Tuesday, February 23, 2016

Israeli Self-Defense Is Not Debatable - by Jonathan Tobin

...Whatever the political context of the general’s statements, the real issue that the Jewish state must focus on is not restraint — about which there is no real debate inside the country — but why Palestinians and their cheerleaders are so eager to delegitimize Israeli self-defense. The goal of the “stabbing intifada” like that of every other offensive undertaken by the Palestinians is to chip away at Israeli morale and its foreign support. Palestinians continue to view the murder of all Jews as heroic and to believe that Israel has no right to exist within any borders. It is those beliefs that motivate the terrorists and force Israeli soldiers into having to make split-second life and death decisions to defend themselves and civilians. They deserve support for their efforts, not sniping from domestic or foreign critics.

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary Magazine..
22 February '16..

After another week in which Palestinian terrorist attacks took the lives of more Israelis, you’d think these atrocities would dominate the news coming out of the Jewish state. But instead Israelis and their government are embroiled in a nasty fight concerning criticism of the chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces. Lieutenant General Gadi Eisenkot stirred up a political hornet’s nest when he gave a speech to a group of high school students and explained the importance of restraint when soldiers deal with potential terrorists.

When there is a 13-year-old girl holding scissors or a knife, and there is a barrier between her and the soldiers, I wouldn’t want a soldier to open fire and empty a magazine into a girl like that, even if she commits a very serious act. We don’t operate on the basis of [Talmudic] adages like ‘If someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first.’


We don’t kill anyone with a pair of scissors. A soldier can switch off the safety and shoot if he or his comrades are in danger. If our rules of engagement were in any way unethical, it would jeopardize all of the IDF.

On its face, this was an unexceptional statement. Such restraint or “purity of arms” is part of the tradition of the Israeli army and soldiers have been instructed to behave in this manner since the IDF’s origins in the pre-state Haganah organization.

However, the problem was context. The statement was taken by many Israelis to be a criticism of the actions of some soldiers during the current “stabbing intifada.” Indeed, the mention of a girl with scissors seemed to invoke a particular case in which two Arab teens stabbed a 70-year-old Arab man (whom they mistook for a Jew). During the course of the attack, an off-duty policeman and a civilian shot the pair of assailants, leaving one dead and the other merely wounded. As it happened, neither “emptied their magazine” into the girls. But the comments were similar enough to the incident to cause an outcry among some Israelis who have been critical of statements from the general that appear to position him as opposing some of the government’s positions as well as absolving, at least in part, the Palestinian Authority for its role in fomenting the violence.

Columnist Ruthie Blum in Israel Hayom laid out the indictment of Eisenkot. She believes he is doing real harm to Israel’s position abroad by making statements that can be interpreted as implying that the IDF is overreacting to terrorists or that the violence is the natural result of the dilemma faced by the Palestinians.

But, predictably, Israel’s opposition leapt to the general’s defense and bashed Prime Minister Netanyahu for not offering Eisenkot some cover rather than let him face critics on his own. Within days, both Netanyahu and Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon sought to defuse the dispute and issued statements praising Eisenkot and the rules of engagement used by the IDF. If, as Blum pointed out, the general’s politics lean left, then, like so many of his predecessors, it’s likely that he will find his way to the Knesset after he retires from the army. As such, this kerfuffle is business as usual in a country where politics finds its way into everything. But even if we file this controversy away as just another day in the life of a country where anything, no matter how innocuous, can be fodder for a political firestorm, there is a more important lesson to be gleaned from the exchange that many in Israel don’t seem to understand.

Though Israelis are assailed by an unrelenting campaign of murder in which Palestinians educated to believe that any Jew is fair game for violence, the international community has not exactly rallied to its defense. Though the Palestinians have created the current stalemate by repeatedly refusing to make peace even when offered independence and control of almost all of the West Bank and a share of Jerusalem, much of the world continues to blame the Jews for everything that happens. Palestinian violence is rationalized and excused rather than unreservedly condemned, which is why some Israelis find Eisenkot’s comments so infuriating.

Monday, February 22, 2016

Facing up to the death cults: ISIS, the PA and Hamas - by Arnold Roth

...From observation, it's to us clear the Palestinian Arab regimes adopt the same approach and for much the same reasons. What chance that mainstream news reporting is ready to stare into this abyss and draw conclusions?

Posters eulogizing terrorist-children are a
phenomenon 
right across the Palestinian
 Arab social media [
February 2016 image]
Arnold/Frimet Roth..
This Ongoing War..
22 February '16..

For reasons that baffle us, reports about the growing involvement of children in terrorist attacks launched in the name of the Palestinian Arabs and their various causes only rarely focus on the age of the attackers.

This has implications at least as weighty for the Arab side as it does for us Israelis. who are left to ponder some impossible challenges relating to how to keep our society and families safe while trying to deal in a humane fashion with the people dispatching children on missions of calculated murder - and with the children themselves.

These thoughts are sparked by two new reports.

One is a news item recounting how ISIS is heavily promoting a video clip [here] in which one of its foot soldiers in the bloodbath that is today's Syria kisses his young son goodbye after persuading him to sit inside a bomb-laden car that then explodes to plan. And yes, we did write "heavily promoting".

(Go 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 as well as a big vote to follow our good friend Kay Wilson on Twitter.
.

Want to beat your wife? Move to Gaza - by Stephen M. Flatow

Homes and jobs and international donations will not make a whit of difference until Palestinian culture enters the modern world. Until then, Palestinian violence –against women, against political dissidents, and most of all against Israel– will continue to be a way of life. No peace process or international peace conference or Israeli concessions will change that cruel reality.

Stephen M. Flatow..
Times of Israel..
22 February '16..

Gaza news - Palestinian values

Three news stories came out of Gaza this past week, and at first glance, they might appear to be unconnected. But taken together, they reveal important truths about Israel and the dangerous neighborhood around it.

The first news item, courtesy of Palestinian Media Watch, concerns a prominent Muslim religious authority in Gaza encouraging men to beat their wives.

Hassan al-Laham, a leading mufti in Gaza, declared that when Muslim men find their wives to be troublesome, they should first “warn them politely.” But if the problem continues, then “Allah created a solution for this…hitting—hitting that does not make her ugly.” The mufti continued: “The Prophet [Muhammad] said: ‘Do not hit the face and do not make her ugly,’” he continued. “In other words, not hitting that will bring the police and break her hand and cause bleeding, or hitting that makes the face ugly. No….The hitting is not meant to disfigure, harm, or degrade. The hitting will be like a joke. He will hit her jokingly.”



It should be noted that Mufti al-Laham’s endorsement of wife-beating was not broadcast on some obscure Hamas or Islamic Jihad television station, but on official Palestinian Authority TV (on February 8, 2016).

The second news item from Gaza, reported by the Associated Press on February 16, concerns the United Nations’ Mideast envoy, Nikolay Mladenov. While touring Gaza, Mladenov complained that “only a third of funds pledged by international donors” after the 2014 Gaza war has actually been received.

The third piece of Gaza news comes from the Chief of Staff of the Israeli Army, General Gadi Eizenkot. He held a press conference to reveal that Hamas is actively building new tunnels from Gaza to Israel, in order to stage kidnappings and other terrorist attacks. He said that Hamas’ tunnel-digging is so extensive and dangerous that the Israeli army has re-enforced to “concentrate considerable engineering and intelligence efforts to combat this threat.”

What do wife-beating, international stinginess, and new tunnel-digging have to do with each other? Everything.

Seriously? Foreign Press Head: No Media Bias Against Israel?! - by Simon Plosker

...Not only are the foreign media unable to effectively police themselves when it comes to bias and errors, but, judging by Baker’s comments, some in the foreign media refuse to even recognize the problem. That Baker is the current head of the FPA only serves to compound the issue. Luke Baker doesn’t like being held to account. He says that “claims of bias in reporting are annoying.” Sorry Luke, but it looks like we’re going to continue annoying you for quite some time.

Simon Plosker..
Honest Reporting..
21 February '16..

Luke Baker, Reuters bureau chief in Jerusalem and the current chairperson of Israel’s Foreign Press Association (FPA), has in the past few weeks, found himself part of the news rather than merely reporting it. Following an appalling CBS headline, Israel’s Government Press Office decided to take a more critical approach to the foreign media’s coverage of Palestinian terrorism.

Baker appeared before a sub-committee meeting of the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee examining the impact of media bias, which he termed a “witch-hunt.” The meeting turned out to be anything but.

An unfortunate incident involving the detention of Washington Post bureau chief William Booth by border police stationed at Jerusalem’s Old City also brought the issue of Israel’s attitude towards the foreign press to the fore.

Given all of this, Luke Baker has become the face of the foreign press fighting back against a perceived “witch-hunt” of the international media by Israel. In an interview with Globes (an Israeli financial paper), Baker was asked whether he was prepared to acknowledge that there was any bias in coverage of Israel by the foreign media:

I have been a professional journalist for twenty years now, and, like me, many of the journalists sent here are highly experienced. I work with very professional journalists who try to explain the complexity of the story to the international audience. The Israelis believe that it doesn’t reflect their stance, but that isn’t what the journalists are here for. I don’t see lack of balance in the foreign press. There are stories that develop fast and the reports reflect developments on the ground – there’s a report of fatal casualties and at first you don’t know who’s dead and from which side, and you try to explain what’s happening as quickly as possible. The claims of bias in reporting are annoying. If there are mistakes, they are corrected as soon as possible. I reject the claim of lack of balance.

Is Baker really claiming that there is no media bias whatsoever? Is he also suggesting that the foreign media are self-correcting when they get it wrong? Based on the number of incidents where HonestReporting and others have called out the media and forced the correction, this is patently untrue.

If Baker wants to test his hypothesis, then we invite him to take a look over some 15 years worth of material on the HonestReporting website.

Baker also suggests that the journalists aren’t here to reflect Israelis’ stance. If that is indeed the case, then foreign journalists should also not be adopting the Palestinian narrative.

Lest we forget that Baker himself was caught out for bias as recently as October 2015 when he falsely claimed that Israeli undercover police were deliberately inciting Palestinian youths to throw stones, therefore giving the police the excuse to arrest the stone-throwers. Note that Baker never corrected or apologized.

Even in the Globes interview, Baker slips when he states that William Booth “was arrested.” Baker, as a supposedly professional journalist, should be concerned with accurate language and terminology. Booth was detained temporarily for questioning but was never formally placed under arrest nor charged with anything before being released. So much for accuracy.

Greek Defense Minister Kammenos Speaks Out Forcefully in Alliance with Israel

On February 18, 2016, the Greek Minister of Defense, Panos Kammenos, addressed an international conference at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies on “Strategic Challenges in the Eastern Mediterranean.” The conference was co-sponsored by B'nai B'rith International. Kammenos offered a comprehensive and very forceful articulation of Greece’s view of the region: Of the dangers of radical Islam, of the problematic behavior of Turkey, and of his country’s new alliance with Israel. It is worth reading the full speech, entitled “Greece and the Southeastern Mediterranean: A Policy for Peace, Stability, and Prosperity.”

BESA Center..
21 February '16..







For a summary, see Greek defense minister slams Turkey’s ‘hegemonic ambitions’ in The Jerusalem Post, 21.2.2016.

Panos Kammenos, Greek Minister of Defense:

Ladies and Gentlemen, it is a great privilege for me to be amongst distinguished personalities and have the opportunity to present my Government’s views on our perspectives toward the Mediterranean.

At the outset, I would like to warmly thank the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies and B’nai B’rith International, for organizing the international conference; and Professor Efraim Inbar and Bar-Ilan University for hosting this important event as well as for their kind invitation.

If one asks worldwide what kind of people are the Greeks, the most probable answer is: A maritime people. Indeed, this is true! The sea is within our DNA and our relation with the Mediterranean Sea, especially the Eastern, goes back to the Minoan Kingdom and to the Aegean civilisation around Santorini. It is through the Mediterranean Sea that Greeks have travelled “for trade and knowledge and came in touch with the peoples of the south, south-eastern and western shores of the Mediterranean.

Nevertheless, we have never approached it as a “mare nostrum”. We have rather and always seen it as our privileged highway, one of communication, cooperation, commerce, and prosperity; but also, as our privileged milieu in order to stop invaders and defend our freedom.

Today, the Mediterranean is opening to us its depths and offers us many additional possibilities to cooperate. It is interesting to notice that this is not the will of all those who live around the basin. But it is certainly the will of the three democratic states in the region, Greece, Israel and Cyprus.

It is up to these three democratic states, with the assistance of the EU and our Western allies, to make it happen by working for stability.

Greece, which is the only country in the Eastern Mediterranean to be a member of both the European Union and NATO, a country of strategic importance for the free seaborne trade and the energy flow to Europe, with a shipping industry that definitely possesses a global influence , will do its outmost to achieve this goal.

I will try first to identify the threats to stability that appear in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Then, I will present the recently undertaken efforts for bilateral and regional cooperation by Greece.

Finally, I will sketch out some of the basic outlines of our future policies.

Sunday, February 21, 2016

Kuwaiti Columnist: Israel Has Outdone Us In Everything – We Must Learn From It

On February 1, 2016, Ahmad Al-Sarraf, wrote in his column in the Kuwaiti daily Al-Qabas about Israel's advantages over the Arabs in a wide variety of fields – democracy, military, science and technology, human rights and freedom of worship, and economics. He called on the Arabs to look at the reasons for Israel's success and superiority, instead of viewing it as a political-religious foe about which they know nothing at all.

Ahmad Al-Sarraf
MEMRI..
Special Dispatch No.6314..
18 February '16..

Following are excerpts from his article:[1]

"In theory, Arabs have [only] one enemy in the region – except that recently we have made additional enemies, such as Iran. Some went even further, stepping up their hatred of Iran, while at the same time becoming more accepting of Israel [than in the past], to the point where it has become more friend than foe…

"Usually, every conflict is rooted in one side's ignorance of the situation and nature of the other – though I tend to believe that Iran knows far more about the 22 Arab countries that those countries know about it. I attended Kuwaiti schools; in my day, their curricula were far more developed and were open to the other. Despite this, I do not remember reading a single line about [Iran] that was even remotely positive – neither about [its] geography or climate, nor about [its] strength, weakness, or history. So it was only natural for us to view it negatively, [even though we] had no [concrete] reason to do so.

"As for Israel, many [of us] view it as a political-religious foe, as opposed to a cultural danger, and this is a serious mistake. Even though our conflict with it has never ceased, we have remained ignorant regarding everything it represents, and for 70 years we have lacked, and continue to lack, all knowledge about it, and have learned nothing from it.

"Israel has outdone us in all fields – military, scientific, and cultural – but despite this we have refused to consider the reason for its obvious superiority to us, and have never stopped calling it 'the monstrous entity'...

"Since its founding, Israel has been committed to democracy, while we refuse to even speak of it [i.e. democracy], let alone adopt it...

"Israel has given its minorities rights that most citizens in most Arab countries do not even dream of. Furthermore, the freedom of worship there exceeds that in any Arab or Islamic country.

"Israel has focused its attention on science, spending large sums on research, while we are still focused on whether drinking camel urine or using it medicinally is actually helpful.

Can Hezbollah be disarmed without war? Unfortunately, we don’t live in that kind of world. - by Vic Rosenthal

...Can Hezbollah be disarmed without war? In a perfect world, that would have happened in 2006, as a consequence of a better UN Security Council resolution. We don’t live in that kind of world.

Vic Rosenthal..
Abu Yehuda..
21 February '16..
Link: http://abuyehuda.com/2016/02/its-a-mad-mad-world/


Si vis pacem, para bellum [he who desires peace, prepare for war] – Vegetius

Anyone older than about 30 remembers the “balance of terror,” or in academic terms, the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). This meant that the US and the Soviet Union each had enough deliverable nuclear weapons to utterly destroy the other, and systems in place to respond after an attack was launched but before it struck, or weapons that could survive a first strike (“second-strike capability”).

MAD proponents reasoned that as long as both sides knew this, it would be illogical to attack first. And if neither side attacked first, then there would be no nuclear war.

There were some interesting implications. For example, if one side had an effective antimissile system, then it might assume that it could survive an attack by the other side, and might be tempted to make a preemptive strike. Another paradox was the moral dilemma of the man with his finger on the button after it was determined that the other side had already launched its ICBMs. Should he retaliate? His country was already doomed, so why increase the suffering by destroying his enemy?

Many things can destabilize a MAD standoff. I mentioned antimissile systems, but shelters for population and hardening of infrastructure could also have that effect. There are also political factors, as we shall see.

Regardless of the logic or illogic of MAD, it seems to have worked for several decades, from the 1960s until after the breakup of the Soviet Union (it’s not clear if it still applies between the US and Russia or China).

A form of MAD appears to be in place today between Israel and Iran/Hezbollah, although nuclear weapons are (as far as I know) not involved yet. Hezbollah has more than 100,000 short, medium and long-range missiles, and probably attack tunnels under the border. These weapons pose a serious threat to Israel. Israel, in turn, has the ability to completely destroy the infrastructure of Lebanon as well as to turn the southern part of the country – where most of Hezbollah’s missiles are embedded in civilian neighborhoods – into a wasteland, using conventional weapons.

The damage to both countries in the event of a full-scale exchange of fire would be great, although it would not approach the devastation that a nuclear war between the US and the USSR would have wrought. But the logic is similar in that mutual deterrence will be maintained as long as the expected damage would be unacceptable to both sides.

Both sides are working to prevent the other side from unbalancing the equation. So Israel is deploying antimissile systems and (at least talking about) hardening infrastructure, while Hezbollah is trying to improve the accuracy of its missiles so that they will be a threat not only to civilians but to Israel’s airfields, command and control systems and critical infrastructure; and to obtain surface-to-air missiles, and other weapons. And then there are the political and psychological factors that can affect deterrence.

This is where it gets devilishly complicated.

Hezbollah is a non-state actor. It isn’t clear to what extent it acts independently and to what extent it takes orders from Iran. Naturally, the Iranian regime doesn’t care as much about the consequences of war to Lebanon as it would care about its own population and infrastructure. Put another way, Iran is willing to accept a lot more damage to Lebanon than the Lebanese themselves would – but nobody is asking them.

The Palestinian issue and the pitfalls of erroneous assumptions - by Yoram Ettinger

...Erroneous Western assumptions that the Arab-Israeli conflict was triggered by the Palestinian issue have led to erroneous policies. It's time for the "Palestine Firsters" to disengage from oversimplification and re-engage with the complex reality of the Middle East.

Yoram Ettinger..
The Ettinger Report..
19 February '16..

Common sense suggests that simplistic and erroneous assumptions produce simplistic and erroneous policies, as has been the case with all U.S. initiatives on the Palestinian issue. This is because the U.S. foreign policy establishment has been erroneously perceiving the Palestinian issue to be the root cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Hence there was the initial U.S. opposition to the 1977 Israel-Egypt peace initiative and the attempt to inject the Palestinian issue into it on the eve of the 1979 signing ceremony; the 1987 U.S. recognition of the PLO, which rewarded and strengthened a role model of international terrorism; the passive U.S. role in the 1994 Israel-Jordan peace initiative; the U.S. endorsement of PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat for the Nobel Peace Prize and the embrace of the self-destructive 1993 Oslo Accords; the failure to punish the Palestinian Authority for its hate-education and other systematic violations of the Oslo Accords; and the resounding failure of U.S. President Barack Obama's initiatives highlighting the Palestinian issue.

Contrary to the U.S. foreign policy establishment's worldview, the 1948 Arab-Israeli war was not launched by Arab countries on behalf of Palestinian aspirations. The Arabs launched the war in order to advance their own -- not the Palestinians' -- interests through the occupation of the strategic area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. In fact, the Palestinians blame Arab leaders for what they term "the 1948 debacle."

Moreover, the objective of the 1948 war was to prevent the establishment of an "infidel" Jewish entity on land that Muslims believe was divinely endowed to the "believers" (Waqf). Thus, during the October 1947 Pan-Arab Summit, then Arab League Secretary General Abdul Rahman Azzam stated: "The establishment of a Jewish state would lead to a war of extermination and momentous massacre, which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacre and the Crusades. ... This war will be distinguished by three serious matters: ... the shortest road to paradise … an opportunity for vast plunder … avenging the martyrdom of Palestinian Arabs."

Jordan joined the 1948 war to expand its territory from the east bank of the Jordan River to the Mediterranean as a step toward dominating the Arab world. Egypt harbored similar ambitions and sought to foil Jordan's ambitious strategy. Egypt deployed some of its soldiers to the Jerusalem region to check the Jordanian military moves. Iraq aspired to control the 585-mile-long Iraq-Haifa oil pipeline, which extended from the oil fields in Kirkuk/Mosul through Jordan to the refineries in Haifa. Syria, for its part, considered the war an opportunity to conquer some southern sections of "Greater Syria."

At the end of the 1948 war, Iraq occupied Samaria (the northern West Bank), but transferred it to Jordan, not to the Palestinians. Jordan occupied Judea (the southern West Bank) and in April 1950 annexed both areas (naming them the West Bank) to the Hashemite kingdom on the east bank of the Jordan River. The kingdom prohibited Palestinian activities and punished or expelled Palestinian activists. Egypt conquered the Gaza Strip and imposed a nightly curfew (which was terminated when Israel gained control of Gaza in 1967). Egypt prohibited Palestinian national activities and expelled Palestinian leaders. Syria occupied and annexed the al-Hama area in the Golan Heights.

Two cheers for Britain’s BDS ban - by Melanie Philllips

...If David Cameron really wants to tackle anti-Israel incitement, he should be telling the British public some inconvenient truths – such as that the occupation and the settlements are legal several times over; that in the entire Middle East it is only Israel that upholds human rights for Arabs along with all its other citizens; that no decent person should support the Palestinian agenda of anti-Israel incitement, Jewish ethnic cleansing and the destruction of Israel; and that NGOs such as Amnesty and War on Want are a disgrace for doing so. Alas, he will not do this. Although he has moved sharply in the right direction over Israel, he hasn’t yet joined up the dots. Or maybe he has, but isn’t brave enough to show his country the completed picture.

Melanie Phillips..
As I See It/JPost..
18 February '16..

The British government has done something in support of Israel, and the progressive intelligentsia is in shock. Prime Minister David Cameron is taking action against the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement.

New government guidance will prevent any public body from imposing a boycott on a member of the World Trade Organization to which Israel belongs.

Local boycotts breach the WTO Government Procurement Agreement, which demands that all suppliers are treated equally.

The guidance aims at preventing publicly funded bodies such as municipal councils or National Health Service trusts from boycotting goods produced by what they believe to be “unethical companies,” such as firms involved in arms trading, fossil fuels or tobacco products as well as companies based in Israel.

Matthew Hancock, the British government’s Cabinet Office minister, revealed the development on a visit to Israel this week. Such boycotts, he said, were divisive, potentially damaging to the UK’s relationship with Israel and risked fueling anti-Semitism.

The enemies of Israel are beside themselves in fury.

The British Labor Party has called the guidance an “attack on democracy.” NGOs in the forefront of anti-Israel activism, such as Amnesty, War on Want and the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, have called it a “gross attack” on democratic freedoms and the ability of councils or other public bodies to make “ethical investments.”

The British government’s initiative has understandably delighted Israel and its supporters. They should nevertheless temper their jubilation.

In its own limited terms, the guidance is certainly justified. It merely restates existing law and requires public bodies to comply. The boycott of Israel by public bodies is a gross abuse of taxpayers’ money. The protests at the government initiative are specious.

Saturday, February 20, 2016

A UCC Missionary's Promotion of Hostility Toward Israel For Lent - by Dexter Van Zile

...The fact that this Lenten meditation has been produced and disseminated during a time when Israeli Jews are being stabbed and run over in the streets outside their homes by Palestinians who have been exposed to hateful antisemtic incitement by their leaders for years is very troublesome. Why would Christian organizations ostensibly committed to peacemaking produce and disseminate such a document during a time such as this? Are they attempting to fuse antisemitic incitement that permeates Palestinian society with the Christian antisemitism that historically has manifested itself on Good Friday? Apparently so.

Dexter Van Zile..
CAMERA Media Analyses..
19 February '16..

Update (2/23): UCC and Disciples Do The Right Thing, Delete Hateful Lenten Document

For most Christians, Lent is a time of introspection, fasting and repentance. But for Rev. Loren McGrail, a pastor in the United Church of Christ working in Jerusalem, the forty days before Easter are an opportunity to use her position at the YWCA in Jerusalem to broadcast anti-Israel propaganda to fellow Christians in the United States.

McGrail, a UCC pastor whose work is supported by Global Ministries of the United Church of Christ and the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), as well as the Church of Scotland, serves as a communications officer for the YWCA office that operates out of Jerusalem, which is part of a chapter that calls itself “The National YWCA of Palestine.

This chapter of the YWCA works to promote the welfare of women in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (by, for example, educating Palestinians about the evils of honor killings, which are on the rise in Palestinian society).

It also broadcasts anti-Israel propaganda to Western audiences.

The most recent example of this tendency is “Breaking Down the Wall: Lenten Reflections,” a document posted on the website of the YWCA's office on February 9, 2016. This document is comprised of five chapters which can either be used to pray and meditate during the five weeks of Lent or during a particular day of the Holy Week leading up to the Resurrection (Palm Sunday, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, Holy Saturday and Easter). Each chapter includes a poem, or reflection, an article on the Arab-Israeli conflict and “Questions for Reflection.”

This seems innocent enough, but every article in the booklet highlights an alleged wrongdoing by Israel, the Jewish state or by Israeli Jews. The booklet portrays the Israel-Palestinian conflict as if it is entirely the fault of Israel and as if the Palestinians bear no blame or guilt for the violence.

To make matters worse, some of the articles in the meditation booklet are marred by material omissions that result in a dishonest and hostile depiction of the Jewish state.

The fact that this Lenten meditation has been produced and disseminated during a time when Israeli Jews are being stabbed and run over in the streets outside their homes by Palestinians who have been exposed to hateful antisemtic incitement by their leaders for years is very troublesome.

Why would Christian organizations ostensibly committed to peacemaking produce and disseminate such a document during a time such as this?

Are they attempting to fuse antisemitic incitement that permeates Palestinian society with the Christian antisemitism that historically has manifested itself on Good Friday?

Apparently so.

The Arab Attitude toward Israel’s 2005 Unilateral Disengagement - by Brig.-Gen. Yossi Kuperwasser

Brig.-Gen. Yossi Kuperwasser served as the head of the Research Division for Military Intelligence of the Israel Defense Forces in 2005 at the time of the disengagement from Gaza and parts of Northern Samaria. Because of his special vantage point he is able to bring a new insight to the subject.Intelligence professionals were not consulted in the decision-making process. While the Prime Minister and his confidants hoped that this initiative would result in a political advantage for Israel and strengthen its security, it is clear that they did not take possible Arab and Palestinian reactions into account, particularly those of Hamas. In this article Brig.-Gen. Kuperwasser presents the issue of disengagement from a fresh perspective and describes its unintended consequences, which could have been foreseen.

Brig.-Gen. Yossi Kuperwasser..
Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs..
18 February '16..






A First-Hand Account from an Israeli Insider

The Arab Perspective

Israel’s disengagement from the Gaza Strip had undeniable consequences for the Arab world, including the Palestinians, but those consequences were not taken into account in the process leading to the dramatic decision. In this essay, I shall provide my own reflections as former head of the Research Division of Military Intelligence at that time when the fateful decision of the disengagement was made. It is noteworthy that intelligence professionals were not consulted in the process at all and their assessment was not requested before the decision was taken. Instead, a small group of decision-makers carried out this plan. Their attitude and thinking suffered from a number of weaknesses characteristic of Western political and strategic thought in the region.

I also will show that the Arabs had mixed responses to the disengagement. Each player, including the different groups in the Palestinian political system, emphasized what was important to its own outlook and interests.

On the one hand, the disengagement was perceived as an achievement of the Palestinian struggle and as a positive precursor to an eventual Israeli withdrawal from parts of the disputed territories in the Land of Israel/Palestine. The precedent of the withdrawal from Lebanon in May 2000 opened the way for similar moves in the future. It is important to note that the decision to pursue disengagement was taken at a time when Palestinian terrorist activities, including the area of the Gaza Strip, reached their highest levels. Thus, from the Arab point of view, it exposed the failure of Israeli society to cope effectively with that challenge. This perspective is further supported by the fact that the actual disengagement was implemented at a time, toward the undeclared end of the Second Intifada, when terrorist activities slowly began to subside. In addition, the policy of terrorism failed to produce long-term gains for the Palestinians who regarded their campaign as ultimately ineffective because it came at a heavy price and yielded no tangible results. Nonetheless, the Palestinian leadership appropriated the disengagement and used it as a sign of success in their otherwise futile struggle to motivate other radical actors in the region. The disengagement may have been one of the factors that encouraged Hassan Nasrallah, secretary-general of Hizbullah, to intensify his efforts to carry out an additional kidnapping. This eventually materialized in July 2006 when two soldiers were kidnapped – an act that led to the Second Lebanon War. Later Nasrallah admitted that it was a mistake.

Whereas the radical actors of the Palestinian leadership celebrated the disengagement as a victory, its more pragmatic elements regarded it as problematic. They feared that it would further fuel terrorism and hence harm internal stability within the Palestinian political leadership. Given that the leadership was going through a period of internal strife and instability, they felt that the disengagement might further complicate relations with their political opponents and that they would be forced to cooperate with the extremist factions.

In the neighboring region, the disengagement created far-reaching consequences particularly for Egypt, which – in light of Israel’s decision to evacuate also the border area, the Philadelphi Route – was forced to come to terms with Fatah and Hamas and allow increased smuggling from Sinai to Gaza, particularly by Hamas. Moreover, at the time, Egypt suffered domestically from increasing Islamic terror, especially in Sinai. (Before the disengagement a mass-casualty attack took place in Sharm el-Sheikh on 23 July 2005, and Egypt convened an Arab summit to discuss the disengagement and the terror attacks.)1

The Palestinian Sphere of Influence

Concurrently, the Palestinians claimed the disengagement as an achievement and felt vindicated by the dismantlement of the settlements and the Israel Defense Forces’ departure from the Gaza Strip. The Palestinians began to think that the pressure on Israel should continue, which could then bring them closer to their next objective – a unilateral withdrawal from Judea and Samaria, and from Jerusalem. To ensure that Israel would not retract the decision at the last moment, the Palestinian factions resolved to keep things quiet during the disengagement itself, which they did.

Friday, February 19, 2016

Compensation? Helping Iran and Hurting Israel - by Vic Rosenthal

...$3 billion is a lot of money, but unlike the $100 billion that the nuclear deal has made available to Iran, it comes with so many strings attached that we would be better off without it.

Vic Rosenthal..
Abu Yehuda..
19 February '16..
Link: http://abuyehuda.com/2016/02/how-the-us-is-helping-iran-and-hurting-israel/





This may be the worst short-term consequence of the Iranian nuclear deal of all:

Iranian Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan is on a two-day tour of Moscow to meet with his counterparts about the signing of a new $8 billion arms contract, according to Iran’s state-controlled media.

Iranian leaders are said to have provided Russia with what they call a “shopping list” of various arms and military hardware. The visit by Dehghan is expected to “speed up a number of key arms deal[s]” between the countries, according to Iran’s Fars News Agency.

Iran wants to purchase more sophisticated anti-aircraft missile systems and also a new cadre of warplanes, according to the report. The new deals will be in addition to several outstanding arms and military contracts that have already been signed between Iran and Russia.

The troubling part is not that Iran will improve its military capabilities, although of course that will happen in a few years as the arms are delivered and integrated into the Iranian forces. But it’s what happens tomorrow which is worrisome: Iran becomes Russia’s best customer in a very profitable industry.

The same will be true of other countries. Germany and France sent delegations to Iran for dealmaking before the ink on the deal was dry (except that there wasn’t any ink – nothing has been signed except the various documents required to free up at least $100 billion in frozen Iranian funds and to remove sanctions on Iran’s oil industry). Iran is also expected to buy weapons from China. These deals will give Iran the ability to pressure its suppliers for political favors.

I’ve argued that Israel needs to reduce its dependence on the US for military hardware and should develop relationships with countries like Russia, China and (as Caroline Glick recently suggested) India. But this will be more difficult if it becomes important to those countries to keep the Iranian regime happy. It’s already happening:

Israel’s dangerous consensus - by Caroline Glick

...Today Israel is facing complex, multifaceted security challenges that exist and grow in an equally complex, multifaceted diplomatic environment. To develop the means of dealing with the challenges, our security establishment needs to cultivate a permissive intellectual climate among our commanders that rewards free thinking and promotes free thinkers. Perhaps that retired Mossad commander was just a blowhard. Perhaps he was giving an accurate accounting of the intellectual climate in the senior ranks of Israel’s national security establishment. In all likelihood, the truth lays somewhere in the middle. But what is clear enough is that the time has come to air out the ranks of our national defense establishment. Our senior commanders need to reassess their operational assumptions in order to develop plans going forward that are based on a broad spectrum of ideas.

Caroline Glick..
Column One..
18 February '16..

Recently I found myself in a chance conversation with a former head of the Mossad’s Directorate of Operations. The former master spy, whom I had never met before, knew that I am a journalist.

He was aware of my political views.

Directing his remarks at a friend of mine, he declared that 99 percent of Mossad and Shin Bet officers are leftists. He then added triumphantly that according to a former commander of the air force whose name he cited, 99% of the air force’s pilots are similarly leftists.

Initially, I dismissed his comments as obnoxious chest-beating by a man who felt like irritating a group of right-wingers.

But given the source, it is impossible to simply brush off what he said. And to be clear, far more troubling than the prospect that Israel’s security establishment is uniformly leftist is the notion that there is any intellectual or ideological uniformity of any kind in the ranks of our defense community.

But given our defense community’s record in recent years, there is ample reason to believe that there is more than a grain of salt in the spy chief’s boast.

Consider Israel’s handling of Gaza.

According to a number of senior officers, at the end of Operation Protective Edge in 2014, the IDF’s senior commanders convened in Tel Aviv to determine how to handle the Hamas regime going forward.

During Protective Edge, Israel learned a few things about Hamas and about the strategic balance of power between Israel and Hamas in the region and the world.

On the ground Israel learned that Hamas bases its offensive capabilities on civilian infrastructure.

Hamas placed its missiles, its communications centers and its operational commands inside civilian buildings including private homes, hospitals, clinics, schools, mosques and UN offices.

As far as the strategic balance and resources of both sides, during the war Hamas enjoyed the de facto backing of the Obama administration.

Throughout the war, the administration pressured Israel to accept Hamas’s cease-fire terms as dictated by its state sponsors Qatar and Turkey.

On the other hand, Israel was able to avoid bowing to the US’s pro-Hamas demands because throughout the conflict we enjoyed the open support of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

In other words, during the war, Israel discovered that Hamas’s military strategy was based entirely on an implicit alliance with the West, which attacked Israel for targeting Hamas’s military infrastructure, which, again, was all based in civilian structures.

It might have been assumed that the IDF senior commanders would have based their post-war deliberations on these lessons. But according to senior IDF sources, that didn’t happen.

Remembering the savages, forgetting the victims - by Arnold Roth

...The other part is the way the Israeli victims are forgotten, consigned to be mere statistics and quickly discarded by the relentless news cycle and by apathetic onlookers. About this, we can do something. For them, and for ourselves, we want people to see the young man of 21 - a husband and father - whose life was stolen tonight by two Palestinian Arab boys. We know it's unlikely the mainstream news-reporting media will pay attention to Tuvia Yanai Wiseman's life and his death. That's why we must.

Tuvia Yanai Wiseman הי"ד, in the photo with
 his wife and baby, was murdered 
tonight.
 The "achievement" of the Palestinian Arab
 children who killed him 
is being celebrated -
 literally - as an act of heroism. [
Image Source]
Arnold/Frimet Roth..
This Ongoing War..
18 February '16..

There's a significant number of people who, faced with the sight of Palestinian Arab children being weaponized by the terrorism-obsessed society in which they live, demand sympathy for those children and their release from Israeli custody if that's where they happen to be. Campaigns of that sort have become commonplace as the savagery continues.

As the case of the 14 year-old boy who participated in a vicious knifing attack in Pisgat Zeev ["12-Nov-15: What about Palestinian Arab terror gives it that unique savagery?"] a few months ago shows, this is true even when the children have carried out acts of extreme violence that have ended up costing Israeli lives or caused serious injuries to the victims.

The people behind those campaigns claim they do it in the name of human rights. They say they stand for the rights of children who ought to be allowed to live their lives because children are by nature innocent and charming.

This is ludicrous. Palestinian Arab society - at all levels - is doing something hideous to their own children, as we keep noting in this blog. The right response is condemnation.

(Read Full Post. Please Share)

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 as well as a big vote to follow our good friend Kay Wilson on Twitter.
.

Thursday, February 18, 2016

As Israel Looks Beyond America - by Bret Stephens

...But a great power that cannot recognize the dilemmas of its allies soon becomes useless as an ally, and it becomes intolerable if it then turns its strategic ignorance into a moral sermon. More than one Israeli official I spoke with recalled that the country managed to survive the years before 1967 without America’s strategic backing, and if necessary it could do so again. Nations that must survive typically do. The more important question is how much credibility the U.S. can afford to squander before the loss becomes irrecoverable.

Bret Stephens..
Wall Street Journal..
15 February '16..

Talk to Israelis about the United States these days and you will provoke a physical reaction. Barack Obama is an eye roll. John Kerry is a grimace. The administration’s conduct of regional policy is a slow, sad shake of the head. The current state of the presidential race makes for a full-blown shudder. The Israeli rundown of the candidates goes roughly as follows: “Hillary—she doesn’t like us.” “Cruz—I don’t like him.” “Rubio—is he done for?” “Sanders—oy vey.” “Trump—omigod.”

As for Israel’s own troubles—a continuing Palestinian campaign of stabbings; evidence that Hamas is rebuilding its network of terror tunnels under the Gaza border and wants to restart the 2014 war; more than 100,000 rockets and guided missiles in the hands of Hezbollah—that’s just the Middle East being itself. It’s the U.S. not being itself that is the real novelty, and is forcing Israel to adjust.

I’ve spent the better part of a week talking to senior officials, journalists, intellectuals and politicians from across Israel’s political spectrum. None of it was on the record, but the consistent theme is that, while the Jewish state still needs the U.S., especially in the form of military aid, it also needs to diversify its strategic partnerships. This may yet turn out to be the historic achievement of Benjamin Netanyahu’s long reign as prime minister.

On Sunday, Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon publicly shook hands with former Saudi intelligence chief Prince Turki al-Faisal at the Munich Security Conference. In January, Israeli cabinet member Yuval Steinitz made a trip to Abu Dhabi, where Israel is opening an office at a renewable-energy association. Turkey is patching up ties with Israel. In June, Jerusalem and Riyadh went public with the strategic talks between them. In March, Egyptian President Abdel Fatah al-Sisi told the Washington Post that he speaks to Mr. Netanyahu “a lot.”

This de facto Sunni-Jewish alliance amounts to what might be called the coalition of the disenchanted; states that have lost faith in America’s promises. Israel is also reinventing its ties to the aspiring Startup Nations, countries that want to develop their own innovation cultures.

In October, Israel hosted Indian President Pranab Mukherjee for a three-day state visit; New Delhi, once a paragon of the nonaligned movement that didn’t have diplomatic ties to Israel for four decades, is about to spend $3 billion on Israeli arms. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who is personally close to Mr. Netanyahu, sees Israel as a model for economic reinvention. Chinese investment in Israel hit $2.7 billion last year, up from $70 million in 2010. In 2014, Israel’s exports to the Far East for the first time exceeded those to the U.S.

Surprise! Al-Quds University Honors Terrorist with 'Cultural Event' - Sean Durns

...The French novelist Victor Hugo once remarked, “He who opens a school door, closes a prison.” But the author of Les Miserables and The Hunchback of Notre-Dame likely had a different definition from Al-Quds of what goes on behind a school door.

Sean Durns..
CAMERA Snapshots..
16 February '16..

Al-Quds University in Jerusalem honored Palestinian terrorist Baha ‘Alyan on Feb. 13, 2016.

Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), a non-profit organization that monitors Arab and Iranian media, reports that the university celebrated ‘Alyan, who along with Bilal Ghanem, shot and stabbed seven people on a Jerusalem bus on Oct. 13, 2015, killing three Israelis, including Richard Lakin, a dual American-Israeli citizen.

The “cultural event” took place at the university with the support of the Palestinian Authority (PA)’s High Commission for Youth and Sports, a branch of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) tasked with coordinating youth and sports activities.

The terrorist was glorified by 2,500 students who sat side-by-side, forming a chain “of readers and writers” under the slogan “The Baha al-Shuhada Chain” (meaning “Light of the Martyrs chain”).

The event was promoted via a Facebook page and a special hashtag on social media to attract a following.

Muhammad ‘Alyan, the terrorist’s father, spoke during the event. He praised the students who attended as “continuing” in his son’s “footsteps” and stated, “the occupation has turned the entire Palestinian people into seekers of martyrdom.”

Another speaker, an Al Quds communications student named Muhammad al-Azraq, said the deceased terrorist proved that “defending the homeland required education.”

The event featured pictures of Baha ‘Alyan, t-shirts with his image and a box for students to put messages to ‘Alyan and other terrorists killed while attacking Israelis.

BBC World Service erases Israeli victims from news report on terror attacks - by Hadar Sela

...Not only does that portrayal fail to clarify to listeners around the world that the so-called “sharp increase in recent violence” has been going on for more than four months and that its cause is hundreds of violent attacks perpetrated by Palestinians, it also refrains from telling audiences that the vast majority of the Palestinians who have been killed were in the process of carrying out terror attacks or engaged in violent rioting. Significantly too, that portrayal completely erases from audience view the victims – both Israelis and foreign nationals – of those attacks by Palestinians.

Hadar Sela..
BBC Watch..
18 February '16..

As was noted here earlier in the week, the BBC News website’s coverage of four separate attacks perpetrated by Palestinians on February 14th was marred by the inclusion of unverified reports, unnecessarily qualified statements and superfluous punctuation.

Such issues were not however confined to that specific BBC platform; unnecessary use of the word “allegedly” to describe the actions of the Palestinian attackers was to be found in BBC World Service news bulletins on the same day.BBC WS news 14 2

The 20:00 GMT bulletin – read by Neil Nunes and later repeated – included (from 02:14 here) the following report: [emphasis added]

“The Israeli security forces have shot dead three Palestinians and wounded another as they allegedly attempted to carry out a series of attacks. More than 160 Palestinians have died during a sharp increase in recent violence.”

Not only does that portrayal fail to clarify to listeners around the world that the so-called “sharp increase in recent violence” has been going on for more than four months and that its cause is hundreds of violent attacks perpetrated by Palestinians, it also refrains from telling audiences that the vast majority of the Palestinians who have been killed were in the process of carrying out terror attacks or engaged in violent rioting. Significantly too, that portrayal completely erases from audience view the victims – both Israelis and foreign nationals – of those attacks by Palestinians.

(Read 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 as well as a big vote to follow our good friend Kay Wilson on Twitter.
.

Israel - What the Rule of Law Looks Like - by Jonathan Tobin

...American justice is generally the envy of the world, and we know that of Israel is imperfect. But the sight of Olmert heading to jail where he’ll share a cellblock with Katzav is a reminder of the Jewish state’s high standards and ability to treat the mighty as being just as accountable as the marginal. When the dust settles on the Clinton email scandal, let’s hope Americans can say as much of their justice system.

Image by © DEBBIE HILL/POOL/epa/Corbis
Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary Magazine..
17 February '16..

On Monday, Israelis were treated to the awful spectacle of a former prime minister starting a jail sentence. After a drawn out appeals process, Ehud Olmert, who served as Israel’s leader from 2006 to 2009, began serving a 19-month sentence on corruption charges. He’ll be housed in a special wing of one of the country’s largest prisons along with the other white-collar criminals that can be trusted to live with a man that was privy to the country’s national security secrets. Among the few prisoners who fit into that category is Moshe Katzav, who is serving out a sentence for rape.

The idea that a former prime minister and president are currently doing time is a discouraging one for the Jewish state and its friends. But though the crimes committed by both Olmert and Katzav provide a not very attractive portrait of some members of the country’s leading politicians, Israel’s supporters should actually take some grim satisfaction from their humiliation. Say what you want about the intemperate and sometimes downright crazy nature of Israeli politics, as well as the unfortunate tone of much of its discourse or the not particularly elevated nature of its popular culture. What happened to Olmert proves that, for all of its flaws, Israel is a country where the rule of law still reigns supreme.

Olmert is a product of the generation that came just after Israel’s founders and the contrast between his behavior and his predecessors speaks volumes. Whereas men like David Ben Gurion and Menachem Begin lived simply, if not as ascetics, Olmert always lived large. And in contrast to many of his colleagues who spent their formative years in senior military positions (or his successor Benjamin Netanyahu, who had been a commando as a young man and then served in diplomatic posts until getting elected to the Knesset), Olmert was a hotshot lawyer and political fixer. Like other American journalists who met and interviewed him, I always thought that unlike most top Israeli politicians, Olmert seemed to be a very familiar type and would have fit in nicely in any urban political machine in the United States.

It is interesting that, even as he entered jail, Olmert was not only still denying his guilt but also claiming that his downfall was a political conspiracy. His intention is to muddy the waters of public opinion to rebuild his tarnished legacy. That is, of course, nonsense. If anything, the pace of the investigation of his crimes while serving as mayor of Jerusalem was slowed by the fact that he was pushing ahead with the peace process and some in the judicial establishment were loath to disrupt his administration because of ethical lapses. Indeed, there were many in Israel that thought the investigations of Ariel Sharon’s sons’ dubious ethical behavior (which eventually led to a corruption conviction for one of them) was also held back because of his decision to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza as he began his journey from the right to the center.

Wednesday, February 17, 2016

On the search for terror at Haaretz - by Arnold Roth

...There's something depressingly fitting in Hass, recipient of the World Press Freedom Hero award 16 years ago by her peers in the news industry, delivering a bogus slapdown of Israeli "terror" that focuses on a hamlet populated by straw men.

Route 443 [Image Source]
Arnold/Frimet Roth..
This Ongoing War..
17 February '16..

Over at Haaretz, they have another example of Amira Hass agit-prop disguised as a "news report" today ["Army terror against the Palestinians that journalists only yawn at", Haaretz, February 17, 2016]

It runs through a list of non-lethal actions taken by the IDF and security forces and ends with these words:
[I]n the dictionary of the residents (and mine), destruction of cisterns, theft of land and livelihood, and invasions of homes are acts of terror.
That Hass "dictionary of terror" is a strange and malevolent thing.

Military actions designed to defensively safeguard the second-busiest artery serving the nation's capital qualify for a prominent appearance in it.

But it fails to even hint at the numerous attacks, including murders, done in recent weeks by Arabs living nearby. [Google Search]. The very recent killing for instance [about which we wrote: "26-Jan-16: Two attackers stab women at neighborhood grocery store; instantly become figures of emulation"] of a lovely young woman, Shlomit Krigman, 24, stabbed to death on January 26 [her editors at Haaretz reported it, even as she ignores it] on a street in Beit Horon.

That's a community located an easy stroll away from Beit Ur Al Tahta (the subject of the Amira Hass story) and the adjoining Beit Ur Al Fuqah.

(Read 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 as well as a big vote to follow our good friend Kay Wilson on Twitter.
.

(Video) It Really Is Bias: Comparing Anti-Israel Headlines - by Daniel Pomerantz

...When American police shoot a madman with a machete, the headlines say so. But when a terrorist dies in Israel, while IN THE ACT of attacking, the headlines are just plain shocking.

Daniel Pomerantz..
Honest Reporting..
16 February '16..

News reporters claim their headlines are not really biased but merely reflect proper journalistic practices. So why do headlines about Israel look so different from headlines about similar events in other countries? When American police shoot a madman with a machete, the headlines say so. But when a terrorist dies in Israel, while IN THE ACT of attacking, the headlines are just plain shocking.


HonestReportingVideo

HonestReporting's Daniel Pomerantz takes a look.

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5cuR2W9qVU


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 as well as a big vote to follow our good friend Kay Wilson on Twitter.
.