Col. Richard Kemp
The Gaza War in 5 Minutes: Thoughts from Col. Richard Kemp
July 25, 2014
Israeli Amb. Ron Dermer OWNS CNN’s Coverage of Conflict
August 26, 2014
The American Interest
A Pro-Hamas Left Emerges
In the pursuit of political goals and an anti-Israel message, Historians Against the War has abandoned the standards of its profession and adopted a stance that objectively supports Hamas’s war aims.
On July 31, 2014, a group of left-leaning historians called “Historians Against the War” posted an open letter to President Obama denouncing Israel’s actions in the Gaza War and calling for a cut-off of American military assistance to Israel. On August 13, the letter was posted on the website of the History News Network. On August 13, the signers reported that “in less than twenty-four hours over two hundred US, based [sic] historians had signed the letter.” This remarkable turnout depended on the mobilization of an already existing network of an academic Left that emerged in opposition to the war in Iraq and that stays in touch via a website called “The Hawblog.” On August 14, the blog announced that more than a thousand historians had signed the statement, including a large number from Mexico and Brazil.
With a brief and unconvincing effort to sound balanced, the statement deplored “the ongoing attacks against civilians in Gaza and in Israel” but then turned its fire on Israel for what it called “the disproportionate harm that the Israeli military, which the United States has armed and supported for decades, is inflicting on the population of Gaza.” The signers were “profoundly disturbed that Israeli forces are killing and wounding so many Palestinian children.” They found “unacceptable the failure of United States elected officials to hold Israel accountable for such an act” and demanded “a cease-fire, the immediate withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza and a permanent end to the blockade so that its people can resume some semblance of normal life.” Further, they urged the President to suspend U.S. military aid to Israel until there is assurance that it will no longer be used for the commission of “war crimes.” “As historians,” they concluded, “we recognize this as a moment of acute moral crisis in which it is vitally important that United States policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict change direction.”
It is old news that an academic tenured Left has a foothold in departments of history in the United States, as well as in Latin America. Also familiar is the deception involved in presenting oneself as “against war,” as if those who disagree are “for” war, and as if the issue were one of war or peace rather than anything that has to do with the substance of the conflict. Nor is it surprising that left-of-center academics are largely hostile to Israel. Hostility to Israel became a defining element of what it means to be left-wing since the early 1950s in the Communist states, and since the late 1960s for the Left in Western Europe, the United States, and the Third World as well.
Nor is it even surprising that the signers conclude, before they can possibly have access to the evidence needed to reach this judgment, that Israel has engaged in “war crimes.” The indictment of Israel before the facts are in, based on the reports of biased and often intimidated journalists, has been par for the course since the 1960s and has been a major theme of public discussion at least since the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982. It has also been standard operating procedure for the anti-Israeli majority in the UN General Assembly since the 1960s—yet in this case even UN officials, no constant friends of Israel, have intimated that Hamas is guilty of war crimes both by intentionally targetting Israeli civilians and by using the people of the Gaza Strip as human shields.
Reaching such conclusions on the basis of media reports would be, one would think, less common among professional historians who are trained to follow rigorous standard rules of evidence. In fact, in the name of a political goal these academics have abandoned the standards of their profession. The evidence to support this conclusion is hard to avoid.
First, demands for a ceasefire before Israel had completed destruction of the tunnels Hamas was using to infiltrate Israel, or before it was able to destroy Hamas rocket launchers, fit a familiar pattern of attacking Israel’s efforts to defend itself while ignoring the reasons why those actions are necessary. Similarly, second, as they have done before, indignant signers say nothing about the obvious fact that the Gaza war began with acts of aggression by Hamas, that by July 31 at least 1,500 rockets had been fired at Israel, and by August 13, the number was over 3,000. Third, and remarkably, in a statement about a war begun by Hamas the word “Hamas” does not even appear.
Finally, the signers called for ending the Israeli-Egyptian blockade of Gaza and stopping American military support for Israel in the midst of the Gaza war as Hamas was still firing rockets. This too was not surprising, coming as it did from an academic Left that largely views the exercise of American military power in world affairs as an evil to be categorically opposed rather than as a necessary part of preserving a set of key alliances and providing a global common security good. To call for an end to military aid to Israel obviously helps its enemy, Hamas. It is also worth noting what the signers did not mention: the demilitarization of Hamas, for example, which Israel and, surprisingly, even the sobered leaders of the European Union have made a condition for lifting the blockade.
The historians’ demands were, in short, essentially the same as those made by Hamas. Satisfying these demands constituted its definition of victory: Lift the blockade without demilitarization, put Israel in the dock for alleged war crimes, and preserve Hamas’s arsenal so it could continue to threaten Israel.
The interesting and historically significant aspect of these historians’ response to Hamas’s war of aggression is that it offers clear and depressing evidence of a change in the meaning of leftist ideology and politics. The leftism of the Historians Against the War statement reflects an opposition to some reactionary movements but not others. Movements of the extreme Right that are anti-Semitic, sexist, homophobic, and, of course, anti-democratic are acceptable so long as they aim to destroy the state of Israel and attack “U.S. imperialism.” This soft spot for reactionary Islamist ideology is partly the result of years of denial and timidity in the face of bogus accusations of “Islamophobia.” The moods expressed in the historians’ statement lead to forgiveness for sins committed by those attacking Israel—sins that would be denounced if they came from political currents in Europe and the United States.
In politics, we distinguish between subjective intentions and objective consequences. Subjectively, the signers present themselves as simple people on the side of the angels. They merely oppose “disproportionate” loss of civilian life and Israel’s “war crimes” in Gaza. Yet the signers are sophisticated intellectuals, and many are veteran senior scholars who understand very well that “objectively” the impact of their statement is to assist Hamas in winning what it would define as victory in the war it launched against Israel. The signers know very well that Hamas uses the civilian population as human shields and displays the deaths of civilians as a major strategy in its effort to defeat Israel in the court of world public opinion, erode Israel’s standing in Europe, and perhaps even break or weaken the alliance with the United States. As objective partisans of one side of the conflict, they are fine with all that.
Some critics of the statement have pointed out that the vast majority of the signers have no expertise in the Middle East, which is true enough. Yet it takes no expertise in the Middle East to read and interpret the Hamas Covenant of 1988. (I did so in an essay for this magazine.) The Hamas Charter has been available at the Yale Law School’s Avalon Project website for at least a decade. The Hamas authors wrote very clearly. At that website, the signers, some of whom included historians of modern European and German history, could read the Hamas authors’ selections from the Koran and Muslim commentaries to offer theological justifications for raw, murderous Jew-hatred. They could read the Hamas authors’ repetition of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories reminiscent of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. They would see that Hamas has no interest whatsoever in a two-state solution but has from its origins been dedicated to the destruction of the State of Israel by war. With a few mouse clicks, they could read a document that included phrases, some word for word, that would remind them of the rhetoric and propaganda of the fascists and Nazis that some of these historians have written about for decades.
The signers of the “Historians Against the War” statement about the Gaza war can take one of only two positions. The first would be an argument from ignorance; that is, that they had not read the Hamas Covenant and have paid no attention to Hamas’ repeated declarations of intent to destroy the state of Israel and to its numerous expressions of open Jew-hatred, even though they are readily available on the internet in English. Yet as the signers are speaking “as historians,” it would be insulting to suggest that they have no idea that Hamas is inspired by a kind of religious fanaticism that in every other context they find repellent.
So let’s give the signers the benefit of the doubt and make the second assumption, that the signers are sophisticated and well-informed, that they have read the Hamas Covenant, have followed Hamas’s repeated expressions of Jew-hatred, and understand that Hamas has used the years since it seized power in Gaza to buy rockets, train young men how to use them, and spent millions on tunnel construction that could have been used instead to build schools, hospitals, and housing for the civilians population in Gaza. What, then, is the meaning of these historians’ letter? It is that the “Hawblog” statement of July 31 was not a statement “against war”; it was objectively and, for some, subjectively an effort in favor of the war that Hamas launched against Israel.
The emergence of this objectively pro-Hamas and pro-war Left is an historically significant event. It breaks with both the self-understanding and public image of a Left that carried a banner of anti-fascism. It rests on a double standard of critique, a critical one applied to the extreme Right in the West and another, apologetic standard applied to similarly based rightist Islamist movements.
For this historian, the “Historians Against the War” statement of summer 2014 recalls the policy of the Comintern during the Hitler-Stalin pact of 1939–1941. In that two-year period, as Hitler invaded and occupied all of continental Europe except the Soviet Union, and island Britain fought on alone, the Communist Parties denounced “Anglo-American imperialism”, called Franklin Roosevelt a “war monger” for aiding Britain and abandoned verbal attacks on Nazi Germany. The Communist Parties only returned to the previous anti-fascist stance of the Popular Front era because Hitler invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941. Had Hitler not invaded the Soviet Union, presumably the Communists Parties would have opposed a strictly Anglo-American attack on Nazi Germany.
The years of the Hitler-Stalin pact offer an often forgotten and embarrassing case of the Left making common cause objectively with fascism and Nazism. It was only in the aftermath of the Soviet Union’s massive contribution to the defeat of Nazism that “anti-fascism” again became embedded in the Left’s essence and public presentation. The “Historians against the War” statement of July 31 revives the spirit of the infamous years of 1939-41, but does so with a confidence that many decades of Communist and Western leftist attacks on Israel and on Zionism, along with expressions of “solidarity with the Palestinian people,” has fostered. The habits of mind and emotion cultivated in the Western Left in the era of the secular PLO’s terrorist campaigns of the 1960s to 1980s have remained strikingly intact, even though the terror now comes from the Islamist extreme Right rather than the extreme Left.
Efforts by the literary scholar Judith Butler several years ago to include Hamas in the camp of the global Left illustrated a lack of historical knowledge that is simply not acceptable among professional historians. But Procrustean distortion in the name of a cause is apt to overwhelm any fealty to professional standards among ideologues of all stripes. In every sense of the word, Hamas is an organization of the extreme Right and rejects all of the values that at one point defined leftist politics ever since the Enlightenment, the French Revolution, and large parts of the secular Left of the 20th century. This summer, the “Hawblog” group statement has offered support to an organization that has attacked the values that used to define the Western Left and made hatred of the Jews as Jews and the destruction of the Jewish state its primary goals. If these scholars have any criticisms of Hamas at all, they did not voice them at a time when doing so mattered.
It was probably only a matter of time before seven decades of leftist antagonism to Israel would lead to waging political warfare in support of an organization known for terrorist attacks against civilians, religious fanaticism, and anti-Semitism of a most foul and familiar sort. In summer 2014, that moment has arrived.
And “So what?” it might be asked. What does it matter that the academic Left yet again criticizes Israel and supports the aims of its enemies? In fact, it matters quite a bit, because political struggles are ultimately battles about ideas and their meaning. What begins in the universities and enjoys the prestige associated with them filters into journalism, the highbrow journals of opinion, the editorials of the media, and the policy think tanks in Washington. In the process, it fosters at best a language of moral equivalence regarding Israel and Hamas. It is also reflected in courses taught in the universities, which in turn have an impact on coming generations. A refusal to speak frankly about the ideas animating Hamas and other Islamist terrorist organizations has become a litmus test for left-wing identity. The fear of being called “Islamophobic” or “right-wing” has the effect of silencing criticism among liberals who don’t want to field criticism on their left.
Moreover, now that the Republican Party’s traditional support for vigorous American leadership is under challenge from a neo-isolationist right, it is all the more important that centrists in the Democratic Party recognize and vigorously respond to the challenge from an effectively pro-Hamas left. We need a renewed “militant democracy” in the center of American politics and intellectual life, one that fights totalitarian ideologies and movements no matter their source. Both within the academy and in the world of politics and policy in Washington, it is essential that there be much more frank speech about the nature of groups such as Hamas. There are some welcome signs that some in the political establishment are finding their voices about these issues. In the academy the voices of “Historians Against the War” are not a majority, but they shout the loudest and are well organized. For those of us in the academy who take a different view, it would be most helpful if more of our political leaders would also speak frankly on these matters. The arrows of influence in the history of ideas and politics can flow in both directions. It is important that they do so.
Jeffrey Herf is distinguished university professor in the department of history at the University of Maryland in College Park, where he works on modern European and German history, and author most recently of Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World (Yale University Press, 2009). His essay “In Their Own Words, Why They Fight: Hamas’ All Too-Little Known Fascist Charter” can be found here. His essay “At War with Israel: East Germany’s Enthusiastic Support for Soviet Policy in the Middle East” is forthcoming in the Journal of Cold War Studies.
August 17, 2014
How to Write About Israel
Daniel Greenfield: Sultan knish
Writing about Israel is a booming field. No news agency, be it ever so humble, can avoid embedding a few correspondents and a dog’s tail of stringers into Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, to sit in cafes clicking away on their laptops, meeting up with leftist NGO’s and the oppressed Muslim of the week.
At a time when international desks are being cut to the bone, this is the one bone that the newshounds won’t give up. Wars can be covered from thousands of miles away, genocide can go to the back page, but, when a rock flies in the West Bank, there had better be a correspondent with a fake continental accent and a khaki shirt to cover it.
Writing about Israel isn’t hard. Anyone who has consumed a steady diet of media over the years already knows all the bullet points. The trick is arranging them artistically, like so many wilted flowers, in the story of this week’s outrage.
Israel is hot, even in the winter, with the suggestion of violence brimming under the surface. It should be described as a “troubled land.” Throw in occasional ironic biblical references and end every article or broadcast by emphasizing that peace is still far away.
It has two types of people; the Israelis who live in posh houses stocked with all the latest appliances and the Arabs who live in crumbling shacks that are always in danger of being bulldozed. The Israelis are fanatical, the Arabs are passionate. The Israelis are hate-filled, while the Arabs are embittered. The Israelis have everything while the Arabs have nothing.
Avoid mentioning all the mansions that you pass on the way to interviewing some Palestinian Authority or Hamas bigwig. When visiting a terrorist prisoner in an Israeli jail, be sure to call him a militant, somewhere in the fifth paragraph, but do not mention the sheer amount of food in the prison, especially if he is on a hunger strike. If you happen to notice that the prisoners live better than most Israelis, that is something you will not refer to. Instead describe them as passionate and embittered. Never ask them how many children they killed or how much they make a month. Ask them what they think the prospects for peace are. Nod knowingly when they say that it’s up to Israel.
Weigh every story one way. Depersonalize Israelis, personalize Muslims. One is a statistic, the other a precious snowflake. A Muslim terrorist attack is always in retaliation for something, but an Israeli attack is rarely a retaliation for anything. When Israeli planes bomb a terrorist hideout, suggest that this latest action only feeds the “Cycle of Violence” and quote some official who urges Israel to return to peace negotiations– whether or not there actually are any negotiations to return to.
Center everything around peace negotiations. If Israel has any domestic politics that don’t involve checkpoints and air strikes, do your best to avoid learning about them. Frame all Israeli politics by asking whether a politician is finally willing to make the compromises that you think are necessary for peace. Always sigh regretfully and find them wanting. Assume that all Israelis think the same way. Every vote is a referendum on the peace process. A vote for a conservative party means that Israelis hate peace.
The Israelis can also be divided into two categories. There are the good Israelis, who wear glasses, own iPads and live in trendy neighborhoods. They are very concerned that the country is losing its soul by oppressing another people. They strum out-of-date American peace songs on guitars that they play badly, but which you will describe them as playing “soulfully”, and they show up at rallies demanding that the government make peace with the Palestinians.
Your good Israelis invariably volunteer or work for some NGO, a fact that you may or may not mention in your article, but you are not to discuss who funds their NGO, particularly if it’s a foreign government. Write about them as if they are the hope of an otherwise brutish and unreasonable Israel too obsessed with killing and destroying to listen to the hopeful voices of its children.
When writing about them, act as if they are representative of the country’s youth and its best and brightest, which for all you know they might be, because you rarely meet anyone who isn’t like them, because you rarely meet anyone who isn’t like you. When you do it’s either a taxi driver, repairman or some working-class fellow whom you have nothing in common with, and who turns out to be a raving militant when it comes to the terrorism question.
These are the other Israelis. The big swarthy men who have no interest in alternative art exhibits. If you have to deal with them at all, get a quote from them about their hopes for peace and how much they dislike the government. Pretend that the two things are connected, and that everything that your friends, who are aspiring artists and playwrights, as well as volunteer humanitarians, told you about the country being ready to rise up against right-wingers like Barak and Netanyahu, to demand peace, is absolutely true. Don’t ask yourself why the country keeps electing right-wingers; if you do, turn it into an essay that touches on Holocaust trauma and biblical hatred.
At some point, you will have to write about the thin bearded men in black hats rushing through the streets on their inscrutable errands. Describe them as “Ultra-Orthodox”, even if the word does not seem to mean anything, and pretend that they’re all the same. If anyone tries to explain the distinctions to you, ignore them. When writing about them, be sure to imply that they are ignorant and fanatical. Mention their growing numbers as a danger to the survival of the state, associate them wrongly with the right wing and throw in some of the complaints from your friends about the “Schorim”, the blacks, moving in and destroying secular neighborhoods.
Israeli soldiers should be depicted looming menacingly over children. Your stringers are already experienced at urging a child into camera range, then getting down on one knee and tilting the camera up just as an Israeli soldier walks into the frame. If there isn’t time to set up the shot, get what you can. The photo can be cropped afterward to show just the Israeli soldier and the Palestinian child, even if the two are not actually interacting in any way.
In print, contrast the bored detachment of the soldiers with the prolonged miserable suffering of the Arab Muslims. Checkpoint lines should consist entirely of old and pregnant women waiting to visit their families. If you are Jewish then mention that the soldiers have given you special treatment on account of your race, even if the actual reason is because you are a journalist and your kind doesn’t set off bombs, your kind acts as the propaganda corps for those who set off bombs.
When visiting “settlers,” a term that currently covers a sizable portion of the country, describe them as “dogged” and “fanatical.” Dwell on their beards and on their assault rifles. Find some American ones and disarm them with hometown mentions of Brooklyn or Baltimore and then dig for a hateful comment. If you can’t get a properly damning quote from one of them, get it from one of their children. If you have no luck there, hit up one of your NGO friends, preferably with a degree, to give you a quote on the danger that they pose to peace.
Convey to the reader that there is something disturbing about the tenacity with which they cling to the land, while making it clear that they will have to be ethnically cleansed from the land for there to be peace. Do not use the word “ethnic cleansing,” use “evacuation,” it sounds cleaner. Be sure to mention that they believe G-d gave them the land. Mention something about the Caananites and the Amalekites. Talk to the girls and contrast their fresh youthful faces with their unwillingness to make peace with their neighbors.
Pay a visit to Jerusalem. Mention a place or two that you like to eat, make sure that it is owned by Arabs, accept their tale of being here for thousands of years with complete credulity. If they mention that they are worried about East Jerusalem being taken over by the Palestinian Authority, don’t report that. Do report any complaints that they have about the Judaization of Jerusalem. Draw a picture of the neighborhood as a wonderfully multicultural place dating back to when the Jordanians expelled all the Jews—that is now under assault by the returning Jews. Mourn all the tourists and the Jewish families who are getting in the way of your orientalism. Be sure to remind readers that the Muslim name of the city, or as you will write, the Arab name, is Al-Quds, and that it is holy to three great religions.
Visit with politicians. Israeli Prime Ministers will invariably be unpleasant obstructionist types, if they make jokes, describe it as a transparent effort to curry favor with you. Generals are even worse. Press them about the separation wall, checkpoints, misery and deprivation in the territories. Then get your NGO friends to introduce you to friendly left-wing pols who will commiserate with you about the state of the peace process and the leap of faith that needs to be taken to make peace. Get a quote from them about the next generation and describe them as saddened by their government’s unwilling to make peace.
Palestinian politicians are always willing to make peace, even when they aren’t. Work at it and you will get a hypothetical quote about their willingness to one day live in peace with the Jews. Turn that quote into the centerpiece of your article. Contrast it with Israeli leaders who still refuse to come to the table. Never ask them any tough questions about the budget, their support for terrorists or why they refuse to negotiate. Instead feed them softball questions, take their talking points and plug them into the template for the same article that your predecessors have been writing since the seventies.
If an Israeli tells you that there is no such thing as Palestinians, that they’re gangs of Muslim militias who have no interest in running their own country, or that Jordan is the actual Palestinian State, ignore him. Details like that don’t matter and you’re not here to litigate history, you’re here to tell a story. The same story that has been told for generations about villainous Israelis and the heroic resistance fighters battling against them.
Don’t dig into the relationships between Arab clans, the depth of nepotism within the Palestinian Authority or the lack of elections. Don’t discuss Israeli poverty except when your NGO friends ask you to write about their work. Don’t mention the epidemic of car thefts or land seizures. Don’t try to understand what all the different religious subgroups are really all about. You were sent here to tell a simple story and your job is to tell that story.
Write about the hills and the blood-red sunsets, mention all the armies that probably passed over them in a history you never bothered to learn. Talk about your mixed feelings as a Jew or part-Jew or someone who has Jewish friends, at the sight of Jews oppressing another people. Describe the black soulful eyes of a Palestinian leader or terrorist or terrorist leader. Write up the settler children who are taught to hate. Write about how all the guns make you uncomfortable. Close with an old man who expresses hope that one day peace will come to this troubled land.
Then go home.
July 21, 2014
Palestinian Suffering Used to Demonize Israel
The Jerusalem Post
No sooner had Israel launched Operation Protective Edge to stop the sustained rocket and missile attacks on its civilian population by the Gaza-based Hamas terror organization than it came under a barrage of international criticism, with tens of thousands of violent demonstrators flocking into the streets of London, Paris, Berlin, Oslo, Sydney, Buenos Aires and New York, among other places, to demand an end to the “Gaza slaughter.”
How can this be? Why do citizens of democratic societies enthusiastically embrace one of the world’s most murderous Islamist terror organizations, overtly committed not only to the destruction of a sovereign democracy but also to the subordination of Western values and ways of life to a worldwide Islamic caliphate (or umma)? Not out of a genuine concern for Palestinian wellbeing. For although the “Palestine question” has received extraordinary media coverage for decades to the exclusion of far worse humanitarian and political problems, the truth is that no one really cares about the fate of the Palestinians: not their leaders, who have immersed their hapless constituents in disastrous conflicts rather than seize the numerous opportunities for statehood since the Peel Commission report of 1937; not the Arab states, which have brazenly manipulated the Palestinian cause to their self-serving ends; and not Western politicians, the media, NGOs, human rights activists, and church leaders enticed into self-righteous indignation by any Israeli act of self-defense.
Had the Palestinians’ dispute been with an Arab, Muslim, or any other non-Jewish adversary, it would have attracted a fraction of the interest that it presently does. No one in the international community pays any attention to the ongoing abuse of Palestinians across the Arab world from Saudi Arabia to Lebanon, which deprives its 500,000-strong Palestinian population of the most basic human rights from property ownership, to employment in numerous professions, to free movement. Nor has there been any international outcry when Arab countries have expelled and/or massacred their Palestinian populations on a grand scale. The fact that the thoroughly westernized King Hussein of Jordan killed more Palestinians in the course of a single month than Israel had in decades was never held against him or dented his widely held perception as a man of peace.
As the supposedly pro-Palestinian journalist Robert Fisk put it in his memoirs, King Hussein was “often difficult to fault.”
Kuwait’s 1991 slaughter of thousands of innocent Palestinians who lived and worked in the emirate (and the expulsion of most of its 400,000-strong Palestinian population) passed virtually unnoticed by the international media, as has the murder of thousands of Palestinians in the ongoing Syrian civil war and the reduction of countless others to destitution and starvation.
By contrast, any Palestinian or Arab casualty inflicted by Israel comes under immediate international criticism.
Take the blanket media coverage of Israel’s military response in Lebanon (2006) and Gaza (2008- 09, 2012) but not of the original Hezbollah and Hamas attacks triggering it, in stark contrast to the utter indifference to bloodier conflicts going on around the world at the same time. On July 19, 2006, for example, 5,000 Ethiopian troops invaded Somalia in what it claimed was an action to “crush” an Islamist threat to its neighbor’s government. A month later, Sri Lankan artillery has pounded territory held by the rebel Tamil Tigers resulting in mass displacement and over 500 deaths, including an estimated 50 children following the Sri Lankan air force’s bombing of an orphanage. But neither of these events gained any media coverage, let alone emergency sessions of the UN Security Council, just as the bloodbath in Iraq at the time, with its estimated 3,000 deaths a month at the hands of Islamist militants sank into oblivion while the world focused on Lebanon, just as the current slaughter in Syria and Iraq is presently ignored.
And what about the-then long-running genocide in Darfur, with its estimated 300,000 dead and at least 2.5 million refugees? Or the war in the Congo, with over four million dead or driven from their homes, or in Chechnya where an estimated 150,000- 160,000 have died and up to a third of the population has been displaced, at the hands of the Russian military? None of these tragedies saw the worldwide mass demonstrations as has been the case during the Lebanon and Gaza crises.
Nor should we forget that Hezbollah has been implicated in dozens of international terror attacks from Brussels to Buenos Aires.
Indeed, the response to its July 18, 1994, terror attack on the Israeli- Argentine Mutual Association (AMIA), a social center catering for Buenos Aires’ large Jewish population, provides an illuminating contrast to the relentless coverage of the 2006 events in Lebanon. It was the worst terror attack in Argentina’s history, killing 100 people and wounding more than 200. More died in this bombing than in any single action in the 2006 Lebanese war. Yet the BBC, which prides itself on the worldwide coverage, didn’t find the atrocity worth mentioning in its evening news bulletin. When confronted with a complaint by the normally timid Board of Deputies, British Jewry’s umbrella organization, the corporation offered an apology of sorts, blaming the omission on a particularly busy day.
What were those daily events that could have possibly diverted the BBC’s attention from the Argentina massacre? A perusal of the papers reveals the British premier of Steven Spielberg’s new film, The Flintstones, attended by the prince of Wales. This was also the day when Gavin Sheerard- Smith, caned and imprisoned for six months in Qatar after being convicted of buying and selling alcohol, returned to Britain professing his innocence, and when David MacGregor, an agoraphobia sufferer jailed for a fortnight for failing to pay poll tax arrears, had his sentenced quashed. An eventful day indeed.
Given the BBC’s indifference to the massacre of Argentinean Jews by Hezbollah, it is hardly surprising that the corporation, along with much of the world’s media, ignored the almost daily rocket attacks by the same group on Israel’s northern border, not to mention the constant outpouring of rockets and missiles from Gaza since the Israeli withdrawal from the territory in 2005.
And why shouldn’t they? The killing of Jews and the destruction or seizure of their worldly properties is hardly news. For millennia Jewish blood has been cheap, if not costless, throughout the Christian and Muslim worlds where the Jew became the epitome of powerlessness, a perpetual punching bag and a scapegoat for whatever ills befell society. There is no reason, therefore, why Israel shouldn’t follow in the footsteps of these past generations, avoid antagonizing its Arab neighbors and exercise restraint whenever attacked. But no, instead of knowing its place, the insolent Jewish state has forfeited this historic role by exacting a price for Jewish blood and beating the bullies who had hitherto been able to torment the Jews with impunity. This dramatic reversal of history cannot but be immoral and unacceptable. Hence the global community outrage and hence the world’s media provision of unlimited resources to cover every minute detail of Israel’s “disproportionate” response, but none of the suffering and devastation on the Israeli side.
A profoundly depressing state of affairs indeed. But so long as the Palestinians continue to serve as the latest lightning rod against the Jews, their supposed victimization reaffirming the latter’s millenarian demonization, Israel will never be allowed to defend itself without incurring the charge of “disproportionate force” – never directed against any other besieged democracy but evocative of the classic anti-Semitic stereotype of Jews as both domineering and wretched, both helpless and bloodthirsty. In the words of the renowned American writer David Mamet, “The world was told Jews used this blood in the performance of religious ceremonies. Now, it seems, Jews do not require the blood for baking purposes, they merely delight to spill it on the ground.”
The author is professor of Middle East and Mediterranean Studies at King’s College London, a senior researcher at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies and at the Middle East Forum, and the author most recently of Palestine Betrayed (Yale, 2010).
Palestinian Suffering Used to Demonize Israel :: Karsh in Jerusalem Post
August 7, 2014
Our Misguided obsession With The “PR War’ In Gaza
The Daily Caller
One of the more tedious sidebars in the media coverage of the Gaza conflict has been the question, “Who’s winning the PR war?”
This obsession says a lot about western culture’s misguided belief in the power of public relations, as if one can just summon a winning persuasion campaign the way we place orders on Amazon. A further misassumption here is that PR strategies are equally available to all parties, and that all PR wars are winnable. They are not.
Hamas – and Israel’s other enemies – will usually have the PR advantage. The currency of modern western media is the optical imprint of victimhood. In short, if the visual narrative conveys emotionally resonant weakness, the “weakest” side will probably “win” the media front.
When news consumers see a grieving Palestinian mother juxtaposed with a more sophisticated Israeli military – with access, no less, to a high-tech missile defense system impressively named “Iron Dome” — the narrative “winner” in this battle will be whoever is crying.
While the public is not nearly as persuaded by rhetoric as political spin doctors would have us believe, we are easily entranced by stark optical displays of victims and villains. Hamas knows this, of course, which is why they place missile batteries in schools, homes and mosques to the detriment of the long-suffering souls they claim to lead. The news media, needing to cultivate characters for “good television,” instinctively traffic in the storyline of big bombs hitting little targets.
And the cycle of staging — and the broadcast of this staging — continues along with validation from social media, which is as animated by the victim-villain construct as the legacy press.
Israel’s true objective in the PR war is not to win it, but to lose it by less and to give cover to its natural allies. Overcoming the victim-villain template would require a cataclysm for Israel whereby it becomes the unequivocal victim. Needless to say, a catastrophe isn’t worth a short-lived PR bump.
On the immediate heels of 9/11, the U.S. had a short PR window by virtue of having been attacked. The minute the U.S. started dropping “daisy cutters” on the seemingly defenseless mountain people of Afghanistan this advantage receded.
In the wake of the Holocaust, tiny Israel’s battlefield strength against the backdrop of far greater Arab numbers engendered a media fist bump. Today, with the Holocaust fast becoming a historical footnote, the default question is, “How could those imperialistic Iron Dome people possibly have the moral high ground over those grieving people with the smashed homes?”
There is also a more disturbing variable at work here: Different principals in controversies start with different PR baselines. Just like a fun, futuristic tech company like Apple will always be treated better than a dirty old oil company, the Israelis begin PR battles in a narrative ditch. As I have told Jewish leaders that have raised this subject with me – to their horror – Jews are seen as powerful elites, not an oppressed minority.
Hamas, on the other hand, has been treated as a viable political organization in news reporting, not as a terrorist organization. Part and parcel of a belief system associated with perceived elites is the assumption that they possess a magical way conflicts could be resolved peacefully, but that in their spite, they simply elected not to pursue this course.
This has been historically reinforced by the imagery of savvy Palestinian spokespersons, steeped in the Western rhetoric of victimhood, juxtaposed with gruff, argumentative Israeli leaders. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, smooth, attractive, and raised for a time in an affluent Philadelphia suburb, has accomplished all that a spokesperson can in such terrible circumstances during this conflict cycle. Interestingly, we’ve seen few, if any, television interviews with Hamas militants of late. Perhaps if the world heard directly what these people truly believe, news coverage may have gone in a different direction. Better to let the victim-villain imagery do the talking.
If the Israelis will be hard-pressed to “drive up their positives,” they may have middling success in showcasing Hamas’ negatives, especially among American and modern Arab audiences. Firing missiles at civilians, not to mention strapping bombs on, are repugnant modi operandi to Americans. Nor are these devices appealing to moderate Arabs who neither care for Hamas to begin with nor wish to promulgate the bigoted notion that all Arabs behave this way.
Israel has a long history of taking actions that earn bad, short-term PR demerits, but serve their best long-term self-interest. As the most brutal moments in the Gaza conflict appear to be in remission, Israel survives another Sabbath, which is the only realistic dividend of this unwinnable PR war.
Eric Dezenhall is the CEO of Dezenhall Resources, Ltd., a crisis management firm, and author of the forthcoming “Glass Jaw: A Manifesto for Defending Fragile Reputations in an Age of Instant Scandal.”
Hizbullah TV: Hollywood Jews Invented Superman in the
Service of Global Jewish Goals
American Jews invented Hollywood movies, from “Superman” to “Schindler’s List,” in order to take over the world, as Hezbollah would like to do, according to a program aired on the organization’s al-Manar TV and translated by MEMRI.
According to the program, the Jews “felt rejected by real American society,” so they “tried to change society’s opinions of them by inventing cinematic characters that would serve as role models.” While some of the characters were overtly Jewish, others were concealed as superheroes and other classic Hollywood protagonists, camouflaging the Jewish attempt to take over American and global culture. “That’s when it all began,” said the narrator of the program. “Everybody wanted to be like Superman, the hero from outer space who could not fit into society as Superman, so he invented a character that was better suited for American society — the feeble, bespectacled Clark Kent.”
The program cited an “expert” described as a “university professor and international photographer,” Farroukh Majidi, as saying, ”If you hit the heart of somebody, the result is short-term. But if you hit his brain, then the result is long-term.” Majidi was referring to what the program described as the Jews’ attempts to use heroic characters to generate influence. “They try to make you believe that what you think is coming out of you, yourself,” Majidi said.
The narrator then explained that Superman was “invented” by Joe Shuster, a Jew, to “deal with” whoever challenged the Jewish world view. “Hollywood is a Jewish invention that changed the way Americans view America, and created dreams, rather than reality. They managed to make the Americans live the dream, divorced from reality,” said the narrator. “Undoubtedly, the goal was to take over the greatest superpower in the world to control all aspects of its daily life and to harness it in the service of Jewish goals worldwide.” Majidi added, “What is most dangerous is if you believe their culture.”
He warned that the most “dangerous” aspect of the Jewish influence over global culture through Hollywood was not films centering around Jewish characters or themes, but rather films subversively promoting Jewish culture. “What is touching us, what is ruining us, ruining our culture, is the penetration of their culture through mass media, through their movies, through this television,” Majidi said. Urging viewers “to fight against what they want to do,” Majidi added: “This is their country, this is their culture, and they want to conquer all the world, as we want. But they know how to do it, but we don’t know.” He said “the Jews,” unlike Hezbollah, possessed the technology, equipment, skill, specialists and cinema professionals to execute their plan of global domination.
The program made special mention of “Schindler’s List” as well as of German-Jewish pioneer filmmaker Carl Laemmle, who sponsored the passage of thousands of Jews from Nazi Germany to the US, saving them from what the narrator of the program termed “the so-called Holocaust.” The narrator noted that Laemmle, who was said to have emigrated from Germany “for the sake of his Jewishness,” founded Universal Studios. Laemmle ”worked to keep Hollywood in Jewish hands only,” the narrator went on, adding that “this influence continues to this day.” Images of religious Jews, synagogues and Torah scrolls were screened in the background as she spoke.
March 23, 2014
A Polemic to Palestinian Victim-hood
How does Israel fare when it comes to its treatment of Palestinians compared to, for example, Syria?
Writing in The Guardian, Karma Nabulsi finds a way to make Israel equally culpable while arguing against Palestinian refugees “forfeiting” their “right of return.” She describes the harsh conditions of Palestinian refugees in the Middle East:
Forfeited if you consider what is now happening to the half a million Palestinian refugees in Syria without respite: entire refugee camps, established more than 65 years ago, utterly flattened; the people in them killed or having fled to safely elsewhere; other refugee camps under military siege for so many months that the people suffering in them are literally starving to death. Hundreds of thousands made refugees for the third or fourth time in their lives, spending the hard months of this past winter in the snow and rain, many without a tent or food, the children without a school or medical care, on the slopes of a Turkish hillside, crowded into already bursting camps in Lebanon, cordoned off under military jurisdiction in Jordan.
It is not all that different to the extreme pressures Palestinians are facing in Palestine, where everyone is more or less a refugee too.
Actually, it is very different to the conditions of Palestinian refugees in the Palestinian territories, where people are certainly not being starved to death or have no access to shelter, food, education or medical care.
But why stop there? What about Israeli Arabs?
In what is now Israel, people internally displaced from their homes in 1947 and 1948 are living in villages that still have no electricity; in Jerusalem more Palestinian refugees are created every day by the Israeli military, as people are illegally thrown out of their ancestral homes.
And the West Bank and Gaza:
In the occupied West Bank, people’s homes are demolished each week. And, of course, in Gaza, where the density and length of the siege, the despair of any change by the people there (the majority of whom are refugees from 1948), and the silence on their collective predicament, is legendary.
And just to top it off, a reference to “the continuing disaster of ethnic cleansing.”
It clearly doesn’t suit the Palestinian narrative of blaming Israel when the suffering of Palestinian refugees is infinitely greater in neighboring Arab states. The answer according to Karma Nabulsi – attempt to portray Israel as equally or more responsible for the plight of the Palestinians.
Melanie Phillips – British media lies, incites mass murder and hatred
Pretending Tel Aviv Is the Capital of Israel
February 3, 2014
Cross-posted from National Review Online, The Corner
Some, especially in the mainstream media, pretend that not Jerusalem but Tel Aviv serves as the capital of Israel. (Tel Aviv hosts the Ministry of Defense but not much else of the central government.) This parallels a tendency lately to pretend there’s a country called Palestine. The weblog entry documents some of those delusions, which are appearing more often, in reverse chronological order:
Agence France Press: An article on Jan. 23, “Israel PM urges European ‘fairness’ in Mideast,” states that four European Union states lodged “a formal protest against Tel Aviv’s drive to expand settlements on the West Bank.” (January 26, 2014)
The New York Times: A front-page headline today over a story by Mark Landler and Jodi Rudoren uses “Tel Aviv” as a synonym for Israel’s capital: “Mideast Chaos Grows as U.S. Focuses on Israel—Kerry’s Tel Aviv Push Raises Questions About Priorities.” (July 2, 2013)
CTV, a Canadian television station: Reported on Jan. 8 that “Tel Aviv is dealing with a heavy rain situation. The storms flooded roads and brought chaos to the Israeli capital.” (January 17, 2013)
British Broadcasting Corporation: A BBC tweet today announced that “#Gaza militants launch missiles at Tel Aviv in 1st rocket attack on Israeli capital since 1991 Gulf War bbc.in/QJkWK9” (November 15, 2012)
White House: The White House press secretary, Jay Carney, did not say that Tel Aviv was the capital. But he also did not say it was not in this semi-comical exchange with reporters:
White House press secretary Jay Carney fields a tough question about the capital of Israel.
1st Reporter: What city does this Administration consider to be the capital of Israel? Jerusalem or Tel Aviv?
Carney: Um … I haven’t had that question in a while. Our position has not changed. Can we, uh …
1st Reporter: What is the capital?
Carney: You know our position.
1st Reporter: I don’t.
2nd Reporter: No, no. She doesn’t know, that’s why she asked.
Carney: She does know.
1st Reporter: I don’t.
2nd Reporter: She does not know. She just said that she does not know. I don’t know.
Carney: We have long, lets not call on …
2nd Reporter: Tel Aviv or Jerusalem?
Carney: You know the answer to that.
2nd Reporter: I don’t know the answer. We don’t know the answer. Could you just give us an answer? What do you recognize? What does the administration recognize?
Carney: Our position has not changed.
2nd Reporter: What position?
Carney ignored him and moved on to another question. (July 26, 2012)
The Guardian newspaper: Its style sheet actually states that “Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel; Tel Aviv is.” (April 25, 2012)
Hamas appoints female writer as Western media spokesperson
Israa Al-Mudallal, 23, will represent Gazan terror organization to foreign press.
She hoped to speak to Israelis, but Hamas was quick to remind her of ban on Israeli media
Elior Levy Published: Israel News
November 4, 2013
Hamas’s new face: Meet Israa Al-Mudallal, a young 23-year-old journalist and writer, the first to be appointed as the Hamas administration spokesperson to Western media.
Hamas has recently decided they wanted a new figure to present their messages to the world, and Al-Mudallal, who comes from an aristocratic Gazan family and has spent many years in Britain – where she attended London’s Bradford College – won the job. As part of her role, she opened Facebook and Twitter accounts, where she plans to engage her message.
The new spokeswoman has many plans to change the stereotypes affiliated with Gaza, as well as plans to present the regime in Gaza to Israeli media. “I will address Western and Israeli media,” she said in an interview, “and I will work on changing the media discourse, painting a different picture of Palestine and Gaza. The West does not understand religious discourse.”
It may be that Al-Mudallal is unaware that the Hamas administration has ordered to ban all Israeli media and journalists over a year ago, but the discrepancy was apparently amended as she has now aligned with the policy and refused to speak with Ynet.
The appointment of Al-Mudallal is part of a new plan by Gaza’s Hamas government to improve its relations with Western media. “(The appointment) comes within the framework of the development of Palestinian dialogue with the West, in a bid to find foreign language speakers to present the government’s views as well as the Palestinian issue,” said Ihab Al-Ghosein, head of the government’s media relations bureau and Gaza government spokesman.
Al-Mudallal has in recent months worked on a novel, however she fears she will be unable to complete it due to the demands of her new job. “I have a great love for literature – and not for politics. I know I will now lose much of that joy in my life. I will miss it.”
PROVED FAKE: Photo of Palestinian Prisoner Maysara Abu Hamdiya Handcuffed to Bed
April 4, 2013
Some things never change. Today a photo appeared on the internet, passed off as being an image of Maysara Abu Hamdiya, a Palestinian prisoner who died this week in an Israeli prison. Hamdiya suffered from cancer, and the allegation is that he did not receive the medical treatment he needed. The photo shows him handcuffed to a hospital bed and insinuates that he received cruel, inhumane treatment during his prison sentence.
The Israeli Prison Services spokeswoman, Sivan Weizman, explained that the prison had taken all the necessary precautions for Abu Hamdiya’s health, including transferring him to a prison closer to hospital facilities should he need them.
Hamdiya was arrested for his involvement in a terrorist acts in 2002 and passed away this week from effects of cancer.
Written on the image are the words “prisoner, commander and jihadist”, along with a profile picture of Maysara Abu Hamdiya.
The image implies that Abu Hamdiya handcuffed to a hospital bed. In reality, the arm pictured above is a cropped portion of a photo taken in Syria of a hospitalized rebel. The photo was originally published on December 8th, 2012.
Many photos and videos have been manipulated to show Israel in a negative light. This is just another example of the length to which people will go to discredit it.
5. IDF Soldier Stepping on Girl
In February, a photo showing a girl being stepped on by an IDF soldier went viral, sparking outrage online against Israel. First debunked by ElderofZiyon, the photo was in fact part of a 2009 street theater showin Bahrain.
The photo which circulated online
The full picture
4. Mavi Marmara Photo Fraud
The 2010 Mavi Marmara incident, also known as the “Gaza flotilla raid”, sparked much debate over the nature of “non-violent” activism. The flotilla’s passengers claimed to have been completely peaceful; the soldiers claimed to have been lynched. Several months after the incident a Turkish news outlet released photos contradicting the activists’ claims, showing a so-called “non-violent activist” holding a bloodstained knife with a pool of blood–but the photos, when published by Reuters, were suspiciously cropped and omit the weapon.
Original photo published by Hurriyet
Photo published by Reuters
Original photo published by Hurriyet
Photo published by Reuters
3. Raja Abu Shaban
In March, during an escalation of rocket fire from the Gaza Strip, a photo of Raja Abu Shaban, a 3-year-old allegedly killed by an IDF airstrike in Gaza, was circulating on Twitter. The misinformation campaign started when a UN worker, Khulood Badawi, posted the photo and claimed that it was recent – and that the IDF was to blame. It wasn’t true. Sadly, Raja Abu Shaban was killed when she fell off a swing in 2006.
Correction published on August 10th, 2006
The false claims were originally debunked by Avi Mayer and the IDF Blog, with later details added by Honest Reporting. Along with the Raja Abu Shaban photo, other dated photos which were attributed to the fighting also turned out to be false.
2. 2006 Lebanon War Photos
During the Lebanon War in 2006, photos that were manipulated or blatantly staged started flooding international media outlets, giving a twisted perspective of the reality in the field. The most well-known incident was when Adnan Hajj, a freelance journalist employed by Reuters, manipulated the smoke in photos of Beirut in order to falsely imply that Israeli air strikes caused greater damage.
The original photo, and the doctored one, taken by Adnan Hajj, Reuters-employed photojournalist
The photos were originally debunked by the blog Little Green Footballs. Later, bloggers who analyzed other images discovered that more photos were doctored, and Hajj was subsequently fired. Despite this exposure, many other news outlets also published fake photos or misleading captions.
Adnan Hajj’s doctored photos. Areas where Photoshop “clone” tool were used are highlighted (Credit: Lemonodor)
1. Muhammad al-Durrah
One of the most famous images from the last 15 years comes from what is known as the Mohammed al-Durrah incident. Originally filmed by Talal Abu Rahma for France 2 television, the footage allegedly shows that Muhammad al-Durrah, a 12-year-old boy, was killed by IDF fire and died in his father’s arms. The boy became a martyr and a symbol of the Palestinian Intifada.
Screenshot from France 2’s Muhammad al-Durrah footage
The IDF was not to blame. Several sources worldwide debunked the original France 2 footage and suggest that al-Durrah was shot at by Palestinian forces – or that the whole incident was staged. Read more about the investigations and decide for yourself.
New York Times Hits Israel with a One-Two Punch
Camera: Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America
March 19, 2012
The Times landed a sharp one-two punch at Israel in its March 17 coverage. There was correspondent Jodi Rudoren’s front page story rehashing old themes about Jewish housing in eastern Jerusalem allegedly victimizing Arab residents and thwarting peace. Then, in a rambling 8000-word cover story for the Sunday magazine (“Is This Where The Third Intifada Will Start?”), Ben Ehrenreich, who has elsewhere called for an end to the Jewish state because “the problem is Zionism,” waxed poetic about the Palestinian “resisters” from a West Bank town engaged in weekly – and sometimes violent – protests.
Among the featured faces in the cover illustration is the unrepentant terrorist who helped take the life of Malki Roth and other innocents at Jerusalem’s Sbarro Pizzeria in August 2001.
Sunday’s banner day followed other recent, extreme anti-Israel pieces, including a March 9 column by Joseph Levine that argued “one really ought to question Israel’s right to exist…” He claimed it’s “morally problematic” for Jews to inhabit the land of their forefathers. Levine is an active, vocal champion of divestment campaigns against Israel.
A few days later on March 12, former PLO spokesman and current Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, poured invective on the Jewish state in an Op-Ed devoid of balance and factual context, charging Israel with “intransigence,” “colonization,” “subjugation,” “discrimination,” “oppression” and more.
But it was the one-two punch on Sunday that most shocked readers. With Rudoren and Ehrenreich’s articles, The Times gave arguably its two most coveted pieces of real estate over to ideology, in contravention of journalistic ethics that require reporters to provide a full, balanced and accurate depictions of events. These stories are obviously of a piece with the increasingly politicized coverage now proffered by the newspaper.
Dear Editor,Even though Jew hatred rears its ugly head on a daily basis and is ingrained in every level of Arab society, including state-sponsored TV and newspapers, the Washington Post is silent. Then, there is an episode of racism in Israel and the coverage begins [“Soccer racism raises concerns in Israel” 2/12/13]. By depicting one example of Israeli racism while ignoring the pervasive racism in Arab countries, it makes it appear as the norm in Israel, and insignificant in the Arab world, when it is clearly the other way around. I was in Amman Jordan just last year, and you couldn’t walk by a book store without seeing Hitler’s manifesto Mein Kampf prominently displayed (see attached picture).One thing The Washington Post did get right: The behavior by the soccer fans has caused a “national debate” in Israeli society. In Arab countries, however, there is no debate about their racist attitudes toward Jews: it is a national consensus. That is the real news – and the story that The Washington Post missed.Michael Berenhaus
The New York Times Gets Israel Wrong Again
Posted on January 29, 2013 1:44 am
by Elliott Abrams
Just for the record, it is useful to recall The New York Times’s analysis of Israel’s recent election campaign. Here is the prognosis by its chief Jerusalem correspondent, Jodi Rudoren, on the day before the January 22 election.
The headlines from Israel’s 2013 campaign have been about the failure of a fragmented center and left to field a credible challenger to Mr. Netanyahu, and the emergence of an emboldened national-religious party with a hard-line position on the Palestinian conflict. As the Middle East’s most stable democracy turns inward, experts say a growing majority of Israelis have given up on the land-for-peace paradigm that has defined the debate for decades, cementing the country’s shift to the right in politics, policy and public discourse….
Many analysts see the campaign as a watershed on two fronts: the collapse of the center-left and the rise of the national-religious community — also called religious Zionists — mainly through Jewish Home, which advocates annexing the part of the West Bank where most settlers live….
On the right, Naftali Bennett of Jewish Home emerged as the darling of the campaign, attracting voters with his hawkish policies and his persona: he is 40, wears a knitted skullcap, was an officer in an elite army unit and made millions in high-tech before entering politics.
The Times was not alone in making this entirely wrong analysis and prediction, but that’s part of the problem: the Times was simply presenting the mainstream media view. In that view Israel is always turning to the right and is “hawkish,” the center is always collapsing or has entirely collapsed, and we must all deal with a dangerous Israel where democracy is merely “cementing the country’s shift to the right in politics.”
The surprise of this campaign was, of course, the rise of Yair Lapid and his centrist party, whose showing will produce a governing coalition to the Left of the previous one. I am unaware of any follow-up article explaining why the Times got it all wrong, but part of the problem seems to be the media echo chamber: Times correspondents talk to other Times correspondents and to people on the Left who think as they do. I’ve written about this problem before, in this December blog post. The lesson is simple: read the Times’s coverage of Israel carefully to see what such people are thinking, but not to see what is actually going on in Israel.
Gaza Press Freedom Shrivels Amid Journalist Persecution
February 13, 2013
The political division that led to the formation of two almost separate entities in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip urged Palestinian journalists to establish two syndicates that fight over the right to represent the press. One of the syndicates is in the Gaza Strip and includes Hamas and Islamic Jihad journalists, while the other is in the West Bank and includes the journalists of Fatah and the other factions of the PLO.
Since Hamas took over in 2007, Gaza has witnessed a series of violations against Palestinian journalists and media organizations. As a result, a large number of journalists have been arrested, while others have been called in for interrogation. Most media affiliated with the Palestinian Authority and Fatah have been shut down, and their correspondents forbidden from working in Gaza.
With the launch of the reconciliation negotiations between the adversaries in Hamas and Fatah, Hamas allowed the media correspondents based in the West Bank to work again. However, Hamas still bans the distribution of Palestinian dailies Al-Quds, Al-Ayam and Al-Hayat al-Jadida, in response to the Palestinian Authority (PA)’s ban on the distribution of newspapers issued in Gaza in the West Bank, like the Palestine Daily and Al-Resalah, which comes out in the middle of every week.
Salama Maarouf, general manager of the governmental media office in Gaza, describes the freedom of the press in Gaza as being in a much better condition compared to how it was during PA rule. The government has a general inclination to protect the rights of journalists and media organizations, thus providing a relatively free work environment.
Maarouf blamed the occasional abuses against journalists on the miscalculation of some individuals in the Ministry of Interior, not on a philosophy aiming to undermine the freedom of the press. He praised the situation of freedoms in Gaza, compared to the West Bank, where “journalists are condemned due to comments they post on Facebook.”
He added, “Gaza has seen remarkable progress in the freedom of the press and the media and their work, but we still haven’t reached the ideal situation that we aspire to. Yet, compared to the past, there have been very positive developments.”
The security services in Gaza recently arrested a group of journalists, most of whom work on local websites, on the grounds of derailing “the reconciliation environment” through spreading rumors on their websites. The journalists were released later under pressure from civil and rights organizations, although some of them appeared before military courts.
The 2011 report of the Palestinian Center for Development and Media Freedoms (MADA) reported 62 violations against journalists and media organizations in Gaza, as opposed to 53 violations in 2010. The violations ranged from travel and insurance bans to abuse, threats, investigation and interrogation.
Maarouf said, “Some violations committed against journalists were a result of mistakes. We have formed investigation committees to look into the accidents. Following each investigation with the journalist concerned, the results are issued. Recently, a permanent committee between the Ministry of Interior and the governmental media office was formed to solve the problems that might face the media’s work, and its recommendations are binding to the executive sides.”
The Palestinian media are divided into three types: governmental media, media affiliated with or financed by Palestinian factions and independent media, whose finances rely on the weak local economy.
Adel al-Zaanoun, director of Gaza Center for Media Freedom and correspondent for AFP, pointed out that the abuses of the media are more a result of the prevalent culture in society than of a public governmental policy.
He said, “The declared slogans and politics and the laws, weak as they are, encourage the freedom of the media. However, their effective application is different from the politicians’ declared views. To achieve change, the general performance and culture of the various official organizations must be developed.”
Zaanoun dismissed the idea of direct censorship from the government in Gaza on the media and the journalists. However, personal censorship, which has increased throughout the years, limits the freedom of journalists in tackling topics boldly and presenting them intensely.
The Ministry of Interior and the governmental media office have been imposing, for the past year and a half, prior entry permits on non-Palestinian foreign journalists willing to come to Gaza. The permits must be shown at the registration offices on the only two crossings for individuals, Erez and Rafah.
Maarouf justified the decision to require prior permits for foreign journalists, contrary to the practices of the past years, by saying that “this is a governmental, political and sovereign decision, and it affects all non-Palestinians willing to enter the Strip, not only journalists. The procedures of journalist entry are considered among the easiest, since they get done within 24 hours at most. In urgent cases, the procedure only takes a couple of hours.”
There are no accurate statistics for the number of journalists working in Gaza Strip. However, local estimates indicate that around 2,000 journalists work in local, Arab and foreign media there. Two TV channels broadcast from the Gaza Strip, while 15 local stations diffuse their material over short wavelengths. Three periodic newspapers are issued, in addition to an unknown number of news websites.
The abuses against journalists are linked to the political incidents in Gaza under the weak but applicable Palestinian Press and Publications Law of 1995, which was established to keep up with the rapid media evolution. Another factor harboring the justification of most abuses is the political division and its exploitation for that purpose, depending on the political affiliations of journalists.
Hazem Balousha is a Palestinian journalist based in Gaza City. He has worked as news producer for BBC World Service, as well as contributed to The Guardian (UK), Deutsche Welle (Germany), Al-Raya (Qatar) and many other publications, and covered serious events such as the internal conflict between Fatah and Hamas in 2007, and the Israeli Cast Lead war on Gaza 2008-2009. Hazem is also the founder of the Palestinian Institute for Communication and Development (PICD).
“al Dura Affair”
The findings in the Muhammad al Dura affair, in particular the investigation of the German television channel ARD, raise great doubt over the reliability of claims of the
television station FRANCE 2 as aired on September 30, 2000, according to which the child was hit and killed by gunfire coming from the IDF position at Netzarim Junction towards him and towards his father Jamal. It is noted that since the event, the methods by which the Palestinians have created and
directed media events to serve propaganda purposes have been exposed. Even the reporter who reported the incident admits in the film that he is aware that this is Palestinian policy. Specifically, recall the propaganda of horror that attributed to Israel an onexistent “massacre” in Jenin, and another event in which a “corpse” fell from its stretcher and started walking. In light of all this, we should expect the international media to examine reports like these carefully, and refrain from publishing information containing unproven allegations. It should be emphasized, in this context, that over the years the al Dura affair was used as a pretext for fanning hatred, antisemitism and incitement for attacks on Israelis. 2. In any case, today it is clear that it was not right to impose on the IDF and the State of Israel responsibility for the Muhammad Al Dura episode. The findings refute the allegations hurled at the Israeli side at the time, claims which did not receive a thorough examination at the time by the international media, led by the television station FRANCE. 3. The fact is, despite the dozens of photographers who were there, there is no additional evidence, photographic or otherwise, of Israeli shots at Jamal or Mohammad al Dura, and
the circumstances of the shooting (distance, angle, field signs) indicate that the shooting at the father and his son did not come from the Israeli position.
4. As we remember, the event was thoroughly investigated at the time by the IDF. Following the investigation of the incident, which included firing line tests, ballistic tests, analysis of event documentation, etc., it was impossible to unequivocally identify the person that hit the boy. Already there began to be substantial doubt that the boy was injured by IDF fire, and a likely possibility arose that he was actually hit by the fierce Palestinian firing that was shot at the same time from multiple sources, some of which were close to the location of the child and his father.
The al Durah Hoax
Karsenty vs. Enderlin: Baker vs. rekaB Street in action
January 17, 2013
Yesterday was the sixth hearing in the saga of France 2 and Charles Enderlin suing Philippe Karsenty for defamation in the French courts. In some senses it was something of an anti-climax. In others it was an amazing example of the clash between Baker and rekaB Streets. Indeed, the Société des journalistes (SNJ) and SNJ de France Télévisions both called on members to show their support for Enderlin, who was valiantly defending himself against Karsenty’s legal aggression, when in fact it is Enderlin and France2 who are using the courts to bully Karsenty into silence. Shades of Tuvia Grossman: we know who the aggressor must be, so we’re rallying around our wounded David, even when he’s a embarrassingly dim Goliath.
Karsenty went in loaded for bear, with a mock-up reconstruction of the site at Netzarim, and an extensive PPP full of videos. He went through all the evidence, starting with an very nice series of illustrations using the rushes to show how France2/Enderlin consistently use clearly staged footage as “news.” He then went through the entire dossier concerning the actual al Durah footage. At times it seemeda bit too exhaustive, and the judges seemed irritated by the PPP, but the arguments were excellent, and reflected a forensic mind that engages in identifying clues, and deriving conclusions from an analysis of the evidence.
Enderlin, on the other hand, seemed either completely out of his depth, or just supremely unconcerned. He did nothing but repeat things he’s said (and written) a thousand times, and when it was France2’s chance to respond to Karsenty, he sat passively while his lawyer showed five clips, four of which were just unedited replays of France2 news broadcasts on the matter (including totally irrelevant news about the tunnel under Mont Blanc and the Olympics in Sydney). It was as if they believed that in merely restating themselves, they proved themselves right. After Karsenty’s presentation, however, it was a stunning display of rekaB Street: the very scenes he had deconstructed as fakes, they were again playing as real. Even the judges seemed amused. The grand finale was Jamal al Durah showing his wounds just after Karsenty had showed that the wounds were not from the event (later confirmed by the medical forensic expert).
Enderlin seemed completely alone. He and his lawyer, Maitre Amblard, chic and shallow as ever, were alone at the dock (not even Guillaume Clement-Weill), no one from France2, whose new CEO was questioned about the al Durah affair by a senator at the time of his confirmation, and has, apparently decided to let Enderlin carry this one alone. Indeed, when France2’s “side” tried to show the videos, there was a technical fiasco which took 20 minutes to resolve (Karsenty even offered to show the footage they were having trouble with), trying the patience of the judges, before then trying their intelligence with meaningless material. Even Enderlin, in a passing glimmer of intelligence, seemed bored with his own side’s argument.
For those of us familiar with the material, it seemed like a rout. I even had a momentary flash of sympathy for how pathetic Enderlin was. In any serious court of informed and intelligent judgment, this was a romp: Karsenty sliced France2 to pieces, and France2 responded by putting the severed pieces back up on the screen as if they were whole.
But that means nothing in terms of the verdict. For the first time, the “Avocat generale” who speaks for the Parquet was critical of Karsenty, and chided him for his lack of prudence in criticizing Enderlin, emphasizing that the court was not here to decide the historical questions (i.e., what happened), but the question of Karsenty’s good faith (it being uncontested that his criticism of Enderlin was defamation of his honor). Given how – at least in the words of some major figures in the Jewish community – French justice is “politicized,” how much the whole establishment – media, politicians, judges – is locked up (verouillé), it’s perfectly possible that on April 3, the judges will decide in favor of the plaintiff, France2.
But that would just mean that one more court has planted its flag firmly on rekaB Street, and that the victims, in addition to Karsenty, will be the fabric of civil society in France, where citizens cannot criticize a rogue press lest it harm their unearned reputation.
Here is a precise report of what happened at the courtroom:
Al-Dura: French Court (Re-)Considers Philippe Karsenty’s Fate
Introduction to the next video clip by Daniel Pipes:
I appeared on “Press TV,” the Iranian-government’s English-language television channel on a show someone with a sense of humor called “News Analysis.” The 25-minute show was the most hare-brained and loony of my 35 years going on television.
The ostensible topic was the just-signed US$633-billion “National Defense Authorization Act” and specifically its section 1248, “Impositions of Sanctions with Respect to the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting” i.e., sanctions on Press TV itself.
In fact, thanks to the selection as fellow panelists of two left-wing conspiracy theorists, Kevin Barrett and Joe Iosbaker, the show barely touched on anything so mundane as NDAA section 1248. Instead, the audience was treated to such tidbits as 9/11 having been a “pro-Israel coup d’état” and the U.S. government running torture chambers all over the world. Indeed, viewers would have heard me accused of being a torturer.
Watch it for a trip to the fringe.
Although not good for my dignity, I appear on channels like Press TV because they provide an opportunity to reach those who normally would not hear me. I tend to think they are worth the trouble.
Study Indicts New York Times for Anti-Israel Bias
Ricki Hollander On January 21, 2013
New York Times journalists are extremely protective of their newspaper’s reputation as the “paper of record.” So when faced with criticism of their reporting or accusations of journalistic bias, they tend to reject it, discrediting their critics as insignificant right-wingers.
Last year, for example, former New York Times correspondent Neil Lewis wrote a lengthy piece for the Columbia Journalism Review on “The Times and the Jews,” discounting criticism of the newspaper’s Palestinian-Israeli coverage as “ill-founded,” “toxic” and “based on misunderstandings of journalism.” He marginalized the critics as likely to come from a small group of Orthodox Jews who support Israeli right-wing policies condemned by the majority of American supporters of Israel. Such critics, he insisted, “can easily find what seem to them errors in emphasis or tone on any individual article.” But any fair analysis should view coverage “as part of a larger thematic narrative.”
Well, the results of just that sort of fair analysis were recently released by the Committee for Accuracy in Middle Eastern Reporting in America (CAMERA). And they provide detailed evidence that exposes the newspaper’s biased coverage and disproves Lewis’ dismissive arguments.
CAMERA is a media-monitoring organization whose 65,000 members represent a wide cross-section of the American public — Jews and non-Jews, secular and orthodox, liberal and conservative — motivated by the desire to see accurate and balanced coverage of Israel and the Middle East. The study , “Indicting Israel: New York Times Coverage of the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict,” empirically examines coverage over an extended period of time, July 1-Dec. 31, 2011, and finds a “larger thematic narrative” of continued, embedded indictment of Israel that pervades both the news and commentary sections of the newspaper.
On the news pages, where readers expect objective and balanced reporting, criticism of Israel was cited more than twice as often as criticism of the Palestinians. The Palestinian perspective on the peace process was laid out nearly twice as often as the Israeli perspective. Vandalism by a fringe Israeli group and IDF military defensive strikes were emphasized in numerous articles, often with headlines highlighting Israeli actions, while Palestinian aggression and incitement was downplayed or ignored. Israel’s blockade of Gaza was usually mentioned without context. And Israel’s resort to force aboard a Turkish ship attempting to break the blockade was frequently discussed and faulted without referencing the precipitating attacks on Israeli soldiers by pro- Palestinian activists.
The theme of faulting Israel was amplified on the editorial and op-ed pages to one of Israel as a malignant force in the region. Despite the newspaper’s purported commitment to expose a diversity of opinions, three quarters of all opinion pieces on the conflict were devoted to denouncing Israel’s leaders or policies, while none were devoted to condemning Palestinians. Even Israel’s tolerance toward gays was condemned as a ploy to support human rights abuses against Palestinians.
Consider the following: When a group of Israeli teenagers were arrested in August 2012 for beating an Arab youth unconscious, The New York Times ran two separate front-page, above-fold articles about it. Both articles focused on the negative features of Israeli society that the incident was said to reveal.
Contrast that with the Times’ coverage, 17 months earlier, of an assault by Palestinian teenagers on an Israeli family. The victims, including three young children, were brutally slaughtered in a bloody attack that included slitting the throat of a 3-month old as she lay asleep in her crib. The New York Times chose not to cover that gruesome event on the front page, nor to comment on what the incident reveals about Palestinian society and the pernicious effects of incitement to kill Israelis by the Palestinian leadership.
The above incidents occurred outside CAMERA’s study period but provide a cogent example of how the Times adjusts its focus to reflect a concept of newsworthiness that is shaped by its institutionalized worldview.
It follows a long history of similar distortions, dating back to the1930′s when The New York Times downplayed the Nazi persecution, and later, genocide of European Jews in order to avoid being seen as a “Jewish” newspaper.
While the guard and motives at the Times may have changed, the framing of news events has not. According to the former ombudsman, Arthur Brisbane, the current worldview at The New York Times is one of “political and cultural progressivism” that causes some topics to be treated “more like causes than news subjects.”
CAMERA’s study provides objective documentation that demonstrates exactly how The New York Times’ abandoned journalistic standards to turn coverage of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict into the supposedly “progressive” cause of indicting Israel.
Article printed from PJ Media: http://pjmedia.com
Palestinian Authority Antisemitism
Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik
PA TV on Jews:
“Europe could not bear their character traits… corruption”
Balfour Declaration was “ideal solution to get rid of them”
On International Holocaust Day, Palestinian Media Watch documents that messages
of Antisemitism and hatred of Jews continue to be transmitted by official Palestinian
Earlier this month, on Fatah’s 48th anniversary, PA TV broadcast a new film about
the history of the Fatah movement: “Fatah: Revolution until Victory.” The filmmakers
chose to open the film by expressing classic Antisemitic demonization of Jews, stating
that Europe “suffered a tragedy by providing refuge for the Jews.” Having Jews living
among them placed a great burden on Europeans:
“Faced with the Jews’ schemes, Europe could not bear their character traits, monopolies,
corruption, and their control and climbing up positions in government.”
Click to view [http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=488&fld_id=494&doc_id=8466]
Palestinian Media Watch [http://www.palwatch.org] has documented that the PA for
years has explained Zionism as a European plot to be rid of its Jews [http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=487#491].
The film explains that this eventually led to the expulsion of the Jews from England,
France, Germany, Austria, Holland, Czechoslovakia, Spain and Italy, because of European
suffering from the Jews’ presence. Finally, when the Balfour Declaration facilitated
the establishment of “a national homeland” for the Jews, Europe supported it because
it “saw it as an ideal solution to get rid of them.”
PMW documents PA Holocaust libels and misappropriation
PMW also documents PA’s ongoing Antisemitism and demonization of Jews
The following is the excerpt of the PA TV broadcast on Fatah that demonized Jews:
“Faced with the Jews’ schemes, Europe could not bear their character traits, monopolies,
corruption, and their control and climbing up positions in government. In 1290,
King Edward I issued a decree banishing the Jews [from England]. Following him were
France, Germany, Austria, Holland, Czechoslovakia, Spain and Italy. The European
nations felt that they had suffered a tragedy by providing refuge for the Jews.
Later the Jews obtained the Balfour Declaration, and Europe saw it as an ideal
solution to get rid of them.”
[PA TV, Jan. 1, 2013]
Venomous Antisemitism published by Palestinian Ma’an News Agency
funded by Danish, Dutch and UK governments
and the EU, UNDP, and UNESCO
by Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik
Jan. 30, 2012
“[The Jews] feel inferior to the nations and societies in which they live, because of the hostility and evil rising in their hearts towards others and for their plots and schemes against the nations who know with certainty that the Jews are the root of conflict in the world, wherever they reside.”
“[Jews are] outcasts in every corner of the earth, and not one nation in the world respects them… but Allah’s curse upon them and his fury at them cause them to
continue with their transgression.” “Allah has stricken fear in their hearts and decreed humiliation and degradation upon them until Judgment Day”
An article published by the independent and European funded Palestinian Ma’an News Agency (MNA) confirms that classic Antisemitic ideologies continue to exist among
Palestinians. The article written by Sawsan Najib Abd Al-Halim appears on Ma’an’s website, and describes Jews as: “the root of conflict in the world,” cursed by Allah, and “outcasts in every corner of the earth.”
Palestinian Media Watch [http://www.palwatch.org/] has documented that demonization of Jews [http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=757] and Israelis has been an integral part of PA ideology for years.
The Ma’an article further explains that Jews are hostile, evil, and brutal, plotting and scheming, and that “Allah has decreed” that Jews are destined to be “humiliated.”
Ma’an News Agency, “an integral part of Ma’an Network,” “was launched with generous funding from the Danish Representative Office to the Palestinian Authority”.
Some of Ma’an Network’s donors: The European Commission, UNDP, UNESCO, the Government of Denmark, the Government of the Netherlands and UKaid. [http://www.maannet.org]
(PA) and the Netherlands Representative Office to the PA,” the agency’s website states. Some of the donors with whom Ma’an Network partners are The European Commission (the EU), UNDP, UNESCO, the Government of Denmark, the Government of the Netherlands, UKaid.
“Undeterred in its mission to convey the truth” says a slogan among several on Ma’an Network’s website. The Antisemitic article on Ma’an’s website expresses contempt for Jews, defining them as “sons of death”, “too cowardly to confront an enemy face to face” and “seized by fear and trembling” if “their fortresses” are breached, and describes how “their hearts fill with horror” if “a missile falls” or “a bullet passes over them.”
This is because:
“Allah has stricken fear in their hearts and decreed humiliation and degradation upon them until Judgment Day.”
Jews “cause strife, and scheme everywhere they settle,” the article claims, and therefore “they have been outcasts in every corner of the earth, and not one nation in the world respects them.” As a result, “the lives of Jews have always been war and fighting.”
However, “because of the hostility and evil rising in their hearts towards others and for their plots and schemes against the nations,” the Jews “have been defeated through the ages and feel inferior to the nations and societies in which they live,” the writer explains. These nations, the writer asserts, “know with certainty that the Jews are the root of conflict in the world, wherever they reside.”
The Ma’an article concludes with Fatah’s slogan: “Revolution until victory”.
Ma’an’s editors did not dissociate themselves from the contents of this Antisemitic article in any way. The article only appeared on Ma’an’s Arabic website and not on its English site. The article was posted on November 18, 2012 and still appears there as of the PMW publication on January 29, 2013.
PMW reported on Antisemitic content [http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=8465]
in a recent film about Fatah broadcast by PA TV.
The following is part of the Antisemitic article on Ma’an’s website (emphasis added):
“Israel is Trembling”
Sawsan Najib Abd Al-Halim
“We’re used to seeing vampires in Dracula movies, where the murderer and the vampire act in the dead of night, and as soon as dawn breaks, the murderer disappears and hides during the day. The brave warrior, who at the very least has moral values, fights in the daytime. In all wars, in all eras, honorable nations conducted their battles during the day and slept at night. But has Israel even a trace of morality? A brave warrior is proud when he confronts another [warrior] as brave as he, and the more he is struck, the stronger he grows, proud in his struggle and respectful of his adversary. But since Jews are – as our grandparents said of them – sons of death (expression of contempt, meaning ‘a coward,’ -Ed.), they are too cowardly to confront an enemy face to face, especially if their enemy is as well armed as they…
Jews think that their fortresses will protect them from death, but any breach of these fortresses or protective walls instills panic and fear in their hearts, and
they are seized by fear and trembling. If a missile falls beyond their protective walls or if even a bullet passes over them, you can see how their hearts fill with
horror – and this is because Allah has stricken fear in their hearts and decreed humiliation and degradation upon them until Judgment Day…
Historically, it is known that the lives of Jews have always been war and fighting. The only reason for this is that they have been outcasts in every corner of the
earth, and not one nation in the world respects them, for they cause strife, and scheme everywhere they settle. We know that they have been defeated in every war they have fought throughout history, and they have been dispersed in every direction, but Allah’s curse upon them and his fury at them cause them to continue with their transgression and tyranny.
A coward acts brutally when he can, but runs for cover humiliated, when he faces anyone who is his equal. Our fathers told us of one Palestinian before 1948 who was holding a stick while walking the streets of Tel Aviv, and he drove away scores of cowardly Jews…
Psychologically, they have been defeated through the ages and feel inferior to the nations and societies in which they live, because of the hostility and evil rising in their hearts towards others and for their plots and schemes against the nations who know with certainty that the Jews are the root of conflict in the world, wherever they reside.
Jews think that every shout is against them, and what better proof is there than the slogan they voiced to the world – which is ‘Antisemitism.’
Therefore, the only way we can deal with them, when we are weak militarily compared to Israel’s power, is to stick to the threat to annihilate Israel, not to submit to its [Israel’s] desire for a cease fire, and keep the flame of resistance burning.Rather than [violently] resist and then back off somewhat, whereby we give them the impression that we are afraid of them. There is nothing wrong with our sitting with them to talk, but the resistance must always continue. Late President Yasser Arafat, peace be upon him, understood the Jews’ weakness, so he showed them the face of peace in negotiations, and at the same time raised the slogan ‘Every day a settler.’ This is the slogan that terrorized the Jews, and which many Palestinians have forgotten. They may have forgotten why the comrade-fighter Marwan Barghouti was arrested. Wasn’t it because he was the one given the job to fulfill this slogan? (Marwan Barghouti is serving 5 life sentences for orchestrating terror attacks against Israeli civilians.)
Let us again be united in the message against the Jews and turn the weapons against them. Every time the guns and stones are directed at the Jews, they become angry, seized by fear, their brutality increases and our sacrificing increases more and more. Jews know that the more their brutality increases, so our resolve and defiance are strengthened against them, until Allah will strike terror in their hearts and they will be driven away from our land humiliated. This is revolution until victory.”
[Ma’an News Agency’s website, posted Nov. 18, 2012, accessed Jan. 29, 2012]