June 13, 2010

A French court found that a French documentary about coverage of the controversial death of a Palestinian boy was defamatory and not objective.

The court found June 10 that the documentary by the private French television channel Canal + about the Mohammed al-Dura case did not use available information to make the documentary more balanced and accurate.

The documentary was broadcast a month before a verdict in the original lawsuit filed by media watchdog Phillipe Karsenty against France 2 television, which aired the original footage of the 12-year-old al-Dura reportedly killed in the crossfire between Israeli and Palestinian forces in September 2000 in Gaza.

The incident came on one of the first days of the second intifada and served to further inflame tensions. Israel was blamed for the death and took responsibility but later recanted.

France 2 sued Karsenty, a French media watchdog, for libel for claiming that the footage was falsified, but a Paris appeals court overturned a judgment against him in spring 2008.

The original France 2 report claimed that al-Dura was killed by Israeli gunfire, but a subsequent investigation by Israel and additional footage that showed al-Dura lifting his head and opening his eyes after being pronounced dead raised huge doubts about its validity.

“This court victory is just another step in our journey to keep the press honest,” Karsenty said Friday in an e-mail. “The French media finds every opportunity to paint Israel in a negative light, and even though I prevailed in court, the damage has already been done.”

{} {} {}

It’s nice that so many people around the world care so deeply about the Palestinians. One could almost — almost — get misty hearing the passionate outcry and the dramatic actions their advocates take in the name of helping Palestinians.

There’s a reason, however, why even Palestinians themselves are often suspicious about the motives of their outspoken supporters. That’s because one can easily detect the stench of hypocrisy wafting in their midst. A closer look at their efforts reveals a peculiar pattern: Those who become so outraged about the plight of Palestinians at the hand of Israel quickly forget their cause if the suffering is inflicted by anyone else.

How is it possible that if anyone besides Israel mistreats Palestinians, their kindhearted defenders don’t seem to notice? Palestinians are indeed victims of mistreatment. But you won’t hear much about what they endure, unless someone can pin the blame directly on Israel. Conditions in Gaza, for example, have made for a tough existence there. But human-rights activists have turned a blind eye to the systematic assault on individual freedom that has beset the population ever since the Islamic militant movement Hamas took over in 2005.

Never mind the assassinations of political opponents that paved the way for Hamas to consolidate its rule. Gaza, once a relatively liberal, free-thinking territory, has slowly moved along the path to full Islamic law in the past five years. All movie theaters and bars, for example, have been closed. Dozens of Internet cafes have been bombed, as have churches, monasteries and Christian schools. Earlier this summer, masked Hamas militants set fire to United Nations children’s camps, which competed with Hamas-run indoctrination activities for children. The regime has been busy shutting down NGOs that provided aid to Palestinians, but we haven’t heard much about that.

As in Iran, Hamas rule is slowly interfering with the tiniest decisions of daily life. The Interior Ministry recently declared that, “It is inappropriate for women to sit cross-legged and smoke in public.” The government banned women from smoking the popular and harmless water pipes and banned them from riding even as passengers on motorcycles, a common means of transportation. As freedom disappears at the hands of Hamas, nobody outside Gaza seems to care.

After a recent flotilla of pro-Palestinian activists challenged the Israeli blockade, a Gaza art gallery director declared, “Thanks to all of you democratic people from all over the world, who are fighting the Israeli embargo of Gaza. But please, at the same time, could you also denounce the Hamas repression of intellectual freedom?” Intellectual freedom is the least of it. Members of the rival Fatah party say Hamas is gradually adopting the tactics of Iran’s infamous Basij militias to impose oppressive social norms and destroy the opposition. Hamas rivals say beatings and torture are common.

All those Western activists that cry out for freedom and democracy, and who never tire of reminding us that Hamas was democratically elected (although militiamen threw rivals off rooftops, not so democratically) somehow ignored that Palestinian municipal elections, which were supposed to happen in July, mysteriously disappeared from the agenda after Hamas prevented voter registration.

All those Arab activists, who shed tears for the suffering of Palestinians, are also curiously unmoved by the plight of Palestinians in their own countries. In Lebanon, for example, where pro-Palestinian groups are working to launch another convoy towards Gaza, Palestinian refugees are treated like third class non-citizens. Even those born in Lebanon are not allowed to own property and are banned from many professions. Palestinians are not allowed to work as journalists or doctors or lawyers or any of 50 professions. And yet, those who sound as if they spend sleepless nights suffering for their Palestinian brethren remain curiously quiet about these terrible, inexcusable injustices. They also remain mysteriously silent about unjust restrictions placed on Palestinians in just about every other Arab country.

Legitimate concern for Palestinians demands examining Israel’s actions, and determining if Israel’s need to stop rocket attacks from Gaza, for example, justifies the naval blockade. But the curious one-sided outrage betrays the real agenda of their avowed advocates.

The true agenda is attacking Israel, not defending Palestinians. If their supporters really cared about Palestinians, they would work to help them no matter what the source of the injustice. Watching the charade, one’s eyes can get misty — from the stench of hypocrisy that fills the air.

{} {} {}

Copyright by the author.

Ex The Jerusalem Post
9 August 2010

My father was born in Iran and remains firmly attached to his Iranian heritage. He loves the food, the music, the language and the culture. It’s something I have witnessed with most Iranian exiles. Their country travels with them.

And why not? Iran was once one of the world’s greatest civilizations and the Middle East’s most highly educated state.

Then came Ruhollah Khomeini, and the slow descent into barbarism began.

To see what Shi’ite technocrats have done to Iran is tragic. I do not speak only of the violent clown Mahmoud Ahmadenijad, who can look an Ivy-League audience in the eye and say there are no homosexuals in Iran. Rather, I speak of a country so riddled with hate that it thinks nothing of producing cartoons, available on a website promoted by the semi-official Fars news agency, denying the Holocaust and portraying Jews as hook-nosed vermin. Have the Iranians been taught to hate Jews so much that they can caricaturize the gassing of one million children?

When I visited Poland I walked into a clearing near Tarnow where 800 Jewish orphans had been murdered, mostly by having their brains dashed against trees. The Iranians would make fun of this as well? What level of humanity must be compromised before one feels that wholesale slaughter is a matter of comic relief? I forced myself to watch all of The Stoning of Soriah M by Iranian director Cyrus Nowrasteh.

Based on a true story, it’s final scene – depicting an innocent woman buried up to her neck and having her skull slowly crushed by average men including her own father, husband and son throwing stones large enough to injure but not to immediately kill – is easily one of the most brutal events ever depicted on film.

If only it were an exaggeration.

The world is currently focused on the case of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, a 43-year-old woman awaiting death by stoning in the Iranian town of Tabriz after a sham conviction for adultery.

International pressure has so far granted her a reprieve, but is that what it takes – outside objectors persuading Iranian villagers that it’s wrong to pick up a stone, take out a woman’s eye and turn her brain into mush? How can these men have lost the universal voice of conscience? Can any of us even conceive of picking up a stone and throwing it as hard as we can at a helpless woman dug into a pit? Only the truly barbaric, those who have become utterly detached from humanity could behave this way.

THE 2001 case of Maryam Ayubi is particularly gruesome. Another alleged adulteress, she fainted during the ritual washing that preceded her execution. No matter. They stoned her to death while she was strapped to a stretcher. If I met any of the men who participated I would simply stare into their eyes, pondering how the light of humanity could have been so thoroughly extinguished.

I believe the West is largely to blame for this continued barbarity. Why is there an Iranian embassy in the middle of London? Does its presence not silently condone this continuing barbarity against women? Where are the women’s groups to protest Western interactions with a country that can mutilate females in the most monstrous ways? I have a friend whose husband is a physician called upon to treat a member of the Saudi royal family.

They offered him a king’s ransom to fly to Riyadh. His wife objected. “If a woman isn’t allowed to drive a car in that kingdom, then you’re not going to treat its leadership,” she told him. He forfeited a fortune, but she made her point.

The saddest thing about all this is the absence of vocal Muslims condemning Iran’s descent into barbarism. It seems that many are too busy condemning Israel. I believe that Israel’s military actions against Hamas and Hizbullah are necessary measures of self-defense, but if any Israeli cartoonist were to caricaturize Arabs as grotesque subhumans, the way Jews are regularly portrayed in Iran, I would call it an abomination.

IN HIS speech last week from Governor’s Island about why the ‘Ground Zero’ mosque ought to be built, Mayor Mike Bloomberg said the 9/11 attacks were committed by ‘fanatics.’ He refused to mention even once that the attackers were Muslims. Are we doing our Islamic brothers and sisters a favor when we whitewash crimes committed by Islam, or should we be encouraging them to cut out the stubborn cancer in global Islam? It may be tough love, but is it not more helpful to be honest about the growing brutality in the name of Islam so that those who love and practice this great world religion and wish to restore it to its former glory can reclaim it from the killers and fanatics?

Fareed Zakaria just returned a humanitarian prize he received from the ADL because the organization came out against the Ground Zero mosque. He explained that the mosque organizers are Osama bin Laden’s worst nightmare because they are moderates who repudiate violence. How patronizing. That’s the most we can expect from Muslims, that they not support terrorism? Islam was once the most educated and forward-looking civilization in the world. It degrades itself and is betrayed by so-called friends who tell it to aspire to nothing more than not being Osama bin Laden.

{} {} {}

Copyright by the author who hosts ‘The Shmuley Show’ on 77 WABC in NYC. He is the founder of This World: The Values Network and has just published Renewal: A Guide to the Values-Filled Life. www.shmuley.com

When David Cameron visited Turkey recently he took the opportunity to relieve himself of some malice aforethoughts regarding Israel. Such as Israel having launched an unprovoked attack on the Mavi Marmara.

The real provocation came from those on the Mavi Marmara who responded “Go back to Auschwitz.” Nice babies these peaceful flotilla folk. Israel was left with the only option to board the ship and take it over.

Its troops rapelled down and were immediately attacked by a group of roughnecks waiting for them with iron bars, sticks, knives and grenades. They would undoubtedly have been beaten to death had the Israeli troops so allowed. Instead they fired back in self defense with fatal consequences for 9 of the attackers.

Cameron also accused Israel of the continued “occupation” of Gaza disregarding the fact that the last Israeli had left 5 years earlier. If he actually means Israel’s blockade – imposed to prevent the ruling Hamas terrorists from importing lethal rockets intended and other military equipment to kill Israelis – he should have said so. Because a blockade is not occupation. Nor is it illegal under international law.

But Cameron had more anti-Israel barbs: “The situation in Gaza has to change. Humanitarian goods and people must flow in both directions. Gaza cannot and must not be allowed to remain a prison camp.”

This criticism from a British Prime Minister is hard to stomach for the simple reason that were it not for the goods that go in and out the Gazans would truly be in a desperate condition. Israel not only supplies food and medicines but everything in between. Plus electricity and water. In fact Gaza is actually flourishing.

Moreover, since Gaza’s Hamas terrorist government is totally committed to Israel’s destruction can anyone point to another such example in world history to match Israel’s generosity?

Ironically, Cameron paid an official visit to India shortly after visiting Turkey. Since the UK has suffered a great deal during the recent economic meltdown his purpose was to increase business between the two countries.

Cameron was at his charming, deferential. In his public statements he said he was well satisfied with the prospects of increased future business with India.

He had plenty of guts when it came to insulting the Jewish state but none when it came to rapping India’s knuckles for its horrendous crimes against humanity.

These crimes are documented from time to time by the UN’s Human Rights Council – http://www.google.com/search?q=%22International+dalit+solidarity+Network%22&hl=en&sourceid=gd&rlz=1Q1GGLD_enIL354IL355

by Amnesty International – “http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:TO8h63keTVsJ:www.amnestyusa.org/all-countries/india/page.do%3Fid%3D1011170+%22Amnesty+International%22+india&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk

and by Human Rights Watch. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalit

Most people are not aware of suffered by its 200 million Dalits/untouchables at the hands of those in the upper castes during India’s horrible history. But a British Prime Minister of a country which occupied and ruled India for over 200 years has nowhere to hide.

Abuses Committed Against Dalits

Abuses against dalits take many forms. They include (but are not limited to): • Beatings, slashing, and other forms of torture • Arson — the burning of dalit communities • Violence against women • Rape, gang rape, and the parading of women through the streets naked • Beating and torture of women • Summary execution, many times by burning alive • Bonded labor • Denial of rights • Police abuses against dalits, custodial abuse.

Not one of these inhuman criminal sins can be laid at Israel’s door. Instead Cameron lambasted Israel because Israeli soldiers defended themselves against serious personal injury if not certain death. He is a hypocrite and a political bully. His shame is inextricably etched in Indian ink.

{} {} {}

In a polemic published last month in the New York Review of Books, “The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment,” the left-wing journalist Peter Beinart argued that American Jews, especially the younger generation, are turning their backs on Israel. In Beinart’s estimation, this is a most understandable and inevitable development. Beinart expounded on the points of his original essay during a recent lecture (in Los Angeles). Just as in the original article, Beinart’s argument was profoundly flawed.

For anyone with a modicum of knowledge of Israeli society and the larger picture of the Middle East, the lecture was an astonishing display of ignorance and arrogance. The following analysis of the lowlights of his talk shows how Beinart, like other Israel-bashers, rides roughshod over the truth in an effort to portray Israel as violent and inhumane and deserving of the increasing suspicion in which it is held by American Jews.

The “Radical Settlers”

Beinart stated as a matter of fact: “The same radical settlers who used violence against Palestinians used violence against an Israeli prime minister .”

Prime Minister Itzhak Rabin was not assassinated by a “radical settler,” but by a law student from Herzilya, a coastal town adjacent to Tel Aviv.

Beinart gave no evidence in this part of his talk that he knew what percentage of the settlers were involved in violence against Palestinians. Or who has been subject to greater and more lethal violence. Is it Palestinians by settlers? Or settlers by Palestinians? Nor did he mention that Palestinian movements have proven all too ready to use violence. Not only is this violence directed toward “radical settlers” and innocent Israeli citizens, but Palestinians have also embarked on a frenzy of fratricidal fury against themselves.

The Eviction of Palestinians in the Sheikh Jarrah Quarter in East Jerusalem

On this matter, Beinart posed this rhetorical question: Is what is happening in Sheik Jarrah, where Palestinians who were living in their homes for 50 years were forcibly evicted and are now living in the street, “kosher”?

This mirrors his claim in his New York Review of Books article that: (In) the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah, … a Palestinian family named the Ghawis lives on the street outside their home of fifty-three years, from which they were evicted to make room for Jewish settlers.

In fact, the Palestinians’ eviction was not a politically motivated initiative to dispossess hapless, helpless Palestinians as Beinart implies, but the result of a court ruling.

The courts (including the Israeli Supreme Court, which often — indeed more often than not — rules against the “radical settlers”) determined that the property in which the Palestinians were living in fact belonged to Jewish owners. In 1967, the court awarded the Palestinian families “protected tenant” status, whose right to reside in the homes was guaranteed as long as they paid rent to the legal owners.

In 1982, the legal owners sued 23 families for nonpayment of rent. According to an agreement reached between the lawyer representing the Palestinian families and the authorized representatives of the owners, the Palestinian families were indeed recognized as “protected tenants” whose occupancy in the buildings was ensured as long as they paid rent. However, most of the families refused to do so.

Does Beinart believe that Israel would be looked on more favorably if the rule of law was flouted, and legal property rights violated because of the ethnic identity of those ruled against? Pikuach Nefesh and Reverence for Life Over Land Beinart lamented: One of the things that bothers me is (the undermining of) the great reverence for Pikuach Nefesh (preserving lives) and the recognition that it is acceptable to withdraw from land if it meant saving lives.

This is a statement that can only be explained by either total ignorance or total insincerity. For as anyone who follows the news or reads the papers must know, a dramatic inverse relationship exists between Pikuach Nefesh (preserving lives) and withdrawal from land.

Indeed, since the doctrine of “land-for-peace” was introduced into Israeli policy, fatalities have soared to unprecedented levels on both the Israeli and the Palestinian sides. To suggest otherwise reflects a massive deficit of either information or integrity.

Double Standards 1

Regarding the conduct of his like-minded Israel-basher peers, Beinart pontificated: “There is something frankly silly to me about a Jewish community that feels so self-confident in how our values apply in Bosnia, the former Soviet Union, and Darfur, but is so timid in talking about how our values apply in the place we care about most (presumably Israel).”

So Israel’s attempts to defend its people are morally comparable to the wholesale slaughter in Darfur, the widespread massacres in Bosnia, and the oppressive brutality of the Soviet regime? What a windfall for the assorted collection of Jew-baiting anti-Semites, Judeo-phobic Israel-bashers, and other hate-driven villains such thinking is. What greater endorsement could they hope for than Beinart’s exhortation that his fellow Jews relate to the Jewish State as if it were governed by the genocidal Janjaweed militias in Sudan, or by the brutish guards in the Siberian gulags, or the murderous perpetrators of the bloody events in Srebrenica.

Double Standards 2

Beinart endorses double standards when they work to Israel’s detriment, and only dismisses them when they do not. When a challenge was raised regarding the application of these double standards, Beinart’s rather glib and unoriginal response was to claim that while Israel was “far morally superior to North Korea, Syria, Libya and Iran,” these were not relevant criteria he would expect from a Jewish state. According to Beinart, he should not have to “compromise just because North Korea is worse.”

Such an approach might have some merit if Israel was being censured less severely, or even equally severely, for violations of liberal-democratic values similar to those perpetrated by North Korea, Iran, etc. But what is happening is altogether different. Israel is being censured far more harshly and frequently for infringements much less notable than those glossed over by the international community when committed by other nations.

Moreover, it is not only in comparison to the tyrannies in Tehran and Tripoli and the dictatorships in Damascus and the DPRK (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) that Israel is being held to a double standard. Indeed, widely divergent criteria are used to judge the actions of Israel and those of the leading democratic countries that comprise NATO. This is true both with respect to military action in the Balkans and the “War on Terror” in Afghanistan.

In the Balkans, high-altitude bombing by NATO, including the use of cluster bombs, inflicted hundreds of civilian Serbian casualties during a military campaign in which not one single civilian in a NATO nation was ever threatened.

In Afghanistan, where military action was undertaken in response to a single terror attack on a single NATO member, estimates of civilian deaths caused directly by NATO military action since 2001 are in the range of 5000-8000, with additional indirect fatalities estimated at up to 20,000.

Why should the victims of Israeli actions taken to defend their citizens elicit a far greater expression of moral outrage on the part of the international community than actions taken to perpetuate regimes in East Asia, Central Africa, or in the Middle East?

Why should several families evicted because of failure to pay rent, after being afforded due process by the Israeli legal system, be more troubling to liberal Jews than the millions of victims of gender apartheid, creed apartheid, and gay apartheid across the Islamic world?

Israel’s Right to Defend Itself

Beinart magnanimously agrees that “to ask Israel to be willing to not defend itself would be wrong,” but predictably goes on to ask – rhetorically – “is every military action…does every Israeli policy contribute to Israeli defense..?”

To be sure, with the benefit of hindsight, some Israeli security measures may be criticized for one reason or another. But in a situation of such uncertainty, what would Beinart recommend as Israel’s working security policy: To err on the side of sober caution? Or on the side of reckless optimism?

Nothing could imperil liberal democratic values more than trying to foist on Israel unattainable standards of liberal democratic ideals that make the defense of these ideals impossible. These standards are not demanded or expected of any other country, much less from one faced with such grave existential threats.

Of course no one is disputing Beinart’s right to criticize Israeli policy. However, as someone who has chosen not to share the burden of living in Israel, he would surely understand that when he states that “as a Jew, I have a certain set of expectations… as to what a Jewish state might be,” some might interpret his approach as being more than a little presumptuous.

Indeed, it would be interesting to know what kind of Israeli military actions Beinart would condone as not offensive to his liberal sensibilities. Would they include the construction of the much maligned separation barrier? Targeted killings (with the lowest level of collateral casualties in military history)? Large scale campaigns (such as “Cast Lead”) to quell rocket and mortar fire on civilian populations?

Blockades and Balance

Beinart asks: “How did the Gaza blockade which banned a vast, vast number of consumer products that had nothing to do with making rockets…help Israeli security?” He added, ”It seems to me that all it did was lead to more and more and more hatred of Israel.”

Can Beinart really be unaware of the fact that the imposition of the blockade was a result of, not a reason for, Palestinian enmity; that it is a consequence, not a cause, of Palestinian hatred for Israel?

Is he really ignorant of the fact that whenever Israel has turned the other cheek, it has been resoundingly slapped by the Palestinians; that whenever Israel extended the hand of friendship, it has been brusquely brushed aside by the Palestinians?

Why should Israel be condemned by liberal democrats for imposing a blockade on Gaza, when the international community imposed a UN Security Council-sanctioned blockade against Iraq and its despotic ruler?

Why is the Gaza blockade more reprehensible than the U.S.-led, UN sanctioned Iraqi blockade that caused infant mortality to sky-rocket and banned importation of over 300 items – including painkillers, pencils, hearing aids, musical instruments, and shampoo?

The Ascendancy of Lieberman

Beinart bewailed the strengthening of Minister of Foreign Affairs Avignor Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu party as evidence of a widening disregard for liberal democratic values in Israel. However, a far more powerful case can be made to ascribe Lieberman’s electoral success to the dramatic failure of the left-wing’s ”Chamberlainian” program of “land-for- peace” and the consequent disappointment with this disastrous doctrine. It is an approach which, for the past two decades, has wrought nothing but death and destruction on both Jew and Arab alike.

Actually, Beinart’s loathing for Lieberman’s party appears to be based more on hearsay rather than hard facts. After all, Lieberman has not only accepted, at least implicitly, the notion of a two state solution but is in fact offering arguably even more territorial concessions than most left-wing parties.

It is true that this would involve redrawing the 1967 borders in certain places to exclude large population centers of Israeli Arabs. These would then be annexed to the Palestinian Authority. Yet, it is not quite clear why this would be considered odious to anyone who believes that a viable functioning Palestinian state is realistic, as Beinart presumably does.

Indeed, Israeli Arabs continually claim that the dominant Jewish character of Israel is incompatible with their ethno-religious identity and complain that, as a result, they are often subjected to various forms of prejudice and discrimination. So, if one assumes that a viable functioning Palestinian state is indeed feasible, one is compelled to ask, from both a moral and a practical perspective, why would Israeli Arabs not leap at the chance of being extricated from the clutches of the discriminatory Zionist regime and brought under the auspices of an egalitarian non-discriminatory Palestinian one?

As this would not involve the physical displacement of a single Israeli Arab from his/her home, what possible liberal democratic principle would Beinart invoke to object to such a proposal?

The Sentiments of Israeli Arab

Beinart’s contention is that Israel Arabs object to this arrangement of annexation to the Palestinian Authority because “they consider themselves Israeli.” But this has a rather suspicious ring to it. Is Beinart seriously suggesting that that Israeli Arabs “feel Israeli” in the sense they identify with: the words of the national anthem Hatikva – expressing 2000 years of yearning by the Jewish soul to be free in the land of Zion; the Star of David displayed on the flag; the biblical Menorah as the State symbol; Saturday rather than Friday as the official Sabbath; Yom Kippur Passover, Rosh Ha’Shana as national holidays; Hebrew as the predominant language; or Independence Day as a triumph over Arab aggression? And if not, how is it possible to make them, as he suggests, “feel more comfortable in their Israeliness”? To annul the Jewish character of Israel as expressed by the prevalence of Jewish symbolism in public life and Israel’s social institutions?

Beinart is of course right that Israeli Arabs strongly object to their annexation to the Palestinian Authority, but wrong in ascribing this aversion to a desire to become more fully integrated into the fabric of Israel. A more plausible explanation would be the desire of Israeli Arabs to continue enjoying the best of both worlds: the benefits of greater economic prosperity and personal freedom that life as an Israeli citizen affords them, and also the expression of their ethno-religious identity through an ongoing and intensifying hostility toward the entity that provides them these benefits.

Beinart’s attempt to demonstrate Israeli Arabs’ attachment to Israel seems curiously contradictory. He quotes a poll allegedly conducted in 2006 during the Second Lebanon War, and proclaims that “when they polled Israeli Arabs, they found that by a factor of about 3 to 1 they supported Israel “ Although several hours of Google-searching failed to produce any trace of such a poll, I have no reason to doubt that it may in fact exist.

Other survey results that are extremely difficult to reconcile with Beinart’s contention regarding the sentiments of Israeli Arabs for their country of residence. A 2007 poll conducted by Haifa University’s Sammy Smooha, a well-known sociologist of well-known left-leaning proclivities, found that:

• 48.2% of Arab citizens of Israel said they believed that Hezbollah’s rocket attacks on northern Israel during that war were justified; • 76% of Arab citizens of Israel described Zionism as racist; • 40.5% of Arab citizens of Israel deny the Holocaust; among high school and college graduates the figure was 33%.

A later poll by Smooha produced arguably even more disturbing results:

• Only 41% of Israel’s Arab minority recognize the country’s right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state; • Only 53.7% of the Israeli Arab public believe Israel has a right to exist as an independent country – Jewish or otherwise.

So, almost 60% do not recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, and almost half deny Israel any right of existence at all. Was Beinart, who made no reference at all to these findings, unaware of their existence? If not, then he is surely woefully ignorant. If so, then he is clearly willfully misleading

The Nuclear Threat

While Beinart acknowledges that “an Iranian nuclear weapon would be a disaster,” he goes on to expose a massive misunderstanding of the threat Israel would face if Tehran in fact realized its nuclear ambitions. He merely proclaims that in such a case “Israel would have to deal with some of the things with Pakistan on its borders, and that has a nuclear weapon.”

This comparison is ludicrous. India has a population five times that of Pakistan spread over an entire subcontinent seven times the size of Pakistan. It is in no danger of annihilation from its impoverished eastern neighbor, even if it were to suffer a surprise first-strike that wiped out several of its population centers. India has – and Pakistan knows it has – absolute first strike survivability and unassailable second strike capability to devastate Pakistan in retaliation.

In stark contrast, Israel has a population less than one tenth and an area one eightieth of Iran’s. Moreover, 80% of Israel’s civilian population live in a narrow coastal strip 8-10 miles wide and 60 miles long, of which much, indeed most, would be wiped out by a single nuclear weapon. This would dramatically undermine the ability of the country to continue to function as a viable national entity. So although Israel allegedly has marine-based second-strike capability and may be able to inflict devastating retaliation, this will not ensure its survival if Iran miscalculates the cost of a first-strike or calculates that it is worth the risk.

It also should be remembered that while Iran has overtly threatened Israel with destruction, this has never been the declared intention of Pakistan regarding India.

Furthermore, with a nuclear Iranian umbrella, terror groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Islamic Jihad, could operate with far greater freedom against Israel. The fear that harsh retaliation may precipitate a nuclear confrontation would make ordinary life in the country untenable.

So, while Beinart may be right in pointing out that modern day Israel should not be likened to the powerless, helpless Jews in Europe, this does not mean it is not facing existential threats and genocidal dangers that could precipitate tragedy on the scale of the Holocaust. He should remember that if there is a lesson to be learnt from the Holocaust it is this: it is extremely dangerous to dismiss declared intentions of despots, however delusional they may initially appear.

The Real Failure of the American Jewish Establishment

Beinart is right in diagnosing the failure of the American Jewish establishment. But it is a failure quite different than the one he writes about.

Assuming that Beinart is sincere when he implies that Israel “is the place we care about the most,” then all of the following comprise a catastrophic moral lapse on the part of the American Jewish establishment:

The failure to vigorously assert Israel’s right to defend itself and its citizens against attacks perpetrated against them just because they are Jewish;

The failure to unequivocally repudiate the prevailing custom that portrays every measure Israel undertakes to protect itself as “racist”;

The failure to reject the egregious standard by which Palestinian inconvenience is considered more heinous than the threat to Jewish lives;

The failure to unambiguously distinguish between the causes and the consequences of Arab antagonism; and

The failure to comprehend and support policy imperatives. Addressing and correcting these failures is a far more urgent, a far more pertinent, and a far more authentic mission than any obsessive tendency to dwell on the imperfections of Israel’s vibrant liberal democracy. Such imperfections are only the product of security driven exigencies and not illiberal, anti-democratic proclivities.

To expect Israel to conduct itself in a manner totally divorced from the exigencies of its environment and totally detached from the nature of its adversaries, is a position that reflects neither moral merit nor political prudence.

It is this that the American Jewish establishment, including its liberal democratic members, needs to understand and to address accordingly – before great tragedy overtakes the Jewish people again.

{} {} {}
Copyright by the author.

Dr. Martin Sherman acted as a ministerial advisor in the 1991-2 Shamir government. He also served for seven years in various defense related capacities and now teaches political science at Tel Aviv University. His works have been published in academic journals such as Journal of Strategic Studies, Journal of Theoretical Politics, International Journal of Intelligence and Counter Intelligence and Nations and Nationalism. He is the author of two books on international conflicts (Macmillan UK). Dr. Sherman is also a member of the advisory board of the Nativ journal in which he has published frequently.

In yesterday’s post, I focused on a disturbing incident described by PR guru Frank Luntz in a Jerusalem Post interview — an incident in which American Jewish college students proved utterly unwilling or unable to defend Israel. But Luntz also offered a constructive strategy for how to improve this situation.

Again, he used an example to illustrate his point: a meeting with a group of “high income, high education, politically connected” Brits who were “so hostile to Israel” that “I’d given up … There was no message that resonated remotely well with them. And I finally said ‘to hell with it. We’ll give them the Hamas Charter’” — or, more accurately, a “word for word” version taken from Hamas’s website and then “edited down to one page.”

The results surpassed his wildest expectations: at the end, “28 of the 30 said, ‘How dare Israel negotiate with these people?’” Luntz’s point is simple: when people have preconceived notions about Israel, it’s very hard to dislodge those notions — to convince them, for instance, that Israel did not wantonly target civilians in last year’s war in Gaza, or has not created a humanitarian crisis there by its blockade. But it is possible to persuade them that no matter how bad Israel is, its enemies are much, much worse — and therefore even someone who dislikes Israel should nevertheless back it against those enemies.

Though Luntz did not elaborate, it’s not hard to see why this should be so. First, people generally know much less about Hamas or Hezbollah than they think they do about Israel, so there are fewer preconceived notions to try to dislodge. Second, Israel’s enemies truly are evil and make no effort to hide it, so the case is easy to prove.

The third, and perhaps most important, reason was excellently explained by another PR professional, Sarah Kass, in a Jerusalem Post article last month. The title says it all: “It’s all defense, all the time.”

Israel’s enemies, Kass explained, are conducting a classic PR offensive, designed to keep the focus relentlessly on Israel and away from themselves. Thus they never talk about themselves; they talk only about Israel.

Israel, however, does the opposite: it talks almost exclusively about itself, constantly trying to defend its own actions rather than focusing on its enemies’ actions. And to listeners, Kass noted, this just sounds like “whining.”

What Israel should be doing, she argued, is exactly what its enemies do: focusing relentlessly on the other side. For only in that context — a battle against a truly evil enemy — can Israel’s defensive measures ever be understood.

“The country has a winning story that has nothing to do with anti-Semitism or the Holocaust,” Kass concluded. “It has to do with the degeneracy of globally coordinated fanatics who seek their own death and wish to take the world down with them.” Essentially, that’s the same point Luntz was making.

But this is a story the world doesn’t know — and never will unless Israel and its supporters start telling it.

{} {} {}

First published in Commentary’s blog: Contentions Copyright by the author.

There is not one credible member of the international media that still parrots the stated motives of the flotilla’s organizers.

This has been a difficult week for Israel. Faced with an armada of hate and violence, our soldiers, whose sole task was to control the boats and bring them peacefully to Ashdod, were faced with machete-wielding jihadists.

This Hamas-backed flotilla was a premeditated provocation that sought to either open up a corridor for weapons smuggling and terror that would have resulted in the loss of countless innocent lives, or to embarrass Israel and gain sympathy for their cause.

When weighing these two very difficult outcomes against each other, it is abundantly clear that Israel, like any other nation, has a responsibility first and foremost to the security and well-being of its citizens.

Although few could have foreseen the eventual outcome, the Foreign Ministry and many other governmental agencies had been working furiously to prepare for the worst, while hoping for the best. In fact the level of coordination before, during and after these events was unprecedented.

Senior Foreign Ministry officials held countless meetings with the leadership and ambassadors around the world, especially from those countries whose citizens were involved in the flotilla, reiterating the dangers and true nature of the flotilla organizers’ strategy. The international media was briefed and many press releases and information packs on the true intentions of the flotilla were distributed well in advance.

While some have criticized Israel’s public relations readiness for the ghastly events that took place on Monday morning, far more have expressed increasing satisfaction with the vast improvement in Israel’s official crisis management. The Foreign Ministry had prepared a situation room in advance to coordinate between the different agencies and to send responses out to the public and relevant governments as soon as possible.

Before many in Europe had arrived at work, I held a press conference clearly enunciating the government position on the flotilla and the necessity of our operation to prevent the flotilla from achieving its aims. We had already put in place a live streaming video feed so every foreign journalist had access to the press conference without leaving his or her office. This is vital in an age where many in the international media are facing budgetary cutbacks, meaning they have far fewer correspondents and camera crews. This also made it easier for major international networks to screen it live, including CNN.

Before North America had awoken, the international media were consistently showing images from the IDF Spokesman’s Office of the attempted lynching of our forces. Many government ministers were working tirelessly, moving from one international media bureau to another for the next couple of days explaining Israel’s case. We tweeted, sent messages through Facebook and created YouTube videos in vast numbers. Just following my own tweets, I was astonished to see the ripple and multiplying effect of these messages.

Israel learned lessons from previous crises and improved accordingly. No one can argue the system worked perfectly, but we will endeavor to learn even more lessons from this crisis to further improve for the future.

HOWEVER, NO ONE should be fooled into thinking that this is an easy battle. Just as when an army is involved in asymmetric warfare, in asymmetric public relations, there are structural disadvantages for any fully functioning democratic government.

Whereas non-governmental organizations are not held accountable to abide by facts and the truth, our government needs to keep to higher standards. We are proud that we thoroughly check all information before dissemination and unlike the “Pallywood” antics of the other side, you won’t see Israel stage or fake events or blatantly and intentionally lie about the facts.

To be able to disseminate pictures from the operation to apprehend the ships, the IDF had to ensure that no soldier’s faces could be identified and that no operational procedures were broadcast to our enemies. As stated above, our first priority is the safety of our citizens, especially when they are on the front lines defending us in increasingly difficult situations.

As much as we released information about the sordid nature of the flotilla and the terror background of its main organizer in advance, there was little interest. As the saying goes: “Only when the tanks are moving do the cameras start rolling.”

It should also be borne in mind that while public relations is vitally important, it was only one of the very many tasks that we had to attend to in light of the events surrounding the flotilla. At the Foreign Ministry, we were in constant contact with our ambassadors to spread Israel’s message and keep them updated, and speaking to the foreign diplomatic corps based in Israel, especially coordinating with those whose citizens were aboard the flotilla. We coordinated our message with thousands of Jewish and non-Jewish organizations, NGOs, bloggers and volunteers. We kept foreign heads of government abreast of the situation and pressed Israel’s case while working with multilateral bodies, like the United Nations.

As witnessed by recent hostile resolutions, it is precisely within organizations like the United Nations that our structural disadvantages are most apparent. The Arab League has 22 members, the Islamic Conference has 57 and is part of the Non-Aligned group of 118 nations out of a total 192 UN members. This automatic majority is the main reason why so much disproportionate time is wasted on Israel when nations like Saudi Arabia are never reprimanded for their abject human rights abuses.

Israel’s public diplomacy has become the new battlefield and if one gauges the results, it is clear that there are many positives. There is not one credible member of the international media that still parrots the stated motives of the organizers of the flotilla. Every major international network reported the flotilla story using IDF Spokesman’s videos within hours of the events. More and more correspondents, many who were previously very critical of Israeli policy, have placed the blame squarely on the shoulders of the flotilla organizers. These are very real successes.

Of course, there are criticisms and we listen to them intently while recognizing that there were still flaws in our strategy, and we will need to ensure we work harder in the future to learn those lessons. It should be kept in mind that this is not about the first five minutes, but about the next five months and beyond. The public relations battle is a marathon and not a sprint. However, this government is using all the means at its disposal to ensure that our enemies do not win on any battlefield, regardless of the restrictions or the limitations.

{} {} {}

Copyright by the writer

There is not one credible member of the international media that still parrots the stated motives of the flotilla’s organizers.

This has been a difficult week for Israel. Faced with an armada of hate and violence, our soldiers, whose sole task was to control the boats and bring them peacefully to Ashdod, were faced with machete-wielding jihadists.

This Hamas-backed flotilla was a premeditated provocation that sought to either open up a corridor for weapons smuggling and terror that would have resulted in the loss of countless innocent lives, or to embarrass Israel and gain sympathy for their cause.

When weighing these two very difficult outcomes against each other, it is abundantly clear that Israel, like any other nation, has a responsibility first and foremost to the security and well-being of its citizens.

Although few could have foreseen the eventual outcome, the Foreign Ministry and many other governmental agencies had been working furiously to prepare for the worst, while hoping for the best. In fact the level of coordination before, during and after these events was unprecedented.

Senior Foreign Ministry officials held countless meetings with the leadership and ambassadors around the world, especially from those countries whose citizens were involved in the flotilla, reiterating the dangers and true nature of the flotilla organizers’ strategy. The international media was briefed and many press releases and information packs on the true intentions of the flotilla were distributed well in advance.

While some have criticized Israel’s public relations readiness for the ghastly events that took place on Monday morning, far more have expressed increasing satisfaction with the vast improvement in Israel’s official crisis management. The Foreign Ministry had prepared a situation room in advance to coordinate between the different agencies and to send responses out to the public and relevant governments as soon as possible.

Before many in Europe had arrived at work, I held a press conference clearly enunciating the government position on the flotilla and the necessity of our operation to prevent the flotilla from achieving its aims. We had already put in place a live streaming video feed so every foreign journalist had access to the press conference without leaving his or her office. This is vital in an age where many in the international media are facing budgetary cutbacks, meaning they have far fewer correspondents and camera crews. This also made it easier for major international networks to screen it live, including CNN.

Before North America had awoken, the international media were consistently showing images from the IDF Spokesman’s Office of the attempted lynching of our forces. Many government ministers were working tirelessly, moving from one international media bureau to another for the next couple of days explaining Israel’s case. We tweeted, sent messages through Facebook and created YouTube videos in vast numbers. Just following my own tweets, I was astonished to see the ripple and multiplying effect of these messages.

Israel learnt lessons from previous crises and improved accordingly. No one can argue the system worked perfectly, but we will endeavor to learn even more lessons from this crisis to further improve for the future.

HOWEVER, NO ONE should be fooled into thinking that this is an easy battle. Just as when an army is involved in asymmetric warfare, in asymmetric public relations, there are structural disadvantages for any fully functioning democratic government.

Whereas non-governmental organizations are not held accountable to abide by facts and the truth, our government needs to keep to higher standards. We are proud that we thoroughly check all information before dissemination and unlike the “Pallywood” antics of the other side, you won’t see Israel stage or fake events or blatantly and intentionally lie about the facts.

To be able to disseminate pictures from the operation to apprehend the ships, the IDF had to ensure that no soldier’s faces could be identified and that no operational procedures were broadcast to our enemies. As stated above, our first priority is the safety of our citizens, especially when they are on the front lines defending us in increasingly difficult situations.

As much as we released information about the sordid nature of the flotilla and the terror background of its main organizer in advance, there was little interest. As the saying goes: “Only when the tanks are moving do the cameras start rolling.”

It should also be borne in mind that while public relations is vitally important, it was only one of the very many tasks that we had to attend to in light of the events surrounding the flotilla. At the Foreign Ministry, we were in constant contact with our ambassadors to spread Israel’s message and keep them updated, and speaking to the foreign diplomatic corps based in Israel, especially coordinating with those whose citizens were aboard the flotilla. We coordinated our message with thousands of Jewish and non-Jewish organizations, NGOs, bloggers and volunteers. We kept foreign heads of government abreast of the situation and pressed Israel’s case while working with multilateral bodies, like the United Nations.

As witnessed by recent hostile resolutions, it is precisely within organizations like the United Nations that our structural disadvantages are most apparent. The Arab League has 22 members, the Islamic Conference has 57 and is part of the Non-Aligned group of 118 nations out of a total 192 UN members. This automatic majority is the main reason why so much disproportionate time is wasted on Israel when nations like Saudi Arabia are never reprimanded for their abject human rights abuses.

Israel’s public diplomacy has become the new battlefield and if one gauges the results, it is clear that there are many positives. There is not one credible member of the international media that still parrots the stated motives of the organizers of the flotilla. Every major international network reported the flotilla story using IDF Spokesman’s videos within hours of the events. More and more correspondents, many who were previously very critical of Israeli policy, have placed the blame squarely on the shoulders of the flotilla organizers. These are very real successes.

Of course, there are criticisms and we listen to them intently while recognizing that there were still flaws in our strategy, and we will need to ensure we work harder in the future to learn those lessons. It should be kept in mind that this is not about the first five minutes, but about the next five months and beyond. The public relations battle is a marathon and not a sprint. However, this government is using all the means at its disposal to ensure that our enemies do not win on any battlefield, regardless of the restrictions or the limitations.

{} {} {}

Copyright by the writer

As we see today in the wholesale perversion of law in the service of Israel’s destruction in Western countries, law is but a tool. And it can be a force for injustice.

In Britain today, hating Israel has become a valid criminal defense. Last week five people charged with destroying property valued at some $225,000 at the EDO MBM arms factory in Brighton during a January 2009 break-in were found not guilty of all charges. They were found innocent although all five admitted to having committed the crime.

As the Guardian reported, the defendants boasted in on-line forums at the time of the incident, their crime was premeditated. It took place during the IDF’s campaign against Hamas in Gaza. Their declared aim was to “smash up” the factory. And they achieved their goal.

The jury found the five innocent because it accepted as a valid defense their claim that they vandalized the plant because they wanted to prevent Israel from carrying out war crimes in Gaza. EDO MBM does business with the IDF, therefore, the defendants claimed and the jury agreed, it deserved to be attacked.

In finding as they did, the jurors were acting in accordance with the guidance they received from the presiding judge. As the Guardian reported, Judge George Bathurst- Norman instructed the jury, “You may well think that hell on earth would not be an understatement of what the Gazans suffered in that time.”

What this verdict shows is that in British courts, hatred of Israel has become a license to break the law. This turn of events is the logical flipside of Parliament’s abject refusal to amend Britain’s outrageous universal jurisdiction law. British lawmakers, government officials and jurists all basically agree that the law, which allows magistrates to issue arrest warrants against foreigners based on allegations filed by British subjects, is a legal travesty. It subverts the capacity of the British government to conduct foreign policy by placing all foreigners at the mercy of political activists.

Both Spain and Belgium amended their universal jurisdiction laws for this reason.

But in Britain no amendment is in the offing because the demand for the amendment is linked to Israel. Since Israel-hating activists began hijacking magistrates courts to force the issuance of arrest warrants against Israeli military personnel and politicians five years ago, Israel has repeatedly asked that the law be changed. And because Israel wants it changed, it will remain in force.

In fact, not only will it remain in force, its use against Israelis expands by the day. Today anyone who served in the IDF has to think twice about traveling to Britain lest doing so place him or her in jeopardy of being arrested on trumped-up charges.

What both the Brighton court’s verdict and the abuse of the universal jurisdiction law show is that today in England, Israelis cannot assume that the laws will protect them. And by the same token, haters of Israel can assume that they will be immune from punishment for violent attacks against Israel-related targets.

THE PERVERSION of the legal system in England isn’t unique. Take the situation in Malmo, Sweden, for instance. In an almost one-to-one parallel of the arguments that won the day in the Brighton courtroom, in January Malmo Mayor Ilmar Reepalu used the occasion of Holocaust Remembrance Day to bash Israel and Israel supporters and equate them with Nazi Germany.

Over the past few years, Malmo’s Jewish community has been fleeing the city due to the massive increase in anti-Jewish violence conducted by an alliance of Muslims and leftists. Reepalu denied there is anti-Jewish violence in his city and then went on to blame the city’s Jewish residents for the violence launched against them. As he put it to the Skanska Dagbladet newspaper, if the city’s Jews don’t wish to be attacked, all they have to do is denounce Israel. But, he said, “instead the community chose to hold a pro-Israel demonstration,” adding darkly that its action, “may convey the wrong message to others.”

So like the EDO MBM plant, Malmo’s Jews deserve to be attacked.

Then there is the situation in Australia. In the weeks that followed the Mossad’s alleged assassination of Hamas terror-master Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai in January, Australia’s generally relaxed Foreign Ministry sprang into action. No, it didn’t attack Dubai for allowing wanted terrorists to roam free and enjoy the famed hospitality at one of its luxury hotels. Australia’s Foreign Ministry angrily expelled an Israeli diplomat amid unproven accusations that the Mossad officers allegedly involved in the counterterror operation used forged Australian passports to enter Dubai.

Notably, the fire-in-the-belly attitude that marked Australia’s assault on Israeli embassy personnel had no parallel in an Australian federal court last week as Judge Neil McKerracher adjudicated an extradition request from Hungary.

Hungary requested the extradition of retired Nazi Charles Zentai, who is wanted there for his role in the 1944 murder of Peter Balasz. Balasz was 18 when he was killed.

Zentai and his fellow Nazis killed him because he was Jewish and threw his body into the Danube River.

There is no statute of limitations for Zentai’s crime. Yet, McKerracher didn’t care about the law. Instead he followed his heart. And his heart told him that extraditing the 88-yearold war criminal who has evaded justice for 66 years would be “oppressive and incompatible with humanitarian considerations.” And so he denied Hungary’s request.

To sum up the situation Down Under, an Israeli diplomat got expelled because Israel allegedly used Australian passports to kill a senior member of an organization dedicated to the eradication of Jewry. And an Australian judge ruled that a Nazi war criminal who actively participated in the genocide of Jewry can live out the rest of his life in peace in the bosom of his family.

THIS BRINGS us back to Britain for a moment. Britain was the first country to expel Israeli diplomats over the Mabhouh incident.

The Foreign Office received the rousing support of the British media for its action. The Guardian, for instance, characterized the alleged use of British passports in the Mabhouh operation as the action of an “arrogant nation that has overreached itself.”

Notably, while Israel allegedly used forged British passports to target a terrorist, last week it emerged that Russia used British passports to spy on the US. Reports of the Russian spy ring that was arrested last week in the US indicate that members of the ring used forged British passports. Amazingly (or actually, predictably) neither the Foreign Office nor the British media have taken or called for action to be taken against Russian embassy personnel for abusing British travel documents.

As to the international campaign against Israel following the Mabhouh assassination, this week Poland is set to rule on Germany’s extradition request for Uri Brodsky. Polish officials acting on a German warrant arrested him at a Polish airport last month for his alleged role in forging a German passport for one of the alleged Mossad operatives involved in the Mabhouh operation. Germany is adamant that Poland send Brodsky to Germany to stand trial for his alleged role in assisting in the targeted killing of a wanted terror mastermind.

Germany’s feverish insistence that Brodsky stand trial is of a piece with its newfound appetite for waging political warfare against Israel.

Last week the Bundestag unanimously passed a resolution calling for an international investigation of the IDF’s takeover of the Turkish- Hamas ship Mavi Marmara on May 31.

The resolution also demanded that Israel immediately end its lawful maritime blockade of the Gaza coast and slammed it for violating the principle of proportionality.

Like the court in Brighton, the Bundestag’s action asserts that Israel is guilty by nature and that as a consequence, unlike every other country, it cannot be judged by an impartial body. Rather, as the British judge made clear in his libelous instructions to the Brighton jury, guilty Israel must be judged by a hanging jury that draws its conclusions in advance.

ONE QUESTION that necessarily arises amid any discussion of this legalistic-political assault and the worldwide perversion of law in the service of Israel’s enemies is where is our government in all of this? Where are our leaders? Where is the Foreign Ministry? Where is the Justice Ministry? Last week Britain’s Methodist Church voted to boycott all products emanating from Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria and from Jewish neighborhoods in east Jerusalem.

It probably goes without saying that the Methodist Church has levied no similar boycott against any other country. Indeed, as Robin Shepherd wrote in “The banality of Methodist evil” in Monday’s Jerusalem Post, not only did the Methodist Church never consider boycotting say Sudan or Iran or Saudi Arabia for their human rights abuses, the only countries the Methodists considered attacking other than Israel were Britain and the US for having relations with Israel.

As Shepherd relates, among other factors guiding the church’s decision was its members’ assertion during the boycott deliberations that Jews worship a racist God.

Shepherd recommends that Israel fight fire with fire. In his words, “If the Methodist Church is to launch a boycott of Israel, let Israel respond in kind: Ban their officials from entering; deport their missionaries; block their church-funds; close down their offices; and tax their churches. If it’s war, it’s war.”

These recommendations are eminently reasonable.

And indeed, the government has no cause for not adopting them.

For generations Jews have clung to the belief that law is intrinsically good and if we follow the law, the law will protect us. But this has never been more than a fool’s belief.

As we see today in the wholesale perversion of law in the service of Israel’s destruction in countries around the Western world, law is but a tool. Depending on who wields it, it can be a force for injustice just as easily as it can be a tool for pursuing justice.

Israel’s response to date to all of these legal assaults against its detractors has been muted and defensive. But as the energized boycott movement and the Brighton court’s obscene ruling and similar actions throughout the world show, Israel must itself take up the law as a cudgel to beat its foes.

Where are our government lawyers? Why aren’t they issuing international arrest warrants against every agent of Hamas and Hizbullah? Where are our diplomats? Why aren’t they expelling British, Swedish, Australian and German diplomats involved in subverting our sovereignty in Jerusalem and other criminal activities? Where are our political leaders? It is not enough to decry the international campaign to delegitimize Israel in speeches before foreign audiences and in newspaper interviews. A war is being waged against us and it is well past time for us to fight back and fight to win.

{} {} {}

Copyright by The Jerusalem Post

Israel is a cartoon villain, beyond sympathy, beyond even redemption. What is shocking – and frightening – is that the narrative the world accepts is always that of Israel as the evildoer.

‘Shut up. Go back to Auschwitz.” That was the response from the “peace flotilla” when Israel broadcast a radio message warning the Turkish flotilla that it was about to enter an area under naval blockade. In another response, someone on board the “humanitarian aid convoy” replied: “We’re helping the Arabs go against the US. Don’t forget 9/11, guys.” After these exchanges, IDF commandos landed on the ships. On the Mavi Marmara they were attacked by pro-Palestinian activists wielding iron bars.

Turkish papers have now published photographs of soldiers bleeding badly as they are assaulted by thugs.

Eventually the commandos shot back in self-defense and nine activists were killed. It was a disaster for Israel and a triumph for those who hate Israel, Jews and the West. Bulent Yildirim, head of the Turkish Islamist organization IHH, which organized the flotilla, exulted in a speech to an audience he called “people of paradise.” “Last night, everything in the world has changed, and everything is progressing toward Islam,” he said.

THAT IS the reality today. Consider these words from Sheikh Hussein bin Mahmud, a pseudonymous but apparently popular commentator in the global jihadist community: “Everyone who has had contact with the Jews and lived alongside them, in the East and in the West, has spurned them, loathed them and detested them, to the point where Hitler said, ‘I could kill all the Jews in the world, but I left a few alive so that the entire world will know why I killed the Jews.’”

Such raw hatred of Jews, let alone Israel, is commonplace in the Middle East, even without an excuse such as last week’s deadly incident. The “peace flotilla” was no such thing. It had some peaceful people aboard, but its organizer, IHH, is a part of the Muslim Brotherhood, an openly terrorist organization pledged to the destruction of Israel and the triumph of Shari’a law everywhere. Scores of the “peace passengers” were Islamic militants pledged to kill Jews and secure martyrdom for themselves. Hence the confrontation with the Israeli commandos and the tragedy of the deaths on board.

That was not enough for Sheikh Hussein. He declared that the Turks should “kill every Jew in Turkey.” Moreover, “Gaza does not want ‘freedom ships’ bearing blonde women with Muslim, Christian, Jewish and atheist men; it wants a naval fleet and a land army bearing black Islamic banners… Gaza will not agree to a cease-fire with the Jews. On the contrary, it is thirsty to drink the blood of the sons of apes and pigs, and it is hungry and longs to devour the body parts of these cowards.”

Western critics of Israel often say that they are not anti-Semitic, merely anti-Zionist. No such distinction occurs to commentators such as Sheikh Hussein – Jews, Israelis, they are all “the sons of apes and pigs.”

It is not surprising that such racist loathing creates a siege mentality in Israel. Worse is the fact that Israelis know it’s not just “the black Islamic banners” with which they have to contend, but also the irrational hatred of much of the rest of the world

The realities of Gaza, Israel and the West Bank – where, with Israel’s assistance, the Palestinian economy is booming – are deemed irrelevant to the conventional narrative. Israel is a cartoon villain, beyond sympathy, beyond even redemption. What is deeply shocking – and frightening – is that the narrative the world accepts is always that of Israel the evildoer.

It was true with the so-called Jenin massacre allegedly committed by the Israelis in 2002. There was no such massacre. It was a lie that was widely and uncritically propagated by the UN, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the BBC. It is true today. The hatred that Israel arouses is absurd, even obscene. One senior military source was quoted last week as saying it did not matter what his country did; however carefully it responded to such events as the “peace flotilla,” it would always be condemned in the UN, on the BBC and almost everywhere else.

The bien pensants of the Western world are never prepared to give Israel the benefit of any doubt. The UN has become more of a lynch mob than a constructive debating chamber. Israel’s right to defend itself is ignored. So is the fact that Iran has threatened to obliterate it, and that the Hamas rulers of Gaza are Iranian agents also pledged to its destruction.

LAST WEEK, the UN, as always, jumped instantly to the conclusions most damaging to Israel. The UN Human Rights Council, of which Iran is a member, instantly denounced Israel for its “attacks on the flotilla of ships carrying humanitarian assistance.”

Similarly, the Israeli ambassador to the EU was harangued and abused in the European Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee. No one was interested in his explanation, and when he showed images of IDF soldiers being beaten with iron bars on the Mavi Marmara, MEPs asserted the film was faked propaganda. The only person to defend Israel at all was Charles Tannock, the Conservative MEP. (Unlike the Israeli ambassador, the Iranian ambassador was treated with courtesy.)

Israel is an imperfect society (like any other), but it has extraordinary social, scientific and scholastic achievements. Despite living under endless threats, it is far closer to the liberal ideal of a free society than any other in the Middle East. But it gets scant credit.

Europe prides itself on its tolerance of gay rights, free speech and feminism. These are all integral to Israeli society also, but Israel gets scant credit for that. Radical Muslims, on the other hand, stone women, hang homosexuals and kill to deny free speech. Do Europeans protest that? Not many, not often.

Israel is held to a far higher standard than any other nation. Few people seem to care much about North Korean atrocities, at home and abroad, let alone its terrifying nuclear defiance of the world. No one marches or calls emergency meetings of the UN and the EU to protest the vicious Muslim brutality against other Muslims that takes place every day throughout the Islamic world – and beyond. No one demonstrates on behalf of Christians murdered in the Middle East, their churches burned. Such horrors are waved away. Only Israel merits such constant abuse.

The Muslim world and the Western Left are in an unholy alliance; they do not want to improve the Jewish state, they want to remove it. Israel has come to expect double standards from Europe and assault from the UN.

Much more serious is the loss of support from the Obama administration.

In his attempts to reach out to the Islamic world, Barack Obama has abandoned the US tradition of whole-hearted support for one of its principal allies.

He has showed himself far more tolerant of (or unconcerned by) abuses of power in the Muslim world than by mistakes of Israel.

Most recently, Obama backed a Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty conference statement that singled out Israel in calling for a nuclear-free Middle East. No other president has ever done that, and Israelis are understandably concerned. What Obama does not seem to understand is that his lack of support for Israel not only saps Israel, it emboldens its enemies.

The Middle East and the world are now a much more dangerous place as “the sons [and daughters] of apes and pigs” are delegitimized once again. On their way back to Auschwitz, if their enemies succeed.

{} {} {}

Copyright by William Shawcross, a British writer and journalist. In 2003 he wrote Allies – Why the West had to remove Saddam. Now working on a book about the implications of the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to be published by Public Affairs Press, NYC.