The Jewish Agency’s Campaign Ad
On Anti-Semitism
Is A Waste Of Money

February 16th, 2007

15 February, 2007

Open letter to
Mr. Ze’ev Bielski
Chairman
The Jewish Agency

Dear Mr. Bielski,

This is not a personal criticism.

I refer to the Agency’s media campaign against anti-Semitism. This was the subject of a commentary by Matthew Wagner and Laura Rheinheimer in the Jerusalem Post Feb. 5, 2007.

The writers reveal that over 40 of the US’s leading news media refused to sell the desired banner space. All I can say is thank goodness. For the ad is poorly conceived and the copywriting inherently bad. It could have been written by a copywriting intern and ok’ed by a pressured creative director.

In any event the ad is only likely to achieve low readership and is unlikely to do much harm. However, further publication will be a complete waste of hard won donors’ contributions. Indeed I doubt whether any paid media advertising will succeed in engaging the support of non-Jews in the fight against anti-Semitism.

Smart PR might succeed where regular advertising won’t. Here are three examples of successful Palestinian PR to support this conclusion.

• Disputed/administered territories became occupied territories.

• Inherently steeped in an apartheid religion which governs their daily lives, the new Palestinians have successfully foisted the apartheid libel on Israel – an essentially anti-apartheid society.

• The Arabs, who had waited till 1964 before claiming Palestinian nationality, have successfully morphed themselves into Palestinians. They’ve also made a lot of peolple believe they’ve lived in “Palestine since time immemorial”.

I provide a detailed analysis of my reasons for criticizing the Agency’s ad, by way of the annexure below. I hope you will pass this on to whoever is responsible for this advertising travesty.

With best wishes for your continued personal success.

Jock L. Falkson
Ra’anana

=======================================================

Annexure:

(Ad copy in bold.)

When you ignore the risks . . . you get burned!

Really? Sometimes nothing happens, we all know that. Else we may merely sustain a fall or lose a finger, or tear a shirt.

In any event the headline is not clever. It’s not compelling enough to attract attention. It neither presents the problem nor the solution.

Moreover, the American expression “get burned” will probably not be properly understood by a majority in the English speaking world outside the U.S.

Iran, under the leadership of Ahmadinejad, wishes to wipe the Jews off the face of the earth, exactly as Hitler did in his time.

This sentence is unfortunate because it can be understood to mean that Hitler did wipe the Jews off the map – which of course is thankfully not true. Copy which requires the reader to reflect on what it means is not acceptable.

When Antisemitism comes at us from all directions, and it is not that important who you are, where you come from and where you are living, the time has come for us to wake up and protest.

Ouch – a 37 word sentence! The first ‘and’ is quite unnecessary and its inclusion could make it sound like an insult to many readers. Frankly, it’s always important to me who I am.

Who is ‘us’? If the ad is addressed to Jewish readers, hearers or viewers it would at least be on target. But the article which brought this ad to my attention indicates it was intended for CNN – which refused it. And to other non-Jewish media.

Since anti-Semitism does not endanger non-Jews the ad would not have made sense to the overwhelming majority of the non-Jewish audience. Moreover the ad has little if any hope of convincing non-Jews they are equally at risk unless they side with Jews.

It is time for our voice to be heard! Does the reader know who is ‘our’? The time has come… is a platitude.

Next the reader is presented with another long sentence – 36 words. I find that unforgivable. I can hardly believe a professional copywriter would do this.

If you, why the comma? too, oh dear another comma. hear the sounds and see the sights, semi colon is referable. If you, too, remove unnecessary commas. fear that remove unnecessary ‘that’. the world is moving to a bad place, which reminds you of dark and somber days – a non sequitur since the writer has no exact idea what the reader will think. In any event this would only apply to those of us still alive to remember. vote now – to halt antiSemitism.

Vote, and take part in the largest virtual happening in the world ‘world’s largest’ would be better. and, together, let our voice be heard throughout the world! Do not remain silent!!! What a spectacular non-rousing call to do nothing in particular!

Finally, why does the ad not provide the name of the advertiser?

========================================================================== In addition to the text the ad pictures Ahmadinejad saying “Israel must be wiped off the map”

Here is the complete text of the ad without commentary:

When you ignore the risks . . . you get burned!

Iran, under the leadership of Ahmadinejad, wishes to wipe the Jews off the face of the earth, exactly as Hitler did in his time.

When anti-Semitism comes at us from all directions, and it is not that important who you are, where you come from and where you are living, the time has come for us to wake up and protest. It is time for our voice to be heard! The time has come . . .

If you, too, hear the sounds and see the sights, if you, too, fear that the world is moving to a bad place, which reminds you of dark and somber days – vote now – to halt anti-Semitism.

Vote, and take part in the largest virtual happening in the world and, together, let our voice be heard throughout the world!

Do not remain silent!!!

Human Shields And Accomplices
Have No Rights In A War Zone

January 13th, 2007

Updated February 1, 2007

Of all the active terrorists in the world, the Palestinians alone enjoy the protection of so called human shields. Because of all the victims of terrorism Israel alone is the most sensitive to the death of innocents. Can you think of another country assaulted by terrorism which has apologized for unintended civilian fatalities?

Palestinian terrorists have learned to exploit Israel’s sensitivities by centering their operations in civilian areas. To quote Gedrich and Paul Valley: “… they disguise themselves as civilians and hide among civilian populations with weapons stored and discharged from mosques, schools, hospitals, marketplaces, private residences and public roads.”

Yet Israel is accused of deliberate and wantonly spilling the blood of Palestinian civilians when casualties occur.

PR Power Beats Military Might

Rather than face the public opprobrium generated by the pro-Palestinian media to denounce Israel for killing “civilians”, Israel has not recently retaliated against the Kassams. As a result the psychologically wrecked citizens of Sderot are exposed to daily explosions and near misses which have made life unbearable for them. The citizens are living under reign of terror and their town is being ruined.

Israel has always underestimated the power of successful Palestinian PR and has been forced to pay for its consequences – in the lives of its people killed and wounded – and the cost of making good or replacing damaged assets. However, the cost to families of the killed and wounded can neither be measured, repaired, nor repaid.

Power Of Successful PR

Palestinian PR has so successfully demonized Israel that these days we feel it better to endure daily Kassam attacks from Gaza, rather than exercise our basic right of self defense. Such is the power of their PR that Israel no longer preempts attacks by targeting the planners, manifold helpers, and the triggermen actually caught in the act of launching the Kassams before fleeing to safety as “civilians” .

The simple PR stratagem which has brought this about is the fierce Palestinian clamor orchestrated in mainstream media (and supporting NGOs) that Israel is once again killing their “civilians”.

All Wear The Same Uniform

This calumny of course blithely ignores the fact that the “uniforms” worn by Palestinian terrorists is the same dress worn by their human shields, i.e. civilian clothes. Which makes it inherently difficult, if not impossible, to identify the actual perpetrators as distinct from their civilian accomplices.

Kassams Aimed Exclusively At Israeli Civilians

What galls is the fact that Palestinian Kassams are deliberately and unashamedly targeted at killing and wounding the greatest number of Israeli civilians. (That it hasn’t yet happened is a matter of pure luck.) Yet there’s hardly a word of criticism from the mainstream media about the terrorists’ brazen actions and intentions.

Kassams Never Proportionate

Nor do we hear a word from the mainstream media or Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, or the Security Council, about Palestinian ‘disproportionate fire”. Yet what could be more disproportionate than Palestinian rockets fired on Sderot and other towns when not even an Israeli stone is thrown in retaliation?

Killers And Accomplices Equally Guilty

The rocketeers cannot set up their Kassam firing operations without the enabling help of accomplices. These include the planners … those who purchase and store the weaponry … who provide transport and safe houses … and who feed, sleep and hide the triggermen. And yes, their misguided “human shields” who are there to protect the terrorists while they carry out their murderous activities.

Each accomplice is actively complicit in every Kassam attack as are those who remain in their houses as human shields. Active or passive they are unquestionably accomplices without whose participation the actual attacks could not be launched. Human shields and other accomplices have no rights in a war zone. Consequently, they clearly deserve the same fate as the perpetrators.

Is Osama bin Laden a Civilian?

The world has not seen Osama bin Laden in anything but civilian clothes. Yet who in the western world beside Muslims, believes this gun toting planner and financier of 9/11 is anything but the world’s most wanted murderer?

Though he may never have killed even one of his enemies personally, he has been directly responsible for killing around 4,000 Americans since he embarked on his lethal crusade.

The Fate That Awaits Osama

Does Osama deserve to be assassinated if US intelligence discovers him to be holed up in the basement of an apartment building, together with his top aides? Or is Bin Laden a civilian deserving the protection of the Geneva Convention?

The US will not hesitate to destroy this building without warning – regardless of how many civilians happen to be there. And without giving a fig for Human Rights and Amnesty.

Does the leader, planner, funder and commander of Al Qaeda not deserve the death sentence if captured and tried? The US will virtually assure this, thank goodness. And though not quite as murderous as Saddam Hussein, it would be a nice touch if he were hanged on the same gallows.

The Hamas Threat

Israel appears to have cravenly bowed to Hamas threats that if we retaliate they would immediately respond by increasing the number of rockets fired. I’m willing to bet that if the families of a dozen members of Israel’s Knesset lived in Sderot the Minister of Defense would quickly instruct the IDF to respond militarily. Even if it led to another dirty little war.

How sad that instead of preventing and returning fire, the IDF has been ordered merely to observe and report. I was pleased to read in the circumstances that IDF generals have privately been protesting the government’s show of impotence/incompetence.

A Night Of The Generals?

I wonder what the chances are that some day, some Israeli generals, tired of incompetent political bumbling, will decide to take matters into their own hands? I would hope they talk about this sort of thing among themselves, not particularly in relation to the continuing Kassam onslaught, but far more importantly in response to Iran’s genocidal, nuclear threat.

It might be a good day for Israel when the generals choose to take over from an inept and irresolute government . . . and provide a massive first strike solution of its own to protect the anxious children of Israel. A short term solution, of course.

{} {} {}

How To Win
The Kassam Terror War

November 20th, 2006

Updated November 22, 2006

A headline in Ma’ariv newspaper last week sums it up: “IDF Despairs”. Jerusalem Post’s editorial Nov. 16, “Stop the Kassams now” provides no military solution. PM Olmert in Jerusalem Post Nov. 17 is headlined: “No ‘quick fix’ to Kassam attacks”.

Our military commanders, Cabinet Ministers and pundits tell us it’s not possible to win the war against the Kassams. That the best we can do is continue searching for the launching pads and hitting the rocketeers from the air.

Israel’s successes are too few to make a decisive difference. Our only solace is that Kassam fatalities are infrequent and the wounded civilian casualty count is low. Damage to homes and buildings is containable.

The most serious damage is to the mental condition of people in small towns like Sderot. Their suffering clearly affects the psyche of the children and adults. They have experienced too many traumas, too many siren warnings, too many unexpected explosions, too many miracles.

Worst of all is the despair of knowing that our wonderful IDF has no effective answer. Many residents are not shy to admit they don’t know how much longer they’ll be able to grin and bear it. Lots are reported to be leaving or have left Sderot. Who can blame them?

Yet there is a relatively inexpensive military answer to the Kassams within the restrictions of Disproportionate Response.

That is to replicate their Kassam missiles with those of our own. And to lob the same number we receive every day into their populated areas next day. Plus 25 more.

During the evening news services we should announce the number of Kassams we’ll be launching next day. And we should add this message daily: “We’ll stop when you stop.” Whenever they start up again, so do we.

Plus 25? Yes, the extra 25 is a reasonable attempt to achieve numerical equivalence since the terrorists already has a head start, having fired over 1,500 missiles at us since disengagement. That’s downright unfair and clearly disproportionate. The least we are entitled to is catch up.

At 25 per day, that will take 60days to balance the Hamas’ reign of Kassam terror. Then we’ll have achieved a proportional balance (allowing for the fact that we would be excluding the large number of Kassams fired before disengagement).

How long will Hamas be able to take the punishment they so happily dish out to us with almost universal silence if not approval? I’d be surprised if they withstand it for longer than a week or two. For once we’re giving their civilians what they’re giving ours, plus 25, what would be their point of continuing? {} {} {}

Why Disproportionate
Retribution Is Right

October 11th, 2006

July 7, 2006

Ben Gurion

In his article “The causes of war: Hizbullah’s and Hamas’s grievances” (Jerusalem Post 25 July 2006) Alexander Wright quotes Ben-Gurion as having said that “any attack against Israel will be met with disproportionate retribution.”

Wright* adds that “While the casualties of this war are heart-wrenching, since when is war supposed to be proportionate? When a state is attacked, would it make sense to strike back with an equal amount of force, and give your enemy space and time to fight back? What war has not produced innocent casualties?” (*Research Associate with the Centre for International Political Studies.)

Eisenhower

Germany’s initial successes in WW2 were undoubtedly produced by disproportionate attacks. Montgomery’s attack on Rommel at Alamein fell into this category. So did Eisenhower’s “Operation Overlord”.

Israel conquered Egypt, Syria and Jordan by its surprise attack in 1967. Sadat almost won the Yom Kippur War this way – he misunderstood Israel’s resilience and was taken by surprise by Sharon’s unexpected maneuver.

Kofi Annan

Kofi Annan and the other armchair proponents of proportionality never commanded a victorious army. All they are doing is repeating the most recent slogan of the Palestinians who are at their PR best when portraying themselves as victims.

Shock And Awe

Based on the result of wars in the last 50 years one thing is plain: if you want to win a war you should attack by surprise (if possible) but certainly with overwhelming force. That the US still believes this is manifest from its attack on Iraq in the “Shock and Awe” operation.

Krauthammer

In a criticism of the Powell Doctrine (April 20, 2001) eminent columnist Charles Krauthammer writes: “If you respond proportionately, you allow the enemy to set the parameters and level of the fighting. You grant him the initiative. In Vietnam, proportionality brought us endless losses and painful retreat.”

Simpson

In an internet letter July 24, pro-Israel activist Peter Simpson admonishes Sky News for accepting Hezbollah’s figures of civilian casualties. He writes:

“It is pure conjecture to assume that virtually all are real civilians caught up in this conflict or whether most are not in reality Hizbollah fighters/supporters including those who allow their homes and thus their wives and children’s lives to be put at risk through housing/hiding rockets and the like.”

Friendly Fire

In fact Hezbollah have not published their casualty figures unlike Israel which does so daily. Moreover Israel makes military mistakes too as does any army engaged in vicious warfare. Why the world does not accept Israel’s mistakes is puzzling. Haven’t we, sadly and unfortunately, killed enough of our own soldiers by friendly fire?

Where’s The Benefit?

Especially tragic and unfortunate are the deaths of the four UN personnel. I have previously made the point that military actions are taken to produce benefits. Kofi Annan’s hasty judgment in this light is certainly wrong – unless he believes Israel deliberately courted the world’s displeasure. For there was neither any military nor PR benefit.

If Israel did not make a mistake as Annan prefers to believe, would he kindly explain the nature of Israel’s benefit?

Well of course he can’t. Neither can anyone else. Not even the Palestinians can seriously suggest that Israel is so stupid. That we would go to so much trouble just to shoot ourselves in the foot every now and again. (Indeed both feet.) Because apparently, we have an unexplained need to motivate the majority in the United Nations to hate us all the more.

Missiles And Civilian Casualties

Civilian casualties are indeed deplorable. So let us then remember that Hamas and Hezbollah have already shot over 2,000 rockets plus uncounted numbers of mortars into Israel’s towns and cities specifically intended to kill and wound Israel’s civilians. We do not complain that they have not given us prior notice to save ourselves, as Israel has done.

We don’t expect decent conduct intended to avoid civilian casualties, from Arab terrorists.

{} {} {}

Prisoner Swaps.
Why Terrorists Must Not Be Released

October 8th, 2006

Published October 3, 2006.
Updated April 23, 2007

We all understand the pain and suffering of the Shalit family whose son Gilad was kidnapped by Hamas terrorists. He is being held hostage in exchange for Hamas and Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails. Israel appreciates the family will do almost anything to get their son back. We understand why his devoted parents are doing their best to keep his plight in the public eye.

The Agony of Captivity

Gilad himself is undoubtedly under painful distress in the hands of his terrorist captors. Not a word about his condition has been made public to this time. Nor have his captors released any information about his medical condition. Contrary to the norms accorded the Red Cross internationally, Hamas has refused all visiting rights.

Gilad’s capture and detainment is a crime against humanity. Yet Human Rights Watch and Amnesty have not condemned Hamas. If Israel were in the dock instead, imagine how active and strident the PR releases of these NGOs would be.

US: “No Negotiations With Terrorists”

The US does not suffer Israel’s qualms. They have officially declared they will not negotiate with terrorists and that’s that. Knowing this is not a negotiating card it is no wonder no American soldier has been kidnapped.

On the other hand Israel has given way before and will almost surely do so again. The Israeli public is unable to tolerate the tears of the distressed families on Hebrew TV. It is more than likely that this lone Israeli soldier will be exchanged for hordes of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails serving their guilty verdicts.

“Without Blood On Their Hands”

Israel is obsessed with the principle of ransoming its captives. Relevant historical references are to be found in the Torah and commentaries. And many actual instances have been recorded during the millennia of our exile.

However, it was only after the establishment of the Jewish State that our obsession for ransoming our soldiers or civilians was exploited by our enemies demanding the release of greater and greater numbers of terrorists. In bending to these demands Israel has agreed to release only those “without blood on their hands”, i.e. those who did not kill.

Particularly aggravating is the fact that we pardon the accomplices who plan, aid and abet. It is moot whether the planners and aiders are not more guilty that the killers. For knowing Israel will release them for not having blood on their hands uplifts their morale and encourages others.

In fact the planners clearly have more blood on their hands than the killers themselves. For the latter usually carry out just one operation, whereas the planners have generally designed several. (That is no doubt why the planners are high on Israel’s Most Wanted list.)

Monstrously Disproportionate Exchanges

The exchanges themselves have been monstrously disproportionate. We have gone so far as to release 1,000 prisoners for just one soldier! We have struck other disproportionate bargains to ransom two or three of our captives. In some instances we have exchanged hundreds of terrorists for the return of dead bodies of some of our soldiers!

The consequence of releasing these criminals is that many of them are given another chance to terrorize and murder our people. For to our sorrow (though not to our surprise) many of the returnees returned once more to practice their fatal skills.

“Don’t Release The Prisoners”

In his article “Don’t Release The Terrorists”, WorldNet Daily, 30 Sept. 2006, columnist Joseph Farah chronicles the murderous activities of 13 terrorists released in prisoner exchanges between the years 1984 and 2004. These 13 subsequently went on to kill 109 Israelis, overwhelmingly civilians. 494 more were wounded. No doubt our security services prevented many others from executing their malevolent plans.

Farah gives thorough details: names of each terrorist, when he was released, when he killed again and whom he killed. You may follow this link for full details: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51977

Farah does not say how many Israeli hostages were freed. Israel undoubtedly received less than 20 hostages in return.

Is It Sensible To Free Prisoners for Terrorists?

A glance at the math says otherwise. 13 killed 109 – an average of 8 persons per terrorist. 13 wounded 494, an average of 38 per terrorist. For freeing less than 20 of our own. Although Israel stuck to its principles, its citizens undoubtedly got the worst of these devilish bargains.

The families whose 109 loved ones were murdered and 494 who were injured by the released terrorists cannot be grateful to the Israeli governments for having recirculated the murderers and maimers. Nor can the people of Israel be pleased with the governments which negotiated these monstrously disproportionate agreements.

Had they foreseen the bloody consequences, I believe the Israeli hostages themselves might have cried out against so unfair a swap. Some of the families might even have asked the government not to include their kin in a swap which could lead to such fatal and terrible consequences.

We should also remember that some of the seriously wounded will never see or hear again; walk or talk; love or be loved. And many will spend the rest of their broken lives closeted where few except their caregivers will see them.

Recalling Israel’s Martyrs

If the Israeli prisoners who were freed could have foreseen these dreadful consequences might they too not have rejected the deals?

Might they not have martyred themselves as did Major Ro’i Klein,31, Deputy Commander Golani’s Battalion 51 who said the Shema prayer as he threw himself on a hand grenade in the battle for Bint Jbail (July28, 2006) to protect his men from certain death? He left a grieving wife and 2 sons.

Might they not have martyred themselves as did Hannah Senesh, Israel’s young poetess who was parachuted into Hungary in 1938 and, after severe torture, faced a firing squad rather than give up her secret radio code which would have betrayed her comrades?

Might they not have martyred themselves as did Sarah Aronson, the NILI girl, sister of Aaron, whose family in pre-state Israel was involved in spying for the British against the Turks? Sarah passed messages regarding Turkish troop maneuvers. The Turks broke the spy ring and tortured Sarah for three days. She committed suicide rather than betray the other members of the spy ring.

There were certainly numerous other examples in Israel’s war torn history of individuals who sacrificed themselves in similar fashion. Choosing death to save many others from this fate. The few for the many.

Our People Need More Security, Not less!

Of course we should negotiate the freedom of our hostages – in exchange for political prisoners or money, or for both. Or to provide the other side with additional benefits in a peace treaty. Or to seek a military solution.

But not to free terrorists or their accomplices.

Not to encourage terrorists to commit more murder knowing that they’ll be freed in a prisoner swap long before they serve their full sentences.

Knowing, what’s more, that they’ll be free to murder in spite of having signed a declaration never do so again.

Nor should live, do-it-again terrorists, be exchanged for lifeless bodies.

The prime duty of the government is to keep its people safe from terrorists.

Ben Wedeman’s Biased
CNN Documentaries

September 10th, 2006

April 26, 2001

CNN’s anti-Israel bias is something else. Two or three minutes of prime time advertising on CNN costs a fortune. No one can afford it. That’s why advertisers generally make do with 15 second clips. 30 seconds if they really have the money.

Yet CNN gave their correspondent, Ben Wedeman, two or three minutes to do a hatchet job on Israel in their noontime news presentation here, April 24. Ben is a truly experienced TV professional and he did a truly professional job of grinding Israel’s image into the dust as he expounded on the inhuman conditions suffered by Palestinians wanting to travel outside Gaza into Israel.

CNN gave him another 1-2 minutes in its 23.00hrs news service to return to this subject, possibly to use up the remaining material from his earlier story.

The inconvenience of the delays resulting from careful searching by Israel trying to reduce the number of drive-by murders is truly heartbreaking. That’s Wedeman’s view – an attitude clearly shared by his employers.

Wedeman shows the world how cruel it is for Israeli soldiers to delay the movement of taxis, cars and trucks, while trying to prevent Palestinian car bombers from going about their murderous missions.

How frustrated the Palestinians are to be held up by those snotnosed Israelis looking for weapons and ammo needed by Palestinian killers to carry out their daily murder and mayhem.

How time wasting and exhausting to wait in line while those arrogant Israelis vainly search for the next suicide bomber.

How impatient and angry they are to be prevented from reaching their destinations as Israel carefully checks for wanted terrorists.

But what can CNN viewers expect from those inhuman Israelis who don’t have any respect for the downtrodden, peaceful, law-abiding Palestinians?

That’s the message, unabashedly devised and created by Wedeman in his pro-Palestinian documentaries. Given prime time airing by his masters in their news services (no less) to CNN’s world audience.

How many viewers know that making a documentary (as distinct from broadcasting live) gave Wedeman the ability to select which items would go into his final presentation, and which would not?

That it also gave him the opportunity to choose his words with extra care, and to practice his commentary just right. So that his anti-Israel bias, and views of the angriest, most vocal Palestinians, would be screened to best effect? You can be certain that any others were deleted in favor of showing how furious, justified and revengeful the oppressed Palestinians are.

No hint of any kind that Palestinians might be responsible for, or in any way deserving of, Israel’s closures and costly seek and prevention measures.

That Israel is willing if not anxious to permit Palestinians to go about their business if they would only stop initiating their daily violence.

No. For both Wedeman and the Palestinians share the same view. That the latter have the right to carry out terrorism against the Israelis. That’s only to be expected and human.

But Israelis, naturally, have no right to prevent, deter or respond. That, CNN viewers are taught, is inhuman.

Hey, be sure to email me if you ever come across a pro-Israel CNN documentary from Wedeman, will you? I wouldn’t want to miss it.

Target Israel. CNN Strikes Again

September 10th, 2006

June 12, 2005. Updated June 4 , 2006

Maybe I dozed a few minutes shortly after idling through CNN’s 3 p.m. news program (Israel time, 8 June 2005) when I suddenly found myself watching a feature on Israel’s “separation wall”. I was puzzled for a brief moment trying to connect the clip to a terrorist incident. But there was none, CNN was merely filling air time with another Israel smear.

CNN has undoubtedly already featured more than a handful of similar clips in the recent past. A scorpion’s gotta do what a scorpion’s gotta do. So viewers were treated to yet another unfair, unbalanced feature on Israel’s oppressive behavior to the noble Arabs. Only the sting was not in the tail – it was all over the place.

The Noble Farmer And His Faraway Land

There was this sad farmer at the fence pointing to his agricultural holding across the way. Before Israel had intruded its anti-terrorist barrier into his life it had only taken 5 minutes to get to his land. Now he was forced to a crossing point where he was checked and searched. So it took him all of 45 minutes to get to his land. CNN wanted the world to see what terrible people these cruel Israelis occupiers are.

What CNN knew very well, and had deliberately omitted to tell its audience, was that Israel’s anti-terrorist barrier was already playing a significant role in preventing Arab suicide bombers crossing over to Israel to kill scores of our women, children and men. And to maim, wound and disfigure hundreds more, reducing many to helpless cripples for life.

CNN’s interviewer left no doubt where her sympathies lay. “Land grab” and “occupied lands” – the Palestinian Terrorist Authority’s mandatory mantras were severely intoned. She felt it necessary to assure viewers that Israel had no intention to alter the barrier’s route at some future time. Even though the route had already been changed in several places by Supreme Court decree. And even though Israel has indicated that the route could be changed by mutual agreement in a future peace settlement.

CNN Emasculates Israel’s Spokesperson

CNN’s interviewer had contacted Gideon Meir, a senior Israeli spokesperson, for the Israeli point of view. I then realized from his very brief screen appearances that in fact this was not a live report but an edited version. There can be no doubt that Meir got a raw deal. He may well have made a good defense of Israel’s anti-terrorist barrier but none was aired.

Although Meir has excellent PR credentials he appeared inarticulate and ineffective. He had been emasculated. Henry Kissinger’s guiding principle is worth recalling. He was willing to be interviewed on live TV, but would never participate in (say) 60 Minute invitations, because it permitted the editors to cut and paste, and tell their story, not necessarily his.

Missing Transcript

Unfortunately, I had not noted the name of the interviewer nor the title of this upsetting program. I thought I would easily locate a video clip or transcript based on time of day but my intensive search came to naught. It’s possible CNN withdrew the item from its website and cancelled further repetitions of the report following complaints.

Unashamed, Deliberate, Inexcusable.

CNN’s bias in this particular feature is shown in two ways. Firstly in what the editors show to make their case; secondly how they prevent the Israeli side from making their’s. Additionally, the context of the anti-terrorist barrier is completely omitted, giving the impression that having nothing better to do, Israel started building an unbelievable costly anti-terrorist barrier – to worsen its economic situation – and to make Palestinians more miserable.

Such inconvenience as they might indeed suffer at checkpoints is the direct result of their terrorist intifada. No intifada no inconvenience. Cause and effect could not be simpler. Did they expect the ‘never again’ nation to lie down and die . . . quietly?

CNN’s interviewer and editors knew full well that Israel was compelled to build a costly anti-terrorist barrier as an effective, non-lethal method to reduce if not eliminate Palestinian suicide terrorists from their killing and maiming spree. CNN’s omission of this context was deliberate, inexcusable and immensely harmful to Israel.

Portable

CNN allowed its interviewer to opine that the wall is permanent. However, it was designed and built in small sections and transported to site on multi-wheeled trucks. Cranes moved the sections into place. The sections are not concreted together, they’re inherently portable.

CNN is also complicit in airing the false impression that 97 percent of the construction is wall and only 3 percent is fence. Of course the very opposite is true. But CNN carefully omits showing the fence – so how are viewers to know any better?

Monumental Achievement

CNN was undoubtedly aware that the anti-terrorist barrier had virtually eliminated the suicide terrorists from carrying out their deadly work. If CNN was not inherently anti-Israel it would at least have paid some lip service to this monumental achievement.

Conventional wisdom had been unanimous in the days before the barrier that it was not possible to stop individual suicide terrorists from keeping a date with their 72 black eyed virgins. All the murderers had to do to qualify for eternal sexual satisfaction was to shed Jewish blood. The more copious the more successful.

Un-newsworthy News Feature

Jewish loss of life and limb and its prevention is trivial in CNN’s view when juxtaposed against the enormity of Israel’s “crime” causing the noble Arab farmer to take 45 minutes to get to his land only 5 minutes away. Ah yes, the cruel fence! Ah yes, those cruel, cruel Israelis!

That CNN would choose to press this farmer’s case and turn a strictly non news item into a pretentious international feature is nothing short of amazing. Only extreme bias embedded in the collective soul of their news department could possibly have made this happen.

{} {} {}

Oen Letter to
Genevieve Cora Fraser

July 7th, 2006

Ms. Fraser’s allegations can be read at
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0607/S00023.htm

Friday, July 07, 2006

Dear Mrs. Fraser,

I found your article on the Palestinian/Israeli conflict totally biased in favor of the Palestinian Terrorist authority. You blame Israel, the victim, directly, and give a clean bill of health to the Palestinian terrorists who are indisputably the initiators of terrorist aggression.

It is extraordinary that you appear unable to distinguish between the fireman and the arsonist. Yet you must know that if the arsonists do not set the fires, the firemen would not have those fires to put out.

How can you brush aside that fact that the Palestinians lobbed several thousands of katyusha missiles into residential areas of Israel proper inflicting serious psychological damage? And that is why the Israel army is back in Gaza today? How can you seriously believe it was the other way around? Did you really expect Israel to swallow all these attempts to kill Israelis without effective retaliation?

You write that in 6 years Israel has killed thousands with their guided missile technology. How sad that you don’t know you are repeating a monstrous lie. The fact is that you cannot produce any such confirmation from a reliable neutral source. (Try the BBC, by no means Israel’s friend.)

You give the example of former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu whom you quote as having stated before the 35th Zionist Congress in Jerusalem, “The IDF has the firepower to wipe out an entire population if we wanted. We could wipe out all of Gaza. But we are not doing this,” he added. And you add, snidely, that Bibi was “covering his tracks”. In telling the truth Bibi has no need to cover his tracks.

I think the Palestinians are smart enough to know that the only time they need be afraid is just before they intend to wipe us out with weaponry they will have amassed for this purpose.

Even then, Ms. Fraser, you and the rest of the world, can be certain Israel will only attack the sources of their military power to preempt the Palestinians perpetrating a second Jewish genocide. (Probably with the help of the Iranians, their best friends, who also intend to obliterate us.)

Despite your diatribe of fulmination about so called Israeli oppression you cannot be unaware that Israel, more than any other army currently involved in military activities, takes extraordinary care to prevent civilian casualties. Moreover, unlike any other army Israel readily admits and apologizes for mistakes which have led to the unfortunate death of innocents. Have your Palestinian pals ever apologized?

Silly question. No one expects the Palestinian terrorists to apologize for killing Israeli innocents; for that, after all, is their focus, their aim, their purpose. Not so, Ms. Fraser?

Contrary to Israel’s human rights concern for civilian lives, the undisguised intent of the bloodthirsty Palestinian terrorists is to kill Israeli civilians. Men, women and children. They dance and march in their streets in unrestrained joy. They hand out candy whenever they have a successful killing operation. And they proudly point out as though it were a laudable quality of their character : “We love death, you love life”. Do you subscribe to this Palestinian principle too?

When you raise nitpicking arguments of collective punishment, please remember, will you, that both the Hamas Charter and the Palestine Covenant commit their followers to a Palestine from the “river to the sea”. Translation: extermination/exile. This aim has never been expunged by the Palestinian Authority despite their publicly televised promise to do so. So measure your friends intended collective punishment for us, against the triviality of their moaning for being messed around at a checkpoint.

How strange Ms. Fraser, that as a non-Muslim, you have thrown in your lot with Muslim terrorists and extremists whose overarching aim is to join their fellow Muslims to achieve world domination. The effect of which will be (in part):

to abolish democracy.

to enforce Islam as the world’s only religion and Shariah law as its justice system.

to reintroduce polygamy and arranged marriage as early as 9, as exampled by the Prophet himself.

to justify “honor” killings for females who lose their virginity outside marriage.

to give Christians and other infidels the options of death, or second class citizenship.

clitoral circumcision and lots more 7th century stuff like the above.

Sincerely,

Dalia Itzik May Need A Time Out
But Not At Israel’s Cost

July 4th, 2006

July 27, 2002. Updated July 4, 2006

The Jerusalem Post devoted considerable space to the proposed appointment of Minister of Trade, Dalia Itzik, as Ambassador to the Court of St. James’s. Aside from publishing opinion pieces and numerous letters, the Post railed against this job-for-pals political appointment by Foreign Minister Shimon Peres.

Chief Editor Bret Stephens avoided the word nepotism in his editorials. But this writer has no need to be constrained by political correctness. So I charge that this is clearly crony nepotism.

One would have thought by now that Peres was fully alive to the need for Israel’s ambassadors and consuls to have fluent English language skills. This is a fundamental proficiency needed by Israel’s representatives to effectively present Israel’s case to win hearts and minds on world TV.

To think Peres would ignore this aspect in appointments of such critical importance, leaving Israel virtually speechless in the world’s media, is bad enough. To think that Itzik too does not appreciate that her language and diplomatic skills are totally inadequate to do the PR job Israel needs, is another head-shaking disappointment.

Inadequate English Is A PR Disaster

Calev Ben David put it well in his op-ed in The Jerusalem Post, July 25.

“A mere adequate command of English is not sufficient to serve as ambassador to the Court of St. James’s, especially when one is constantly called upon by a hostile British media to defend Israel. Having an ambassador with the right accent in the UK would be a big plus – just as, alas, having the wrong accent in Israel is a big minus.”

Dalia Itzik does not have the rhetorical skills nor the fortitude to give as well as she would have to take from BBC interviewers like Tim Sebastian (Hard Talk) and others. Nor the oratorical capability to inspire the crowds who come to Jewish or Zionist events. She should look elsewhere for “her time out” because she will be a total failure in London. A failure neither Israel nor Itzik can afford. And which the UK will not take in good grace.

In recent years, defending Israel against its many enemies has assumed mandatory proportions. Yet latter day governments have appointed lack-luster, tongue-tied party hacks, or retired military personnel, to positions requiring the greatest PR mastery and experience. With the result our Foreign Service abroad is filled with media dullards. Examples:

Lancry at United Nations

Yehuda Lancry (Likud), who made little difference if any during his 10 years as Knesset Member, was rewarded with the plum job of Ambassador to the United Nations. Next to Washington, our top diplomatic post. Regardless of the fact that his English is slow, labored and uninspiring.

Lancry’s infrequent speeches in Ivrit in the Knesset were a bore. To listen to him responding to vigorous attacks by Palestinian and the other full-time haters of Israel at the UN, is a stomach crunching pain. As a public relations defender of Israel in the world’s most important forum, Lancry is a failure. If his paper work and negotiating skills are above par let him be used in that capacity behind the scenes.

But the person to stand up and speak for Israel in the UN and on the world’s TV networks must be of the caliber of former luminaries like Abba Eban, Avraham Harman, Eliyahu Eilat, Chaim Hertzog and Binyamin Netanyahu. Nothing less will do. “They exist in abundance in the business, media, and academic sectors. It’s time to mobilize them” editorialized The Jerusalem Post, July 26.

Ivry in Washington

David Ivry, Ambassador to Washington, probably Israel’s most important post, recently completed his term. A former Commander of the Israel Air Force, he was the only Air Force official to become Deputy Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Forces. There can be no doubt that Ivry was a significant force and behind the scenes negotiator in Washington. But as a public relations defender of Israel in the world’s most important capital, Ivry was a total failure.

It is reported that everyone liked Ivry, but he preferred playing the role of the invisible man. In an interview with Israel TV on his return home he was asked about this. He agreed he never sought public or TV appearances and worked best out of the limelight. At one point New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman sarcastically asked Prime Minister Sharon whether Israel actually had an ambassador in Washington!

Thank goodness for Ambassador Alon Pinkas, Consul General of Israel in New York, who, as a public defender, has been decidedly above average.

Shtauber in London

Lt.-Col. (res.) Tzvi Shtauber, ambassador in London, a former diplomatic advisor to Ehud Barak, completes his two-year term in October. Here’s what Moshe and Ruth Cohn wrote about him in a letter to the Jerusalem Post, July 23:

“We squirmed as the Israeli ambassador, Tzvi Shtauber, read out his speech, not daring to lift his eyes from his papers and speaking in platitudes. The British media bewail the lot of the Palestinian Arabs and condemn our soldiers as they try to keep us safe. The pattern will be repeated if Itzik succeeds Shtauber”.

As a public relations defender of Israel in the world’s second most important capital, Shtauber is a total failure.

Amor in Brussels

Israel has a law (or is it an understanding?) entitling the ruling party/coalition to designate up to 10 appointees as ambassadors. The unashamed reason is to reward party hacks and apparatchiks for past loyalties.

In the PR age of dominance by TV media, bad or non-existent PR can seriously harm a nation like Israel. We can advance when our PR achieves the objectives of our nation. Like it or not, successful PR ability is absolutely essential to this process. Only top caliber PR people can win the minds and hearts of men to our cause.

This requires our ambassadors to be the best persons to carry this onerous responsibility. Those who meet this criterion should get the job. There must be no more rewarding party loyalists with ambassadorships at the expense of our need to be understood and respected among the nations.

Such an appointee was Shaul Amor, Social Worker, former Mayor of Migdal Ha’emek. A lack luster Likud MK who believed he was entitled to better things, he decided to run for President against incumbent Ezer Weizman. Although supported by the Likud, he lost 63 votes to 49. Disheartened he sought to have his wife appointed mayor of Migdal Ha’emek. In this too, incumbent Eli Barda frustrated him.

To ease the importuning of the good and faithful servant, Netanyahu appointed Amor ambassador to Brussels, capital not only of Belgium but of the European Union! No one knew better that Netanyahu what a public relations disaster Shaul Amor would be. Yet that did not stop him donating this prize post to a nonentity. As a public relations champion of Israel in this crucial media arena, Amor has been an utter failure.

The 10 ambassadorial appointees should be reserved for the very best people – those with professional TV presentation skills. We need to bearing in mind that their opponents will mostly be the best the Palestinians have. And that in many instances the TV channel interviewers will espouse the Palestinian cause. BBC is the quite the worst of the anti-Israel networks.

Where effective PR is concerned, Israel’s Foreign Office should realize that TV debating experience, interviewing skills, and English mother tongue fluency count for much more than diplomatic abilities.

{} {} {}

Why I Won’t Talk To The BBC
By Douglas Davis

June 6th, 2006

by Douglas Davis

May 25, 2002

Douglas Davis of the Jerusalem Post says that the Corporation is reinfecting Britain with the virus of anti-Semitism.

Would I, asked the BBC researcher who called from Radio Five Live last week, be available to appear on the Nicky Campbell programme the following morning?

‘It should be very interesting,’ she said, warming to her sales pitch. ‘We want to discuss whether Israel is a morally repugnant society.’ ‘Thanks, but no thanks.’ `You sure?’ she asked, disbelief mingled with impatience. ‘Absolutely positive. Absolutely,’ I replied, to avoid any possible confusion. A moment’s silence, then icily, ‘OK,’ and the line went dead.

The BBC, in my experience, has always been critical of Israel. At times, its coverage has made me feel somewhat queasy; on occasion, I have thought it downright unfair. But, as an Israeli and a journalist, I have defended its right to take a critical view of Israel, even an extremely critical one. After all, no one could accuse the Israeli media of being tame. And besides, I have always subscribed to the cock-up rather than to the conspiracy theory when it came to BBC coverage of the Middle East.

I argued that the Arab-Israeli conflict, anchored in a heady mixture of religious, territorial, political, social, economic and historical issues, presented an eye-crossing challenge to even the reasonably well– informed observer, let alone to the neophyte from London intent on establishing a reputation in one of the world’s media hotspots.

All that changed on 11 September. Even as the Twin Towers came crashing down, the BBC was interviewing Arab studio analysts who solemnly intoned that it was racist to assume that Arabs or even Muslims were responsible. More likely, they said, it was Mossad, because such an event `played into Israeli hands’.

But, even if Arabs and Muslims had flown those planes, they said, was it not obvious that America itself was the real culprit? After all, it was America that was pursuing a pro-Israel foreign policy, dictated by the Jewish lobby; it was America that was ignoring the occupation and turning a blind eye to the settlements; it was America that was contemptuous of Arab sensibilities. Could anyone blame the Arabs for wanting to vent their humiliation, frustration and rage at this one-sided American foreign policy?

Apparently not. At least not at the BBC, which could not get enough of it. As I followed events, I felt increasingly as though the rest of the world – or at least that part of it which was inhabited by the BBC had gone stark, staring mad. Disbelief, it seemed, was suspended at Television Centre as logic was turned on its head and victim became perpetrator. But far more shocking than the repeated ventilation of these bizarre views was the fact that they went virtually unchallenged by the BBC’s usually robust interviewers.

Forget the apparently inconsequential fact that Israel only a few months earlier had offered to disgorge 97 per cent of the West Bank, grant the Palestinians a share in Jerusalem, permit a limited return of the refugees and recognise an independent Palestinian state (which no previous ruler in the area had ever done). Forget all that. In the Newspeak of the BBC, there was a direct, causal link between the attack on America and the occupation of the West Bank.

Did the BBC, which reaches into virtually every British living-room, take a conscious policy decision to allow this arrant nonsense to become an established fact on its airwaves? I doubt it.

Rather, I believe that the profound anti-Israel bias – and now I am convinced that it does exist has, over the years, become ingrained in the BBC’s corporate culture. Combine that with a massive dose of anti-Americanism and you have a combustible cocktail.

It is outside the range of my expertise to explain the behaviour of the BBC in this matter. On the face of it, one might have expected a respected British institution to feel a sense of affinity with Israel – a Western, democratic state that shares common values, ideals and aspirations in a region where antidemocratic, despotic and corrupt regimes are the norm.

Perhaps a clinical psychiatrist could offer a cogent explanation of the causes and consequences of the BBC’s extraordinary conduct. Or perhaps the answer is far simpler: a reflex reaction of the grown-up, new-Left radicals from the Sixties who now occupy executive positions in the great offices of state.

Could such a collective mindset, permeated with post-colonial guilt, have animated the director-general Greg Dyke to declare that the BBC was ‘hideously white’? Could it have animated the Foreign Office minister Peter Hain to advocate, in a previous incarnation, the violent destruction of Israel and label Israelis `greedy oppressors’?

If there is a disparity between the time given to Arab and Israeli commentators on the BBC, I must take some of the blame. Over the past five years or so, I have been a frequent commentator on Middle East affairs. Since 11 September, however, I have refused all invitations to appear on BBC radio or television. The reason is not that I wish to avoid a debate, but rather that I believe that the BBC has crossed a dangerous threshold.

In my judgment, the volume and intensity of this unchallenged diatribe has now transcended mere criticism of Israel. Hatred is in the air. Wittingly or not, I am convinced that the BBC has become the principal agent for reinfecting British society with the virus of anti-Semitism. And that is a game I am not willing to play, even if, as one BBC researcher recently assured me, my interview fee far exceeded that of my Arab opposite numbers (an outrageously racist point that I, a third-generation refugee and an exile from apartheid South Africa, found difficult to appreciate fully).

I am neither an apologist for the Israeli government nor a defender of its policies. I have been perfectly capable of taking a critical view of Israel when appearing on the BBC, whether it was the Israel of Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, Binyamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak or Ariel Sharon. And I am not afraid of informed criticism from others. On the contrary, I believe that criticism is essential to the health of the democratic process (although I was always perplexed that Arab guests were treated with a kind of paternalism that never permitted hard questions).

I have a problem with the BBC’s propensity to select and spin the news in order to reduce a highly complex conflict to a monochromatic, single-dimensional comic cut-out, whose well-worn script features a relentlessly brutal, demonically evil Ariel Sharon and a plucky, bumbling, misunderstood Yasser Arafat, the benign Father of Palestine in need of a little TLC (plus $50 million a month) from the West.

But it was not just the lamentable standards of journalism. I parted company with the BBC over its hysterical advocacy of the most extreme Palestinian positions; an advocacy that has now transmogrified into a distorting hatred of a criminal Israel and, by extension, into a burgeoning hatred of Jews closer to home.

It is astonishing that little more than half a century after the Holocaust, the BBC, guardian of liberalism and political correctness, should provide the fertile seedbed for the return of ‘respectable’ anti-Semitism that finds expression not only in the smart salons of London but also, according to the experts who monitor such phenomena, across the entire political spectrum, uniting the far-Left with the Centre and far-Right.

It is astonishing, too, though perhaps no longer so surprising, that the Oxford poet Tom Paulin should continue to star on the BBC Newsnight’s Late Review, despite his clarion call, published in the Cairo-based al– Ahram, to kill Jewish settlers. One can only guess at the BBC’s reaction if his remarks had been directed at Bradford Asians rather than at Israeli Jews.

I still receive a couple of calls a week from producers and researchers at the BBC, but they should know by now that I am no longer a candidate to make up the numbers in order to allow them to justify the injection of yet more poison into the national bloodstream.

Nor, as Nicky Campbell’s researcher so sweetly asked, am I prepared to defend the legitimacy of Israel’s existence – and, effectively, the legitimacy of my own existence as an Israeli and as a Jew. To that I say, `Get stuffed.’

{} {} {}

Douglas Davis is the London correspondent of The Jerusalem Post. Copyright The Spectator May 25, 2002

The Palestine Terrorist
Authority’s Final Solution

June 6th, 2006

August 29, 2005. Updated June 6. 2006

Whose Victory?

Palestinians have celebrated their so called victory at Israel’s Gaza pull-out by deluding themselves, once more, that their terrorism defeated Israel. This was palpably untrue; Israel in fact had gotten the better of the terrorists.

Israel scored one success after another using its armed drones to target terrorist leaders, planners, Kassam rocketeers and mortar bombers. And the anti-terrorist barrier was doing its job of keeping suicide terrorists out. The Arabs were desperately fighting a losing battle and they knew it.

Palestine Terrorist Authority Rejoices

No one should be surprised that the Palestine Terrorist Authority encouraged and praised the “victory” celebrations of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, various Martyrs’ Brigades and others. For there is no visible line between the terrorist factions and their mentor and protector. Many of the PA factions have long been registered on the State department’s official list of terrorist organizations.

Why all have not been listed may be clear to State, but is unclear to the rest of us since all have deliberately participated in the killing of Israeli civilians.

By contrast, “Kahanne Chai” – the only Jewish organization listed by State in 1997 – was banned by the Israel government in 1994 a month after Baruch Goldstein had killed 29 mosque worshippers and wounded many more. Goldstein, never a member, was then described as having been “affiliated” with Kahanne Chai. No Arab civilian has since been killed in another Goldstein-like attack. The KC organization apparently only exists in State’s list.

The Palestine Authority itself however, deserves to be listed by State because it is directly descended from the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) which was in fact listed. The change in name never represented a change of heart or principles. State recognized that terrorism was the main intent of the PLO and had correctly given them top billing in its list of Palestine terrorist organizations. (See State’s ANNEXURE below.)

Kangaroo Trials

Israel’s security services have seldom, if ever, had any difficulty identifying the perpetrators of Palestinian terrorist crimes. In point of fact, neither has the Palestine Terrorist Authority. However, it will surprise no one that the few who were arrested by the PAT all “escaped” before or after “trial” and never again found (except by Israeli intelligence).

Kangaroo trials were reserved exclusively for “collaborators”. No “collaborators” ever lived long enough to escape – they were taken outside and unceremoniously executed.

Aiding, Abetting, Harboring

The Palestine Terrorist Authority has undoubtedly earned the ‘terrorist’ appellation because:

.1. No terrorist has ever been searched or disarmed on the Palestine Terrorist Authority’s side of crossing points. Few indeed have ever been arrested no matter how heinous the murders committed against Jews.

.2. Israel’s security services have seldom, if ever, had difficulty identifying the perpetrators of terrorist crimes. So there can be little doubt that the Palestine Terrorist Authority knew exactly who they were, too.

.3. The Palestine Terrorist Authority provides safe houses to protect wanted terrorists being hunted down by Israeli security services.

Omissions and Commissions

.4. The Palestine Terrorist Authority permits members of its terrorist factions comprehensive training facilities in its territory.

.5. It also permits foreign Arabs to join and become active partners in their terrorist activities.

.6. It provides political protection and fungible money to pay living allowances and pensions to families of suicide killers and to those wounded in clashes with Israeli soldiers.

.7. It finances the purchase of arms and munitions etc for its terrorists. It is the repository of large caches of weaponry (especially missiles) smuggled via secret tunnels into Gaza.

Karin(e) A – The Proof Positive

.8. Proof, if more was ever needed, was the Karin A which was apprehended by the Israel navy off the coast of Gaza in January 2002. 50 tons of military materiel were confiscated. The Palestinian captain was tried in Israel and sentenced to 25 years.

.9. This freighter had been purchased by Yasser Arafat and loaded with exactly the kind of lethal stuff used by the Palestine terrorist organizations.

.10. Yasser Arafat had been caught red-handed. His fingerprints and the signatures of his chief executives were on the invoices. Arafat lied about his direct involvement (naturally) but though he was condemned and no longer persona grata in the White House, that was as far as the US would go.

.11. The shipment contained Katyusha rockets, mortars, sniper rifles, bullets, anti-tank mines, anti-tank missiles, plus over two and a half tons of pure explosives. All items, used and needed by the terrorists, had been bought and paid for by the Palestine Terrorist Authority.

Arming Of The Palestine Terrorist Authority

Israel had clearly flubbed the PR value of the Karin A’s interdiction. As a result of this failure no one focused on the unique fact that the ship was delivering specifically selected weaponry ordered by the Palestine Authority itself. (Not by a terrorist faction.)

It was at this stage that Israel should have immediately declared the PA to be a Terrorist Authority. For although there was clearly a difference in scale, the event was comparable in our situation, to the discovery of the missile base constructed by the Russians in Cuba. Regrettably, Israel missed the opportunity to influence world opinion with the significance of the Karin A’s capture.

However, this lost opportunity did not alter the facts. The PA, representing all the terrorist factions, is a Terrorist Authority. Yet incredibly, the US and the UK continue to exert pressure on Israel to make peace with a terrorist entity. Something they would never do themselves.

Moreover the US and UK know the Palestinians are hell bent on a final Jewish solution of their own. Their terrorist factions have made no secret of their intention to obliterate Israel from the map. (In anticipation of which Israel is never shown on their maps.)

What is there about Arab terrorism upon Israeli civilians that is so acceptable to great moral nations like the US, the UK and European nations? Why do the victims of Arab terrorism inspire so much sympathy and garner so much financial aid from these governments?

{} {} {}

Annexure

Extract from the US Department of State’s List of Foreign Terrorist Organizations listing the PLO as a terrorist organization: (Updated 2004):

Palestinian

  1. Palestinian Liberation Organization (June 1964-Present) o Formed as an umbrella group of eight Palestinian nationalist organizations devoted to dismantling Israel headquartered in Damascus, Syria and Beirut, Lebanon. o Used the name Black September during the 1972 Munich Olympic Massacre)

Groups within the PLO

  1. Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) (1967-present)

o Left-wing Palestinian separatists o Joined the PLO in 1968 and became the second-largest PLO faction, after Arafat’s al-Fatah, but withdrew in 1974, accusing the group of moving away from the goal of destroying Israel outright.

PFLP’s splinter groups:

  1. Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC) (1968-present) * o Splinter group from the PFLP, founded by Ahmed Jibril. Declared its focus would be military, not political. Was a member of the PLO, but left in 1974 for the same reasons as PFLP.

3. Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) (1969-present)

o Marxist-Leninist group that believes Palestinian national goals can be achieved only through revolution of the masses. Split into two factions in 1991; Nayif Hawatmah leads the majority and more hard-line faction, which continue to dominate the group. Joined with other rejectionist groups to form the Alliance of Palestinian Forces (APF) to oppose the Declaration of Principals signed in 1993. Broke from the APF – along with the PFLP – over ideological differences. Has made limited moves toward merging with the PFLP since the mid-1990s.

  1. Abu Nidal organization (ANO) (1974-2002?; Anti-PLO extremists) * o Split from PLO but is not considered primarily a Palestinian nationalist organization. See ANO entry above.

  2. Fatah (early 1960s-present; Palestinian nationalist political party; sponsors terrorism) o In Arabic, “conquest by means of jihad.” o Reverse acronym for “Harekat at-Tahrir al-Wataniyyeh al-Falastiniyyeh.” o Also known as the movement for the National Liberation of Palestine. o Founded by Yasser Arafat in the early 1960s. Took control of the PLO in 1960, with Arafat as chairman, forming the Palestine.

Groups associated with Fatah:

  1. Al Aqsa Marytrs Brigade *

o Responsible of many suicide bombings and shooting attacks against Israeli civilian. o Responsible of executing suspected collaborators and opposition leaders to Arafat. o Funded by Fatah and the Palestine.

  1. Tanzim (1995-present) o In Arabic, “organization.” o Loosely organized Fatah militia.

  2. Force 17 (early 1970s-present)

o Elite unit of the PLO under Yasser Arafat’s direct guidance. o Acts as a versatile unit for terrorism, combat, and intelligence-gathering.

9.Hawari (1980s-1991)

o Also known as the Fatah Special Operations Group, Martyrs of Tal Al Za’atar, and Amn Araissi. o Has not carried out terrrorist attacks recently. 10. Ahmed Abu Reish Brigade

o Extreme off-shoot of Fatah. o Was involved in July 17, 2004 kidnappings in the Gaza Strip.

o Possible link to the Popular Resistance Committees.

  1. The Popular Resistance Committees – Gaza Strip

The BBC’s Hatred For Israel

June 5th, 2006

November 21, 2005

Israeli-Palestinian Impartiality Review BBC Governance Unit Room 211, 35 Marylebone High Street London, W1U 4AA United Kingdom israelipalestinian.review@bbc.co.uk

Dear Reviewers,

“This is not the first time, of course, that the BBC has taken on Israel in an effort to delegitimate it and, as in its previous efforts, it uses all possible means, including lies and distortions.” writes Daniel Doron.

These are fighting words from the President of The Israel Center for Social and Economic Progress, an independent pro-market policy think tank.

Doron is one of many BBC watchers who has found bias in too many BBC newscasts on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And in most documentaries. Doron makes a compelling and convincing case.

I am submitting his article (below) to be considered for your review. I would hope to read your comments on the aspects raised when your Report is published.

Respectfully,

Jock L. Falkson

The BBC’s Hatred For Israel by Daniel Doron

Those who wonder why Israel was chosen as the state most dangerous to world peace in a recent European poll need only look to the European media.

A recent BBC film Israel’s Secret Weapons, devoted to exposing Israel as a prime international threat worse than Saddam Hussein, is a prime example of how the European media vilifies Israel. The film was made prior to the American invasion, as part of an effort to delegitimate American efforts by showing that US ally Israel is by far the greater offender, and if anyone should be bombed Israel should be first.

Israel’s Secret Weapons was shown at the Jerusalem Cinematheque’s British film week sponsored by the British Council.

This is not the first time, of course, that the BBC has taken on Israel in an effort to delegitimate it and, as in its previous efforts, it uses all possible means, including lies and distortions.

From the beginning of the al-Aksa intifada in 2000, the BBC’s reports were routinely skewed in favor of Arafat’s terrorist regime. The BBC regularly suggested that Israel was the prime instigator of “the cycle of violence.” It accused Israel of killing far more Arab children than even exaggerated Palestinian Authority figures.

In November 2000 the BBC sank to the nadir of its pathological hatred for Israel, revealing the depth of its anti-Semitic bias. It opened a program about Palestinian children killed in the intifada by presenting as fact, complete with shots of skulls, the ancient anti-Semitic calumny of “Herod’s massacre of the innocents.”

Cutting straight from the skull-stuffed crypt (adult skulls, mind you) – which the BBC describes as the actual location where an ancient “massacre” of children occurred – to Manger Square, where a funeral was taking place of an Arab boy “shot through the head” (gangster style) by Israeli troops, the BBC brazenly drew a straight line connecting an alleged attempt to kill the child Christ to Israel’s killing of Palestinian children.

Throughout the intifada, the BBC repeated – with no corroborating evidence – the worst Arab fabrications and calumnies. In its expositions of the background to the conflict, it always endorsed the Palestinian narrative, though it must be aware that it is historically false.

The many Arabs present on the BBC’s talk shows can spread any calumny about Israel and they will never be challenged by BBC hosts. Nor will the BBC allow a proper rebuttal by Israelis. For “balance,” the BBC carefully chooses pro-Arab Israelis or some fumbling official from our pitiful foreign ministry. Anyone who is capable of mounting an effective rebuttal to the BBC’s distortions and lies is never be invited to speak.

BESIDES ITS news broadcasts, the BBC has been devoting several special programs to the task of delegitimizing Israel. A memorable hatchet job – also shown at the Cinematheque – was the Panorama program framing Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as the “real” killer in the Christian Lebanese militia massacre of innocent Palestinians at Sabra and Shatilla. The BBC’s “case” was woven from a tissue of lies, distortions, significant omissions, allegations lacking any factual basis, and a sickening animus toward Sharon and Israel.

The same malevolent spirit animates Israel’s Secret Weapon. The film asks “Which state harbors the most dangerous weapons of mass destruction, refusing to let anyone inspect them?” It portrays Israel as a police state that commits atrocities just like Saddam Hussein’s Iraq; a state that punished virtuous whisleblower Mordechai Vanunu (whom the program compares to Andrei Sakharov) in the most cruel and illegal manner.

Everyone in the film condemns Israel except for Shimon Peres. Director Olenka Frenkiel manipulates Peres by asking him long leading questions and then cutting Peres’s responses to the bare minimum. When the dishonest Frenkiel asks Peres why Israel should not be treated like Iraq, the outraged Peres responds with “How could you compare, when Saddam killed so many innocent people and used gas against the Iranians and the Kurds?”

Olenka’s response is “Some do compare.” We soon find out who: The film cuts to two sequences, the first showing the Sabra and Shatilla massacre and suggesting that Sharon is the killer, and the second showing the alleged use by Israel of some mysterious gas against civilians in Gaza. Both sequences are based on falsehoods, but they establish the comparison between Israel and Iraq’s Saddam.

Israel’s Secret Weapon was followed by a panel discussion moderated by the IBA’s David Wiztum. It was heartening to hear how even those who generally criticize Israeli policies from the Left were shocked by the BBC animus and bias. The generally cool Wiztum spoke in anger.

Even Haaretz’s Danny Rubinstein, who is sympathetic to the PA, pointed to the film’s gross errors and distortions. Another panelist, author Lynda Grant, a writer for the Guardian, deplored the tendency of journalists to cast themselves as crusaders for a cause rather than report facts.

Hebrew University’s professor Robert Wistrich, an expert on anti-Semitism, said that “the documentary tries to suggest that Israel is the real rogue regime in the Middle East, an axis of evil, a state more dangerous than Saddam’s Iraq. It tells us that Dimona, not Baghdad, should be the target; that Mordechai Vanunu was a hero and saint, unjustly prosecuted by a quasi-police state masquerading as a democracy.”

Israel’s precarious position as the only state threatened with extinction was never mentioned in the film.

“Such a distorted documentary in the current British climate can only inflame anti-Israel feelings and antipathy to Jews still further,” Wistrich concluded.

But the BBC representative stonewalled. He thought the film was a “cracking good yarn,” like soap opera stuff, and he refused to address any of the distortions and the lies it contained.

In the 1947-8 War of Independence, British policemen and soldiers disarmed Hagana members and then left them among Arab crowds to be cut to pieces. The BBC is trying to do the same to Israel. By portraying it as the worst criminal state and by totally whitewashing Arab dictatorships, especially the gangster-ruled Palestinian Authority – which it casts in the role of the righteous underdog, fighting against oppression – the BBC tries to disarm Israel morally and politically.

As the panel discussion indicated, it is no use pleading with the BBC for fairness, decency, or justice. It is determined in its mission.

It is time for Israel to recognize who its enemies are and to protect itself from them.

{} {} {}