Surprise? BBC World Service radio adopts the PLO’s language - by Hadar Sela

In this latest item BBC World Service audiences heard just one view of the story (which unsurprisingly happens to dovetail with that of the PLO) while the BBC presenter adopted and amplified misleading terminology promoted by the PLO for political purposes and in doing so, compromised the BBC’s objectivity.

Hadar Sela..
BBC Watch..
22 October '18..

The October 19th afternoon edition of the BBC World Service radio programme ‘Newshour‘ included an item relating to the previous day’s announcement by the US Secretary of State concerning the merging of the American embassy and consulate general in Jerusalem into a single diplomatic mission.

Programme presenter James Menendez introduced his interviewee (from 0:45:04 here) as follows:

[emphasis in italics in the original, emphasis in bold added]

Menendez: “Until a few months ago America’s embassy in Israel was in Tel Aviv. Its diplomatic mission to the Palestinians was at the consulate general in Jerusalem. But in May – as you may remember – the embassy moved to Jerusalem; America recognising what Israel has always maintained: that Jerusalem is its capital. That was condemned by Palestinians as well as all the other members of the UN Security Council.”

Failing to clarify that no UN Security Council resolution was in fact passed on that topic, Menendez went on

(Continue to Full Post)

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 which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work. 

.

More BBC promotion of PA messaging on US embassy - by Hadar Sela

...As has been the case ever since it began covering this story in late 2016, the BBC not only did not question Palestinian objections to the relocation of the US embassy to an area of Jerusalem to which the BBC repeatedly tells its audiences – including in this article – the PA does not lay claim, but provided them with uncritical amplification.

Hadar Sela..
BBC Watch..
25 February '18..

The US State Department’s February 23rd announcement concerning the opening of an interim embassy in Jerusalem this coming May was the topic of an article published on the BBC News website’s Middle East page that same evening under the headline “US to open new embassy in Jerusalem in May“.

The two initial versions of the article inaccurately suggested to BBC audiences that Tel Aviv could be seen as the capital of Israel.

“Donald Trump said in December that the US would recognise Jerusalem – not Tel Aviv – as Israel’s capital, infuriating Palestinians.”

And:

“Donald Trump’s decision last year that the US would recognise Jerusalem – not Tel Aviv – as Israel’s capital infuriated Palestinians.”

In the final version of the report – amended the following day – that statement was replaced by the following:

“Donald Trump’s decision in December to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and move the embassy from Tel Aviv, where all other embassies are located, infuriated Palestinians.

The declaration broke with decades of US neutrality on the issue and put it out of step with the rest of the international community.”

In fact, the US Congress of course voted to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital over two decades ago.

(Continue to Full Post)

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 which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work. 

.

BBC continues to promote a political narrative on Jerusalem - by Hadar Sela

...Throughout the past year the BBC has repeatedly provided amplification for unchallenged PLO messaging to the effect that the opening of a US embassy in Jerusalem would bring an end to the chances of a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and spark regional violence. If the US administration does make a statement concerning Jerusalem later this week, BBC audiences will be badly placed to understand the background to that story due to having been consistently deprived of relevant context – as we once again see in this report.

Hadar Sela..
BBC Watch..
04 December '17..

An article published on the BBC News website on December 4th devoted over 40% of its word count to amplification of condemnation of a statement that has not yet been made.

Promoted on the website’s main home page as well as its ‘World’ and ‘Middle East’ pages under the title “Jordan warns US over Jerusalem issue”, the article itself ran with the headline “Jordan urges US not to recognise Jerusalem as Israel capital“.

Readers were informed that:

“Jordan’s foreign minister has warned the US of “dangerous consequences” if it recognises Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

Ayman Safadi said he had told US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson such a declaration would trigger great anger in the Arab and Muslim world. […]

In a tweet, Mr Safadi said: “Spoke with #US Secretary of State Tillerson on dangerous consequences of recognising Jerusalem as capital of Israel. Such a decision would trigger anger across #Arab #Muslim worlds, fuel tension & jeopardise peace efforts.” […]

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is trying to rally international support to persuade Mr Trump not to make the announcement.

His office said he made phone calls on Sunday to world leaders including French President Emmanuel Macron and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

He wanted to “explain the dangers of any decision to move the [US] embassy to Jerusalem or recognise (Jerusalem) as Israel’s capital”, Mr Abbas’s adviser Majdi al-Khalidi told the AFP news agency.

Palestinian leaders have previously warned the move would threaten a two-state solution.”

So what is the background to that furious rhetoric?

(Continue to Full Post)

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 which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work. 

.

One Ambassador and Two States - by Jonathan S. Tobin

...If Friedman’s appointment signals that Trump intends to cease second-guessing Israel’s sensible refusal to make suicidal concessions and that they will discard the idea that it is America’s duty to save Israel from itself, all friends of Israel should welcome it. The same applies to Friedman’s support for the idea of ending the illogical and damaging American policy of refusing to accept that even West Jerusalem is Israeli territory and the location of its capital. Rather than a sign of extremism, Trump’s tapping of his friend for this post may actually be an indication of a new realism in Washington.

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary Magazine..
20 December '16..
Link: https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/middle-east/israel/one-ambassador-and-two-states-david-friedman/

Haaretz reports that JStreet and other left-wing Jewish organizations believe they can turn Donald Trump’s nomination of attorney David Friedman to be U.S. ambassador to Israel into a test of their strength on Capitol Hill. But the result of that test may not be what they are hoping for. The notion that a president’s choice for an ambassadorial post can be thwarted because of statements that place him at odds with the views of previous administrations rather than that of the one he will serve is an odd one

The conflict about his publicly-stated opposition to a two-state solution isn’t so much about Friedman as it about the delusions about the peace process that his leftist critics and their media megaphones still labor under. Nor is it one that is likely to arouse much opposition in the Republican-controlled Senate that will be inclined, as is the tradition, to respect a president’s right to choose the people he trusts for key positions.

A large percentage of each president’s ambassadorial choices are assumed to be contributors, political allies or cronies in every administration. That was as true of Barack Obama as it will be of Trump or any other president. The only grounds on which such appointments are generally blocked relate to the integrity of the nominee, which in this case is not in question, and not whether a non-politician like Friedman has always refrained from voicing controversial views. Moreover, Friedman’s status as a friend of the president-elect as well as someone who has been a key advisor on Middle East issues makes him an ideal choice for this posting. Having America’s representative in Israel be someone with a good idea of how Trump thinks and with the president’s ear makes more sense than having some veteran State Department hand who is hostile to the new president in such a crucial job.
But the real issue here is policy.

NYT in Full-Fledged Frothing Freakout Frenzy Over Friedman Pick - by Ira Stoll

...Friedman isn’t being chosen for the job of secretary of state or national security adviser — or even special Middle East coordinator. His job as ambassador would be to represent and counsel the president and the secretary of state, not to set the policy. Yet the Times doesn’t seem willing to provide its readers with grounded, realistic perspective on this. It prefers, instead, to fuel the anti-Trump panic prevalent among its urban, liberal readers. That’s not independent journalism. It’s just a left-wing echo chamber.

Ira Stoll..
Algemeiner.com..
19 December '16..

How freaked out is the New York Times over Donald Trump’s decision to nominate David Friedman as the American ambassador to Israel?

Extremely, to judge by the newspaper’s completely over-the-top coverage of the nomination.

The Times first covered the news of the nomination with a hostile article in Friday’s paper that the Algemeiner responded to that day.

Then the New York Times did something it reserves for the rarest of situations. It ran the same news again, this time on page one. Saturday’s paper piled on with a front page story headlined: “David Friedman, Choice for Envoy To Israel, Is Hostile to Two State Efforts.” That article was the product of a team of no less than eight — eight! — Times personnel, working from four different cities: “Isabel Kershner reported from Jerusalem, and Sheryl Gay Stolberg from Washington. Reporting was contributed by Russ Buettner and Maggie Haberman from New York, Sewell Chan from London, and Irit Pazner Garshowitz from Jerusalem. Jack Begg and Alain Delaquérière contributed research.”

(Continue to Full Post)

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 which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work. 

.

Someone deeply committed to Israel’s security and to its well-being - by Elliott Abrams

...I do not share all of Mr. Friedman’s views, but I am delighted that the United States will soon have an envoy who can do what the Israeli ambassador in Washington can do: call home and speak to the top guy. I’m very pleased that we’ll have an ambassador who has known the country to which he is accredited for decades and won’t need briefing books to learn its geography. I think it’s great that we’ll have someone deeply committed to Israel’s security and to its well-being

Elliott Abrams..
Pressure Points..
18 December '16..
Link: http://blogs.cfr.org/abrams/2016/12/18/the-next-ambassador-to-israel/

President-Elect Trump’s choice of David M. Friedman as his ambassador to Israel has occasioned both appropriate news coverage, and a barrage of nasty, ignorant, politically biased comments.

Most of those comments (including the poison-pen editorial in The New York Times) have informed readers that Mr. Friedman is unfit for this post because he is a “bankruptcy lawyer” lacking diplomatic experience. I was previously unaware that being a “bankruptcy lawyer” was equivalent to a crime of moral turpitude, but that is in any event an odd description of Mr. Friedman. In fact he is one of the top lawyers in that field in the United States, year after year being so listed in articles about the very best American lawyers. The New York Times tells us that he has since 1994 been a partner at a firm called Kasowitz, Benson, Torres, & Friedman, but does not bother to tell readers that he is in fact the Friedman of Kasowitz, Benson, Torres, & Friedman–a firm whose name was changed when he joined it, and which he has helped build to about 350 lawyers in seven cities. He is also a self-made man, the son of an Orthodox rabbi who came to the practice of law without the benefit of wealth or fancy connections.

To the Times all that is irrelevant; presumably they would prefer a fellow at a white-shoe Wall Street firm whose father or grandfather had been a diplomat, who belonged to the right clubs, and who rather than soil himself with the actual practice of law opens doors and makes connections. But I doubt most Americans take that view, and Mr. Trump did not. I’ve met Mr. Friedman once; we connected because I have a son who works in the Kasowitz firm. What do you learn from one meeting? Only that you’re dealing with one smart cookie, and that his involvement with Israeli affairs for decades has given him a far better insight than the average diplomat.

The U.S. Embassy relocation as a true litmus test - by Yoram Ettinger

...The relocation of the U.S. Embassy to Israel's eternal capital, Jerusalem, will implement U.S. law, the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, which enjoys massive support on Capitol Hill and beyond, but was not implemented by presidents who used national security as an excuse for noncompliance.

Yoram Ettinger..
Israel Hayom..
18 December '16..
Link: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=17901

Terminating the State Department policy which refers to the whole of Jerusalem as an international (not Israeli) city, recognizing unified Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and relocating the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, represent a litmus test of President-elect Donald Trump's resolve to make America great again by defying Arab/Muslim pressure and threats, as well as overruling the politically correct establishment of the State Department.

Moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem is, also, a litmus test of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's intent to leverage the nonconventional Trump/Pence worldview, which abhors domestic and international political correctness, respects firmness and the defiance of odds, recognizes Israel as a unique ally in the battle against the ayatollahs and Islamic terrorism, and is aware that U.S. national security interests transcend the Palestinian issue.

The decision to relocate the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem will usher in the Trump era, setting President Trump apart from his predecessors, underscoring the independence of U.S. unilateral -- rather than multinational -- action, distinguishing him from the U.S. and international foreign policy establishment and setting his worldview apart from that of the U.N., while reflecting the state of mind of most Americans.

Establishing the U.S. Embassy in Israel's capital will signal Trump's determination to resurrect the U.S. posture of deterrence, which has been eroded in recent years, underlying a realization that succumbing to pressure and threats fuels violence, while defying them deters rogue elements and advances security and the prospects of peace. For example, in 2011, the State Department warned the White House against vetoing a U.N. Security Council condemnation of Israel's settlement policy, lest it fuel terrorism. Contrary to the December 1988 U.S. recognition of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the 1993 Israel-PLO Oslo Accord -- which intensified Palestinian terrorism and hate education -- vetoing the U.N. Security Council resolution was not followed by bloodshed.

While moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem would not undermine or prejudge the peace process -- since the Embassy will be located in pre-1967 Israeli west Jerusalem -- a failure to implement the law will further radicalize the Arabs, who cannot afford to be less demanding than the U.S., thus presenting more obstacles to the pursuit of peace.

The relocation of the U.S. Embassy to Israel's eternal capital, Jerusalem, will implement U.S. law, the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, which enjoys massive support on Capitol Hill and beyond, but was not implemented by presidents who used national security as an excuse for noncompliance.

Proleptic Dhimmis Versus the US Embassy in Jerusalem - by Elder of Ziyon

...They treat Muslims like they are irrational, crazy people who must be handled with kid gloves or else they will turn deadly - and too many Muslims embrace that role because it gives them power over the dhimmis. This same logic is used by some Western leaders to demand that Israel act in certain ways - because of the anticipatory violence of Muslims against Western targets if Israel doesn't adhere to the proleptic dhimmi demands. Don't build in Jerusalem, don't enforce zoning laws, don't perform archaeological digs - all of these are demands on Israel by proleptic dhimmis of the West in far greater volume than by Arab leaders in recent years

Elder of Ziyon..
15 December '16..

Professor Richard Landes coined a wonderful phrase, "proleptic dhimmitude." It refers to the actions of Westerners who take what they believe to be pro-Muslim positions in anticipation of supremacist Muslim threats and demands.

Real dhimmis under Muslim rule live in fear that their Muslim leaders will target them if they do not act in a subservient manner. Proleptic dhimmis act as if Muslims are their leaders, too, and they go beyond Muslim demands in their zeal to appease them ahead of time.

There is no better example of proleptic dhimmitude than the gnashing of teeth over the possibility (which seems more and more likely) that Donald Trump will move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

MSNBC's Chris Matthews sputtered on Tuesday:

Why are we moving the embassy to — to Jerusalem at a time that the whole place over there could blow up? Why do we something that's right in the face of the Palestinians, right in the face of the Jordanians, the Saudis, the Egyptians. The one thing they say is leave you know, the Dome of the Rock alone, leave are — the hopeful capital of a Palestinian state alone. Don't desecrate it by saying it's the capital of Israel at this point?

Matthews is not arguing that there is a legal reason not to move the embassy. He is not arguing that such a move would violate even Islamic law.

In fact, Matthews is showing incredible ignorance because any embassy move would occur in the part of Jerusalem that was under Israeli control since 1948.

(Continue to Full Post)

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 which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work. 

.

Tobin: A Symbol of Obama’s Hostility to a United Jerusalem

Jonathan S. Tobin
Commentary/Contentions
05 June '11

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/06/05/symbol-of-obamas-hostility-to-united-jerusalem/

The Obama administration notified Congress late on Friday that, once again, it is not moving the United States Embassy to the state of Israel to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv. Although Congress mandated that the embassy be moved to the city that is actually Israel’s capital in 1995, it included a waiver that allows the law to be flouted if the president believed America’s national security interests are at stake. Such waivers have been invoked every six months since the law’s passage and they have usually been sent out on Friday afternoons so as to limit news coverage of the decision.

But while the waivers promulgated by both the Clinton and Bush administrations always noted that the embassy might be moved at some point in the future, Obama has never even sought to sweeten this bitter pill to friends of Israel with even such a vague promise.

The question of moving the embassy is something of a chestnut for both the pro-Israel community and American politicians. Everyone knows that no American president would have the guts to acknowledge reality and, at least, recognize West Jerusalem (the part of the city that was not illegally occupied by Jordan from 1949 to 1967). The Arab and Muslim world be very mad. But the sheer irrationality of America’s refusal to do so has always infuriated friends of Israel and often gave those who wished to pander to them an opportunity to grandstand.

That was exactly the purpose of the law that Obama just bypassed. It was sponsored by then Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, a politician who had never previously shown much interest in Israel. In 1995 he was preparing for his futile run for the presidency the following year, so it made sense for him to pretend as if he cared about Jerusalem. But the law, which was welcomed by pro-Israel activists at the time, did nothing to move the embassy. And the ritual of the waiver, which presidents of both parties have regularly invoked, has actually dampened support for the idea since advocacy for the move is seen as transparently cynical.

In spite of all that, President Obama has infused some life into the issue. His decision to speak of Jewish neighborhoods in the city as “settlements” that must be frozen and his insistence on using the 1967 lines as the starting point for future negotiations as opposed to Bush’s frank acknowledgment that those neighborhoods and the surrounding settlement blocs will always be part of Israel, has put the status of Jerusalem back on the political front burner. The applause from the Palestinian Authority for Obama’s decision on the embassy illustrates the way his stand has encouraged Arab intransigence on the issue. While both Clinton and Bush gave us the impression that they would like to move the embassy after the signing of a theoretical peace treaty with the Palestinians, Obama’s attitude is far more negative. America’s stubborn refusal to move its embassy has always been an obstacle to peace. But under Barack Obama, it is also a symbol of his administration’s hostility to a united Jerusalem.

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.
.

Next Year in Occupied East Jerusalem!

Avi Davis
The Intermediate Zone
28 March '10

Over the weekend I was a victim of a hoax. An internet scenario played out a scene in which Barack Obama tells a visiting Israeli delegation to the White House, headed by Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, that he believes the cause of peace would be advanced if the words “Next Year in Jerusalem” were excised from the Passover Haggadah.

The prime minister, squirming uncomfortably in his seat, looks from aide to aide before finally offering to remove the words from the Yom Kippur service but not the Haggadah. Not satisfied with the response, Obama stands up to excuse himself for dinner, indicating that he will be back later. ” I’ll give you some time to think about it and will return to have you sign the new edict.”

I believed it for a moment because, like all parody, it possesses an inkling of truth. Given this administration’s impatience with the Netanyahu government’s obduracy in attaching itself to a united Jerusalem, one would think that there is indeed some substance to the idea that the Obama administration not only wants to sever East Jerusalem from West, but the Jewish people’s attachment to the city in general.

Maybe that is why an unconfirmed rumor circulating the Internet, that the Obama White House seder will not conclude with the traditional words ” Next Year in Jerusalem” for fear of offending Palestinian sensibilities, has gained such currency.

It may all be nonsense but still it leaves many with the sense that things seem to have gone very wrong. During his electoral campaign, Obama’s own platform called for a united Jerusalem and the U.S. Congress itself has been behind that very notion since at least 1995 when it passed The Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act.

(Read full article)
.