Know Thine Enemy by Dr. Mordechai Kedar

The chief means that the Emir of Qatar uses to influence matters in the Middle East is the al-Jazeera channel, the channel responsible for overthrowing the rulers of the Arab world one after another by means of incitement that it has been conducting against them ever since it began broadcasting, toward the end of 1996. ... A central component of the message of the Emir of Qatar and al-Jazeera is that the state of Israel is an illegitimate entity and must be fought with all means available to the Islamic world, mainly by spreading the message that the state of Israel is an illegitimate state that was established by a criminal act and all of its deeds are sin and iniquity.

Dr. Mordechai Kedar..
Mordechai Kedar in English..
31 May '13..

The Emirate of Qatar is located on the shore of the Persian Gulf, and lives on top of a large gas well. The tremendous amount of money that flows into this country has enriched its two hundred thousand citizens incredibly: they do not pay taxes, they enjoy free educational and health services and laugh all the way to the bank. The money enables them not only to purchase anything they want, but also to have a dramatic influence on the Middle East. As a result of this, the ruler of Qatar has become the most influential person in the Arab World, and he is an active partner in significant international processes.

The chief means that the Emir of Qatar uses to influence matters in the Middle East is the al-Jazeera channel, the channel responsible for overthrowing the rulers of the Arab world one after another by means of incitement that it has been conducting against them ever since it began broadcasting, toward the end of 1996. Using this channel, the ruler of Qatar disseminates the doctrine of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is destined- according to his view - to replace all of the secular ideologies (nationalism, socialism, liberalism) that have penetrated into the Islamic world. A central component of the message of the Emir of Qatar and al-Jazeera is that the state of Israel is an illegitimate entity and must be fought with all means available to the Islamic world, mainly by spreading the message that the state of Israel is an illegitimate state that was established by a criminal act and all of its deeds are sin and iniquity.

Al-Jazeera implements all of the principles of taqiyya - deception, or misrepresentation - in order to seem like a fair and balanced station, a station that calls for democracy, individual rights, minority rights and women's rights, but this whole spectacle - produced with attractive and captivating computer graphics - is meant to advance the agenda of the Emir of Qatar: to amass power, to advance the political Islamic movement, to destroy Israel and to minimize as much as possible the influence of the United States in the world. Using taqiyya, the Emir of Qatar organizes international meetings and conferences that are meant to present a picture that is the opposite of his real agenda.

A month and a half ago I presented here my weekly article entitled "The Islamic Winter Blows into Jerusalem" in which I described the steps that the Emir of Qatar is taking in order to uproot Jerusalem from Israel. I noted there, the incredible sums that Qatar has allocated for the matter, about a half billion dollars from a fund of a billion dollars, and the various ways that money can be used to promote the unholy goals of the Emir of Qatar.

And the money indeed is beginning to have an effect: this week the al-Jazeera channel published in a news item entitled (my comments are in parenthesis, M.K.): "The Campaign in Qatar to Support the Perseverance of the People of Jerusalem (the Muslims, against Israel's attempts to take control of the city, M.K.) " "Ninety prizes were awarded to the public who answered the questions about al-Aqsa (mosque, M.K.)". In this report, under the subtitle "Whoever has donated to it is as if he had prayed in it" (a quote from the Hadith, M.K); yesterday in Doha (the capital of Qatar, M.K.), the Qatari Red Crescent organized an event in support of the al-Aqsa Mosque to collect donations for the projects dealing with health and education in the blessed city and to help its residents to stand steadfast against expulsion and Judaization. As part of the operation, lectures and competitions were organized relating to the situation of al-Quds, its history and its importance for the caliphs of Islam since the days of Umr ibn al-Khattab (the second caliph, who conquered Jerusalem in the year 638 CE from the Byzantines, M.K.) until the Ottoman period.

In the event that was held in coordination with the association of the "Youth for al-Quds", ninety prizes were awarded to members of the audience who answered the questions about the al-Aqsa Mosque and praises relating to praying within it, its spires and its gates. The Islamic propagandist Dr. Wajdi Ghuneim gave a lecture in which he clarified that supporting al-Aqsa with one's money and time is "a very valuable sort of jihad". Ghuneim pointed out that al-Aqsa has a very important place in Islam and it must remain etched in the memory of society because it is the place from which the honorable prophet was transported at night, it is the third most important mosque and it lies on the ground where the dead will gather before Judgement Day and from where they will arise for judgement. Ghuneim urged the public to invest everything that is dear to them in al-Aqsa and not despair of liberating it, "because victory is with those who fight for Bayt al-Maqdis (the classical name of Jerusalem, M.K.) and the surrounding area, "and G-d sustains his light even if the infidels hate it" (Qur'an, Sura 61, Verse 8).

The head of the board of directors of the Red Crescent of Qatar, Dr. Mohamed bin Ghanem al-Ali al-Ma'adid, exhorted the public to donate to al-Aqsa and to the residents of Bayt al-Maqdis, who "suffer from the most terrible oppression and upon whom many restrictive measures are used in order to force them to leave. Al-Ma'adid took care to say that the operation offers important support and that it can help al-Aqsa and its people to cope with the plans to erase (the Islamic identity, M.K.) and Judaize (Jerusalem, according to the plot of, M.K.) the thieving entity (the term meaning Israel for those who won't even say its name, M.K.).

(Video) Dr. Mordechai Kedar comments concerning Al Jazeera

LOTL..
26 May '13..
H/T Israel Unseen..


Dr. Mordechai Kedar, as usual very sharp, very witty, with his thoughts concerning the Al Jazeera news network. Dr. Kedar of course has been no stranger to being interviewed by Al Jazeera, and his 2008 interview about Jerusalem & Islam has become somewhat of a Youtube classic.


ICWV International Center for Western Values  Posted 14 May '13

For those who are interested, many of Dr. Kedar's best pieces are now available at Mordechai Kedar in English, the page both managed and ably translated by Sally Zahav. Enjoy!

Dr. Mordechai Kedar (Mordechai.Kedar@biu.ac.il) is an Israeli scholar of Arabic and Islam, a lecturer at Bar-Ilan University and the director of the Center for the Study of the Middle East and Islam (under formation), Bar Ilan University, Israel. He specializes in Islamic ideology and movements, the political discourse of Arab countries, the Arabic mass media, and the Syrian domestic arena.

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook.

.

P.S. to ‘Palestine Papers’: Guardian grossly misrepresented so-called Palestinian “concessions”

Israelinurse
CiF Watch
27 March '11

The renowned Israeli journalist Ben-Dror Yemini of Ma’ariv has an interesting post on his blog which can be filed under the category ‘post script to the ‘Palestine Papers’. It speaks for itself, so allow me merely to translate (from the original Hebrew) the relevant portions.

“The terror attack in Jerusalem, like the firing of the rockets from the (Gaza) Strip, returns us to the firm ground of reality. This is a reality in which there are growing signs of a compromise between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. The events of the past two weeks clarify that the Palestinian front is returning to its old defining characteristics.”


“For a moment we lived with the illusion that something was happening, and maybe in the other direction. As recently as this last January, Al Jazeera and The Guardian came out with loud pronouncements concerning the most meaningful step in Palestinian history: the relinquishment of the right of return. The change, I then wrote, was most welcome. Except that this was a short-lived illusion. This is not merely due to the reality of rockets upon Ashkelon and Ashdod, the massacre in Itamar and the terror attack in Jerusalem. The story runs deeper.”

(Read full "Post Script to ‘Palestine Papers’..)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Al Jazeera tries to get into US

Elder of Ziyon
08 February '11

From the Huffington Post, by Wadah Khanfar, director general of Al Jazeera:

This has been an unprecedented month in Al Jazeera history. Transformational events in the Middle East have brought enormous demand for news about the region.

As director general of the region's largest TV network, I am proud to say Al Jazeera Network has been reporting from the region's hot spots well before they "mattered" in January 2011. From Sudan to Tunisia to Palestine to Egypt, our trademark "journalism of depth" has been on display for all who are able and care to see. ...

[I]n the United States, Al Jazeera faces a different kind of blackout, based largely on misinformed views about our content and journalism. Some of the largest American cable and satellite providers have instituted corporate obstacles against Al Jazeera English. We are on the air and on the major cable system in the nation's capital, and some of America's leading policymakers in Washington, D.C., have told me that Al-Jazeera English is their channel of choice for understanding global issues. But we are not available in the majority of the 50 states for much of the general public.

We believe all Americans, not just those in senior governmental positions, could benefit from having the option to watch Al-Jazeera English -- or not to watch us -- on their television screens.

What kind of American would be against freedom of expression? How can cable companies be so heartless?

But wait...he has another example of Al Jazeera's excellence in journalism:

(Read full "Al Jazeera tries to get into US")

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Egypt's Two Sets of Books

Tuvia Tenenbom
Hudson New York
07 February '11

http://www.hudson-ny.org/1864/egypt-two-sets-of-books

You must admit that Western journalists are smart. Just read what they write, or watch them on TV. They explain everything: It was only due to the ever increasing cost of ink, and the ever shrinking space of airtime, forever taken up by the life-saving commercials, that not a single of one them ever mentioned that a spontaneous uprising, locally known as an Intifada, was about to start up in late January, 2011.

The same applies to our Western leaders. Take our own "Let me be clear" President. He knows exactly what should be done, and this is why he constantly changes his mind. He presides over a country that gives billions to Egypt, because it is such a great country, but he wants this same country to change at once because it is such a bad country. Let me be clear: there is no contradiction at all here between the two. He also says he believes that America should not get involved in anybody else's business, and this is why he does not stop getting involved. No contradiction here either.

Other Western leaders agree with him. They say they believe that Egypt can be transformed into a democracy in just about 24 hours. How do they know? They read it in the papers. Yes, if you happened to read the Washington Post or The New York Times recently, you would have noticed that our government followed what the papers recommended within hours. The papers said to be tougher on Mubarak, the White House immediately followed – Great! Shows the power of democracy. It takes less than one day after an opinion is published for it to become government policy. We must export this wisdom overseas. Egypt should become democratic -- Today.

No, do not fear that the Muslim Brotherhood, or some other extremists, would take hold in Egypt. It will never happen. How do we know? The papers say so. Well, perhaps it did happen to the Palestinians and the Algerians: they held elections and the extremists won. But perhaps that is not really not happened; perhaps it just looked as if it did. Look at Turkey, what great democrat we have there: Erdogan. Soon women in Turkey will be allowed to wear the Burkah. Everywhere. Isn't this proof of democracy? You bet. How do you know? You read it in the papers -- Western papers and Western websites, by Western journalists; some of the best of them. How do they know? They wrote it.

If I write that Islamic societies are at the core completely secular, and that The Muslim Brotherhood, contrary to what people think, is a secular institution, this makes it true. How do I know? I just wrote it. Isn't Democracy great?

But imagine the day this brand of Democracy comes to Egypt, and the writers they follow are those of Al-Jazeera.

Here is what was in Al-Jazeera in Arabic yesterday:

Palestine Papers: PA says "refugees" must be resettled in Arab states

Elder of Ziyon
04 February '11






I found where Al Jazeera put all of the "Palestine Papers" and, in response to the Guardian's absurd assertion that they have already published everything that is newsworthy, here is exhibit A showing otherwise:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On July 2, 2008, the PA produced a "talking points" memo about how the so-called "refugee" problem would ultimately be solved. Presumably this was meant to be used in negotiations with the US and Israel. But by its nature, it is not an off-the-cuff comment of negotiators floating trial balloons to the other side, but an official (if unpublished) position of the PA.

First of all, the PA makes it very clear that they do not want to be the place that some 7 million "refugees" will move to live:

The viability of the future Palestinian State is closely linked to the evolution of the Palestinian population that will live within the future State’s borders. In this regard, the terms of a settlement of the Palestinian refugee issue and the number of Palestinian refugees who will be offered to resettle or return to the future State of Palestine is a core parameter required to assess the viability of that State.

The resettlement/return of refugee communities touches numerous issues such as housing availabilities, access to water, education and social services, employment opportunities, infrastructure, environment etc. The ability of the Palestinian State to meet refugee needs and ensure an efficient functioning of these services will ultimately determine its viability.

Unlike Israel in 1948, which opened its doors to Jews all over the world even though it was severely restricted in resources and cash, the PA is not going to start an open-door policy. In other words, they don't seem to care nearly as much about their fellow "Palestinians" living in stateless misery as Israel does about Jews.

While the PA will still insist on the theoretical "right to return," it recognizes realistically that other Arab states are going to have to offer citizenship:

(Read full "Palestine Papers: PA says "refugees" must be resettled in Arab states")

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Al-Jazeera ‘disclosures’

Isi Leibler
Candidly Speaking from Jerusalem
28 January '11
Posted before Shabbat

http://wordfromjerusalem.com/?p=2782

If ever there was a need to provide irrefutable evidence of the extent to which all parties involved in the Arab Israeli conflict are living in Alice in Wonderland, this was demonstrated by the Al-Jazeera “disclosures” of the negotiations that allegedly took place between the PA leaders and the then Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni.

It resulted in a massive global media campaign by anti-Israeli groups to distort and spin these reports in order to portray Israel as being intransigent in the face of major concessions offered by the Palestinians. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Most of the parties involved have egg on their faces.

That the major settlement blocs - Ariel, Maale Adumim and Gush Etzion - would remain under Israel sovereignty had already been mooted in the Clinton parameters and conveyed to Yasser Arafat at the Camp David summit in July 2000. It was reaffirmed by President Bush in his April 2004 letter to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon relating to the need to take account of demographic changes when finalizing the borders. The Israeli consensus, as ratified by all Israeli governments, including the Olmert government reflected this.

So Tzipi Livni was justifiably surprised when in the course of the private negotiations, the Palestinians demanded that Maale Adumim, Ariel and Efrat remain under Palestinian sovereignty. Even US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had told the Palestinians that if they persisted in demanding the dismantling of Maale Adumim and Ariel they would never achieve statehood. That Livni felt obliged to consult her advisers instead of outrightly rejecting the suggestion that Maale Adumim be retained with its 30,000 residents under Palestinian sovereignty will disturb many Israelis.

Livni is also quoted as having made other remarks that will not go down well with her Israeli constituents. She is alleged to even have reviewed pretexts for enabling terrorists to be released with the Palestinians. On another occasion she needlessly opined that “we’re giving up the Golan”.

The reality is that many of the concessions offered to the Palestinians by Olmert and Livni would probably not have been endorsed by the Israeli public. These included failing to insist on maintaining defensible borders and offering to share jurisdiction of the Temple Mount with other governments, including Saudi Arabia. Yet even these offers which were included in a package handing Palestinians 93.7% of territory over the green line, were rebuffed by the Palestinians.

The Palestinians also refused to recognize Israel as a Jewish state and when Livni asked Saeb Erekat how he would provide security for Israelis living in a Palestinian state, he responded “Can you imagine that I have changed my DNA and accepted a situation in which Jews become citizens having the rights that I and my wife have?”

Israelis were not the slightest surprised by these “disclosures” which were basically in synch with previous published unconfirmed Israeli media reports of what had taken place. In fact, most of the purported “concessions” from the Palestinians represented long standing Israeli positions that had already been taken as givens by the US and other Western powers.

The one major breakthrough was the verbal admission by Mahmoud Abbas that for the Jewish state to accept “five million or even one million refugees would mean the end of Israel”. But once this was disclosed to the Arab public, it led to charges of high treason being leveled against the PA leadership who subsequently adamantly denied that they would ever contemplate compromising the “sacred” right of all Palestinians to return to Israel.

Indeed the release of the Al-Jazeera documents led to hysterical rage amongst Palestinians who accused their leaders of betrayal. The documents allege that the PA had been informed in advance concerning Operation Cast Lead in Gaza and that they had colluded with Israeli security forces, as Saeb Erekat is quoted, “to kill our own people”. The disclosure of these allegations enraged the Palestinians who accused their leaders of betraying them. In response, Saeb Erekat claimed that the Al-Jazeera leaks were false, had been engineered by Palestinians associated with the CIA and British intelligence, and endangered his life.

Of course the absurdity of these “concessions” is that they directly contradict every public statement expressed by the PA in relation to these issues.

It is totally legitimate for diplomats to deal with controversial issues in camera. However to pay lip service to negotiating peace in good faith whilst simultaneously assuming a contrary hostile public profile must invariably end disastrously. Instead of attempting to dampen the flames of incitement and hatred, the Palestinian leaders have been encouraging all levels of their society to sanctify and glorify suicide bombers and promote hatred in the kindergartens, mosques and media.

Such behavior confirms that the PA representatives realized that they could never convey to their constituents an arrangement that sanctioned the maintenance of Jewish sovereignty. It demonstrates that when the Palestinian leaders indulge in private negotiations, they speak with a forked tongue and have no intention of ever publicly presenting compromises to their people. They were simply negotiating to obtain more concessions from Israel as part of their strategy to dismantle the Jewish State in stages.

However, this has now resulted in the PA is now being hoisted by its own petard. The incitement against Israel has succeeded to such an extent that their own people now feel betrayed and accuse them of behaving like quislings. Their bitter rage may undermine the leadership of Mahmoud Abbas and ultimately lead to the demise of the duplicitous “moderate” Palestinian leadership. The net gainers may be the more “honest” genocidal Jihadists - Hamas.

The other fallout in this imbroglio is the pro-Palestinian left which considered itself “betrayed” by the PA for contemplating any concessions. It was mind-boggling to observe the outraged “pro-peace” media like the Guardian and the BBC accusing the Palestinians of betraying their people, demanding that they reject any meaningful compromise and calling on them to adhere to their maximalist demands.

Needless to say, the principal loser is President Obama. His irresponsible and fatuous campaigns against construction in Jerusalem and the settlements were exposed as counter-productive acts of folly. The Al-Jazeera disclosures demonstrate conclusively that the Palestinians were unconcerned about this issue and had accepted the reality that the Jerusalem Jewish suburbs of Ramot, Pisgat Zeev and Gilo remain integral parts of Israel.

They only subsequently jumped on the bandwagon after Obama’s demand that Israel institutes a settlement freeze, exploiting his assessment of Israeli settlements as representing “obstacles to peace”, as a pretext to halt all negotiations with the Israelis.

By leaving it to the US Administration to pressure Israel on their behalf and avoiding dialogue, the PA were also able to conceal their intransigency.

The implication is that there are no credible Palestinian peace partners and when they indulge in private negotiations, they realize that they are unable to present any meaningful concession to their people who they themselves have brainwashed with hatred and extremism. At least in future they may now hesitate before embarking on duplicitous private peace gambits, which are never intended to be submitted to their people but merely designed to mollify Western public opinion.

ileibler@netvision.net.il

This column was originally published in the Jerusalem Post

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Today in the New York Times: A New Low and A New Role Model

Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
28 January '11

http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2011/01/today-in-new-york-times-new-low-and-new.html

Here's one day of the New York Times on the Middle East. Be sure to read the surprise ending!

1. Al-Jazira is great! (Wow, just as it runs the Palestine Papers to transform totally our view of the region. Might this be a coincidence?)

The New York Times has run a largely adulatory article about al-Jazira without mentioning its Islamist politics (some accuse it of... is how they put it). On reading this article, I get the impression that the writer has never actually watched the station. For example, its debate shows regularly feature a moderate and a radical. The host attacks the moderate and supports the radical and literally every caller taken on the air is hardline. One friend of mine who was on one of them said that he expected it to be 99 percent hostile but it was 100 percent hostile. Nor do we hear about the great scoops of al-Jazira, like claiming the US had used a neutron bomb in Iraq.

So here is a story about a radical force in the region presenting it as a force for democracy.

2. An op-ed piece by Nicholas Noe, a noted (pun) supporter of Hizballah. Once again, here is a story about a radical force in the region presenting it as a force for democracy. How should U.S. policy deal with having a revolutionary Islamist group that has Syria and Iran as its patrons which now controls Lebanon? According to Noe: "pressuring Israel into a full withdrawal from the Golan."

3. A column on the Middle East by Roger Cohen, a man so ignorant that informed people laugh at his nonsense. Remember he began his career on this topic as an apologist for Iran and never misses a chance to attack Israel.

4. Robert Mackey, another full-time basher of Israel, runs another piece attacking that country in which he distorts Hebrew--a language he doesn't know--to attack Israel.

And now for the surprise conclusion. Ladies and gentlemen, while there are honorable exceptions, the New York Times has now reached the level of...the Guardian.

Naturally, there are many who would classify this as extreme right-wing nuts paranoid about alleged bias that doesn't really exist. Well, if that's so why is there a ridiculous amount of evidence proving this assertion on a daily basis?

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

From Israel: Complications Abound

Arlene Kushner
Arlene from Israel
27 January '11

www.arlenefrominsrael.info

A story as convoluted and involved as the one involving the Al-Jazeera leaks is bound to be ongoing, with many takes, and many corollaries.

There is far too much to belabor, but I would like to address a few points:

On Tuesday, Saeb Erekat, in defending himself against the leaks, said that "[Al Jazeera has] twisted the words and distorted the truth."

One of the claims made was that he had said he was prepared to do everything but convert to Zionism in order to secure an agreement with Israel. Erekat now responded that "I said this in the context of rejecting the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. I told Tzipi Livni that anybody who recognizes Israel as a Jewish state would be a Zionist, and I am not a Zionist, and this is not how Al Jazeera has attempted to portray this incident."

I myself find this sort of defense credible -- a demonstration of context missing, text that is almost right but sounds much more problematic because of what has been left out.

Abbas's claim that some of the leaks are simply "forgeries" seems less credible in light of the fact that there is broad scale acknowledgement that real notes from meetings had been leaked.

~~~~~~~~~~

The PA is now thoroughly engaged in self-defense, and is said to be considering suits against Al-Jazeera.

As had been predicted, Hamas is already using the leaks as a weapon against the PA:

Yesterday, Hamas urged Palestinians everywhere to "work towards isolating and besieging this despicable group." A series of mass protests is being organized for coming days.

A group of jihadist groups including Hamas (which is actually one of the more "moderate" of these groups) met in Gaza City and then released a statement saying that Abbas does not have a mandate to negotiate on behalf of the Palestinians. Don't know quite what this means, for these groups never thought Abbas had such a mandate -- this statement only has impact as its message reaches the population in the PA-controlled areas.

~~~~~~~~~~

The Palestine Papers: Al-Jazeera Has an Agenda

by Pinhas Inbari
Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs
Published January 2011
Vol. 10, No. 25
27 January 2011

http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=1&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=442&PID=0&IID=5864&TTL=The_Palestine_Papers:_Al-Jazeera_Has_an_Agenda

- Al-Jazeera, the powerful Qatari satellite television station, has been publishing documents leaked to it from the PLO Negotiations Support Unit.

- The release of the documents has caused great damage to the reputation of the PA and the PLO negotiating team. Sa'eb Erekat noted that while the PA was en route to triumph as it gathered international support for the recognition of a Palestinian state and for isolating Israel, al-Jazeera cut short this triumph and "instead of delegitimizing the occupation, they delegitimized us."

- The PA's success in gathering support for statehood recognition was turning Hamas rule in Gaza into a liability. Once Ramallah is recognized as representing a state, the international community might turn against the separate entity in Gaza and seek to end the problem.

- For years al-Jazeera has sought to advance the interests of the Muslim Brotherhood against the Arab regimes. The problem it faces is that the sources of the current wave of Arab unrest are actually local and have nothing to do with pan-Arab ideals or with the Palestinian problem.

- Now, after al-Jazeera has brainwashed Arab minds with charges of PLO treason, no declaration of statehood can be expected. Neither will there be a resumption of negotiations with Israel since the Palestinian team will stick to the most hard-line positions possible.


Al-Jazeera, the powerful Qatari satellite television station, has been publishing documents leaked to it from the office of the main PLO negotiator, Sa'eb Erekat, and his Negotiations Support Unit (NSU) on its main news program, and has opened a special WikiLeaks-like website dedicated to the publication of the original documents.1

In addition, the British Guardian, which also publishes WikiLeaks documents, is publishing the Palestinian documents in the same format. In addition, both al-Jazeera and the Guardian are putting much effort into commentaries and explanations of what the documents mean.

It is obvious that al-Jazeera has a political agenda and wants to make a point. The PA sees the publication of the documents as an act of state espionage. An open crisis broke out, with the PA accusing Qatar of treason for hosting the largest U.S. bases in the Middle East.

Et tu, YNet?

Elder of Ziyon
25 January '11

I've been showing how Al Jazeera and the Guardian are purposefully misinterpreting the leaked "Palestine Papers" to make Israel look as bad as possible.

Even though they link to the actual memos that prove their distortions, their false spin is what gets into print. And most people dont bother to check the original.

Apparently, "most people" even includes Israeli reporters!

From YNet:

Leaked confidential documents published by Al-Jazeera and the Guardian reveal that during her tenure as Israeli foreign minister in Ehud Olmert's government, Tzipi Livni pressed for the "transfer" of some of Israel's own Arab citizens into a future Palestinian state as part of a land-swap deal that would exchange Palestinian villages now in Israel for Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

Here is the talkback I gave to YNet:

(Read full "Et tu, YNet?")

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

"Give Me a Break"

Arlene Kushner
www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
25 January '11

Mahmoud Abbas, president of the PA, has always highlighted "return" of the "refugees" as a cause to which he has particular devotion. He fashions himself as a "refugee" -- although he has admitted that his family left voluntarily from Sfat (an Israeli city in the Galil), where he was born -- and has consistently said that he will not retreat from the demand that the "refugees" be permitted to go back to their homes and villages inside of Israel's Green Line.

Whether this is truly an issue dear to his heart or a position that he knows he must take because his people will accept nothing less is in a sense irrelevant. The point is that Abbas has dutifully adhered to this line regarding return.

As a matter of fact, there is a substantial school of thought that says that PA insistence on "return" is a device for destroying Israel from within, and that Abbas's position is likely tactical.

~~~~~~~~~~

Now comes the leak released last night by Al Jazeera to tell us that in a March 2008 meeting Abbas had with the Negotiation Support Unit, he said:

"On numbers of refugees, it is illogical to ask Israel to take five million or even one million -- that would mean the end of Israel." He then said that as Israel has offered to take 5,000, which didn't even satisfy family reunification demands, there would have to be compensation.

Are we supposed to believe this?

~~~~~~~~~~

Yesterday I indicated that I thought there was a good chance that the leaks contained distortions if not fabrication. This particular leak convinces me that it indeed is likely the case. For I find it difficult to accept that Abbas said precisely what he is reported to have said here.

He might have said something like this: "We can try to push for all of the refugees to return, as a matter of principle, but let's face it, the Israelis will never buy it. But the 5,000 that Olmert offered? An insult. It doesn't even account for full family reunification. We cannot simply accept this, it would look very bad. Let's push as hard as we can. Talk about the rights of the people, need to reunify families. Maybe we can get acceptance of 50,000. Then, in the end we'll have to go with some compensation package as well."

But to simply acquiesce to only 5,000 returning, without protest, saying that it's not "logical" to expect the Israelis to accept as much as a million? It's a long way from 5,000 to a million, with a lot of ground in-between. And since when is he logical with regard to dealing with Israel?

~~~~~~~~~~

Even as I write this, I am mindful that, according to YNet, Nabil Sha'ath, a former member of the PA negotiating team, gave an interview with Al-Jazeera last night -- in defiance of an order from Ramallah -- indicating that the documents were real.

One highly reliable source I checked with commented that "no one says the documents aren't real-- they are not forgeries." But, as this source acknowledged, this still leaves room with regard to material left out, twisting of what was said, and so on.

Barry Rubin, whom I was also in touch with on this, reminds us that it is possible for real documents to have been altered and for Al-Jazeera and the Guardian to have misquoted what the original documents said. We must remember that Al-Jazeera was not provided with word-for-word transcripts of what was said at meetings, but notes.

What bothers me is the question of why Sha'ath would have defied the PA, and given an interview that further damns it. This makes his interview suspect in my eyes.

~~~~~~~~~~

I'm picking up all sorts of analyses: That what the PA offered was not such a big deal, when you consider what they didn't offer. Or that what they said in private is so different from what they said in public because they weren't preparing their people for peace. Or that this proves we really have a partner for peace after all. These various takes assume that there is solid veracity in the leaks.

But I'm not going to go there.

~~~~~~~~~~

Khaled Abu Toameh, writing about this in the JPost today, does not specifically say that the leaks are fabricated. But he does refer to a "show trial," which carries certain implications. This, in part, is what he wrote:

"After assuming the role of prosecutor and judge, Al- Jazeera, the Arab world’s most influential TV network, has ruled that the leaders of the Palestinian Authority have betrayed their people and must therefore step down from the stage.

"In other words, PA President Mahmoud Abbas and his men have been convicted of high treason – which, in the Arab and Islamic world, is a crime punishable by death.

"Al-Jazeera is now waiting for the executioner (the Palestinians, in this case) to carry out the death sentence.

"...The TV station has already decided that the defendants are guilty of the...charges against them. The station’s unequivocal message to Palestinians is that Abbas and his men are traitors who need to be removed from the scene, and the sooner the better.

"It’s hard to see how, in light of this damning verdict, the PA will be able to salvage what’s left of its credibility. Al- Jazeera has succeeded in instilling in the minds of many Palestinians and Arabs the belief that the leaders of the PA are a bunch of corrupt traitors who serve Israeli and American interests.

"The damage to the PA’s image and reputation is colossal and irreparable.."

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=205079

~~~~~~~~~~

This, my friends, is the story. Not a parsing of whether Abbas might give more than he has publicly indicated, or what it means that his private and public words seem so different.

Abbas as a politician has been weakened, perhaps fatally. The PA has been weakened.

It was highly unlikely in any event that Abbas was going to return to the table, no matter what the Quartet may be proclaiming or what might be happening in meetings he has with Ross and others. But now? He might prefer to resign and go into hiding in a distant land rather than sit down opposite Netanyahu. Were he to meet with the Israeli prime minister, it would be seen by his people as immediately suspect, a betrayal.

Abu Toameh refers to a "death sentence" for high treason. Do not take this metaphorically. Abbas knows full well that his life is in danger.

~~~~~~~~~~

And let's take this one step further. Roee Nahmias, writing on YNet, describes the "ambush-like coverage planned in advance, [in which] network reporters were deployed in the field." An Al-Jazeera correspondent went into a refugee camp in Lebanon "in order to elicit reactions to 'the Palestinian renouncement of the right of return.' Meanwhile, several commentators in the studios were fuming, including the editor of the hawkish London-based al-Quds al-Arabi, Abdul Bari Atwan, a Palestinian who constantly slams senior PA officials."

So Al-Jazeera not only fomented the current situation, it is willfully fueling it.

Elaborates Nahmias:

"...one should not be making light of al-Jazeera’s effort (and not for the first time) to present PA officials as willing collaborators with Israel, who sell off their people and make concessions behind closed doors...

"...the overall package presented by the Qatar-based network was a resounding 'You sold out Palestine.'

"The situation throughout the Middle East is volatile ever since the Tunisia upheaval. Arab rulers are waiting for the dust to settle and for order to be restored. Yet precisely at this time, al-Jazeera arrived with its bombastic reports, which directly undermine the legitimacy of Palestinian Authority leaders, even if most of the 'concessions' were already known in advance and thoroughly covered by the media before.

"Such reports and claims, which have been repeated in various forms and more forcefully in recent years, are gradually weakening the Abbas-led Palestinian Authority. It is being portrayed as a weak, submissive, failed and corrupt entity, as opposed to Yasser Arafat’s era, for example. And when this is the impression created by the most popular network in the Arab world, can one assume this will not have future implications?

"Even if the likelihood of this is slim at this time, we should take into account the possibility that ongoing erosion in legitimacy and image may one day provoke riots against the PA, or at least prompt a power struggle amongst its leaders, thereby dramatically toughening its positions.

"If one day we see bloody riots in the West Bank similar to the ones we saw in Gaza, it would be worthwhile to go back to the latest al-Jazeera project. This is yet another step, and apparently a deliberate one, in weakening the PA, a move that one party stands to benefit from: The Hamas movement. It is for good reason that Hamas already uses the term 'popular revolution' in its reports." (Emphasis added)

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4018476,00.html

~~~~~~~~~~

We should not be surprised by this state of affairs, for Qatar, which is the home base for Al-Jazeera, provides support for Hamas:

In 2008, The Washington Times cited a key Abbas aide as saying that Qatar provides Hamas with millions each month -- in addition to which, it provides political support and hosts Hamas officials in Doha regularly.

In 2009, terrorism expert Matthew Levitt, writing on the Counterterrorism blog, addressed Qatar's "diplomatic journey away from the Arab consensus -- via support for Islamist extremists -- toward an alliance with Syria and Iran."

Altogether the situation with Qatar is both difficult and somewhat schizoid. For the US has had significant ties with Qatar, and, in fact, in 2003 directed the war on Iraq from an American base in Qatar.

The direction in which Qatar is moving seems to me a spit in the eye for the US. The current undermining of the chances of furthering the peace process so fervently sought by the US, if nothing else, is problematic for Obama.

~~~~~~~~~~

Yesterday, State Department spokesman JP Crowley allowed in a press conference that the leaks complicate efforts to forge a peace deal. However, he clarified, this will not slow the president's work towards that goal.

~~~~~~~~~~

But let us step back and look at the big picture:

Hezbollah is about to take control in Lebanon, to our north. Iran is directly implicated in what's going on there.

To our east, the PA is weakened and an Iranian-supported Hamas is more likely to take over, as the result of machinations by Qatar, which has ties to Iran.

Hello there, in Washington! If Obama truly wants to see peace in this part of the world, he should table his efforts to get Abbas to the table (Which efforts would likely include increased pressure on Israel to offer the PA "confidence building measures," since it was weakened.)

Obama's absolute priority should be stopping Iran in its destructive tracks and in increasing US deterrence in this part of the world.

Does he have even a clue?

~~~~~~~~~~

© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution

see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

From Fourth Estate to Fifth Column (What the Palestine Papers reveal about the Guardian)

Israelinurse
CiF Watch
23 January '11





Related background: Al Jazeera: Introducing The Palestine Papers

When one says Al Jazeera, one says Qatar, or more precisely, the Emir of that autocratic state – Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani. Qatar is a family business; an undemocratic state-run by one tribe. Unelected, unaccountable and all-powerful, its current leader came to power by staging a coup against his own father in 1995 whilst the latter was on holiday in Switzerland. Ironically, the father had used the same method to gain power himself in 1971.

Political parties are outlawed in Qatar, where the leader always knows best. The partly elected Municipal Council (one-third of its members are appointed by the Emir) has succeeded in initiating such dramatic reforms as a major overhaul in the method used to calculate fines for traffic offences.

In 1996 the Emir issued a decree ordering the establishment of Al Jazeera which came with a five-year budget of $137 million. At least until 2005 it was still receiving financial aid from the Qatari government which also owns some of its shares. In a region of the world in which illiteracy is high and therefore newspaper circulation low, most people get their news from satellite TV. In Arab countries Al Jazeera is free; viewers only need to buy a satellite dish –often a wedding gift of choice – for around $100 in order to receive broadcasts.

Often at the centre of controversy, Al Jazeera has seen one of its journalists imprisoned in Spain after being found guilty of collaboration with Al Qaida, another exposed as being on the payroll of the Saddam Hussein regime, has had frequent spats with the Palestinian Authority already and will be remembered by Israeli readers for its aiding Hezbollah during the Second Lebanon War.

(Read full "From Fourth Estate to Fifth Column (What the Palestine Papers reveal about the Guardian)")

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Al Jazeera's Bra

Khaled Abu Toameh
Hudson New York
14 January '11
Posted before Shabbat

Over the past decade, several Al-Jazeera journalists working in the Arab world have been arrested or threatened or expelled.

Earlier this month, Hamas issued threats against Jivara Budairi, a female correspondent for Al-Jazeera. Her crime was that she reported a hunger strike declared by detainees in Hamas-run prisons in the Gaza Strip.

Fortunately for Budairi, she lives in the West Bank and not in the Gaza Strip, where Hamas would most likely have arrested her her immediately after her report was aired on the popular Arab TV network.

Hamas's public condemnation of Budairi is seen as a direct threat not only against her, but also against other journalists who dare to report anything that could reflect negatively on the Islamist movement in the Gaza Strip. The Western-funded Palestinian government in the West Bank is not any better when it comes to protecting freedom of expression and journalists' rights.

What did Al-Jazeera do in response to Hamas's denunciation of their female reporter? The station did not complain to human rights organizations or groups that monitor violations of freedom of expression around the world.

This week, however, these organizations and many Western correspondents did hear from Al-Jazeera -- but regarding a different case.

(Read full "Al Jazeera's Bra")

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

From the Dept of Don’t Do Us Any Favors: Foreign Press Association Threatens to Boycott Israeli Officials

Omri Ceren
Commentary/Contentions
12 January '11

A few years ago, there was a movement afoot calling on American Muslims to boycott US Airways. Six imams — among them Truthers and Hamas supporters — had gone out of their way to act like terrorists and succeeded in getting themselves removed from a Phoenix-bound flight. They subsequently threatened the airline with what they took to be a public-relations nightmare, where the company would have to explain that radical Muslims were avoiding US Air flights because of overly stringent security measures. Typical reaction: best boycott evuh.

This might be better:

The Foreign Press Association in Israel has threatened a boycott after a reporter said she was asked to remove her bra during a security check. Al-Jazeera filed a complaint about what it called a humiliating check at an invitation-only event in Jerusalem, prompting the press association to threaten to ignore briefings by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu if security procedures aren’t changed immediately. … “In a democratic country, security services are not permitted to do as they please,” the association said in a statement. (emphasis added)

Putting aside the irony of supporting Muslim Brotherhood propagandists while lecturing Israel on democratic norms — come on now.

(Read full "From the Dept of Don’t Do Us Any Favors: Foreign Press Association Threatens to Boycott Israeli Officials")

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Victims of Hezbollah Rocket Attacks File Lawsuit Against Al-Jazeera TV in New York Federal Court

www.israellawcenter.org
13 July '10

NEW YORK/ On the fourth anniversary of start of the Lebanese-Israeli War, ninety-one American, Israeli and Canadian victims of Hezbollah rocket attacks filed an unprecedented lawsuit against the Qatar-based Al-Jazeera television network. The suit, Kaplan et al. v. Al Jazeera (Case No.: 10 CV 5298), which was filed in federal court in Manhattan, seeks $1.2 billion in compensatory damages plus punitive damages.

The plaintiffs, whose family members were killed or who were themselves injured by rockets fired at Israel by Hezbollah between July 12 and August 14, 2006, allege that Al-Jazeera intentionally reported live coverage of the locations of the missile strikes inside of Israel in violation of military censorship regulations, in order to enable Hezbollah to aim the missiles more accurately.

Al-Jazeera camera crews in Israel during the war were repeatedly detained by the Israeli police for broadcasting real-time information regarding the location of missile strikes, which Hezbollah utilized to more accurately aim their missiles at civilian population centers.

(Read full story)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Economist Demonizes Israel with Racist Traffic Light Accusation

Yishai Goldflam, Ricki Hollander,
and Gilead Ini
CAMERA
29 April '10

The Economist, with Al Jazeera hot on its heels, has dug up a new Israeli villain: traffic lights.

This joins aphrodisiac bubble gum, poisonous candy, super rats, and stripper assassins in Israel's purported arsenal of tools to oppress Arabs.

According to a March 6, 2010 article in the mainstream British news magazine, traffic lights in Jerusalem "flick green only briefly for cars from Palestinian districts while staying green for cars from Jewish settlements for minutes."

When pressed by CAMERA to provide evidence for this wild charge, the Economist provided a list of intersections at which drivers from Arab neighborhoods are allegedly forced to wait at long red lights to make way for those from Jewish neighborhoods. Shortly afterwards — coincidentally, or not — Al Jazeera English broadcast a short news segment purportedly demonstrating the discrimination at one of the intersections named by the Economist.



A CAMERA field investigation reveals that the Economist and Al Jazeera claims are absurdly false — the latest examples of how even the most benign irritations encountered in quotidian life are manipulated to demonize the Jewish state. In fact, the discrepancy between the timing of red and green lights is related, as in cities across the world, to street size and traffic flow, affecting cars from both Arab and Jewish neighborhoods equally.

(Read full story)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Al-Jazeera spoiler Prof. Mordechai Kedar: 'Why did Islam make Jerusalem it's number 3 holy city?'

DemoCast.TV

17 February '10

Bar-Ilan University's Arabic-studies expert, Dr. Mordechai Kedar, clarifies his al-Jazeera's interviewer's error - why was Jerusalem, if never mentioned in the Koran, made holy by Islam? Kedar explains how it was done for political advantage. He asserts that in Islam, politics and religion make up two sides of the same coin.

What Drives Arabs to Hamas and Al-Qaeda?

The current state of Arab journalists

Khaled Abu Toameh
Hudson New York
19 January '10

Arab journalists are under growing pressure from the Palestinian governments in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to avoid “hanging the dirty laundry in the open.”

Arab journalists are often taught that they should place the interests of their leaders, governments and homelands before above anything else, including the facts and the truth.

Americans and Europeans who are pouring billions of dollars on Abbas and Fayyad need to be aware of the absence of an independent media in the West Bank. One can understand why the Iranian-funded Hamas is repressing journalists, but there is no reason why American and European taxpayers should be funding a regime that has no respect for independent reporters.

If the West nevertheless insists on dealing with corrupt secular regimes to keep radical Muslims away, then Washington and its Western allies should demand good government and free media. Western donors have every right to demand something positive in return for their money. The financial corruption and lack of democracy and freedom of expression is, meanwhile, driving many Arabs into the open arms of Hamas and al-Qaeda.

Journalists are forced to go and work in the international or even Israeli media to be able to practice some form of real journalism.

The absence of a free and independent media in the Palestinian territories has driven a majority of Palestinians to rely on foreign media outlets as a reliable source of information. Public opinion polls have even shown that most Palestinians prefer Al-Jazeera to the Hamas and Fatah media.

(Read full article)
.

The Suicidal Rules of Arab Political Debate: How Relatively Moderate Regimes are Robbed of Self-Defense

Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
04 January '10

It’s always interesting to analyze those little stories that show so clearly the rules of Arab politics and debate, themes which never quite find their way into the Western media, which only see these issues in a Western political and intellectual framework. Yet if you want to understand Middle East politics it is imperative to comprehend such realities.

The example here is a statement by Egyptian Minister of Legal Affairs Mofid Shehab attacking al-Jazira television for, in his words, “instigating civil war” in Egypt. Al-Jazira has been complaining that Egypt is building a steel barrier along its border with the Gaza Strip to block Hamas from smuggling in weapons and other things.

Shehab complains:.

"A number of Arab satellite stations, and [al-Jazira] especially, have placed themselves as responsible for the sovereignty of our country, and as usual have poisoned the public against the state."

Here are some of the rules. The more militant a group is in fighting Israel or the West, the better. All Arab regimes are supposed to help these groups without reservation, even if it damages their infrastructure and drags it into an unwanted war (Lebanon in 2006; Jordan in the 1960s).

Egypt is building the barrier because it views Hamas as an enemy of the Egyptian regime and national interest in two respects. First, Cairo sees Hamas as an instrument of Iran and its bloc, a grab for regional power of Persian, Shias, and Islamists to the determinant of Arabs, Sunnis, and Arab nationalists.

(Read full article)
.