries…

Police say a pig’s head and an anti-Semitic banner were left at the gate of a cemetery in the city of Gotha. They said that several glasses containing a red blood-like liquid were thrown over the cemetery’s gate.

In Erfurt, a memorial plaque at the entrance gate to a Jewish cemetery was also covered in a red liquid. Police are analyzing the liquid to determine what it is.

and attacking anti-Nazi displays. Because the German students are pro-Palestinian, and gee, Jews=Israel no matter what, right?

Roughly 1,000 pupils and left-wing activists who unlawfully occupied Humboldt University (HU) and some of whom destroyed an anti-Nazi exhibition on Wednesday were reacting to the university’s close ties to Israel, the university president has said.

Christoph Markschies told The Jerusalem Post that one of the protesters in the lobby of the university said “Damn Israel” when asked by another student to “stop” vandalizing the exhibit “Betrayed and Sold,” about the plundering of Jewish businesses under the Nazis.

“Friendship with Israel is part of the HU’s identity,” said Markschies, adding that “no one can tell me that the exhibit was damaged because it was a mistake.”

Markschies had to barricade himself in his office to escape what he called “the mob.” He said that “HU was directly targeted” because of its solid partnership with Israel.

Somehow, it seems that those 1,000 students and “activists” have forgotten the meme. You know, the one that goes “It’s not anti-Semitism, it’s anti-Zionism.”

As I’ve said all along: Yes, it is anti-Semitism.

Posted in Anti-Semitism | Tagged | 4 Comments

Who are going to believe, AP or your own eyes?

Posted on 11/18/2008 by Soccerdad

At least now they’re a little more careful than they were two months ago. They actually bothered to empty the shelves before this picture was taken.

The crisis persists. Doesn’t it? Elder of Ziyon reports the un(der)reported:

It appears that despite being under constant rocket barrages, Israel allowed some 33 truckloads of food to Gaza, including “15 trucks of dairy products and frozen meat destined for the private sector and 18 others shipping aid for UNRWA and international organizations.”

Rafah, however, seems to be enjoying a bazaar atmosphere as the starving Palestinian Arabs are freely selling food, clothing, …

Backspin gives some background that explain why Israel has tried to limit supplies into Gaza. 15 Grads hit Ashkelon!

So when the Israel haters and reporters write about the crisis in Gaza, they are believing the Hamas propaganda so willingly promoted by news organizations and ignoring the real threats to Israel as well as Israel’s surprising mild response to the terror.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in Gaza, Israel, Israel Derangement Syndrome, Media Bias | Tagged | 1 Comment

IAEA on Syria: There’s uranium in them there sands

Posted on 11/18/2008 by Meryl Yourish

Looks like the Syrians didn’t do a good enough job covering their tracks. Even the IAEA has officially come out and said they’ve found traces of uranium at the bombed site, although El Baradei is still refusing to confirm it was a nuclear weapons site.

International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohammed ElBaradei confirmed for the first time on Monday that samples taken from a Syrian site bombed by Israel last year, suspected to have been a nuclear facility, contained traces of uranium.

ElBaradei said that the UN nuclear watchdog needs more transparency from Syria and other nations to determine whether traces of uranium found at the site indicate Damascus was building a nuclear reactor there.

“It’s not highly enriched uranium. It could have come from so many different ways,” ElBaradei told reporters in Dubai. “That’s why we’re looking at so many different scenarios.”

Yeah, see, what really happened is that some Israeli spies planted it where the IAEA could find it. Which makes as much sense as the Syrians accusing Israel of using depleted uranium shells in the bombing.

“We still have a lot of work to do. We haven’t yet reached a conclusion whether that was a reactor or not a reactor,” ElBaradei said.

Uh-huh. At the glacial pace the IAEA works, they’ll figure out it was a nuke site about the time the next one gets bombed.

Posted in Syria | Comments Off on IAEA on Syria: There’s uranium in them there sands

Murdoch to media: miscreants

Posted on 11/17/2008 by Soccerdad

Instapundit quotes Charles Cooper quoting Rupert Murdoch.

“With newspapers cutting back and predictions of even worse times ahead, Rupert Murdoch said the profession may still have a bright future if it can shake free of reporters and editors who he said have forfeited the trust and loyalty of their readers.”

More Cooper quoting Murdoch (via memeorandum):

“Mr. Rather and his defenders are not alone,” he continued. “A recent American study reported that many editors and reporters simply do not trust their readers to make good decisions. Let’s be clear about what this means. This is a polite way of saying that these editors and reporters think their readers are too stupid to think for themselves.”

When you have that, bias becomes “perception of bias.”

Charles Johnson, rightly adds:

The media are still defensive about this incident. Not a single major news source has unequivocally admitted that those Rathergate documents were obvious, proven fakes; when they refer to the incident, it’s always phrased like this: “Right-wing bloggers alleged that the memos were forged,” or “Conservative pundits cast doubt on the authenticity of the documents.”

And as if to reinforce his point, here’s how the NYT portrays Rather’s lawsuit:
Rather’s Lawsuit Shows Role of G.O.P. in Inquiry

via memeorandum

Kevin Williamson emphasizes:

Amen on the “complacency and condescension.” This is a familiar story to Media Blog readers. The first time I heard a newspaper colleague refer to non-journalists as “civilians,” it was obvious that something is wrong with the culture of the news media. And the more reporters and editors think of themselves as a specialized elite with access to esoteric knowledge, the worse the problem will get.

So it’s interesting that today the New York Times devotes some attention to Rupert Murdoch (via memeorandum)

All this from a charter member of what conservatives deride as the biased liberal media, right? Not quite. This take on Barack Obama comes from The New York Post, the feisty, generally conservative tabloid that is, like the Fox News Channel, part of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire, the News Corporation.

So has Mr. Murdoch gone soft on liberals — or perhaps just reacted pragmatically to Mr. Obama’s sizable victory? The answer, according to people who have watched him operate at close range, is that Mr. Murdoch is a less predictable, less doctrinaire character than his critics imagine.

“[L]ess doctrinaire,” there was a time when the New York Times might have deserved that description. Maybe instead of being rigidly liberal, the Times ought to be following stories and see where they lead instead of trying to shape the conclusions of its readership. Maybe instead of observing Murdoch with detachment the folks at the Times should be trying to learn from him.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in Media Bias | Tagged | Comments Off on Murdoch to media: miscreants

Names will never hurt me – the double standard

Posted on 11/17/2008 by Soccerdad

Recently a number of bloggers got bent out of shape by comments made by incoming Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel’s father,

“Obviously, he’ll influence the president to be pro-Israel. Why wouldn’t he? What is he, an Arab? He’s not going to be mopping floors at the White House.”

Time Magazine:

But that does not mean that Rahm Emanuel, or Barack Obama for that matter, can easily ignore the fact that Benjamin Emanuel recently said a nasty thing about Arabs in the Israeli press. This is from the Jerusalem Post’s account of an interview Benjamin gave after news of his son’s appointment to the Obama administration was announced:

Samir Kuntar’s friend, Dion Nissenbaum:

Emanuel’s appointment upset some in the Middle East who fear that Obama’s new gatekeeper and White House alter-ego will be unquestioning in his support for questionable Israeli policies.

And his dad’s comments only aggravated things.

Worst of all, Helena Cobban’s Just World News, used the opportunity to accuse Rep. Emanuel, not so subtly, of dual loyalty.

But what I as a US citizen want to be assured of at this point is two things:

1. At any point that the interests of the US and the current government of Israel might diverge, can we be assured that all members of our president’s staff are acting 100% in the interests of the United States? and

2. Can we be assured that the president is getting the widest range of excellent, relevant, and fact-based advice from all his advisers in the tricky and very sensitive realms of Mideast policy?

The ensuing firestorm ended when Rep. Emanuel apologized for his father’s remarks.

While I was originally jarred by what he said, I’m in agreement with Daled Amos and In Context, I don’t think that Dr. Emanuel’s comments were intended the way the AADC and its apologists alleged. He wasn’t suggesting that Arabs ought to be washing floors, but that his son had influence (he wouldn’t be washing floors) and that he’d be pro-Israel (he’s not an Arab.) The two statements were conflated by the anti-Israel crowd who were already suspicious of Rep.Emanuel because he was born in Israel.

But what to make of these following incidents.
Meryl notes that at least week’s Saudi sponsored Interfaith conference Western educated, liberal Palestinian PM, Salam Fayyad was guilty of an omission.

The Palestinian Prime Minister, yet another so-called moderate, managed to speak at the UN interfaith conference about how holy Jerusalem is to the world’s major religions—and utterly leave out Judaism.

In Context points out (not for the first time) that the Palestinians under the jurisdiction of “moderate” Mahmoud Abbas, sentenced one of their own to death for helping Israel fight terror attacks.

And finally there’s the moderate, Abbas himself who took to threatening Israel this past weekend. But as Elder of Ziyon points out, this ought not to be so casually dismissed:

Which goes to show that the PLO letter to Israel at Oslo that solemnly promised to abandon violence was not worth the paper it was written on. And brings up the question that people are afraid to ask: what is to say that any “peace agreement” will not be torn up as well?

I’ll admit, that I’m happy that the Washington Post and New York Times, as far as I can tell ignored Dr. Emanuel’s remarks. They were, at worst, clumsy. But even if they were meant as (mis)construed, Dr. Emanuel is not a person of influence in the new administration. Absent compelling evidence, It should have had no bearing on his son’s ability to do his job. The outpouring of outrage is more a reflection of the sentiments that only Helena Cobban was honest (and vile) enough to express openly: that somehow support of Israel is de facto proof of dual loyalties.

This is especially apparent when those in authority in the PA continually express their support for conflict with Israel and deny Israel’s basic right to exist. That doesn’t upset the likes of Helena Cobban, Jake Tapper, Michael Scherer or Dion Nissenbaum at all. Denial of the very premises of a peace settlement by the Palestinians is a matter of course, not worthy of comment, but the slightest hint – no matter how specious – of pro-Israel leanings is a matter of overblown concern. This isn’t simply a matter of being critical of Israel, but of anti-Israel, if not antisemitic feelings.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in Anti-Semitism, Israel, Media Bias, palestinian politics | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

The bunker mentality

Posted on 11/17/2008 by Soccerdad

I bring your attention to the following three recent news summaries from the NYT as visible through Bloglines.

November 14, 2008

Deadly Gaza Border Clash Threatens Truce

By By ISABEL KERSHNER
on Hamas

Four Hamas gunmen were killed in a clash with Israeli soldiers along the Gaza border, testing a shaky truce.

November 16, 2008

Hamas Fires Rockets Into Israel

By By ETHAN BRONNER and TAGHREED EL-KHODARY
on Olmert, Ehud

Hamas officials said the attack was revenge for the deaths over the past 11 days of 11 militants and the recent increased Israeli closing of Gaza crossings.

November 17, 2008

Israel Kills 4 Militants in Gaza Strip

By By ISABEL KERSHNER and TAGHREED EL-KHODARY
on Terrorism

Israel’s leaders ratcheted up their rhetoric Sunday after an Israeli airstrike killed four Palestinian militants in Hamas-run Gaza, leaving a five-month truce in tatters.

Notice that the one action that’s described as leaving the “truce” in “tatters” is Israel’s response. But let’s not forget that Israel didn’t target or kill innocents as Elder of Ziyon observes. (Warning graphic photo.)

No matter how many mortars or rockets were fired into Israel, the usual MSM report would be that it “endangered” – never “violated” – the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. It’s important to remember what Hamas sought to achieve with the Tahdiya:

The cease-fire grants Hamas a golden opportunity to expand its military build-up for the next round of terror and violence. Emulating Hizbullah’s strategy, Hamas is striving to acquire longer-range and more destructive missiles to be used for deterrence and as a sword on Israel’s neck.

Israel has acknowledged Hamas, albeit unwillingly, as the de facto ruling power in Gaza. Israel’s acceptance of the cease-fire is a blow to the international war on terror and gives immunity to Hamas and other terrorist organizations in Gaza, including al-Qaeda affiliates.

Another diplomatic consequence of the tahdiya will be increasing pressure on Israel to accept a reconciliation agreement between Hamas and Fatah in the future. That could lead to increasing demands on Israel to negotiate a permanent status arrangement with the joint Hamas-Fatah government, while Hamas remains committed to its political program for the elimination of Israel. It is important to recall that the entire Israeli-Palestinian negotiating track since the convening of the Annapolis conference was premised on the exclusion of Hamas and the ultimate achievement of an agreement between the Israeli government and the government of Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah alone.

Another important point to recall is that the ceasefire was for six months. Given that Hamas was using the opportunity to build its fortifications, build up its armaments and shore up its supplies. Israel is striking now, not to end the ceasefire, but because the ceasefire is about to end and the threat from giving Hamas six months to prepare mostly unharassed, making the threat of attacks from Gaza imminent.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

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