GOLDSTONE DISMANTLED

I've come across this excellent piece which demonstrates how the Goldstone Kangaroo Court botched up its attempt to defame Israel and its resistance to Hamas terror. It makes Goldstone look like an incompetent gatherer of facts whose job could have been better performed by a first year law student:

Blocking the Truth of the Gaza War: How the Goldstone Commission Understated the Hamas Threat to Palestinian Civilians by Col. (res.) Jonathan D. Halevi

Was the UN commission's approach one-sided against Israel, or unbiased and objective as commission chairman Richard Goldstone contended? Statements of Palestinians recorded by the commission and posted on the UN website provide authentic evidence of the commission's methodology and raise serious questions about its intentions to discover the truth.

Commission members did not ask the interviewed Palestinians questions about the activities of Hamas and the other Palestinian terrorist organizations operating in the Gaza Strip which could be classified as war crimes or that were potentially dangerous to innocent Palestinians. Furthermore, there was no serious consideration of Palestinian "friendly fire" incidents, and we can only guess how many Palestinian civilians were killed or wounded by Palestinian fire.
Reports issued by the Palestinian terrorist organizations themselves detailed the fighting in a way that often contradicted the Palestinian witnesses. In addition, the witnesses hid vital information from the commission regarding the presence of armed terrorists or exchanges of fire in their vicinity.

On June 28 and 29, 2009, the Goldstone Commission recorded Palestinian statements at the UNRWA headquarters in Gaza City. The following is an analysis of the four main statements, the way the commission interpreted them, and reports from other Palestinian sources which contradict the testimony presented to the commission.

On September 15, 2009, the UN investigating commission known as the Goldstone Commission published its conclusions regarding Israel's Gaza operation (December 27, 2008-January 18, 2009), accusing Israel of violating both international humanitarian law and the Geneva Conventions, and committing war crimes.

In response, the Israel Foreign Ministry issued an official statement accusing the commission of bias and one-sidedness, and of ignoring the thousands of Hamas rocket attacks on Israeli civilians which, Israel claimed, made the military operation an absolute necessity. "The one-sided mandate of the Gaza Fact-Finding Mission, and the resolution that established it, gave serious reasons for concern....At the same time the report all but ignores the deliberate strategy of Hamas of operating within and behind the civilian population and turning densely populated areas into an arena of battle," said the ministry.

The Goldstone Commission Never Asked About Palestinian War Crimes

Was the UN commission's approach one-sided against Israel, or unbiased and objective as commission chairman Richard Goldstone contended? Statements of Palestinians recorded by the commission and posted on the UN website provide authentic evidence of the commission's methodology and raise serious questions about its intentions to discover the truth. Commission members did not ask the interviewed Palestinians questions about the activities of Hamas and the other Palestinian terrorist organizations operating in the Gaza Strip which could be classified as war crimes or that were potentially dangerous to innocent Palestinians. They never asked about:

Launching rockets at Israeli towns and villages from within residential dwellings;
Firing mortar shells into Palestinian neighborhoods when IDF forces were operating in or near the area;

Firing anti-tank missiles, rifles, and machine guns at Palestinian buildings in Gaza suspected of having been entered by IDF forces despite the presence of Palestinian civilians in the area;

Seizing private homes from which to ambush IDF forces;

Booby-trapping houses before and during the war and detonating the bombs;

Planting various types of anti-personnel and anti-vehicle IEDs near houses and detonating them;

Sniping and firing heavy machine guns at IDF forces within Palestinian residential areas.

None of the statements taken by the commission (as posted on the UN website) reported even one single instance of the presence of armed Palestinians, or of armed Palestinians firing rockets at Israel or shooting at IDF forces operating in the Gaza Strip. There was no serious consideration of Palestinian "friendly fire" incidents, which occurs with the most disciplined armies, but is not adequately examined as an explanation for Palestinian losses, and we can only guess how many Palestinian civilians were killed or wounded by Palestinian fire. In fact, they reported that throughout the entire three weeks of fighting there was no significant Palestinian resistance.

The commission did not press the witnesses in order to elicit more information and did not confront them with the reports issued by the Palestinian terrorist organizations themselves, which detailed the fighting in a way that often contradicted the Palestinian witnesses. It did not adequately examine Palestinian rules of engagement - or the lack of any such rules. In addition, the witnesses hid vital information from the commission regarding the presence of armed terrorists or exchanges of fire in their vicinity, casting doubt on their reliability.

Case Studies: Analysis of Palestinian Testimony to the Goldstone Commission

On June 28 and 29, 2009, the Goldstone Commission recorded Palestinian statements at the UNRWA headquarters in Gaza City, and posted the questions and answers on the commission's website.1 The following is an analysis of the four main statements, the way the commission interpreted them, and reports from other Palestinian sources which contradict the testimony presented to the commission:

Statements from the al-Silawi Family

Three members of the al-Silawi family were interviewed by the commission: Moussa al-Silawi (91, blind), Sabah al-Silawi (Moussa's wife), and Mouteeh al-Silawi, a Hamas official.2 The most detailed statement was that of Mouteeh al-Silawi, deputy director of the Hamas administration's Muslim religious endowments ministry for the northern Gaza Strip, who said he was giving a sermon when the mosque was attacked. He claimed that there was no military activity in the Ibrahim al-Maqadma mosque or around it during the attack. Worshippers came to the mosque seeking a safe haven on the assumption that it was a secure place. The evening and night prayers were said one after another to prevent unnecessary movement of worshippers outside the mosque. Israel committed a war crime in violation of international law by attacking civilians in a mosque.

The commission members asked: What is the name of the mosque and where is it located? What was the date of the event? Was a warning given before the attack? When was the mosque built? Were the people killed the supporters of families? Was there a noise before the explosion and what damage did it do? How many people were killed and wounded in the attack? How many people were in the mosque when it was attacked? How far is the mosque from the nearest hospital? Does the hospital have a sufficient quantity of medical equipment and are its services sufficient?

They also asked: Under what conditions are the two prayers [evening and night) joined? Do more people come when prayers are joined? Was this the first time the prayers were joined? When does the evening prayer begin and when does it end? When prayers are joined, exactly how much time elapses between them? When, during the confrontation, did the mosque begin joining the prayers? Was January 3 the first day the prayers were joined?

Many of the questions were irrelevant and unconnected to the circumstances of the event. The commission members did not ask about armed men in the mosque, whether it was used for military purposes or incited worshippers to carry out terrorist attacks against Israel. They did not ask if there were weapons in the mosque, if armed men were operating near the mosque, whether Hamas and its Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades controlled the mosque and used it to recruit operatives, or the identity of the casualties and their organizational affiliation (including members of the al-Silawi family).

An examination of freely accessible Palestinian sources shows that the casualties in this incident were terrorist operatives and included members of the al-Silawi family, who were represented to the commission as innocent civilians.

The terrorists killed in the attack included:

Ibrahim Moussa Issa al-Silawi, an operative in the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Hamas' military-terrorist wing. Born December 1, 1946, in Jabaliya in the northern Gaza Strip. According to the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades website, Ibrahim "received his love of jihad and hatred for the Zionist enemy with his mother's milk." In 1984 he joined the Islamic Movement (which later became Hamas) and was a Muslim Brotherhood operative. He had close relations with Nizar Riyyan, a senior Hamas terrorist operative, and joined the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades in 2003, at the age of 38. He was posted to the northern Gaza Strip brigade and participated in military missions: manning front-line positions in Jabaliya, fighting IDF forces, and digging and preparing tunnels for Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades use.3

Omar Abd al-Hafez Moussa al-Silawi (Abu Souheib), an Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades operative. Born in Saudi Arabia on September 29, 1981, and joined Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. In 2004 he joined the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades and was posted to front-line positions on the eastern border of Jabaliya. He also prepared and planted IEDs, participated in fighting the IDF, and launched mortar shells and Kassam rockets at Israeli towns and villages.4

Sayid Salah Sayid Batah, an Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades operative. Born on April 7, 1986, in Jabaliya. A Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood operative, he joined the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades and was deployed in the northern Gaza Strip brigade. He was posted to front-line positions in Jabaliya, prepared and planted IEDs, and dug and prepared tunnels for Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades use.5

Ahmed Hamad Hassan Abu Ita, an Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades operative. Born in Saudi Arabia on February 15, 1984. A Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood operative, he joined the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades in 2006 and was posted to front-line positions. He fought the IDF in the Jabaliya, al-Salatin and al-Atatra regions, prepared and planted IEDs, was deployed in the suicide bombers' unit, and regularly participated in ambushes against IDF soldiers. The Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades website reported that he was one of the operatives who received instructions, after the initial Israeli air attack on December 27, to deploy in accordance with previous instructions. According to the website report, on January 3 he went to the Ibrahim al-Maqadma mosque to meet "young people" and was killed in the IDF attack there.6 [Note: The Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades version clearly shows that Hamas uses mosques as meeting places for its operatives to coordinate their fighting against the IDF.] His father said that during the first week of the fighting his son launched rockets into Israeli territory every day.7

Muhanad Ibrahim al-Tanani (Abu Islam), an operative in the Al-Quds Battalions, the military-terrorist wing of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, born April 23, 1988. The Palestinian Islamic Jihad website reported that his parents brought him up to love jihad. When the Second Intifada broke out he was 12, and often went to the Erez crossing with other children to throw rocks at the IDF post and confront the soldiers. In 2002 he joined the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and later its military-terrorist wing. He underwent military training and was posted to front-line positions on the northern border of the Gaza Strip. In addition to his military activities he participated in Palestinian Islamic Jihad meetings and events, and led the organization's Internet forums.8

Rajah Nahad Rajah Ziyyada, 18, an Al-Quds Battalions operative.9

Ahmed Assad Diyab Tabil, 16, a Hamas operative, was a member of the Hamas student organization, which recruited him into the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades.10

Statement of Mohammed Fuoad Abu Askar

Mohammed Fuoad Abu Askar represented himself to the commission as the director-general of Hamas' ministry of Muslim religious endowments.11 He said he had been detained in Israel in 1992 for belonging to Hamas. He told the commission that his house was "unjustly" blown up by the IDF. He said he had received a telephone call warning him to evacuate the house from someone who identified himself as an IDF representative and that twenty minutes later his house was struck from the air.

Askar said a short time later the area around the Al-Fakhura school was also bombed. The school served as a shelter for many Palestinians from Beit Lahiya, Al-Salatin and Al-Atatra, who regarded it as a safe haven because it was located in the middle of the refugee camp and it was flying the UNRWA flag. He said he saw three bombs hit the school region and he heard more. Two hit the house of the Diyab family, killing 11 people. Dozens of people were killed near the school and most of the casualties were children. There were no armed men in the area, as opposed to Israeli claims. Two of his children, Khaled and Imad, were killed, as was his bother Raafat, all of them, according to Askar, innocent civilians.

The commission members asked: Was the telephone warning you received a recorded announcement and what did you do following it? Did you receive the call via a land line or cell phone? Where did you go when you left the house? How much time passed between the attack on the Al-Fakhura school and the attack on the Diyab family house? Did you or any of your family visit the Diyabs' house after the attack on yours?

Although Mohammed Fuoad Abu Askar admitted being a Hamas operative and having been detained by Israel, the commission did not think to ask whether he was connected with the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades. They did not ask him whether those killed near the school belonged to any organization or were military-terrorist operatives.

An examination of freely accessible Palestinian sources shows that contrary to his claims, he and his sons were directly and closely linked to the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, a connection which included providing terrorist operatives with weapons and ammunition, and that there were a number of Palestinian terrorist operatives in the Al-Fakhura school area, as follows:
Mohammed Fuoad Abu Askar himself plays a key role in the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades.12 Some of his sons also belonged to the Brigades, among them Khaled (killed in the attack), Ahmed (killed on July 7, 2006, when he tried to launch an anti-tank missile against an IDF force),13 and Osama (critically wounded fighting the IDF on October 13, 2004).14

Khaled Mohammed Fuoad Abu Askar (Abu al-‘Izz), Mohammed's son, an Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades operative, was born on December 12, 1989, in Jabaliya. At the age of 15 he joined the Muslim Brotherhood and was active in the Hamas student organization, which serves as a recruiting agency for the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades. In 2006 he was accepted into fighting groups posted in front-line positions. He underwent an advanced military training course and was posted to a special unit of the north Gaza battalion where he participated in dozens of ambushes and fought against IDF forces. He served as a military instructor in the Imad Aqel battalion and supervised the ambush and suicide unit.

He was supposed to be the third member of a Hamas squad in a suicide bombing attack on October 26, 2007, but an operative named Ghassan al-Ela was sent in his place. Khaled was offended and demanded to be sent on a suicide bombing mission. In March 2008 he was sent to ambush IDF forces operating in the northern Gaza Strip, but because of conditions on the ground the attack was aborted. He again demanded to be put at the top of the suicide bomber list. On June 4, 2008, he and four other Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades operatives prepared a suicide bombing attack, but a technical error caused the bomb to explode and he was the only one who survived. He again demanded to be sent on a suicide bombing mission, although he had gotten married on December 12, 2008.

He was killed in January 2009 in the attack in the region of the Al-Fakhura school. The Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades website reported that during the last months of his life he worked for the military supply unit and provided operatives with weapons, missiles, and military equipment. This information is particularly important because it supports IDF intelligence that the house of Mohammed Fuoad Abu Askar, where his son Khaled lived, served as an Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades weapons storehouse.15

Others terrorist operatives killed in the same incident included:

Bilal Hamzah Obeid, an Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades operative, who was killed along with Khaled Abu Askar in the attack near the Al-Fakhura school.16

Raafat Abu Askar, a military-terrorist operative in the security services with the rank of warrant officer, killed in the attack near the Al-Fakhura school.

Osama Jemal Obeid, an Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades operative, killed in the attack near the Al-Fakhura school.17

Iyad Jaber Aman, an Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades operative, killed in the attack near the Al-Fakhura school.18

Abd Muhammad Abd Qudas, a Fatah operative active in Palestinian Military Intelligence, killed in the attack near the Al-Fakhura school.19

Atia Hassan al-Madhoun and his son, Ziyad al-Madhoun, operatives in the Brigades of National Resistance, the military-terrorist wing of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Atia was regional commander for Jabaliya. The two were the father and brother of Hassan al-Madhoun, one of the senior commanders of Fatah's Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, who was lynched by Hamas in the summer of 2006. The two were killed in the attack near the Al-Fakhura school.20

Statements of Wail and Salah al-Samouni

Wail and Salah al-Samouni described the shelling of Wail's house, where the extended al-Samouni family had sought shelter and where more than 20 people were killed.21 They told the commission: At about 5:30 a.m. on the morning of January 5 Wail left the house with some other men to bring wood for a fire. As soon as they left the house a helicopter filed a missile at them and then a number of missiles as the house. After the house was hit the wounded proceeded toward Salah a-Din Street and were refused medical attention by the IDF soldiers. Salah claimed that the soldiers fired shots over their heads to frighten them and make them leave more quickly. They said there was no activity of armed Palestinians around the house where the family members had sought shelter. Salah al-Samouni said that "everyone is a farmer, I swear to Allah that everyone is a farmer," and rejected the possibility that they were armed or wanted.
The commission members asked: Can Wail describe the soldiers and identify them according to their voices and uniforms? How did the IDF forces destroy the agricultural land near the house? How large was the agricultural area destroyed by the IDF? Was the witness treated at the Shifa Hospital?

The commission did not ask about the identity of the dead Palestinians and about the possibility that some of them were terrorist operatives. It did not challenge their claim that there were no armed Palestinians in the area, despite reports by both Palestinian terrorist organizations and the IDF about exchanges of fire in the area. In addition, the commission did not press the witness about his claim that the soldiers did not provide medical attention, in contradiction of a statement given by a female member of the family who told the NGO B'tselem that the soldiers had given them medical aid.

An examination of freely accessible Palestinian sources shows that Wail and Salah al-Samouni hid important details from the commission which could shed light on the event. An examination of their statements and the statements of other members of the al-Samouni family to human rights organizations and published in Palestinian newspapers raises questions as to the veracity of their version of what actually happened on January 5.22

Members of the family repeatedly claimed that all the people in the house were ordinary civilians. However, at least three were affiliated with Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Meisa al-Samouni did not tell B'tselem that her husband, Tawfiq Rashad Hilmi al-Samouni, who was killed on January 5, was a Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist operative. She and the other members of the extended family, including Wail and Salah (who gave statements to the Goldstone Commission), never mentioned or hinted that other family members in the house at the time were Palestinian Islamic Jihad operatives, among them Muhammad Ibrahim Hilmi al-Samouni and Walid Rahad Hilmi al-Samouni. A Palestinian Islamic Jihad flyer noted that Muhammad and Walid al-Samouni were active in fighting against the IDF in the Zeitun neighborhood.

The al-Samouni family members firmly adhere to the version that there was no Palestinian military activity near the house and that the nearest military activity was at least a mile away, and that, they claimed, was limited to firing rockets into Israeli territory, not close fighting.
However, the official Palestinian Islamic Jihad version is completely different. In a statement issued on January 5, Palestinian Islamic Jihad said that on the evening of January 4 its fighters had fired an RGP from the Zeitun neighborhood at an Israeli tank and had opened fire at IDF soldiers. At 1:20 a.m. on January 5, a Palestinian Islamic Jihad engineering unit detonated a 50-kg. bomb near an Israeli tank not far from the Al-Tawhid mosque near the house of Wail al-Samouni. At 6:30 a.m., the engineering unit detonated a bomb near an IDF infantry unit operating near the Al-Tawhid mosque in the Zeitun neighborhood.23 According to another official Palestinian Islamic Jihad statement, one of its operatives was killed in fighting nearby. His name was Muhammad Ibrahim al-Samouni.

The significance of the foregoing is that the four men who left the al-Samouni house in the early hours of the morning, among them Muhammad Ibrahim al-Samouni, did not necessarily do so for the innocent reasons given by their family. They might have gone out for a reason connected to the military activities taking place in the same area between Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist operatives and IDF forces. Palestinian Islamic Jihad reported that operatives of its military-terrorist wing, the Al-Quds Battalions, "surprised the occupation forces and attacked them from behind their lines, and there was a fierce battle in the southern part of the Zeitun neighborhood." Another report, given "exclusively to the Muslim Brotherhood website," detailed Palestinian Islamic Jihad activities in the Zeitun neighborhood on January 5: "According to eye-witnesses, the fighters of the resistance waited and barricaded themselves in secure locations, remaining in places inhabited by civilians, from which they left to carry out planned attacks against the forces of the Zionist occupier."

Statement of Khaled Muhammad Abd Rabbo

Khaled Abd Rabbo reported on the deaths of two of his children on January 7, 2009.25 Khaled lives in Jabaliya near the Israeli border in a four-story house. He and his family did not leave it even when the land battles began. He claimed he saw no activity of armed Palestinians in the area. He said that on January 7 an IDF force entered the area around his house and positioned tanks nearby. The soldiers used a megaphone to call the residents out of the house. They came out holding a white flag, and one of the soldiers got out of a tank and shot at his children for no reason. He said two of his daughters were killed, another was seriously wounded, and his wife was also wounded.

No questions were asked by the members of the commission, not about the events, or whether there was fighting in the area, or whether there were armed Palestinians.

Contrary to the claims made by Khaled Abd Rabbo, Palestinian sources reported on armed Palestinian activity in the area near the incident and on exchanges of fire between Palestinians and IDF forces. At the time Khaled claimed his daughters were shot by IDF soldiers, four other Palestinians were killed nearby: Ibrahim Abd al-Rahim Suleiman, 19, an Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades operative; Shadi Issam Hamad, 33, a Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (George Habash) operative; Muhammad Ali al-Sultan, 55, an Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades operative; and Ahmad Adib Faraj Juneid, 26, an Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades operative.26

The circumstances of Ahmed Juneid's death shed light on the event: Ahmed Juneid joined Hamas in 2003 and later joined the Muslim Brotherhood and also became an Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades operative. He was posted to the front-line positions in Jabaliya, joined the Brigades' sabotage and suicide bomber unit, and participated in ambushes and fighting with IDF forces. According to the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades website, Ahmed Juneid was another one of its operatives who, after the IDF attack on December 27, 2008, was ordered to take up a position at the front according to previous instructions. According to the website report, on January 7 he participated in an ambush of IDF soldiers in one of the houses in the eastern part of Jabaliya along with other Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades operatives. The Hamas squad was identified by the IDF and an exchange of fire ensued. The IDF force was forced to withdraw and armed vehicles were brought in, forcing Juneid to leave the house he was in and go elsewhere. A surveillance plane located him and fired a rocket, killing him.27

The Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades report reveals information about the exchange of fire between the IDF and armed Palestinians in the area where Khaled Abu Rabbo's daughters were killed, and its closeness in time to the events he reported. His version and the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades website provided similar descriptions of the advance of IDF armored vehicles into the area at the same time. However, Khaled Abu Rabbo did not tell the UN commission about the exchanges of fire between IDF forces and Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades operatives. The possibility cannot be ruled out that his children were caught in the crossfire and may have been killed by Palestinians.

As we can see from a detailed analysis of freely accessible Palestinian sources (in Arabic), competing explanations exist that counter the claims of the Palestinian witnesses who testified before the Goldstone Commission. At the same time, questioning by the members of the commission proved to be superficial and was ill-suited to elicit the truth about events in Gaza.

Notes

1. http://www.un.org/webcast/unhrc/archive.asp?go=090628
2. http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/ondemand/conferences/unhrc/gaza/gaza01-orig.rm?start=01:35:05&end=02:15:20
3. http://www.alqassam.ps/arabic/sohdaa5.php?id=1495
4. http://www.alqassam.ps/arabic/sohdaa5.php?id=1416
5. http://www.alqassam.ps/arabic/sohdaa5.php?sub_action=sera&id=1373
6. http://www.alqassam.ps/arabic/sohdaa5.php?sub_action=sera&id=1356
7. http://www.sabiroon.org/news/specialNewsDetails.php?code=731&category=7
8. http://www.saraya.ps/forum/showthread.php?p=112352
9. http://www.saraya.ps/forum/showthread.php?t=9356
10. http://www.sabiroon.org/news/specialNewsDetails.php?code=1373&category=7
11. http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/ondemand/conferences/unhrc/gaza/gaza02-orig.rm?start=00:02:36&end=00:32:17
12. http://www.palestine-info.info/ar/default.aspx?xyz=U6Qq7k%2bcOd87MDI46m9rUxJEpMO%2bi1s7E2vaEXQm5C6U%2bt%2b%2bd65eOED%2bs9lqg5clKspsNLv%2bC4NbAGvmPHDv0t8StBpxSdkUfNb0gKi7pZyx6VahFdoaCrgX%2f%2bPH3ywxc%2fm1BpLmoow%3d
13. http://www.alqassam.ps/arabic/sohdaa5.php?id=652
14. http://www.alqassam.ps/arabic/sohdaa5.php?id=652
15. http://www.alqassam.ps/arabic/sohdaa5.php?id=1441
16. http://www.alqassam.ps/arabic/sohdaa5.php?id=1439
17. http://www.paldf.net/forum/showthread.php?t=416258
18. http://www.paldf.net/forum/showthread.php?t=346094
19. http://www.palvoice.com/forums/showthread.php?t=210507
20. http://www.alhourriah.org/?page=ShowDetails&Id=3061&table=articles
21. http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/ondemand/conferences/unhrc/gaza/gaza02b-orig.rm?start=00:01:26&end=00:24:12
22. The full investigation of the events at the al-Samouni house, including references, can be found at http://www.jcpa.org.il/Templates/showpage.asp?FID=586&DBID=1&LNGID=2&TMID=99&IID=22500
23. http://www.saraya.ps/view.php?id=10389
24. http://www.almoltaqa.ps/arabic/showthread.php?t=126200
25. http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/ondemand/conferences/unhrc/gaza/gaza02b-orig.rm?start=01:10:57&end=01:26:08
26. http://www.alqassam.ps/arabic/news1.php?id=7417
27. http://www.alqassam.ps/arabic/sohdaa5.php?id=1315

Col. (res.) Jonathan D. Halevi is the research director for the Orient Research Group and a research fellow of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Halevi previously served as a senior adviser for political planning in Israel's Foreign Ministry

A WASTE OF 60 MINUTES

For sheer mendacity and spite towards the Jewish State you couldn't go past the late 60 Minutes presenter Richard Carleton who not only presented his reports on the Israel/Palestine conflict with bias but also with a blatant disregard for most of the facts.

He now has an heir apparent at 60 Minutes in the form of Liam Bartlett who began his segment on Israeli settlers with the following lie - "hundreds of thousands of Jewish settlers are moving into the West Bank, building new towns on Palestinian land."

Honest Reporting looks at Bartlett's tactics in Demonization From Down Under

Gaza Bedfellows UNRWA And Hamas

Claudia Rossett's excellent article in Forbes about how UNRWA and Hamas feed off each other in a dance of corruption, death and misery for the Palestinian people - Gaza Bedfellows UNRWA And Hamas.

If it were anyone else but a protected species of terrorists this would be a major scandal and make headlines throughout the world.

Instead, the most of the media concentrates on Israeli settlements and concentrates on a minority within a minority to condemn Israel and the Jewish people.

A message to Uncle Tom

Open letter to Judge Goldstone.

Who is Goldstone? Or perhaps we should ask: What is Goldstone?

I am a Holocaust survivor, therefore I cannot help but regard all events that effect my country, Israel, from the point of view of a Holocaust survivor. Many of us after our liberation came here to fight in the War of Independence and help re-establish the state of Israel.

Those of us who survived the wars, established families brought children and grand children to the world and today our grand children in whose hands we leave the safety of this country and the safety of each individual, may be accused by you of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Our grand children, who bodily stand between the Hamas terrorist of Gaza and hundreds of millions of Islamic fanatics who openly declare to the whole world that they will and must destroy us are being accused by you, Mr. Goldstone of crime against Humanity . And what were their war crimes? And how else were they going to ferret out each Hamas terrorist hiding behind the women and children? The same terrorists who were shooting off rockets into Israel for eight bloody years? And why did Israel wait eight years to start with, while every country in the world would have sent in their armies after the first rockets hit their towns?

We waited because we knew that if we go into Gaza trying to ferret out the rocket attackers, a Mr. Goldstone would appear with his lofty sickening biased morality and declare our grand children war criminals! We finally had to send them in because larger and larger rockets were arriving from Iran and a million Israelis were threatened by these rockets. That was not only unacceptable, but also intolerable. What would you have us do Mr. Goldstone? How were we going to defend our towns against these attacks? If by your definition our grand children are war criminals what are the Americans, the British and all the NATO forces who mercilessly bombarded Afghanistan killing thousands of civilians, the Americans and British in Iraq, the Russians who did the same in Chenchnya? I would agree to be called a war criminal if we simply sent in our planes and bombarded Gaza into the Stone Age like the Americans did in Afghanistan. But we did not do it, Mr. Goldstone. Instead we sent in our grand children to be killed by the Hamas terrorist in order to avoid reducing Gaza to rubble.

And for this our grand children are war criminals?

I was in Dachau, Mr. Goldstone, when five hundred American plans would fly over our heads almost daily and drop thousands of bombs on Munich's civilian population reducing the town to rubble and killing thousands of civilians. At the end of the war the British dropped thousands of incendiary bombs on Dresden killing hundreds of thousands civilians. The war was over, still they did it. Perhaps you should call all those war criminals before you so blatantly accuse us?

I know it is much easier to accuse the Jews than the Americans, or the British or the Russians, although by your definition they are the real war criminals. No, Mr. Goldstone, war is not a nice thing, but if you want to stay alive, we Jews have learned by experience, that unless we defend ourselves, no one else will defend us. What really we find despicable of you is that you as a Jew accepted to participate in a committee that a priori condemned us. Your feeble excuse is that the UN only gave you a mandate to investigate Israel's war crimes in Gaza!
By accepting your role on this committee you declared yourself the enemy of Israel. I think that you would very few Israelis who wouldn't agree with me.

Mr. Goldstone, condemning Israel is as if you would condemn the British and the French for starting World War Two, after all it was France and Britain who declared war on Germany. And ignoring the fact the Germans attacked Poland first!

As far as I am concerned, as a survivor, You, Mr. Goldstone are doing a selection (like in the good old days) singling out Israel, a small country trying to survive the constant onslaught of millions of Arabs.

You picked us as a convenient target when by your definition of war crimes your true target should have been America, Russia, NATO forces who sent in heavy bombers to drop thousands of bombs on civilian targets, in Afghanistan, Iraq, Chechnya, Belgrade and hundreds of other places around the world. If we should follow your dictate the world has no right to defend itself against terrorism, as terrorism deliberately hides itself behind women and children and innocent civilians, if we do we are to be classified as war criminals?

Mr. Goldstone, it was from Gaza that the rockets came bombarding Israeli towns for eight years, and it is a fact that the Palestinians voted Hamas into power. They started the war. Those who start a war should be blamed before those who defend themselves are blamed. You chose to ignore that fact.

All I can add is that as a judge, you are bigoted like the rest of the UN institutions, and as a Jew, shame on you.

Shana Tova

Sincerely yours,
Solly Ganor

New York's Helmsley Hotel - the place to stay

Helmsley hotel cancels Ahmadinejad appearance

I don't care what it costs, this is the place I'll be staying at the next time I visit the Big Apple.

Australians for Palestine accept that Palestinians committed war crimes

The pro Palestinian lobby group Australians for Palestine has released a statement in which it welcomes the findings of the Goldstone Report which condemned both Israel and the Palestinians for allegedly committing war crimes and human rights abuses during the 2008/9 War in Gaza - AFP STATEMENT.

In welcoming the Goldstone Report the Palestine Lobby has accepted the complicity of the Hamas led government in Gaza in committing war crimes even though the statement avoided mention of that part of Goldstone's report.

Israel and its supporters have roundly condemned the report's findings so it is curious indeed that the Palestine Lobby in Australia has jumped in and accepted it all chapter and verse. Curious but no surprise because this lobby is reticent when it comes to the atrocities committed in the name of the Palestinian people by Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Fatah.

A more rounded approach to Goldstone's biased report is this critique from the ALP's Michael Danby taken from Hansard:

Goldstone commission non-credible by Michael Danby MHR Thursday September 17, 2009 from Hansard

Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports) (12.43 pm)

The Goldstone Commission, which has just reported in Geneva, probably will not be discussed much by this parliament, reflecting its lack of credibility and the fact that the Australian government, I am sure, does not take it seriously. The mandate of this regrettable commission, investigating the divisive problem of the Middle East, has been troubled from the beginning. All of the European Union, Switzerland, Canada, Korea and Japan, refused to be associated with the UN Human Rights Council mandate for this commission because it was so biased. Distinguished individuals such as former Irish president Mary Robinson refused invitations to head the commission since it was guided not by human rights but by politics.

In fact, her statement said:

I absolutely condemn what Hamas does. And that also should be a subject of inquiry - that is, the war that took place in the Middle East at the beginning of this year.

She continued:

And unfortunately, the Human Rights Council passed a resolution seeking a fact-finding mission to only look at what Israel had done, and I don't think that's a human rights approach. We need an inquiry to look at the violations of international humanitarian law by-potential violations by all sides.

That would be much fairer than the kangaroo court that, regrettably, has been established by this commission.

There is good old Australian racetrack terminology that describes the Goldstone commission: this is a race horse sired out of malice, out of a mare named Hypocrisy. I want to cite some of the background of the incredible one sidedness of the UN report that, regrettably, has been brought down by Justice Goldstone's commission in Geneva.

The mandate set by the Human Rights Council, run by such luminaries as Cuba, Zimbabwe, Libya et cetera pursuing it, was:

... to investigate all violations of International Human Rights Law and ... Humanitarian Law that might have been committed at any time in the context of
the military operations that were conducted in Gaza during the period 27 December 2008 to 18 January 2009 ...

Now, the point about that immediately leaps out from the above is that it sets a framework where only the military action in Gaza, not what preceded it, can be investigated. As a humanitarian and as a supporter of human rights, I would not mind if a fair-minded Human Rights Council from the United Nations investigated that conflict. But you must look at what preceded the Israel army's action in Gaza. The 8,000 rockets that landed on Israeli southern cities would be the subject as well of any investigation by a genuine humanitarian-any fair-minded person, any fair-minded United Nations organisation. The Goldstone commission is even more curious since UN Resolution S-9/1, which established the mandate for the Goldstone commission, said the Human Rights Council:

... decides to dispatch an urgent, independent ... fact-finding mission, to be appointed by the President of the Council, to investigate all violations of international human rights law ... by the occupying Power, Israel, against the Palestinian people ... particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, due to the current aggression, and calls upon Israel not to obstruct the process of investigation and to fully cooperate with the mission.

One can understand why the Israelis, given the fact that nothing on their side was to be looked at and only what was happening in Gaza was to be looked at, would not cooperate with the mandate at all. What a very curious humanitarian commission that examines only one side. Most claims were unverifiable, made by various NGOs, including Human Rights Watch, which recently approached me to broaden their activities in Australia. Regrettably, I could not pursue their request, since Human Rights Watch have been soliciting fundraising efforts in Saudi Arabia- an extraordinary thing for a humanitarian organisation to do, given that country's record on religious freedom, the rights of women et cetera. It is disgraceful that Human Rights Watch apparently decided to solicit funds from Saudi zillionaires on the basis of their highly critical views of the Israeli position. Goldstones ridiculous repeatedly refers to Gaza as occupied even though the Israeli's unilaterally withdrew 5 years ago. No wonder so many people think some of these UN organizations exist in a parallel universe.

Let me speak some truth about power here. The resolution to the problems in the Middle East will come when people have considerations for all sides. President Obama will soon gather together the President of the Palestinian Authority and the Prime Minister of Israel, with the purpose of reviving the talks and reaching a two-state solution. We all know this has been the Australian position since partition; this has been the just position from the beginning. That is where justice will come from, not from this one-sided report which will only set back prospects of political settlement.

IRAN WISHES THE JEWISH PEOPLE A HAPPY NEW YEAR

Ahmadinejad says Holocaust a lie, Israel has no future

And the good Jew Loewenstein says thank you very much as he munches on his ham sandwich.

Racism risk in calls for Israeli boycott

Philip Mendes and Nick Dyrenfurth make sense in this article published in today's Australian - Racism risk in calls for Israeli boycott.

If anything, Israeli actions are far less brutal than the behaviour of China in Tibet, the US during Vietnam, Indonesia in Aceh and formerly East Timor, and Russia in Chechnya. This is to say nothing of the persecution of minority racial or religious groups within Zimbabwe, Sudan, Iran, Rwanda and elsewhere. But no proposals have been made to boycott all academics within these countries. Nor is there any plan to boycott Palestinian or Arab academics who endorse suicide bombings and other violent attacks on Israeli civilians.

Despite their logic, I don't expect it will take long for the ideologues like Loewenstein et al to do what they do best - whine an raise unsubstantiated allegations of Israeli misdeeds while they sweep under the carpet any semblance of Palestinian racism and their threats to destroy the Jewish State and murder its Jewish population. I'll give them a day or two.

TERRORISTS TAKE OVER THE UNITED NATIONS

Sir Richard "Uncle Tom" Goldstone on the job for his masters at the UN

Israel has called the Goldstone Commission Report "nauseating" on Tuesday, accusing it of creating an unjust "equivalence of a democratic state with a terror organization" and lacking the context of a decade of terrorist attacks by Hamas - 'We Don't Need Lessons In Morality From Syria, Somalia'

Foreign Ministry spokesman Yossi Levy is quoted as follows:

Israel has examined itself in the light of day in innumerable investigations and a robust system of independent courts. We have nothing to be ashamed of, and don't need lessons in morality from a committee established by Syria, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia and Somalia.

Israel is "nauseated and furious about a report that did not surprise us in its imbalance, but did surprise us in the lack of any real pretense to balance," he said, calling it "one of the most disgraceful documents in the long collection of shameful documents put out by the United Nations."

The immediate message of this report is: Terror pays. It says that terrorists who attack Jews, unlike terrorists who attack Americans, Spaniards, or other Arabs, will earn the protection of the UN.

The tragedy for what is left of the free world and for the Jewish people in particular is that one of the major enablers of this disgrace is a Jew himelf - Sir Richard "Uncle Tom" Goldstone whose name will live in infamy as the man who allowed himself to be used by the terrorists to destroy any semblance of international law when it comes to dealing with murderous terrorists.

GOLDSTONES

The long awaited Goldstone report which was commissioned by the United Nations to expose Israeli 'war crimes' during Operation Cast Lead, has been released. The full report is contained here in this 574 page pdf document.

Unsurprisingly, the Commission found evidence of 'war crimes' and 'possible crimes against humanity' committed by Israel during the course of Operation Cast Lead. It also found evidence of similar crimes committed by the 'Palestinians' but the betting is that this part will be swept under the carpet if it hasn't already been.

The Commission believes that Israel can be referred to the International Criminal Court. However, it does not recommend that happen immediately. Instead, it is recommending that Israel be given six months to put IDF soldiers on trial for 'war crimes' and to report back to the UN Security Council on what those trials have shown and how many people have been convicted of 'war crimes.'

Israel has already conducted several trials and investigations as a result of Operation Cast Lead, but there has only been one instance of a conviction of a soldier having violated the rules of war.

Unlike any investiation before Sir Richard Goldstone on behalf of the UN, Israeli trials are based on the rule of law where judges usually weigh up the evidence based on a number of considerations including the credibility of witnesses. Hamas sympathisers who have no chance of passing a lie detector test are not generally regarded as credible witnesses.

Elder of Ziyyon is already doing a great job of fisking the report item by item - here.

Nazi Fetishist Suspended by HRW

Love the Honest Reporting headline about the suspension of Human Rights Watch's Marc Garlasco who is an avid collector of Nazi memorabilia and unsurprisingly has a penchant for preparing questionable reports about Israeli self defence operations - Nazi Fetishist Suspended by HRW.

LABOR MP MICHAEL DANBY

Congratulations to ALP member Michael Danby for placing on public record the failure of Crikey and The New Matilda to promptly stamp out racist comments against the Jews, something that would not be tolerated if the subject matter was any other group of people - Creepy vitriolic bigotry of the internet's fringe-dwellers.

"It is clear in my view that New Matilda and Crikey disgraced themselves and the wider circle of Australian journalism and the tolerant ethos that characterizes Australia by publishing clearly bigoted comments in the comments sections of their publications in the first three months of this year."

Garlasco's love of Nazi paraphernalia - more connections between Pallywood and Nazism

The once highly respected human rights group Human Rights Watch has had a horror year on the Middle East front after revelations that it had been infiltrated by persons with prior anti- Israel leanings who then reported on allegations of abuses of human rights by Israel.

Now we learn that the man responsible for HRW investigations into what turned out to be another Pallywood scam is apparently an avid collector of Nazi paraphernalia - see NGO Monitor Expert or Ideologues?: HRW’s Defense of Marc Garlasco’s Nazi Fetish

No surprises there!

THE LIMITS OF POLITE DISCOURSE: EXPOSING PEOPLE TO EVIL IDEAS OR EXPOSING EVIL IDEAS AS...EVIL?

Thanks to Barry Rubin for this excellent Op Ed piece

THE LIMITS OF POLITE DISCOURSE: EXPOSING PEOPLE TO EVIL IDEAS OR EXPOSING EVIL IDEAS AS...EVIL? by Barry Rubin

(http://www.gloria-center.org
After publishing an op-ed by a radical Israeli professor urging a boycott of Israel, Los Angeles Times editorial page editor, Jim Newton, said, “Had Hitler submitted an excerpt from Mein Kampf in the late 1930's [I would have published it] because the world would have benefitted from exposure to evil ideas."

This is an interesting subject for discussion but first it should be noted that Newton misworded his answer, a rather serious mistake for a professional journalist and editor. Perhaps it is even a Freudian slip.

Presumably the world would have benefitted from the exposure of Hitler’s arguments as evil and dishonest. But does the world, to take Newton’s own phrase, benefit “from exposure to evil ideas,” that is, just giving them a bigger audience?

No. After all, those who spread evil ideas do so precisely to win over those who hear them. The world did get exposed to the evil ideas of fascism. One of the main results was a lot of support for it by millions of people in many countries.

And that’s certainly happening a lot nowadays for the contemporary equivalent evil ideas.

The media not only publicizes but reinforces evil ideas on many occasions. Newton’s error shows the problem: the media does not expose evil ideas as evil. It often portrays them as correct and accurate or good or at least just another credible opinion.

Newton’s point also raises another issue: the limits of what has been called “polite discourse.”

In societies practicing free speech—at least up until recently—anything could be said. The pernicious influence of the “hate speech” concept, first applied to Holocaust denial, has been terrible in limiting free and open discussion. In Canada, nominally one of the freest of countries, you can be tried and sentenced for saying or writing something that a group deems offensive.

Newton opposes this, correctly I believe, and upholds the concept of free speech. But, again, he’s not implying he’d publish Hitler because the German dictator had a right to express his views but rather precisely in order to expose them as evil. How does one know that they are evil?

Does this mean the newspaper must publish other material—even a critical introduction—to say that these are evil ideas?

Or does the readers’ common sense and political culture innately tell them these are evil ideas? Surely not all of them would see it as such, as Pat Buchanan, Hitler’s leading contemporary American admirer, or David Irving, his counterpart in Britain, repeatedly remind us.

[Let me digress here for a moment. Hitler’s book, Mein Kampf, makes interesting reading and I analyzed it in my book Modern Dictators to show parallels with Communist and Islamist thinking. This is not to say the three doctrines are alike but they do share a lot in their basic approach to politics, rationality, critique of Western democracy, and prescription of a dictatorship that controls all of society and its institutions.]

Yet when it comes to channels of communication limited by time and space—newspapers, wire services, radio, television, and book publishing—choices must be made. The people who make choices decide what will be published, printed, aired, or broadcast.

The same issue applies to the Swedish government’s treatment of the Israel is murdering Palestinians to steal their organs tall tale. Swedish officials self-righteously portray themselves as defenders of free speech. In reality, though, Swedish government money paid the author who made these outrageous claims and financed publication of his work. The Swedish government did not choose to subsidize someone to write a book in defense of Israel or to point to the very real crimes of radical Islamists and terrorists.

We’re not talking about freedom of speech here but about choices made by government officials and editors.

How do they make those decisions?

These choices are supposedly governed by professional ethics and practices. One factor determining what stories are published is importance; another is balance (representing different views); still another is fairness, giving some reasonable response from those criticized. The “public’s right to know” what its own government and institutions are doing is another consideration. Building ratings or selling newspapers through sensationalism or human interest, is also part of the mix.

Yet there is a limit, boundaries beyond which opinions are not represented. Today, things beyond the pale include anything deemed, racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, and various other categories.

I hesitate to add the word antisemitism to this list since in some ways it is and in others it is not included. Indeed, the acceptability of antisemitic claims and arguments for publication has sharply increased or at least the term has been defined out of existence:

Jews murder little children to drink their blood—antisemitic? Israeli Jews murder little children to drink their blood—not antisemitic? A cartoon showing Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon eating a Palestinian child won a prestigious prize in the United Kingdom.

A credible newspaper would not use its space to run articles saying the world is flat, space aliens live among us, or witches are operating in local jurisdictions. There is a range of items ruled absurd, crackpot, unworthy of consideration. Standards are supposed to rule out the irrational.

Irrationality has played a big role in the history of antisemitism. Being different and not understood, Jews (the original “other”) were deemed capable of anything not within the norm for other humans: poisoning wells, murdering God or gods, conspiring to gain world hegemony, controlling all behind the scenes.

It is common to hear that criticism of Israel does not equate with antisemitism. That’s true. But it is equally true that the way Israel is criticized lied about, demonized, and treated with double standards does duplicate historic antisemitism.

The more extreme will accept the far-out scenarios like Israel murdering people to steal their organs or controlling the world media. The more moderate will only accept scenarios that seem more rational but still include massacres without proof, war crimes without evidence. Indeed, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, opinions remain unchanged both out of partisanship and the view that Israel and/or Jews in general are evil, or at least strange and unpredictable.

Take for example the so-called “Jenin massacre.” The story of this non-event is bizarre. After an Israeli operation in Jenin against terrorists, a single Palestinian individual of unknown background charged that Israeli troops had massacred dozens of Palestinians.

There was not then or afterward a shred of supporting evidence, yet the international media went crazy with the story. After which, Palestinian Authority officials picked it up and further purveyed it.

Even the UN, not exactly friendly to Israel, concluded the story was a hoax, yet today no doubt millions of people believe it. In fact, not long ago I spoke to a former television producer, now member of the governing board that runs television in his English-speaking country, who remains firmly convinced that the story is true.

There are literally hundreds of these propaganda stories produced every month. Like UFO sightings, some may be true but they are all unproven. Now and then one particularly outrageous—as in the Swedish organ theft case—gets exposed but the damage is done nonetheless.

This may not seem responsive to the Los Angeles Times case. It is always tempting to run a “man bites dog” story: Israeli professor calls for boycott of Israel.

But the media is not so innocent for several reasons. First, it sets the tone of debate. The choice is between: Israel should be boycotted! No, it shouldn’t! Rather than: The Palestinian Authority should be pressed into being moderate! No, it shouldn’t! The context is: Israel is or is not a nation of war criminals, not the equivalent case about the Palestinian Authority.

Second, it gives increasing access for extremists and crackpots telling explicit lies, as in the case of the New York Times op-ed where made-up quotes are attributed to Israeli officials.

Here’s an example of a different issue, chosen at random. I’d bet there have been 30 articles and quotes in news stories, op-eds, etc., claiming Syria can be lured away from its alliance with Iran for each one on the other side.

To return to Newton and the publishing Hitler analogy, the problem nowadays is not giving Hitler a platform at all but doing so every day for the contemporary equivalents (Iran’s regime, Hamas, Hizballah, Libya, etc.) in a context implying he was right or at least had a good case. Of course, for ideological reasons Hitler is an unlikely person for such treatment, and perhaps deliberately chosen for that reason. The real area of threat is not on the extreme right but on the far left or among radical Islamists.

There is another problem here as well. Since Palestinian, Arab, and Islamist sources have proven themselves so unreliable in their claims about Israel in the past, shouldn’t they be treated as such now?

When Newton writes about Hitler, he is saying that either the context or readers’ knowledge would tell them Hitler is lying or wrong. But the context of coverage about Israel is such as to validate false claims, while understanding Middle East culture and politics lies too far outside readers’ experience for them to judge for themselves. Indeed, inasmuch as they apply their own experience to such situations, they will be seriously misled.

If, however, the American media was to publish the kinds of things written about the United States in Arabic, then, yes, readers would reject it. For example, al-Ahram, Egypt’s leading newspaper, regularly publishes articles claiming that America is behind international terrorism. Egyptian textbooks claim that the U.S. military attacked Egypt in 1967 and destroyed the country’s air force. Iranian, Syrian, and Saudi media publish worse things.

But the Western media can get away with this sort of thing about Israel to a far greater extent, since it is not only an “other” country but an “other” people. The media often does seem to believe that the world would benefit from “exposure to evil ideas.” Unfortunately, though, these same ideas are portrayed in the newspapers’ pages as being good ones.

The truth is that on many issues, balance and fairness has been tossed away. Journalists and editors not only have strong political views but have abandoned professional standards by promulgating them shamelessly in news coverage. Since journalists and editors are no longer afraid of being punished by losing jobs or damage to reputations by such behavior, there is nothing to hold them back.

With Newton and other journalists denying that this problem even exists—though it’s as evident as the existence of gravity--what hope can there be they will address and remedy it?

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan).

So You Want To Boycott Israel?

Nazis replaced Jewish female jumper with man at 1936 Olympics

From the strange stories file an insight into the conduct of the Nazis long before the War. The process of dehumanising and deligitimising the Jews can be clearly understood from within this article on a Jewish athlete at the 1936 Olympics - NAZIS REPLACED JEWISH FEMALE JUMPER WITH MAN AT 1936 OLYMPICS.

SHE showered alone, shaved her legs several times a day and had a gruff, deep voice. Now it is clear why: the Nazis conscripted a man in drag to replace a star Jewish high jumper before the Berlin 1936 Olympics.

We should never forget how the process begins.

UNRWA COLLABORATORS

UNRWA chief John Ging is reported to have said that it would be inappropriate to educate Palestinian Arab children about the Holocaust!

An article in Palestine Today (Arabic) quotes Ging as saying "It is not acceptable that Palestinians student are taught the about the Holocaust at a time when Israel is writing off everything related to Palestine in the school curriculum for Palestinian students in Israel."

These are clearly words that could only be uttered by a collaborator with a regime that like the Nazis had a set aim of committing genocide against the Jewish people.

Ging is once again unmasked and with him the entire, rotten organisation that is UNRWA.

Hat Tip: Elder of Ziyon

LETTER OF THE WEEK

Some rare factual information about the Arab/Israel conflict in the Melbourne Age (thanks to letter writer Merv Morris):

Borders defined

CRAIG Barrett ( Letters, 31/8) errs in his understanding of the 1967 UN resolution 242 relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Painstakingly crafted before its final adoption, it calls for Israel's withdrawal from ''territories'', not ''the territories'' it won in defending itself from Arab attack in the Six Day War.

The absence of the definite article in the resolution was no oversight but an acknowledgement by its formulators that Israel was indefensible within its pre-1967 borders and that territorial adjustments would be required.

The West Bank, rejected by the Palestinian Arabs in 1947 and 2000, is not ''somebody else's occupied territory''. It remains contested land, the sovereignty of which must finally be decided by Arab- Israeli negotiations to end the conflict.

Merv Morris, East St Kilda

A SENSIBLE VIEW AT LAST

Kudos to the director of Melbourne University's Jewish Studies Centre, Dr Dvir Abramovich for his opinion piece in today's Sunday Age - THERE ARE AS MANY JEWISH OPINIONS AS THERE ARE JEWS. The article is a response to a series of mean spirited attacks on Jewish communal organisations and their leaderships - an occurence which attracted the attention of a gleeful Age editorship to continue its unrelenting attack on the Jews.

Abromovich sets the record straight -

There's nothing sensible about a blog that judges an entire community.

ANYONE with a passing knowledge of the Victorian Jewish community would be aware thatthere is no shortage of outlets for debate. By a crude estimation, there are annually more than 2000 events that are open, cater to every segment of the populace and explore every dimension of Jewish life.

Reading through the interview with the Sensible Jew (''The return of the Sensible Jew'', 23/8) and apiece in June (''Two women take on the 'swill' who speak loudest for Jews'', 7/6), I could hardly contain my bemusement. Alex Fein's evidence-light prosecutorial indictment of the entire Jewish community is riddled with grandiloquent contentions, distortions and omissions that fly in the face of objective reality.

Hiding the truth about Husseini

This is a famous photo of Adolf Hitler sitting with Grand Mufti Hajj Muhammad Amin al-Husseini. Will it ever emerge out of the blank pages?

What are the chances of this story about a cover up of the co-operation during WW2 between the Nazi and the Palestinian leadership ever being told in the Fairfax press?

HIDING THE TRUTH ABOUT HUSSEINI

My guess is a big fat zero

DOUBLE STANDARD WATCH

Leading American attorney, Professor Alan Dershowitz exposes as lies the Aftonbladet blood libel against the Jews and the questions the Swedish foreign minister, Carl Bildt's refusal to condemn the "undocumented and highly volatile accusation" - Sweden's refusal to condemn 'organ libel' is bogus.

And just to highlight the fact that the Swedes are in this up to their necks there's this post following the blog from a reader Jack Schwartz

Prof Dershowitz, The Israeli Hebrew paper Ma`ariv reported the other day that the same author, Donald Bostrom, had published a book back in 2001 that contained some of the same libelous "organ harvesting" charges as are found in his recent article. This book, entitled Inshallah, was subsidized by the Swedish foreign ministry. So the problem is not merely that Bildt now refuses to condemn the offensive article but that his ministry financed publication of similar charges eight years ago. Hence it appears that Sweden's foreign ministry thought that it had an interest in publshing such libels

As I have already said - Sweden has arrived in the Stone Age.

TRUTH IS THE WAY TO PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST

The Spooner cartoon that parodies the Age

How ironic after my recent post about the Age's Yasser Arafat birthday notice which concealed many truths about the former Palestinian President, that the same newspaper could publish an article entitled "Truth is the way to peace" by Jonathan Freedland.

Freedland's thoughtful op ed argues that Middle East peace will be achieved only if difficult questions, going beyond a settlement freeze, are tackled. Both sides will need to confront some inconvenient truths to answer those questions.

That's fine but if the Age believes in the headline and the excellent cartoon by Spooner accompanying Freedland's peace then it should stop being so hypocritical and disingenuous and start being honest and giving its readers the full truth about the conflict rather than to hide an entire narrative of Palestinian rejectionism by their leaders towards peace with their Jewish neighbours.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY MR. PRESIDENT

Sorry I missed it (even if it was only by a couple of days) but terrorist leader Yasser Arafat celebrated his birthday this week. Not that he was in a position to do much celebrating given that for almost four years he's been keeping company only with the worms that slither around under his Ramallah mausoleum.

Fortunately for old Yasser who would have turned 80 on 24 August, someone at Al Age hasn't forgotten him. That person placed a birthday notice in honour of Chairman-rais Arafat's big day with a carefully worded notice under Today's Birthdays as follows:-

YASSER ARAFAT (1929 - 2004) PALESTINIAN LEADER

Never giving up hope, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat spent his life fighting for an independent Palestinian state. He was born on August 24, 1929, in Cairo, Egypt(although this is disputed). Arafat's earliest memory was of British soldiers breaking into the family home and beating members of his family. At 19. he went to Palestine to fight against the Jews, before returning to university after the defeat of the Arabs. In 1958 he founded the Al-Fatah movement and in 1964 he established the Palestinian Liber­ation Organisation. In 1993, Arafat signed the Oslo Accords, a peace agreement which allowed Palestine to hold elections. In 1994, he received the NobelPeace Prize, and two years later was elected presi­dent of the Palestinian Authority. In 2002, Israeli president Ariel Sharon ordered that Arafat be con­fined to his Ramallsh home. He remained confined for two years until his death on November
11, 2004, aged 75, He had one daughter with his wife Suba Tawil.

Excuse me a second while while I vomit.

Thanks.

How very typical of the folks at Fairfax to wax lyrical about Yasser, the racist hatemongering, lying, mass murderer and thief who looted billions from his own people before leaving it after his demise (most probably from aids) to his family who still live in plush European villas.

It's beyond comprehensive how the Arab lobbyists who prepared this piece of utter bilge could possibly have left all the meaty stuff about this criminal in the paper's blank pages out of everyone's view?

One of the foreign editors at the newspaper is a Palestinian; surely he knows the truth about Arafat?

I can understand a member of the Arafat fan club wishing to distance him from the other nasties who have held leadership positions among the Palestinians; Nazi hugging thugs like Hadj Amin El Husseini, Achmed Shukeiry who frothed at the mouth and like a Dalek spewed hate filled invective and threatened to exterminate the Jews, the two faced Holocaust denying mobster Abbas and Haniyeh the Hamas genocide man but please give us all a break!

Arafat was in a league of his own amid this rogue's gallery yet look at how he's feted by the Age. The item does concede that the circumstances of his birth are disputed but fails to mention his role in terror over five decades during which he was responsible for the deaths of far more of his own people than of Jews. It fails to mention that while he signed the Oslo Accords, he never did anything to honour them, that he initiated the Second Intifada replete with murder and suicide bombings and that he lied, cheated and stole his way to a fortune at the expense of his own people. And while the Age has no qualms about describing some Israeli leaders as "militant", "hawkish" or "right wing", it fails to mention the admiration Arafat held for Husseini who assisted Hitler and Eichmann in planning the final solution of the Jews during the Second World War.

And of course, Al Age never even deigned to concede that Arafat shared his dubious peace prize with two Jews who were truly sincere in their quest for peace when they shook hands with the miserable little jerk on the White House lawns in 1993.

There's an item in today's Australian about how Fatah's 'moderates' still rejoice in their founder's terrorism which correctly asks whether the Arafat is "any relation to the guy in the "Today's Birthday" column in The Age yesterday?"

My oath he is and this birthday column will go down in the history of infamous journalism. The anonymous piece was beautifully parodies in Andrew Bolt's blog by a contributor who came up with a birthday notice for the Fuehrer in the Al Age style as follows:-

ADOLPH HITLER (1888? - 1945) GERMAN LEADER

Never giving up hope, German leader Adolf Hitler spent his life fighting for an independent Reich. He was born in Austria in 188? and Hitler’s earliest memory was of the Jews disenfranchising his neighbors and family. In his 20s he went to the western front to fight against the allied Jewish imperialists before returning to Germany on that countries defeat to sow the seed of hatred against the Jews who he blamed for the axis powers losing the war. He suffered at the hands of the democratically elected government of Germany, was imprisoned and wrote a book
about how terrible the Jews are. He was released and founded the NAZI movement. He was elected to the German leadership and Adolf Hitler received great praise as he showed off his new Germany during the 1936 Olympic. He signed the Czech agreement to try and prevent a world war and guarantee world peace though that ambition was thwarted again by the Jews and WW2 eventuated. He died in 30th April 1945 together with his wife Eva Hitler-Braun.

Beautiful!

Dear Foreign Minister Bildt

From David Harris - Executive Director AJC

Dear Minister Bildt,

As you know well, a leading newspaper in your country, Sweden, earlier this month published an article alleging that Israeli soldiers killed Palestinians to harvest their organs.

This wasn't just any newspaper. Aftonbladet is the largest-circulation newspaper in Scandinavia. An estimated 15 percent of your fellow Swedes read the paper, which is owned by the Swedish Trade Union Confederation.

And this wasn't just another article in the paper. It was given pride of place in the Culture section. Indeed, two pages were devoted to it under the radioactive headline, "They plunder the organs of our sons."

Mr. Minister, despite many requests, you have chosen not to comment on the article's unfounded, indeed ludicrous, allegations.

In explanation, you wrote, "Freedom of expression and press freedom are very strong in our constitution by tradition. And that strong protection has served our democracy and our country well. If I were engaged in editing all strange debate contributions in different media, I probably wouldn't have time to do much else."

And you went further still. When your ambassador in Israel, Elisabet Borsiin Bonnier, laudably condemned the article, rather than stand with her, your ministry distanced itself from her position, stating that it was "designed for an Israeli audience."

Mr. Minister, this is not an issue of freedom of expression or freedom of the press.

What the newspaper did was repugnant. It published an incendiary screed.

Regrettably, it's a fact of life that some media outlets act irresponsibly, whether driven by blind ideology, poor editing, or the financial bottom line. Depending on national libel laws and media guidelines, there may be recourse in the courts or oversight bodies. In the case of Aftonbladet, we shall see.

Mr. Minister, frankly speaking, this matter has become an issue of political leadership – or the lack thereof.

Assuming you disagreed with the article, all you had to say was that you found the report odious and welcomed the reaction of Ambassador Bonnier. That would have been the right thing to do in a case that has garnered global attention. And, by the way, it would have taken less time and space than explaining why you didn't do so.

Instead, you dug in your heels and have now made yourself, more than the paper's editors and the article's author, the central issue, turning this into a diplomatic face-off with understandably angry – and perplexed – Israeli officials.

Mr. Minister, you are the foreign minister of a respected member of the European
Union and the international community.

Your country currently holds the rotating EU Presidency.

Speaking of the EU, its Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia has adopted a working definition of antisemitism. Among other applicable references in this case, it says that contemporary acts of antisemitism include, "Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis."

Commendably, your country took the lead a decade ago in launching a process that created the International Task Force on Holocaust Education, Remembrance and Research.

Is it not painfully obvious that one of the contributing factors to the Holocaust was the widespread use of defamatory speech to demonize, and ultimately dehumanize,
the Jewish people?

You are the former prime minister of Sweden and a member of one of Sweden's most renowned families, and you have proudly referred to Sweden's rejection of all forms of antisemitism.

You have served in key EU and UN positions to bring stability and security to the war-torn Balkans, earning you a reputation as an admired statesman. You are known to speak your mind, even when it ruffles feathers in other capitals, as it has more than once.

So your silence in this matter becomes all the more troubling.

Aftonbladet decided to abuse the cherished right of freedom of speech to publish brazen lies. Your response, seemingly, is to muzzle your own right to challenge what it printed.

That would be disturbing at any time, but even more so today.

Mr. Minister, a blood libel against the State of Israel was published by a popular Swedish paper. Yes, a blood libel.

The charge that Israeli soldiers deliberately kill Palestinians for their organs is just that – a mendacious allegation that has shattering historical echoes and caused such harm to the Jewish people throughout the ages, as Jews were repeatedly accused of poisoning wells, spreading infectious diseases, and killing Christian children to drain their blood for the baking of Passover matzah.

More recently, it is Israel that has borne the brunt of such canards. With seeming abandon, Palestinians have leveled the most bizarre claims against Israel. They have ranged from a mass fainting epidemic allegedly due to Israeli "poisoning," to Israel's supposed distribution of aphrodisiac bubble gum to "destroy" young women in Gaza; from wholesale "massacres" in Jenin (or "Jeningrad"), to an attempt by the Israeli army to "wage war" against the Church of the Nativity – and, by extension, all of Christianity.

Subsequent investigation proved that each of these was totally unfounded, but not before irreparable damage to Israel's reputation was done.

What appeared in Aftonbladet, therefore, cannot be seen in isolation. There is a context for it – and that context should cause concern.

Yes, Mr. Minister, it is late in the day to clarify your position. At this point, you may not wish to appear to succumb to "external pressure" to do so. And even if you do speak out, there will be those who wonder why it took so long and question your sincerity.

Put those concerns aside and do the right thing. There is a wonderful Swedish book, Tell Ye Your Children, which has been translated into many languages. Its aim is to teach about the Holocaust and the lessons to be learned from it.

The first lesson is the obligation of people of good will to unmask raw hatred and confront it. Silence is never an option, nor is denial a strategy.

Mr. Minister, people of conscience need to hear your voice. Will we?

Scoop: Swedes Harvest Norwegian Fishermen’s Feet.

Thanks to Modernity blog for this sensational news story hot off the presses - Scoop: Swedes Harvest Norwegian Fishermen’s Feet.

In an article in the opinion section of the paper’s Website Sunday afternoon, a journalist under a pseudonym penned a story, complete with dateline, research and witness accounts in quotation marks, alleging that Sweden, in an effort to compete with salmon products from neighboring Norway, harvested the feet of Norwegian fishermen to extract the secret ingredient that – according to the article – makes the Swedish salmon dish more palatable: the fungi growing on Norwegian fishermen’s feet.

The Yediot story even names the Swedish army’s secret unit whose job it is to harvest the organs: Stinkande strumpor [Swedish for 'smelly socks']

WOW!

And it was only yesterday that I made the comment about how Sweden had sunk back into the Stone Ages.

WHY IT'S RACISM!

Swedish Foreign Minister Herr Carl Bildt

Sweden's largest newspaper, Aftonbladet, recently published an article claiming that Israel's army deliberately has deliberately kidnapped and murdered Palestinian civilians cut out and sell their organs to sick people needing transplants. The story, by Donald Bostrom, is based on Palestinian sources and its author admits that he has no evidence other than the word of his informants but says it is up to Jews and Israelis to prove themselves innocent.

The story is simply too absurd for words and Bostrom is being more than disingenuous when he claims Jews are guilty until they prove themselves innocent. When Jews and Israel are accused by neighbours who might have lying on their agendas, there is no rule of law. They are singled out in a special way and the standards that apply to allegations of Jewish behaviour are different to the standards that apply to others. That's called "racism" in my book and this appalling practice has regrettably, become widespread across the world and including in Australia where we have one local broadsheet which is a serial offender in that whilst it constantly highlights accusations made against Israel, it ignores actual evidence of wrongdoing and hatemongering from its enemies.

The Israeli government is now considering taking legal action against the reporter for libel Israel may sue Swedish paper over IDF slur. It really is about time these shonks were taken to task and perhaps an action for criminal libel could even be undertaken on the basis that Bostrom and his newspaper have committed a reckless criminal act against the Jewish and Israeli people. I suppose we might even claim that it's up to them to prove their innocence.

It's bad enough when a newspaper makes these allegations but the ridiculous double standard applied by the Swedish government demonstrates how Europe is now quacking hypocritically in its boots for fear of offending its growing Muslim minorities. When Swedish Embassy in Israel described the Aftonbladet report report as “appalling”, the Swedish Foreign Ministry went catatonic and a spokeswoman began frothing at the mouth about how the "Swedish government is committed to freedom of the press." - In Sweden, silence is golden - just ask FM Carl Bildt.

This is the same Swedish government interfered to pressure newspapers and internet to censor the Danish cartoons a few years back.

Double standards, hypocrisy and racism. Sweden is now back in the Stone Ages.

THE QUALITY OF MERCY

Is there a sicker sight than this picture of Libya's leader feting freed mass murderder, Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi?

THE IMAGE

Yaakov Kirschen has come up with a winner in his brilliant cartoon entitled "Israel's Image". It's her multitude of enemies who try to create a different image to the reality and that is why they are such abysmal losers!

Playing the Nazi card is vile and pathetic, but hardly illegal

An interesting Op Ed article in the Australian by Brendan O'Neill argues that playing the Nazi card is vile and pathetic, but hardly illegal.

I tend to agree with much of what he says. Playing the Nazi card is the resort of scoundrels and liars but rather than make it illegal to raise the allegation, it is far better to expose this boorish practice for what it is - a "childish, unthinking expression of cheap political outrage".

We saw the best and most recent example of playing the Nazi card in Caryl Churchill's pathetic 8 minute piece of agitprop "Seven Jewish Children" which had the anti-Israel crowd including reporters from our local broadsheet in Melbourne salivating at the opportunity to do some Jew bashing. If only those shameless Jews who involved themselves in the Australians for Palestine propaganda festival that accompanied the play reading read O'Neill's piece, they might come one day come to their senses.

If they have any!

HUMAN RIGHTS BASTARDRY

Can those who call themselves "human rights advocates" be trusted any more?

Thanks to Elder of Ziyon for pointing me to this article from Maariv translated in Commentary - Who Is Human Rights Watch’s Joe Stork?. Here's the translation:

AUTHOR OF REPORT AGAINST ISRAEL SUPPORTED MUNICH MASSACRE
By Ben-Dror Yemini, Ma’ariv, 16.8.09, p. 13

Joe Stork, a senior official in Human Rights Watch, which accuses the IDF of killing Palestinians who waved white flags, is a fanatical supporter of the elimination of Israel. He was a friend of Saddam, ruled out negotiations and supported the Munich Massacre, which “provided an important boost in morale among Palestinians.”

Last Thursday, many world media outlets covered the press conference in which a senior Human Rights Watch official, Joe Stork, presented the report accusing Israel of killing twelve Palestinians in the Gaza Strip who waved white flags during Operation Cast Lead. Stork, the person identified with the report, has a unique history of Israel-hating: He supported the murder of Israeli athletes in Munich, was an avid supporter of Saddam Hussein and more.

Several times in the past, Stork has called for the destruction of Israel and is a veteran supporter of Palestinian terrorism. Already as a student, Stork was amongst the founders of a new radical leftist group, which was formed based on the claim that other leftist groups were not sufficiently critical of Israel and of the United States’ support of it. Already in 1976, Stork participated in a conference organized by Saddam Hussein which celebrated the first anniversary of the UN decision that equated Zionism with racism. Stork, needless to say, arrived at the conference as a prominent supporter of Palestinian terrorism and as an opponent to the existence of the State of Israel.

He also labeled Palestinian violence against Israel as “revolutionary potential of the Palestinian masses”—language that was typical of fanatical Marxists.

In articles which he authored during the 1970’s, Stork stated that he was against the very existence of Israel as an “imperialistic entity” and, to this end, provided counsel to Arab regimes on how to eliminate the Zionist regime. He also was opposed to any negotiations since this meant recognizing its existence: “Zionism may be defeated only by fighting imperialism,” wrote Stork, “and not through deals with Kissingers.”

On other occasions, Stork expressed his position that the global Left must subordinate itself to the PLO in order to strengthen elements that opposed any accord with Israel. It would seem that he has not changed his ways since then. He is still conceptually subordinate to those who have maintained their opposition to the existence of the State of Israel. Once the world’s radical left supported the PLO. Today, part of the global Left supports Hamas.

Stork, of course, is not alone. The hate ships that arrive from time to time, or attempt to arrive, to the shores of Gaza, are full of radicals of his ilk. They do not identify with efforts towards compromise or peace. On the contrary, they identify with those who are continuing the old line that supports the elimination of Israel. And what would happen if the PLO should decide to enter the negotiations track? Stork already recommended years ago that the Palestinian left splinter in order to continue the resistance. Hamas obeyed. It is possible to guess where Stork’s heart lays.

Where does Stork stand regarding matters of objectivity and neutrality? He criticized Professor Ibrahim Abu-Lughod, himself a PLO figure, because he edited an anthology which tried, at least seemingly, to produce a balanced presentation. “Academic neutrality is deceitful,” wrote Stork. And what about factual accuracy? Stork claimed that Menachem Begin said that, ‘The Palestinians are two-legged animals.” In fact, Begin said that those who come to kill children are “two-legged animals.” The difference is, of course, huge. Stork, time after time, justifies his high standing in the industry of hate and lies against Israel.

Stork reached his peak in a statement published by the Middle East Research and Information Project, which dealt with gathering information on the Middle East conflict, and in which Stork was a leading figure. This was a statement that included explicit support for the murder of the eleven Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics:

“Munich and similar actions cannot create or substitute for a mass revolutionary movement,” the statement said, “But we should comprehend the achievement of the Munich action…It has provided an important boost in morale among Palestinians in the camps.”

Murder and terrorism, if so, are a matter of morale.

This is the man. A radical Marxist whose positions have not changed over the years. On the contrary. Objectivity, neutrality or sticking to the facts are not Stork’s strong suit. He even proudly exclaims that there is no need for neutrality.

Is it possible to relate seriously to a report against Israel which this man stands behind? Both Camera and Professor Gerald Steinberg have revealed worrying data on the leaders of Human Rights Watch and on the two people who head its Middle East Department—Sarah Leah Whitson and Joe Stork—even before its latest report and unconnected to it. The organization, as part of its false presentation, issued polite condemnations of Hamas rocket fire. But it seems that such blatant anti-Israel bias leaves room for doubt. A Stork-produced report on Israel is about as objective as a report by Baruch Marzel on Hebron.

Israel is called upon to provide explanations in the wake of Human Rights Watch reports. It is about time that Israel publicly exposed the ideological roots of several of this organization’s leaders and demands the dismissal of these supporters of terrorism and haters of Israel. Until then, Israel, justifiably, cannot seriously comment on criticism from such a body.

I'll go a little further. It's not just HRW that's been infiltrated by the Palestinian hate Israel lobby. The United Nations itself is wracked with the same disease and that's why the forthcoming U.N report on Israel's defensive war in Gaza is likely to have no credibility whatsoever.

The art of deception

When Palestinians slaughter Palestinians in the course of a shoot out in a Gaza mosque the safe option for our local broadsheet is a feel good story about this beer salesman.

When the news isn't quite going in the direction you want it to go, the artful media propagandist can still push his agenda by means of diversionary tactics. If you have to keep the slaughter in Gaza away from the attention of your readers when there's not a Jew in sight to be blamed, then what better than a puff piece about a Palestinian beer manufacturer from the West Bank whose business is booming - Palestinian Oktoberfest in the West Bank?

Taybeh Beer's been around for quite a while and is living proof that the co-operation between Israelis and Palestinians can bring about beneficial outcomes for both people.

But the Palestinian lobby which pumps Palestinian tyres at every turn doesn't need a story about Hamas brutality in Gaza at the very time when its waiting for the soon to be published U.N. report that's been commissioned to make a finding that Israel committed war crimes in defending its people from the thugs of Gaza based on eyewitness reports from er ... well ... people sympathetic to the thugs.

Thugs like those described in this story from the Australian which actually does take the trouble today to properly inform its readers - Hamas hit hardliners in Gaza battle.

And in the meantime, let's drink to the beer maker from the West Bank whose business will no doubt end up in ruins if the boys from Hamas ever gained control of his part of the world.

Weird and Dangerous Ideas

By the way, the latest death count in the Hamas mosque massacre is now up to 28. How will the media deal with this massacre given they can't blame the Jews?

I'm sure the usual human rights advocates and letter writers from Australians for Palestine will be all over this story trying to spin doctor their way out of this.

The truth is that Hamas barbarians are barbarians and Fatah barbarians are barbarians and Al Quaeda barbarians are barbarians. So too are their apologists - all of them.

It will be interesting to see how the media treats this story.

Fraser disrobed again

Yesterday, I set out a letter from Mr. Johhny Baker in response to Malcolm Fraser's recent Op Ed in the Melbourne Age. Here's a more complete rebuttal (read "demolition") from the on line Jewish News - FRASER'S VIEW OF HAMAS IS MISGUIDED

THE TROUBLE WITH HAMAS

Here's Sacha Baron Cohen taking the Micky out of Hamas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTFlZlLubJk

Having seen this you understand why the humourless muppets at the Guardian, Al Age and Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade would have such a miniscule understanding of Bruno's all about.

Fraser's view is naive and misleading

The Age has finally deigned to publish a letter critical of Hamas quisling Malcolm Fraser. Johnny Baker refutes one aspect of the former PM's drivel filled apology to the terrorist organisation published earlier this week. There are many more matters which should be raised in a full rebuttal of the former PM's article but this is a good start:-

FORMER prime minster Malcolm Fraser's call for the Australian Government to engage with Hamas (Comment, 11/8) is as misguided as it is misleading. Even more disturbing than his naive political exhortations is Fraser's sinister claim that the reason the Government has not adopted his personal approach is for ''fear of criticism from the Jewish lobby''. This raises the ancient canard of pointing the finger at a minority group and suggesting it exercises undue power through illegitimate means.

Fraser knows that Jews make up less than 1 per cent of the Australian population. He also knows that it is an articulate and engaged community that is committed to democratic processes. At the end of the day, no force in the world can prevent a Government from doing what it sees as being in the best interests of this country.

Perhaps the reality is simpler. Australia, in keeping with most Western democracies, is simply carrying out good policy in refusing to engage with an extremist fundamentalist group. One can only be gratified that there is bipartisan support in the Australian Parliament for promoting moderation rather than extremism.

Johnny Baker, Caulfield North

The Palestinian Lobby and the Age

I don't have a problem with any newspaper giving former Prime Ministers a voice to express their views even if they are demented as was Hamas quisling Malcolm Fraser's Op Ed published yesterday in Al Age.

But what's the story with the letters editor over there?

Following Fraser's rant one would expect to see at least one letter challenging his frothy mouthed nonsense. Instead, we treated to more anti-Israel blood libels from an out of state reader.

It helps when you have news editors who are sympathetic to the cause of the Palestinians, but Al Age has gone well beyond the pale and has lost any shred of credibility left that it might have had on matters Middle Eastern.

IN YOUR PANTS MALCOLM

Former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser is not just some dipstick who loses his pants when travelling overseas and then comes up with some of the most improbable excuses for the absence of his attire.

No. He's a far bigger idiot than that as attested by his op ed contribution in today's Melbourne Age - The isolation of Hamas is impeding peace. The Fairfax people shamelessly accepted his contribution which is nothing more than an apology for one of the most vicious and dangerous terrorist organisations on earth.

Hamas is as much bad news for the Palestinians who it controls in Gaza as it is for the Israelis who it seeks to obliterate.Fraser ignores the Hamas Charter, the terrorism, the hate filled racist incitement and the disgusting indoctrination of children on Hamas television and would have us believe that his cutthroat mates are nothing but a bunch of boy scouts.

The man deserves a rocket in one of those places that were exposed that night in New Orleans when he, ... er had what the boys call, “ a big night out”.

Shame on him!

End the blood libels against Israel & the IDF

I'm not usually on the same political wave length as Isi Leibler but I'm with him all the way on this issue - End the blood libels against Israel & the IDF. The smear campaign currently being waged against the IDF is part of a war against Israel and the Jewish people - it's part of a loathesome attempt to demonise and deligitimise the Jewish State and goes against all principle of justice and the law as we know it.

$9.99

Last night, the Melbourne International Film Festival rolled out the red carpet for an intriguing film, a collaboration between Israelis and Australias entitled $9.99.

It was a film worth watching and, as the Israeli director Tatia Rosenthal pointed out, we have film art blackmailer Ken Loach to thank for bringing attention to the film.

Enjoyable movie about the meaning of life.

An Oscar to the coackLoach who joins Josef Goebbels in the academy of infamous political propagandists.

Stop the Presses

When I looked this morning there was a breaking news item in the on line edition of the Melbourne Age concerning anti-terror raids being conducted in Melbourne's northern suburbs. The report seems to have disappeared now (it's back in a sanitised form here) but radio reports indicate that Federal and State police arresting Australian Islamic nationals of Somali and Lebanese background in an extensive counter-terrorism operation.

Melbourne has a large Islamic population of mostly peace loving and law abiding citizens and this news unfortunately does not bode well for them. Hopefully, their leadership will prove that it is of a higher calibre than Krysar Trad who was described last week by a Justice of the NSW Supreme Court as a "dangerous" and "disgraceful individual" and they come out immediately to condemn terror and violence in all forms.

We can only hope they resist the Trad line of spin doctoring every situation and they don't follow the line of burying their heads in the sand and issuing apologies for these evil people.

The media could assist by refraining from the publication of such disgusting and disingenuous whitewashes of terrorism as that which was perpetrated in the weekend's Sunday Age item on this Fatah member who was painted as a boy scout by its Guardian correspondent.

The hatred of a "peace lover".

It's not hard to see through Australians for Palestine mouthpiece Sonja Karkar in today's Australian letters blog. Full marks to her for attempting to create a new mythology on how the Palestinians, whose currently elected leadership is Hamas, are pure white, peacedriven doves but her blind hatred of Israel always gives her away. What she says in her attempt to spin the Palestinians as the sole victims is utter bullshit!

I like the contribution of Fester who responds like this:-

Australians who are genuinely for peace in the Middle East are for Palestinians and are also for Israelis. At present there are many impediments to peace on both sides. High on the list, the Israelis must stop building settlements and the Palestinians must recognise Israel’s right to exist.

Sonja, it is true that in 1988 Arafat hinted that he may alter the PLO charter to accept Israel’s right to exist, but in 21 years no one seems to have gotten around to typing up any such changes. Also I checked on Hamas Charter just last night and they definitely didn’t get the memo. There is no room for Israel or Jews in their thinking. Even Rotary, Lions and Freemasons get a workout in their charter.

Sonja, call me a bleeding heart, but my heart bleeds for the tragedy in the Middle East. In my opinion, the biggest impediment to peace are the fanatics on both sides who say they want peace, but wholly on their own terms. Clearly a two state solution is the only way forward. And that requires compromise.

In the search for peace it is also futile to dwell on the past and who did what to whom 5, 10, 60 or 2000 years ago. The only issue worth debating is what do we do now. I’m sorry to say, Sonja, when I read your letter, which only criticises one side and offers absolutely no solution, I despair that you and your Australians For Palestine organisation are part of problem and not the solution. When someone founds a group of Australians for Peace in The Middle East made up of Israelis, Palestinians, Jews and Muslims who are prepared to focus on dismantling both the weapons and the hatreds on both sides, I’ll be thrilled to join. How about you Sonja?

The colonization of the conflict

Kudos to Seth Frantzman of the Jerusalem Post for his incisive and accurate article - The colonization of the conflict which askes to what degree is the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians choreographed and colonized by outsiders?

Frantzman asks why the local Arabs aren't joining in the weekly rock throwing ritual protests against Israel's security barrier at Bil'in, why there are more foreigners and so-called peace activists (including some from Israeli organizations like Gush Shalom) than Arabs? He concludes that this phenomenon isn't a peace protest but rather it's puerile posturing and it's become a business for the participants.

If what I'm hearing is true, it's also become a very nasty business. Rumour abound about women from one of the Israeli "peace groups" seducing foreign journalists in order to sway them into writing articles sympathetic to their cause. The issue is under investigation.

TRAD V HARBOUR RADIO PTY LTD [2009] NSWSC 750

Yesterday's New South Wales Supreme Court - TRAD v HARBOUR RADIO.

That's what I call "justice"!