Sunday, December 14, 2008
Dear Mr Nelson
I enjoy your column in the News of the World every week, and hence am particularly disappointed that your normal journalistic standards could have been so completely compromised as they were in your article today about the child Afghan suicide bomber.
The problem in the article is that you have introduced two inappropriate, unnecessay and totally incorrect references to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. There have, of course, been many articles in the media that exhibit both ignorance and anti-Israel bias, but your two references to Israel reach an all-time low in my view (especially as I am sure your outlook is generally sympathetic to Israel). Specifically:
Point 1: You say "The Taliban use children like the Israeli army use robots. Seldom has a fighting force been so callous"
I can only assume that you had a mental blockage when you wrote this statement. First of all it seems to imply that the Israelis callously use robots to attack people in the way the Aghans do with suicide bombers. I can only assume that you have confused your facts here. The Israelis have, on a small number of occasions used robots to DISARM potential suicide bombers, as in the well known case of the 14-year-old Palestinian boy in March 2004:
This use of robots is exactly the opposite of what is implied in your statement. The use of robots is explicitly to save lives including even that of the suicide bomber. Your statement is a kind of a blood libel, that requires an apology. Perhaps you were confusing Israel's use of robots with the American use of drones against the Taliban. That would surely have been a more relevant and appropriate comparison to make given that the article was about Afghanistan and not Israel.
Point 2: You say (about the Afghan suicide bombers): "These are not the serious, adult suicide bombers used by Palestinian terrorists against Israel". This statement is offensive and ignorant on two levels. First the statement is false because the Palestinians have not only used child suicide bombers extensively, but have indoctrinated an entire generation of children to believe that killing as many Jews as possible by becoming a suicide bomber is the greatest ambition they can achieve. In fact, compared to the Afgan child bomber (who apparently may not even have known that he was on a suicide mission) the Palestinian child bombers have begged to become suicide bombers as a result of their indoctrination. For information about this, and a catalogue of Palestinian child suicide bombers see:
Secondly, the statement implies that Palestinian use of suicide bombers is somehow a legitimate and professional type of activity compared to the Afghans. Again you need to be reminded that, almost exclusively, Palestinian suicide bombings have been directed at civilian and not military targets. To even imply that these are morally superior somehow to the Afghan suicide attacks against the army is truly abhorrant.
I am extremely upset that you of all people have now joined the rest of our media writers in using any opportunity, no matter how inappropriate, to slander Israel.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
The story is here at the Times.
Two obvious questions:
1. Why would Muslims be offended at such a memorial?
2. Why are Scotland Yard hiring Islamfascists to peddle their usual garbage?
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
So I got to thinking why such attacks continue and this is where I start to blame the western media and leftists. The fact is the attacks continue because few in the western media actually disagree with the Hamas notion that such acts are natural (Bradley Burston has written a fantastic article on this very point). On the contrary, the BBC and their ilk - if they report such stories at all (most news outlets in the UK totally ignored the story today as usual) - inevitably seek to justify such acts in ways that are not too dissimilar to the way Hamas does. What people in the West fail to realise is that the Palestinians - including even Hamas - are incredibly sensitive to 'Western opinion'. You only have to look at how they reacted when they received widespread condemnation over the kidnap of the BBC journalist Alan Johnson to realise this. Basically, as soon as they saw it was hurting their image Hamas released him. Simple as that.
But killing Israel civilians is ALWAYS justifiable in the eyes of the leftists in the West who dominate the mainstream media. So, no matter how heineous the terrorist attack, it will never be condemned - or even exposed - by that media. In fact, if news of terrorist attacks against Israelis is covered at all in the mainstream media it will normally be accompanied by more prominent material sympathetic to the Palestinians (often even focusing on the family of the terrorists themselves - conveniently ignoring all the rejoicing and candy-handouts that preceeded the BBC interviewers knock at the door).
Compare the reaction to today's terrorist attack with the accidental death of Rachel Corrie - an ISM activist dedicated to the destruction of Israel - when she deliberately ran into the path of an Israeli bulldozer in 2003. Don't hold your breath waiting for the kind of international condemnation (not to mention endless documentaries, plays, books and articles) that followed that death.
So if, as Bradley Burston implores, the leftists could for once bring themselves to condemn unconditionally this kind of attack, there is a very good chance it could have a real impact in avoiding future similar outrages. Their deafening silence means that THEY are part of the problem, and it is fair to put some of the blame for the deaths of these innocent young women on them.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Saturday, June 14, 2008
But within less than 12 hours it was clear that Israel could not have been responsible for the explosion and even Reuters reported the following:
- GAZA (Reuters) - Hamas's military wing said on Friday an explosion that killed eight Palestinians in the Gaza Strip was an accident that occurred as militants prepared to carry out a bomb attack. Hamas initially blamed Thursday's explosion on an Israeli air strike, but the Israeli military denied involvement. The blast flattened the two-storey house of Hamas bomb-maker Ahmed Hamouda in the northern town of Beit Lahiya, killing six Hamas fighters, a four-month-old girl and a civilian.
You would have thought that the real story in this case - Hamas' own explosion killing so many people, its deliberate misleading of the media and its diabolical rocket attacks on Israel as false retaliation - would have led to that same media giving it prominence. Wrong. Whereas the original false story implicating Israel was given prominence, the real story has been ignored totally on TV and radio in the UK. What about newspapers? No chance. Today's Times newspaper has only one small item about Israel and that is of course a negative one, highlighting US criticism of its home building programme in Jerusalem.
If you want an example that captures everything about the media's bias against Israel it is this saga. And here is something that you should also remember. When the next figures listing Palestinian casualties of Israeli 'agression' are trotted out you can be guaranteed these the people kille in the explosion wil be added to it.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
I've just posted the following self-explanatory letter to the Prime Minister. If you can stomach it you should watch the video link in the letter to know what we are up against. And also note the reaction of our enlightened Jordanian 'friends'.
The Prime Minister
10 Downing Street
Dear Prime Minister
Terrorist Incitement by George Galloway MP
On 15 May 2008 George Galloway delivered a speech in Amman Jordan that was shown on Al-Jazeera TV. I have attached the transcript of the speech. The actual footage is available here:
This speech includes a call for the violent destruction of the State of Israel, which is especially concerning since it was delivered in Jordan – one of only two Arab countries officially at peace with Israel. It also contains a number of instances of glorification of terrorism (as well as, curiously, the glorification of Saddam Hussein). While Galloway never mentions the word ‘Jew’ (instead referring to Israeli Jews as being either ‘occupiers’, ‘colonialists’, or simply ‘gunmen from Brooklyn, London, Paris, and Moscow’) the speech is deeply offensive to Jews at all levels.
On 16 March 2008 I wrote to the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith about a related subject (and have received no reply or even acknowledgement). I attach a copy of that letter. The point about that letter is that the Government of the UK has legislation to handle incitement to terrorism, but has badly misused it.
I would like to know whether you intend to use the legislation now against George Galloway.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Well, at least the money pouring in to Universities to fund Islamic extremism is mainly being provided by the (foreign) extremists themselves. Unfortunately we can't say the same about the initiative that Home Secretary Jacqui Smith is set to announce according to the report here.
Basically, it appears that the Home Secretary's answer to the problems of Pakistani imams indoctrinating congregants in their mosques with Islamic extemism is to ... pay to import even more Pakistani imams. Here is what the article says:
This week the Home Secretary will step up the government's "Prevent" campaign—its battle against Islamic extremists who preach hate and indoctrinate potential jihadi recruits.
On Wednesday she will announce a new deal she struck with the Pakistani government on a visit last week. It will allow respected moderate Islamic clerics to be brought over from Pakistan to help British imams combat extremism in the Islamic communities.
Mrs Smith explained: "The vast majority of British Muslims have a Pakistani heritage. If we work with the government there we can win the arguments.
"We need to do more to tackle those places where radicalisation is developing—in prisons, schools, higher education—so that people are getting the right messages about what it means to be a British Muslim."
Remember that when they talk about "respected moderate Islamic clerics" the most celebrated such 'moderate' is none other than our old friend al-Qaradawi - the anti-semitic, homophobic, misogynist who issued the fatwa permitting the murder of Israeli children and who not only encouraged Muslim women to become suicide bombers, but also allowed them to disguise themselves in Western clothes to do so.
Oh, and of course, I still have not received any response from Jaqui Smith to my letter asking why she allowed in Islamic terrorist supporters but banned Israeli members of Parliament under the new anti-terrorism legislation.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Jacqui Smith MP
The Secretary of State for the Home Department
Direct Communications Unit
2 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DF
16 March 2008
Dear Ms Smith,
Excluding the wrong people from the UK
When the government introduced its legislation (following the Islamist terrorist bombings of London) to bar from the UK anybody responsible for fomenting or justifying terrorist violence, most sensible people assumed that the target of this ban would be the many Islamic fundamentalists who preach hatred of the West, work for the destruction of the State of Israel, and glorify suicide bombings.
But in fact it turns out that you have used the legislation to ban the very victims of terrorist incitement rather than those doing the incitement. I refer to your banning of an Israeli politician (Moshe Feiglin) who had not even applied to enter the UK, at the same time as Islamic fundamentalists are allowed in to preach their hatred and justify terrorism. In case you are not aware of it, the Israelis have been and continue to be the number one victims of Islamic terrorism, so the irony here is somewhat tragic.
In fact in the same week that you made your bizarre unilateral decision to exclude Mr Feiglin a spokesman (Ibrahim Mousawi) for the proscribed terrorist organisation Hezbollah was allowed in to the UK for a speaking tour. This is the organisation whose leader has vowed to kill every Jew in the world. Perhaps you can explain how Ibrahim Mousawi’s entry into the UK (even Ireland had banned him) was likely to do anything other than foment and justify terrorist violence?
But it certainly does not stop with Ibrahim Mousawi. The UK hosts many notorious Islamists who foment and justify terrorist violence in the furtherance of world-wide Islamic domination. I understand, for example, that the UK has hosted many visits by Sheikh Faysal Mawlawi, vice president of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, a Dublin-based organisation of Muslim Brotherhood clerics. He issued a fatwa that legitimises and encourages the killing of any and all civilians in Israel. Sheikh Faysal Mawlawi's teachings go well beyond those of Feiglin. Moreover, he is a cleric who, unlike Feiglin, is specifically targeting his rulings at Muslims living in Europe. The argument for banning him, and every other member of the European Council of Fatwa and Research is surely compelling.
Then we have Abd al-Bari Atwan, the editor of the London based Al-Quds Al-Arabi. I note, for example, in his lead article last Sunday, he glorified the terrorist killing of eight teenage students in Israel, and said the celebrations in Gaza that followed symbolized the "courage of the Palestinian nation." He added that the recent violence in Gaza might "mark the countdown to Israel's destruction." Atwan has already been banned from Australia as a result of his declaration, last year, on Lebanese TV that "If the Iranian missiles strike Israel, by Allah, I will go to Trafalgar Square and dance with delight.” I trust, therefore that you will never give him the opportunity to go to Trafalgar Square again by deporting him.
Saturday, March 08, 2008
The BBC's anti-Israel bias in the reporting of the massacre of young Israeli students is simply beyond the pale. In particular I refer to the following quote in the article which comes under the bizarre subheading "Settler stronghold"
"The BBC's Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen says that the school was no ordinary seminary. It was the ideological cradle of the settler movement in the West Bank, which could be the reason it was targeted."
This statement by Bowen is not only inflamatory and irrelevant, but is completely nonsensical. Has Bowen looked at a map of Jerusalem to see where the seminary is? It is in West Jerusalem in an area that was never part of the "occupied territories" and with no connection to "settlers" or the "West Bank". According to Bowen's twisted logic any Israeli is a valid target for massacre.
I expect to see a full apology for this appalling rubbish.
Friday, March 07, 2008
massacre of Jewish students by a Palestinian terrorist.
In a later broadcast the newsreader added the comment
I have made a complaint to LBC about their reporting. Here is what I said to them:
If you knew little of the details of the Israel Palestine Situation (like 99% of the public) you would have assumed from the report that the 8 dead were probably Palestinians and that they were killed as a direct result of some rocket attack by the Israelis. For those who found out from other sources that the dead were Jews and the killer was a Palestinian terrorist then the later broadcast would have assured them that this kind of thing has not happened for a long time.
As a news channel LBC ought to report the news in a clear and understandable way, not in a way that is deliberately misleading and biased. LBC also ought to be aware that it is the Palestinians who have been firing rockets into Israel not the other way round as stated. In fact over 8,000 have been fired against civilian targets in southern Israel since Israel withdrew completely from Gaza in 2005. Of course, LBC has never once reported on these attacks, nor on the suffering in Israeli cities like Sderot that are attacked every single day. Nor of course did it report on last night’s scenes of wild celebrations by thousands of Palestinians when they heard of the massacre in Jerusalem. And of course they did not report on the Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri declaring it as a ‘heroic attack’.
What LBC has reported of course many times are the previous Israeli responses to rocket attacks. Israel’s responses have, in the main, been pinpointed and accurate strikes against the rocket crews and other terrorists. By focusing only on Israeli responses to Palestinian terrorism rather than on the terrorism itself, LBC in common with other news media are becoming part of the problem. The terrorists are comforted to know that their actions will never be properly condemned and that instead the condemnation is reserved for the very victims of their terrorism. This in turn encourages more terrorism.
And as for the comment about this being the first ‘militant’ attack in Jerusalem for 4 years, this is complete nonsense. As recently as 25 Jan 2008 a Palestinian terrorist attack in Jerusalem result in Israeli killed and six injured in Jerusalem. There were also deadly attacks in Jerusalem on 6 Nov 2006, 8 Oct 2006 and 25 Aug 2005. Moreover, during this period Israeli security forces have stopped dozens of major attacks in Jerusalem.
I received the following response (very fast I must say):
----- Original Message ----
From: LBC Complaints LBC Complaints
To: Davidson Edgar
Sent: Friday, 7 March, 2008 5:20:02 PM
Subject: Re: Write Your Complaint or Feedback Here ENTRY
Dear Mr Edgar
I'm sorry you were unhappy with our news coverage. We always strive to be fair and balanced, obviously you feel we failed in this case. It's a shame you also didn't hear James O'Brien this morning between 10 and 1 who presented an excellent hour on the conflict in which both sides put across constructive words about the terrible situation with the aim of discovering if there could be a solution. I found that debate refreshing because it offered hope.
And here is my follow-up reply:
Thanks for replying.
I did not hear the James O'Brien show, but even if I had that hardly excuses the appallingly misleading, inaccurate and blatantly anti-Israel presentation of your main morning news (which I assume is the part of the programme the vast majority of your listeners would have heard). There is no doubt that whoever was responsible for the text provided to your newsreaders this morning spent considerable time massaging the words to ensure that listeners were not aware that:
a) the victims were Jews
b) the attacker was a Muslim Arab terrorist
c) the attack took place inside Israel
d) the attack was supported (and indeed later claimed) by the Hamas government of Gaza
e) the attack sparked scenes of wild celebration by many thousands of Palestinians.
All of these facts are crucial to the story and all were provided by other news agencies as long as 10 hours earlier (even the notoriously anti-Israel BBC managed to give relevant information). Yet somebody at LBC made the very deliberate and conscious decision not only to doctor the story, but to introduce the false and irrelevant point about Israel firing rockets into Gaza. In other words somebody at LBC has a very clear and spiteful anti-Israel agenda and I find that unacceptable.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
One package was found to contain white powder and a chilling note warning it was lethal.
The ground was sealed off and staff put in isolation as experts tested the powder.
Special Branch were then called in after cops read the sickening antisemitic threats against Israeli Grant, 52, and his TV star wife Tzofit, 43.
One note read: “You are a back-stabbing Jewish b*****d.
“When you open this letter you will die a very slow and painful death.”
A second message made twisted sexual threats against his wife Tzofit, adding: “Then she will die.”
Dad-of-two Grant was subjected to racist abuse after replacing Jose Mourinho as manager last September.
Many fans thought Grant – a close pal of Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich – was to blame for Mourinho’s axeing.
I checked the BBC News and Sport, Sky News and Sport, BBC teletext news and Sport and ITV teletext news and sport. None of them made any mention at all of this news item. I also looked at Google News UK and Yahoo News UK. Not a mention.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Two Palestinian terrorist attacks near Jerusalem leave one Israeli dead, six Israelis injured
Thursday night, Jan. 24. Palestinian gunmen opened fire on an Israeli border checkpoint near Shuafat on the old road to Pisgat Zeev, Jerusalem. One border guard was killed, and his female partner left in serious condition from shots in the chest. The two gunmen escaped before Israeli forces arrived on the scene and set up a manhunt.
At Gush Etzion, southeast of Jerusalem, two Palestinian gunmen clad in Israeli uniforms burst into the Makor Haim yeshiva (school). Wielding guns and knives, they injured three Israelis, one seriously. In a shoot-out in one of the buildings, the two gunmen were shot dead.
What conclusions can be drawn from this news? Recently my MP quoted body counts as the ultimate 'proof' of Israeli brutality and responsibility for 'the cycle of violence'. More Palestinians are killed than Israelis, so ispo facto the Israelis are the guilty party. In tonight's attacks only one Israeli dead (known so far), but two Palestinians dead. So Palestinian dead outnumber Israeli dead by two to one. The Israelis are therefore twice as brutal as the Palestinians. Do you think my MP might start to see the problem with his logic? Don't hold your breath.
Also, according to that MP's logic the only reason for Palestinian terrorism are the roadblocks and checkpoints which prevent their freedom of movement. Therefore the Israelis should lift all the checkpoints and everyone will live happily ever after. But the problem with that logic is that it is ONLY the roadblocks and checkpoints that are preventing massacres against Israeli citizens every hour of every day.
In truth the Palestinians have become emboldened in their terrorist actions precisely because of apologists like my MP and the media in the West. It is the same reason why they bombard Israeli cities from Gaza with total impunity because the media turns a blind eye to it and expects the Israelis to grin and bear it. In the rare cases where Palestinian terrorism is reported in our media the apologists do not issue unequivocal condemnation, but rather seek to 'explain' and 'justify'.
Despite what the apologists for Palestinian terrorists want to think, the basic problem is not Israeli 'occupation' (the dispute and Palestinian terrorism existed long before 1967), it is not the Israeli response to Palestinian terrorism and its attempts to quell it, it is not even the Palestinian violence itself. The basic problem is the complete refusal of the Palestinians to recognize the right of the Jews to have a Jewish State in any part part of the Jew's historic homeland. And because of apologists like my MP they will continue to kill Jews because they will never be be aware that it is simply WRONG to do so.
Picture this: the electric plant which supplies 70% of electricity to the Palestinians in Gaza is in Ashkelon. The Palestinians in Gaza have been shooting kassam rockets at the
plant ever since the "disengagement" i.e. the abandonment of Gush Katif. Now, Palestinians are crying that they don't have enough electricity. They are complaining about Israeli sanctions against them. They are going to the U.N.
The truth is, Israel has not stopped supplying electricity to Gaza. Not only that, but Israeli electric company employees are risking their lives to do so.
Mickey Tsarfati, head of the union of electrical workers, said: "It is unbelievable chutzpah for them to complain. We have not stopped supplying them with electricity for a minute. And they have not stopped logging bombs at us for a minute." Many of the workers who fix the lines to Gaza daily are residents of Sderot. It has happened more than once that bombs fell next to their homes as they were fixing the lines to supply electricity to the bombers.
Now the U.N. and the Quartet, and the Arab League are all getting demands to stop Israeli "sanctions" against the Gazans....
You tell me what other country would be supplying electricity to people who are bombing their children on a daily basis, and risking their lives to do so.
The situation is indeed unprecedented in the history of the world. One country A under brutal, unprovoked and continual attack from a neighbouring country B whose government is committed to killing or expelling every citizen of A. Yet A is not allowed to defend itself, and also has to supply its enemy B with the means for their further continued attacks. And the whole world has sympathy only with country B.
Even if you try to think of analogous situations in history it is impossible to come up with anything as far fetched. The closest I could think of was 1940 Britain: No longer with any forces on mainland Europe. No active allies. All alone against the Nazis who occupy the whole of Western Europe including France next door from where they threaten to invade. Night after night German bombers blitz London. Now imagine that, when the RAF sent up its brave pilots to confront the Nazi planes, there was an outcry from the rest of the world about Britain using disproportionate force and about it 'creating a cycle of violence'. Even this analogy does little justice ot Israel's comparative plight. For a start, unlike Britain, Israel is completely surrounded by deadly enemies, so for the analogy to work you would have to imagine that Ireland, Scotland and Wales were in the hands of the Nazis. And you would also have to imagine that there was no British Channel separating Britain from France. Moreover, it would have had to be the case that Britain supplied the fuel for the Nazi warplanes and that the rest of the world condemned Britain when it threatened to withhold that fuel from the Nazis. And you would also have to imagine that the rest of the world (including countries like the USA, Canada, and Australia) were openly rooting for the Nazis even though they were not involved in the fighting.
But the worst shame about where the analogy breaks down is that Israel has no Churchill to lead them. Someone who, above all else knows that there can never be any compromise with the Nazis.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
But if you read the BBC report about this murder of an innocent civilian, you will be led to believe that it was the Israelis who killed him. In the report here the headline says "Israeli Gaza City raid kills 16" and the first paragraph reports:
- "At least 16 Palestinians, including at least 13 militants, have died in an Israeli raid in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, reports say. Medical sources and witnesses said the deaths came after Israeli tanks pushed into eastern suburbs of Gaza City. A farm worker in southern Israel was also killed by sniper fire from Gaza. "
Since the report only refers to the "Israeli raid" (and of course says nothing about the barrage of rockets into Israel that preceded the raid and which injured a woman and 7-year-old child) the implication is that the sniper must have been Israeli. In common with BBC reporting on Israel, as analysed by Honest Reporting, today's story again uses explict headlines involving "Israelis kill Palestinians" but when Palestinians kill Israelis the prepetrators (and often even the victims) are never mentioned explicitly. The BBC today have managed to provide both examples of the bias identified by Honest Reporting in the same story.
Friday, January 11, 2008
I found this image (of a Palestinian 'infomer' being mutilated after a public execution by Islamic Jihad) on the Winds of Jihad website, and further references to it on Atlas Shrugs. Both sites refer to an Islamic website that boasts the picture and proudly proclaims
"This is a picture of a Palestinian mother stepping on the corpse of her son who betrayed the Muslims by helping the Israelis. If all mothers were like this, Our lands would be liberated in no time."
However, I do NOT believe the woman is the mother. After some digging it appears the woman is the mother of an Islamic Jihad member and she was invited to crush the head of the executed man. What is certain is that this took place with hundreds of people watching in Jenin (which is of course under the control of our friends the Palestinian Authority) in 2006. More information about it can be found in this video (the video lasts about 5 minutes and the relevant bit is near the end, but you should watch the whole video anyway). Please note that because the video shows graphic evidence of Muslim violence it is likely to be removed by YouTube at any time (the Islamists are well organised in complaining in numbers to YouTube to get any video they do not like removed and YouTube, who are happy to host the most vicious anti-semitic and pro-Jihadist videos, usually succumb to their demands).