So why the outrage this time? They are outraged that he used the "P-word" (the media are not even allowed to spell out 'Paki') and the "N-word". But if you actually read what he said, you can see that by P's and N's he was clearly referring to Arabs/Muslims and, in contrast to his open hatred for Jewish Israelis, he was actually expressing genuine sympathy with them (and especially the Taliban); this was not an anti-P or anti-N attack but a typically ignorant attack against the British armed forces and Defence establishment:
Friday, December 24, 2010
So why the outrage this time? They are outraged that he used the "P-word" (the media are not even allowed to spell out 'Paki') and the "N-word". But if you actually read what he said, you can see that by P's and N's he was clearly referring to Arabs/Muslims and, in contrast to his open hatred for Jewish Israelis, he was actually expressing genuine sympathy with them (and especially the Taliban); this was not an anti-P or anti-N attack but a typically ignorant attack against the British armed forces and Defence establishment:
Daphne's article highlights the fact that Nicholas Saphir, the Chair of the anti-Zionist New Israel Fund (UK), is a trustee of the Kessler Foundation, which owns the Jewish Chronicle. Last week the New Israel Fund had a 4-page pullout in the JC, and rarely a week goes by nowadays without some major positive focus/article about the NIF.
Today's JC confirms the trend towards the JC's antipathy/indifference toward Israel. Forget the week's barrage of rocket attacks from Gaza or the many stories this week confirming the existential threats against Israel (not a mention anywhere in the paper). Forget even the incredible revelation this week that Henry Kissinger, when he was Sectretary of State in the US in 1973, stated that he could not care less if the Russians gassed all the Jews left in Russia (and that he would certainly not allow the US to intervene if they did so). That fails to get a mention either. No, the big front page story is a rather sympathetic account of a senior editor of the Board of Deputies urging the Board to invite PA envoy Manuel Hassassian to address the Board. What the story of course fails to tell readers is that Hassassian is nothing other than a terrorist supporting liar as revealed clearly by Elder of Zyon.
Digging deeper into the paper things do not get any better. There is a near full page article by Orlando Radice arguing that the real extremists we have to worry about are the Jewish ones. And the letters page has two letters responding to the comments of Isi Liebler (who had had the audacity to criticise 'we must speak out against Israel' UJIA boss Mick Davis). Naturally, both letters are indignant at Isi trying to crush Davis's right to free speech. The only pro-Israel piece in the paper is the regular column by Geoffrey Alderman, but even he is forced on the defensive and no doubt will take the usual flak in next week's letters page.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Whatever the rights and wrongs of last week's riots in London over student fee increases, there is no doubt that there was violence on both sides, with the police responding to appalling provocation by hardcore anarchists/leftists who infiltrate all such protests.
Quite reasonably, the media response to these incidents has been unanimous condemnation of the protesters and sympathy with the police having to deal with a volatile situation. Although some minor concerns have been expressed about the police 'kettling' tactics, the concept that there could be any mainstream media anger directed at the police is fanciful and the notion that any foreign country might express an opinion of any kind - let alone one which openly criticises the British police and/or government, it simply too bizarre to consider.
So how would you feel – as a typical law-abiding Brit or even as a member of the British government – if Barak Obama, Nicolas Sarkozy, Angela Merkel and the leaders of every other Western government issued statements expressing their deep concern about the UK’s disproportionate police actions and referred the matter to an emergency session of the UN Security Council? And what about if the leaders of every Muslim government, including such beacons of liberty as Gaddafy, Ahmedinejad and Assad, while chairing UN Human Rights committees issuing condemnations of the UK and calls for a worldwide boycott against, also called on British students to rise up and kill every British policeman? And how would you feel about worldwide street protests, whipped into a frenzy by the media, in which thousands march in every capital of the world demanding the total destruction of the UK as a just penalty for its anti-student actions? And finally, I'd imagine you would not be too impressed if every major international charity (led by Oxfam, Christian Aid and War on Want) launched massive appeals, which although initially focused on funding students who were physically or psychologically 'harmed' by the riots, would ultimately be handed to the anarchists so that they could organise new, and more vicious riots.
All pretty bizarre? Not if you further imagine that these riots – with exactly the same level of protester provocation and police response -- had taken place in Israel and if the protesters were mainly Arabs. Actually, it is not hard to imagine because even the most minor skirmish in Israel involving Arab protesters is treated as an international crisis. And for this level of violence all of the above worldwide reactions would have taken place. With absolute certainty.
Perhaps Bibi Netanyahu should start the ball rolling by issuing his own condemnation of the British police in the Knesset, with a direct appeal to David Cameron and William Hague to ‘stop the British police violence immediately’. Then if, in response, Cameron told the Israelis to mind their own business, perhaps Netanyahu might also know how to respond the next time the British and others feel compelled to publicly condemn the Israelis for far less 'crimes'.
Monday, December 13, 2010
In recent years the prestigious LSE (London School of Economics) has seen an increasing number of anti-Israel incidents, including an occupation of the Old Theatre in 2009 that was ended only after the School's craven capitulation to the demands of the anti-Israel extremists. Only last week the LSE hosted rabid hate merchant Abdul Bari Atwan, which is especially ironic since last year it banned the brilliant Douglas Murray, on 'security grounds' simply because he was prepared to speak in defence of Israel.
It still comes as a great shock, however, that the LSE has inaugurated a new Middle East Centre, funded by £9.2 million from the United Arab Emirates, which appears to not recognise the state of Israel. In the map accompanying the article (see left) about the new Centre in the latest copy of the LSE Connect Magazine, Israel - and all of its cities - has been completely eradicated. It certainly cannot be for reasons of space since Gaza, Lebanon and Beirut are all clearly marked in the space where Israel should be.
It is difficult to understand why an outstanding scholarly institute like the LSE would wish to be associated with a Centre like this. But clearly the LSE is taking money from wealthy Arab regimes to further delegitimize the only true democracy in the Middle East and promote the cause of Islamic fundamentalism.
See important update to this post (15 January 2011)
Thursday, December 02, 2010
But, as usual, dead Israelis elicit a very different response compared to victims from any other country.
- The West ignores it (not a single mention on the main bulletins tonight on Sky News or even Fox News - not even on the ticker-tape).
- The Arabs rejoice in it. So it is a major story on Al Jazeera while Arabs in Israel are actually celebrating.
Whether or not this was a natural disaster or a terrorist act is not the issue. It is the world reaction to it, which will be no different no matter the scale of disaster that hits Israel. Which is exactly what Ahmedinejad, Hamas and Hezbollah understand very well.
Update, 5 Dec: Three days on and the story failed to get a single mention in the UK's most popular newspapers (the Sun and the News of the World). Althought the story got a very brief mention on some of the UK TV news programmes, there was no mention of the special tragedy of the young firefighters in the bus and of course no mention of the further blood curdling Arab rejoicing and gloating over burnt Israeli bodies (and these were all young people going to help evacuate Palestinian TERRORISTS).
Anyway, I've just sent the following self-explanatory letter to the FIFA President:
Dear Mr Blatter
If FIFA is prepared to countenance the idea that the World Cup could be awarded to a country that has never qualified for the world cup (nor any record of footballing achievement), no prospects for football development, no suitable football stadiums nor even football supporters, then we can certainly at least expect any such a country to be one which abides by laws of basic human decency. For example, one which allows entry to visitors irrespective of race or nationality. And we certainly would expect such a country to be free from institutional racism, homophobia and sexism. Since the World Cup is the greatest sporting celebration on earth, it would also surely be expected that in such a country alcohol would not be banned, and it would help if it was physically possible to be outside in such a country in the summer for more than 5 minutes without suffering sunstroke in temperatures guaranteed to be above 45 degrees centigrade. And we would certainly expect such a country NOT to be the major financier of Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist organisations.
Indeed, the latest version of FIFA statutes document states prominently (in its own section, page 7):
- Discrimination of any kind against a country, private person or group of people on account of ethnic origin, gender, language, religion, politics or any other reason is strictly prohibited and punishable by suspension or expulsion.
Can you please therefore explain the rationale for awarding the 2022 World Cup to Qatar - a country which not only breaches FIFA’s statutes, but which somehow fails to satisfy a single one of the above-mentioned very modest criteria of basic respectability. Qatar, the country:
- that does not allow entry to nationals from another of FIFA’s own countries, Israel. In fact, not only does it not allow entry to Israeli nationals, nor does it allow entry to nationals of any country who have their passport stamped from a visit to Israel.
- where homosexuality is punishable by death and where even an American citizen was sentenced to six months imprisonment and 90 lashes for homosexual activity.
- which, through its international Al Jazeera propaganda news network, is the world’s major exporter of anti-semitism and anti—Western jihadism.
- which through its newspapers and TV programmes, that are exported to the Muslim world, not only perpetuate consistent holocaust-denial but provide continually novel anti-Semitism. Indeed, a country which, despite being considered by the USA as an ‘ally’ was identified by the White House in 2003 as being a persistent and unacceptable source of vicious anti-Semitism .
- which hosts ‘the world’s leading Islamic Sunni scholar’ Yusuf al-Qaradawi who, apart from his open hatred of fellow Shiite Muslims, is best known for issuing the fatwas that a) formally allowed Islamic suicide bombers to target women and children and b) formally allowed women not only to become suicide bombers but also to wear western clothing in the act of their suicide bombing in order to deceive their victims (in fact this is the sum total of his contribution to advancing the rights of women in Islam).
- where even taking photographs of ‘local people’ is illegal.
Given FIFA’s statutes stated above, I know that Qatar’s discrimination against Israeli and Jews are especially problematic for you (and I know this because I have seen some of the documentation of the bid). For the first time in World Cup history there will be a host country that does not allow entry to nationals from another of FIFA’s own countries, Israel. I understand that the Qataris have explicitly assured FIFA that they will allow entry to Israelis for ‘the duration of the tournament’. I have even heard that FIFA regards this as an indication of its own “positive influence” ; but that is a bit like saying it would have been a good thing to award the Olympic Games to Nazi Germany in 1936 if the Nazis agreed to postpone their pograms against the Jews for the duration of the tournament... Oh wait a minute ... that is exactly what did happen (so it seems the ethical choices of international sports committees have not changed much over the years).
I understand that the Qataris have also assured FIFA members by noting that Israeli sports participants have previously been allowed into the country and that they have even hosted Israeli trade delegations. What they would not have told you is how exceptional these events were and how bitterly they were received by the country’s small but indoctrinated population. The fact that Qatar has refused to establish diplomatic relations with Israel, and will not do so by 2022, is all that you really need to know.
What is certain is that many football supporters who would love to attend the 2022 World Cup – homosexuals, Jews, women, Israelis, or just supporters who also like to drink beer or take photographs – will effectively be denied the opportunity to attend.
If it is not too late for FIFA to reconsider its decision then you simply must do so.
If it is then today was the day that world football died. In either case I would like some explanation of your decision.
Update 2014: 14 reasons why the Qatar World Cup will be a disaster
Sunday, November 07, 2010
- the massacre by Muslims of 58 Christians in a Church in Baghdad (take a look at the pictures here)
- the 113 Shia Muslims who were slaughtered by Sunni Muslims the next day in Baghdad
- the continued mass slaughter of Muslim worhippers by more devout Muslim worshippers taking place on a daily basisin Pakistan.
- the other UPS cargo bomb plot which actually succeeded - Al Quaeda always did claim that they bombed the UPS cargo plane that crashed in Dubai in September and this now seems certain, yet the UK media is censoring this story while talking endlessly about the failed plot.
It also explains why the media continues to downplay the role of Islamism in so many other stories. For example, it was only because of the guilty verdict and the words of the defendant herself that the British public were allowed to find out that Islamism was the reason why Roshonara Choudhry tried to kill her MP.
What is especially worrying for British Jews - apart from the rapidly escalating hatred being whipped up against Israel from every angle now - is that its own newpapers have increasingly bought into the same main stream "Islam is the Religion of Peace" and "Israel is the root of all problems" narrative. I've reported many times on the Jewish Chronicle's disgraceful decline in this respect, but now even the Jewish News appears to have succumbed. So this week's single Opinion piece titled "The unravelling of Rabin's legacy" places the entire blame for lack of Middle East Peace on "right wing settlers", while its Letters page leads with a full column letter titled "Israel has earned apartheid analogy" which contains such gems as "Israel seems determined to avoid having foreign journalists and courts examine its war efforts in detail, including many illustrated crimes such as phosphorous bombs, physical violence, internal sanctions and blockades". The Jewish Chronicle is now a complete joke; this week its bizarre leading story headlined "Hague offers Israel hand of friendship" (about William Hague's visit to Israel) tried to spin a viewpoint that is contradicted by every other source (see, e.g here and here). The JC actually avoids telling readers that a) Hague made a point of visiting - and expressing support for - the violent anti-Israel demonstrators who protest weekly against Israel's security barrier; and b) Hague made it pretty clear that he is not going to do anything to change the law on use of universal jurisdiction (and hence Israeli politicians will continue to be stopped from coming to the UK). But - wait a minute - didn't Hague and many other Tories promise during the election campaign that they would change this law as soon as they got into power? So why aren't they - like Phil Woolas being thrown out of Parliament?
And finally, here is a frightening story from Jerusalem of how our Arab friends would routinely kill every Jew they find if given the opportunity. Bet this story won't make it into next week's JC.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
- "Who gives these people jobs? Who put these people in positions of influence? We are thirsting, and they're giving us seawater to drink."
Every time I see an article, a news item, or a documentary about the Jihad threat or about Middle East politics this is the question I ask about the writer/presenter. And I'm not just talking about the leftist bigots. Last week's (London) Times on Saturday, for example - the so-called creme de la creme of high-brow reporting - had a massive article dominating its world news section about the Middle East peace talks. The entire article (and headline) blamed Israel's decision to re-start building in Jerusalem (wrongly called "the West Bank") for the breakdown in talks. What was pathetic about the article was not so much its bias (which has been a feature of the Times for several years now) but the sheer ignorance and laziness of the writer. It would not have been hard, for example, to find out and mention the crucial role of the PA in refusing Netanyahu's request to recognise Israel as a Jewish state in exchange for a continued freeze on building, or to mention the clumsy role of Obama in unnecessarily making the building issue so prominent when even the Palestinians had never previously made it a condition for talks. But the writer simply did not bother. Instead the writer simply parroted out the standard Palestinian narrative without any attempt to check the facts. The writer also repeated the libel about the the 'settler' who 'ran over Palestinian children' as being a factor in the breakdown of talks, ignoring the fact that this had been comprehensively debunked with video evidence over a week before.
I'm increasingly coming to the opinion that most writers in the main stream media are not necessarily inherantly biased against Israel. They are simply ignorant, and above all lazy. They simply repeat what other 'writers' in the main stream media are saying and so it just becomes a self-perpetuating torrent of anti-Israel narrative. The tragedy is that these totally useless writers have all the key positions in the main stream media, while truly talented writers are marginalised in the blogosphere. Why. for example, are writers like Michael Totten (who really researches and understands the middle east), Daniel Greenfield (Sultan Knish, who is able to provide deep analysis) and Barry Rubin (who has access to a wide range of inside experts), not given the opportunity to be seen in the main stream media, while truly lazy and ignorant ones dominate it?
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Prominent among these in the UK are Avi Shlaim (Oxford) and Ilan Pappe (Exeter). Although their revisionist work has been widely discredited by genuine experts, they continue to be idolised by leftists and all anti-Zionists. Moroever, because they are keen to emphasize their "Israeli" backgrounds the main stream media often uses them, bizarrely, to "put the Israeli viewpoint" across in a debate (this gives you a feel of just how ignorant/biased the producers/editors are). This explains why you often see a "debate" involving an Arab and an "Israeli" in which the only actual disagreement is about whether Israel is a Nazi state or a fascist state.
Typically, Avi Shlaim is in the news today for playing a prominent role in the scandalous decision to 'disinvite' Jewish academic Professor Geoffrey Alderman from a panel debate at Queens University Belfast about ‘Conflict in the Middle East’. Heaven fordbid that an academic on the panel would not be a Hamas supporter.
But, more concerning to me, is the following example: A few weeks ago I came across a children's textbook in our local library, which I think was called "The Arab Israeli Conflict" (I think it is this one by Debra Miller). Flicking through it was clear that the book provided (exclusively) the Palestinian narrative in which, for example, the only 'terrorists' in the history of the conflict were Jews at Deir Yassin etc. When I looked at the back cover I discovered that the "Israeli consultant" on the book was none other than Avi Shlaim. It may well be that the author was a perfectly reasonable person who felt that by getting Shlaim's input she was getting a 'balance' against the "Arab consultant". The effect was that a standard textbook for 12-15 year-olds is indoctrinating a new generation to believe that Israel - and only Israel - is the root of all evil in the Middle East.
It would be nice if the likes of Shlaim and Pappe could simply be just laughed at or, even better, ignored. In many ways the publicity about Shlaim's role in the Belfast panel fiasco makes it more likely for him to be laughed at. But while this enables a handful of Israel supporters who follow the story to take the moral high ground, it is nothing compared to the real damage he continues to reap on thousands of school children (not to mention his students at Oxford and everybody else fed the lie that he somehow represents Israeli opinion).
p.s. How about this for another example: while searching on Amazon for the above book I was presented - by Amazon - with a list called "The best books about the Middle East" - you can see the list and the heading here. And guess which books are numbers 1 and 2 on this list? The first is by Avi Shlaim (The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World) and the second is by Ilan Pappe (A History of Modern Palestine: One Land, Two Peoples). For good measure the rest of the list is filled almost entirely with anti-Israel writers too (Edward Said, Robert Fisk, David Hirst, Greg Philo, Charles Smith and two by Baruch Kimmerling). The 'exception' is Benny Morris, but the book listed is one written before he rejected his (until then) revisionist views.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Melanie Phllips has posted an interesting article here.
In it she praises an article at Harry's Place written by "Alan A" .
The Harry's Place article defends Melanie against the inference that she is as an anti-Muslim bigot that was made in an article about her (at Left Foot Forward) titled "Melanie Phillips is inspiration behind Tea Party anti-Muslim leader" (the "anti-Muslim leader" referred to is Pamela Geller).
Melanie's own article praises the Harry's Place article for defending her. However, there is a very strong irony about what Melanie has written, in that she is praising an article which actually defames Pamela Geller in the same way (only more openly and viciously) than the original article defamed both Melanie and Pamela. In fact Alan A states that Pamela Geller is a "lunatic bigot".
- The first article infers (rather than states openly) that both Melanie and Pamela are anti-Muslim bigots, without offering a shred of evidence against either.
- The second article claims Melanie is not an anti-Muslim bigot but states openly that Pamela is an anti-Muslim bigot, without offering a shred of evidence against her.
- The third article (Melanie's) praises the second article for coming to her defence, while ignoring the fact that the second article had made a far more openly offensive claim.
So who is going to defend Pamela Geller against the cumulative claims against her? The irony, sadly, is that it is not going to be Melanie Phillips.
The problem is that the stock response of any 'liberal' to people who are prepared to stand up to the threat of Islamism (as opposed to Muslims) is that they are 'bigots' or 'racists'. Just as there is no evidence that Melanie is a bigot or racist, nor is there any evidence that Pamela Geller is. In fact, the demonising of Pamela Geller by the main stream media is no different from its demonising of Israel. It all boils down to a combination of anti-semitism and dhimittude.
The other irony about Alan A's article on Harry's Place is that it begins with the words "I expect that Left Foot Forward will get into trouble for this [referring to the original] article." So the entire thrust of Alan A's article is that even implying that somebody is an anti-Muslim bigot without providing evidence is a serious offense. Yet, his own article explicitly calls somebody a lunatic bigot without providing evidence. You just could not make this stuff up.
Update 30 June 2013: This (old) post has been getting a lot of hits because of the fall out from the Geller/Spencer UK ban and Melani Phillips response. Please also see latest update on that ban here.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Every TV news channel (and all the major newspapers) has been running the story of an "Israeli West Bank settler running over Palestinian children". Even the one news channel that is supposed to be "not hostile" to Israel - Fox News - went big on this one presenting it as an outrage. But take a look here for the full video which as far as I know no western TV channel has screened.
The full video speaks for itself and the question that needs to be asked is why would editorial staff in the UK and the USA not use the full version rather than a version which so clearly presents a lie? I've been racking my brains over that one and can only come up with the answer: anti-semitism. And incidentally this was not in the "West Bank" as every news outlet reported. It was in East Jerusalem (Silwan) where the dispute is about properties that have not only been bought legally but were actually were owned by Jews before the Jordanian occupation of 1948-67. Even the notoriously left-wing Israel judiciary accepts that.
Update: It seems that youtube has censored the above full video - you can now only watch it if you are registered as over 18. Elder of Ziyon has more on the original story and an update on further attacks against Jewish drivers in Silwan.
Sunday, October 03, 2010
Now we find out in this must read Harrys Place article that the depth of Kaufman's depravity in cosying up to Hamas is much greater than we had feared. What's the betting the Jewish Chronicle gives rather less prominence to this story about their friend Kaufman?
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
But it is not really a surprise when you consider that his mother is a prominent member of 'Jews for Justice for Palestinians' and is backing the anti-Israel boatload of 'Jews' on their way to support Hamas in Gaza.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Headline to story: “Thousands of Arabs and Americans killed in day of tit-for-tat violence on east coast of America”
The cycle of violence in America reached a new crescendo today when a series of violent incidents left thousands dead. The dead are believed to include many Arab civilians and a number of American military personnel. Al Jaziera has revealed that many of the Arabs killed were refugee children who had fled from oppression. Although an American spokesman claimed that they too suffered “many civilian deaths”, this has been denied by the Al Quaeda organisation.
The violence started when a member of a group of five unarmed Arab civilians, who boarded a 767 aircraft in Boston, was refused permission to fly the plane, despite having a valid flying licence. The American authorities have been imposing increasingly tight restrictions on the freedom of movement of Arab civilians within the US. This humiliation to their dignity has created, not unsurprisingly, deep anger and resentment among even moderate Arabs. When the fully qualified pilot was denied the opportunity to work in his chosen profession, he became angry. It is reported that the outnumbered Arab men engaged in fighting with members of the crew, but what really happened next may never be known. What is certain is that all of the five Arabs were killed, along with the plane’s other occupants (believed to be primarily military and intelligence personnel) when the plane crashed into the North tower of the World Trade Center. Al Jaziera quickly confirmed that the building housed many Arab refugee children, who were all killed in the attack along with a number of Muslim workers. A number of illegal American immigrants dressed as businessmen may also have perished.
As news of the Arab civilian deaths became known, it is believed that Arab civilians on another aircraft reacted with understandable passion, battling with military and security personnel. This plane soon crashed into the south tower of the Word trade center. After this second crash the US military ordered an unprecedented grounding of all civilian flights over US airspace, thus denying all Arabs living in the US the right to travel. On hearing news of this attack on their livelihood a group of Arab militants mounted a daring tit-for-tat strike. With nothing else to lose, and in sheer desperation, the militants crashed the plane they were travelling in into the very heart of the US military machine – the Pentagon, killing scores of soldiers. In an escalation of the violence the US military responded by threatening to shoot down any airplane still flying that was piloted by Arabs. This led to the final, and most outrageous act of violence of the day, committed by a group of self-styled American vigilantes aboard flight 93 to San Francisco. On learning that their airplane was being flown by Arab pilots, the Americans took it upon themselves to massacre all the Arabs on board. In the ensuing struggle the Arab pilot was savagely killed and the plane crashed into a field, killing all the occupants, many of whom are believed to have been Arab refugee children. The US military is likely to have to accept full responsibility for the final massacre, since they had given messages to the passengers on board flight 93 that the Arab pilots were planning to crash the plane into the White House, even though no proof of such a wild claim had been presented to the United Nations. The French and German leaders have already demanded a UN enquiry into the massacre.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
So what was Obama's response? Much like his response to every other Islamic terror attack - obfuscation and an attempt to portray the attack as some kind of tragic random event unconnected with Islamic terrorism despite the incontravertable evidence to the contrary. State Department spokesman PJ Crowley labeled the deadly shooting Tuesday “a tragedy” while urging both sides not to take steps that would jeopardize direct peace negotiations set to be launched Thursday. He said “Any time one human being takes out a weapon and fires and kills other human beings it’s a tragedy,” adding that the US still didn’t know the circumstances surrounding the incident. Pathetic.
Monday, August 30, 2010
- Gov't trying to blur borders with West Bank theater shows. This piece, about Israeli actors note, starts with "The refusal by actors to perform in occupied territory is not delegitimization of the state, as the prime minister claims, but the expression of a legitimate and worthy position.
- Does the IDF consider Jewish teenagers a security risk. This piece starts with "Two weeks ago, a group of teenagers marched between Nablus and Jericho, absorbing the beauty of the land and the ugliness of the soldiers they encountered."
- Israel's corrupt capitalism isn't going anywhere
The problem is that Israel has plenty of its own George Galloways. Like most leftists anywhere in the world they make a disproportionate amount of noise (because of their dominance of the media), they hate their own country and are keen to tell the world how much they do so. But that does not make them representative of the majority (note to the Jewish Chronicle: can you please stop publishing full page opinion pieces by these Israeli George Galloways, which you now seem to do now every week).
One area where Israel is especially damaged is in the almost exclusively anti-Zionist agenda of its film industry, most of which is generously subsidized by the Israeli government (Debbie Schlussel has written consistently this). To give a feel for the depths to which Israeli film-makers will go to demonizing their own country, I found an incredible example in the May 24, 2010 issue of the Jerusalem Report (which itself is increasingly dominated by anti-Zionist articles). The article (page 36) talks (in glowing terms) about the film "My Name is Ahlam" by Israeli filmmaker Rima Essa which 'follows over a two-year period the life of Ahlam, a young (Palestinian) girl living in the Hebron area, who is battling leukemia". Since Ahlam lives in the Palestinian Authority area she is treated at the El Hussein Hospital in Beit Jala (which has an oncology ward) but the hospital cannot provide the chemotherapy and bone marrow transplant she needs. The article talks about the terrible bureacracy of the Palestinian Authority that Um Amad (Ahlam's mother) faces and the fact that Um Amad's husband is "angry with her for devoting time to Ahlam at the expense of their other five children and himself". But, and you can guess what is coming, the filmmaker's real anger focuses exclusively on those wicked Zionists. And why do you think she is so angered? Is it because Ahlam is denied medical treatment by the Israelis (who actually have no moral or legal obligation to provide it to citizens of the PA)? No, we find out that Ahlam is indeed treated in an Israeli hospital. So what is the cause of the anger? It turns out that the Israelis insist that Um Amad's husband (and not her) must accompany Ahlam to the hospital. Ah those wicked Israelis again. So what is the minor reason why Um Amad is not allowed in to Israel? She just happens to be the sister of a notorious suicide bomber who murdered Israelis. Nothing serious then (and of course Palestinian suicide bombers would never dream of targetting hospitals or killing Israelis who have cured them). The filmmaker says she:
- "wanted to voice criticism about several subjects, starting with the Israeli military occupation. Punishing Um Amad because her brother was a shaheed [martyr] is a form of collective punishment that is unacceptable."
And remember: all of that is funded by the Israeli government.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
- There were two separate terrorist attacks against Southern Israel from Gaza.
- There was a terrorist attack against the Israeli embassy in Turkey (this is ongoing right now so details are unclear).
- There is the fallout from the last night's Panorama programme where even the BBC finally admits that the entire media coverage of the flotilla incident was a nothing less than a blood libel against Israel
- There was a massive suicide bombing in Baghdad which killed at least 61 people.
- There is the news of Iran's first nuclear reactor going live on Sunday.
- ...and many more.
If you are not convinced with that then how about the incredible story here of how the main stream western media refused to run a real story (given to them by Palestinian journalists) about the Palestinian Authority arresting several university lecturers but, when the same journalists offered a fake story about a Palestinian lecturer being refused entry to Israel, the very same media were eager to run the story.
It is clear that the western media have made a decision to ignore even major stories about Arab terror against Israel and anything that casts the Palestinaians in a 'bad light', but are prepared to work themselves into a frenzy over even the slightest Israeli indiscretion. See Rubin's article here for further examples of this bias.
Finally, and nothing to do with the above, everybody should read Sultan Knish's latest article here about the Ground Zero mosque. Read it and weep when you think that brilliant writing like that never appears in the main stream media.
Wednesday, August 04, 2010
Another article that caught my eye was here by Debbie Schlussel - it perfectly sums up the latent anti-semitism of the FBI (which obviously has got a lot worse under Obama but is by no means new) as well as the world's hypocrisy about the vile regime in Dubai (about which I have written many times before). It indicates that Obama now thinks Israel, not Hamas, are the terrorists.
Monday, August 02, 2010
Only idiots fail to realise that Hamas is bolstered to mount these attacks because it is being increasingly supported by the Western media who in turn have brainwashed the public about the 'Palestinian cause'. I've written many times about the disproportionate amount of money provided by Western governments and charities to the Palestinians of Gaza. There is a great video here about the sheer scale and immorality of money going to Palestinians. Hamas are even complaining that there are too many goods coming freely into the Gaza from Israel. Given that information and the fact that Hamas wants to goad Israel into a full-blown war (with some pushing of course from Iran), is there anything more nauseating than the story that a host of top celebrities in the UK staged an event to raise money for the people of Gaza? This story was actually reported (very approvingly of course as showing great belevolence by the celebrities) in the Sun a couple of weeks ago and I kept meaning to blog about it but did not have the time. But I found a good report about it here. The event was hosted by the half-Jewish dimwit Jemima Goldsmith and her former Taliban loving husband husband Imran Khan. Depressingly, celebrities who performed included Tom Jones, Pink Floyd and Kate Moss (go figure the latter). The event raised £400,000. In future they could make things easier for themselves by just handing over the rockets.
Sunday, August 01, 2010
Despite the PLO no longer being classified as a terrorist organisation, there has never been any change in the goal of any of its officials. Indeed, the PLO charter still officially advocates the destruction of Israel. It is very comforting therefore to know that the most senior person responsible for Britain's Middle East policy is married to one of its officials.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
"The Israeli attack on the Gaza flotilla was completely unacceptable. And I have told PM Netanyahu, we will expect the Israeli inquiry to be swift, transparent and rigorous. Let me also be clear that the situation in Gaza has to change. Humanitarian goods and people must flow in both directions. Gaza cannot and must not be allowed to remain a prison camp."
It's bad enough to spout that nonsense at home in the UK, but to parrot the Islamist line in Turkey (and hence bolster the Islamist AKP while their secular opposition are campaigning against them) is pure incitement. And all this in the context of Cameron's stupid campaigning for Turkey to join the EU. The hypocrisy, given Turkey's continued occupation of North Cyprus, its brutal suppression of the Kurds and continued denial of its own holocaust against the Armenians, is breathtaking.
Good coverage of this here, here and here (the latter piece in particular highlights Cameron's total ignorance of Islam). Also very good analysis by Robin Shepherd here.
Cameron is fast becoming the worst PM in UK history. A classic upper-middle class twit, with all the usal prejudices. Shame on all those Jews who were convinced he was some kind of a philo-semite and friend of Israel. I warned all of my friends and family before the last election that a conservative government with Cameron as PM and Hague as foreign secretary would be the most anti-Israel government in UK history. For example, here is what I wrote the day before polling:
And all of that was before anybody considered the possibility of a coalition with the Liberal Democrats. To me the give-away with Cameron was when he was interviewed by the Jewish Chronicle shortly after becoming Party leader. The most positive thing he could bring himself to say about Israel was “I believe Israel has a right to exist”. As far as I’m concerned anybody who makes that statement is already revealing anti-semitism because they would not make the same statement about any other country in the world including the very many which were created during the twentieth century with far less obvious legitimacy than Israel (think Pakistan as an obvious example, but also virtually every single Arab country was a purely artifical creation). If anybody ever says that to me I always thank them and respond by saying “that’s very kind because I think you also have a right to exist”.
Tuesday, July 06, 2010
Bolden really does say of Obama's objectives for NASA "..foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with predominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering." This follows on from Obama's recent announcements of the scrapping of the shuttle programme and all future manned spaceflight. So, it appears that NASA's mission is no longer (as stated on its website) "to pioneer the future in space exploration" but rather to "appease Muslims". And, having done a little bit of digging, this article in the Orlanda Sentinel from February 2010 confirms that NASA is already well entrenched in its new mission by handing out money to the largest Muslim nation Indonesia for "an educational program that examines global climate change".
I wonder what the Bruce Willis character in Armageddon (with all that "for all mankind" stuff) would have made of this revised mission statement .
There a very good satire on it here at Sultan Knish.
But, of course, as far as I can tell not a single main stream newspaper has picked up on this incredible story.
Sunday, July 04, 2010
One of the most important facts about 'Palestine' (that many people are still unaware of) is that prior to 1948 it was ONLY the Jews who considered themselves to be Palestinians. Hence, the "United Palestine Appeal" of the 1940's (as shown in the poster here photographed at Ben Gurion airport) was to support the Jewish homeland in Palestine. The Arabs of Palestine who, if they considered themselves as belonging to any country at all, mostly believed themselves to be Syrian. This largely explains why there was never any Arab desire to accept the 1947 US partition plan that would have created an indendent Arab state in Palestine. In fact the notion of an Arab 'Palestine' did not arise until the birth of the PLO in 1965. That is why, for example, even as recently as the 1973 Yom Kippur War in the UK Jews in the diaspora were still collecting money for Israel under the "United Palestine Appeal". It was only after that war that the name was changed to the United Israel Appeal.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
The Jewish Chronicle seems to be doing its best recently to match the rest of the main stream media in the political bias and inaccuracy of its reporting. The article here (click it to enlarge) titled "EDL? This is what you get" takes the biscuit as one of the most ill-informed and ludicrous I have seen.
The article blames the English Defence League for violence that erupted in the East End on 20 June after a march/demonstration by UAF (United Against Fashion) even though the EDL was not even present. The UAF is the ultimate "Red-Brown" alliance being a front for the Socialist Workers Party but with strong support from the Muslim Association of Britain (which is part of the Muslim Brotherhood). To give you an indication of where the UAF really stands on racism, Weyman Bennett of its central committee has been accused of stating that Israeli Jews “should go back to where they came from … New York or wherever” (a claim he has never denied). This is the very same Weyman Bennett who is quoted at the end of the Jewish Chronicle article to support the JC's version of events.
I already wrote about the background to this story here. Basically, the EDL had planned to demonstrate against an Islamist hatefest conference due to take place at the Troxy in Tower Hamlets on 20 June featuring some of the vilest, most racist anti-semitic Islamists around. Fortunately, the event was cancelled under pressure from the local council and so the EDL demonstration was also cancelled. However, the UAF's planned massive march to confront the EDL still went ahead. Among the standard blood curdling speeches, was this this speech by George Galloway that includes the statement "If you dare touch the beard of a Muslim man in Tower Hamlets you will have to fight your way through 10,000 dead bodies first". Not suprisingly, the march ended with hundreds of duly incited Muslim men rampaging through the East End attacking Police and passers-by. Not that you would realise that from reading the JC article, which tries to cover up the Islamist violence. However, the East London advertiser reports:
- Despite no EDL presence, the protesters became agitated and ‘surged up and down’ the Whitechapel Road. According to the police statement, there were ‘concerted efforts by the crowd to attack people at random.' Police officers themselves were also attacked by the crowd ‘at points throughout the afternoon.’
Compare all the above with the Jewish Chronicle version of events. Also, while the Jewish Chronicle has run several articles demonising the EDL, it has never investigated or even questioned the agenda of the UAF who (unlike the EDL) pose a genuine threat to the Jewish community. Also the JC's failure to check out the background of the UAF spokeman it quoted is an example of extremely poor journalism.
But what I found most worrying of all was that, coupled with the CST quote in the article, was the message to Jews that essentially says: Do not try to to defend yourself against Islamic extremism. Any violence committed by the Islamists that occurs as a result of you trying to defend yourself - even if you are not actually involved in that violence - is your fault and we will hold you to blame for it. The irony is that this is exactly the message the world has been sending to Israel (a message the JC has, rightly, been condemning).
p.s. The JC has been giving prominent space to a range of anti-Zionists to vent their spleen recently, and has also allowed many ridiculous claims to go unchallenged. One of these persistent claims is the notion that the American organisation JStreet is somehow 'pro-Israel' (a claim which is stated yet again by the increasingly unhinged Jonathan Freedland on page 35 this week). I think the JC should take the trouble to find out about what JStreet really stands for by reading respected commentators like Noah Pollack here, or find out about the extent of Islamic/Arab funding of JStreet here.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Well today comes the story about the trial of Faisal Shahzad who pleaded guilty to the attempt to detonate a car in Times Square New York (one of the foiled terrorist attacks in the US that people like Obama say have nothing to do with Muslims or Islam). Not only did he plead guilty but he stated in court that he was a Muslim warrior and that he would do it 100 times over because of US interference in Muslim lands. He also threatened that further Islamist attacks on the US were coming.
Despite this the Sun has decided to 'censor out' completely the Islamist angle from the story today. The report in the Sun says that Shazad pleaded guilty and that he would do it '100 times over' but completely leaves out any mention of his faith and any mention of his statement about his motives and threats he made. In fact, Sun readers would be completely unaware that this attempted mass murder attack had anything to do with Muslims/Islam.
I also listened to LBC this morning (the main London news station) and although the 7.00am bulletin mentioned the Islamist motivation, all subsequent bulletins (I listened at 7.15, 7.30, 7.45, 8.00 and 8.15) also censored out the Islamist angle.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
The only matter of dispute about the incident is whether or not the Russians shot and killed all the pirates before blowing up the boat (the Somalis seem to be claiming they were all shot first).
Did you hear any fanatical public outrcy about this incident? No. You almost certainly never even heard of it, despite the existence of the very graphic video. A bit of a contrast to Israel's action.
As far as I can tell, with the exception of the Somalis (who don't constitute a functioning government anyway) not one single country condemned this action. As justified as it might have been to people like me (I wish every country dealt with Somali pirates like the Russians do - I bet they won't be hijacking many Russian ships again) the Russian action is - on a scale of callousness - an order of magnitude greater than what Israel did. Unlike the Israelis the Russian soldiers were never in any danger when they killed their victims, and unlike the Turks against the Israelis, the Somalis were not attempting in any way to destabilise Russia and/or support terrorist movements fighting Russia. In the 'Guardian' sense of the word this really was a cold-blooded massacre. But I could not find a single mention of this incident in the UK media or TV. On the contrary, the only reference I could find was a brief story - in the Guardian on the 7 May that was actually headlined "Russia frees captured Somali pirates" (despite the subsequent video evidence I could find no later correction to the Guardian story).
This type of hypocrisy is addressed in a great (but sobering) article by Sultan Knish that explains the futility of Israel continually offering concessions to an enemy dedicated to its annihilation. The article highlights the world's hypocrisy in singling out Israel for hysterical condemnation for behaviour that is far less offensive and aggressive than a large number of other countries in the world (including most of those shouting loudest against Israel). His article highlights some of the actions of Iran, China, North Korea, Turkey, Dubai, and Venzuela.
In addition to Knish's example and the especially relevant Russian example above he could have added the following:
- Syria for its renewed rape of Lebanon and brutal suppression of dissent
- Morocco for its continued occupation of Western Sahara and brutal violations of human rights there
- Saudi Arabia for its invasion of northern Yemen and the resulting massacre of Houthi rebels
- Egypt for the suppression and massacres against the Coptic minority
- Pakistan whose state-sponsored persecution of the Ahmadiyya minority led directly to a number of massacres notably the coordinated attacks on their mosques earlier this month. Also whose security service the ISI is both funding and advising the Taleban.
- Indonesia for the continued state sponsored persecution of Christians and Bhuddhists leading to frequent massacres.
- Malaysia for its official state policy of suppression and persecution of Christians leading, for example, to coordinated attacks on 9 churches in Jan 2010
- Iraq for its brutal oppression of Christians and murder of political opponents
- Yemen for forcing out the last handful of Jews who were in the country after a Rabbi was murdered by a Jihadist (who has not even been charged).
...basically you can add just about every Muslim country.
But, and this is the really interesting point, a number of Western countries have committed 'crimes against Muslims' that far exceed anything that Israel has done, but receive barely a murmour of criticism:
- US and its allies in Afghanistan have killed many times more civilians from bombing and drone attacks than were killed in Gaza in 2009. Although this occasionally raises the concerns of Muslim and leftist protesters the scale of fury is a tiny fraction of that directed at Israel for lesser "offences".
- Switzerland's ban on Mosque minarets brought minor condemnation from Muslims and some leftists but if Israel had brought in a similar law then we would certainly have seen mass worldwide hysteria and UN resolutions against its 'apartheid'.
- In many Western countries (notably Holland and Austria) elections have brought stunning advances by political parties fighting almost exlusively on an anti-Islamism agenda. Again, similar gains by such a party in Israel would have seen mass worldwide hyteria and UN resolutions against its 'apartheid'.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
In fact, charitable funding for Palestinians (most of which ultimately is paid for by taxpayers in the US and Western Europe and not by oil-rich Arab nations) is, by a huge margin, pro-rata more than is given in aid to any other nation or people in the world. No people in the history of the world have been so lavishly showered with charity as the Palestinians. The main reason for this is that, unlike any other people or refugees in history, the Palestinians have their own dedicated UN agency - UNRWA. The official web page of UNRWA states that it has an annual budget of $1.23 billion mainly from money donated by the governments of the USA and Western Europe. But the UNRWA funding does not include the many other regular charitable donations the Palestinians receive from charities and NGOs such as Oxfam, War on Want and Christian Aid as well as the regular 'special appeals' such as the DEC appeal in January 2009 (it is difficult to get the exact figures from these organisations but, for example, the Christian Aid 2009 annual report gives a figure of £17.5 million spent in the Middle East and it is almost certain that over 50% of this was to the Palestinians, while War on Want focues almost entirely on the Palestinians). Nor does the UNRWA budget include the frequent one-off payments such as that made last weekend by the British Government (£19 million on top of the annual £200 million at a time when we are told the Government has no money and plans massive cuts everywhere) and the US government ($400 million). Both of these special payments were, effectively, one-off rewards to Hamas for engineering the flotilla incident. In 2007 an international conference in Paris saw a pledge of an additional $7.4 billion over the following 3 years to the Palestinian Authority.
When you add in the Iranian government's direct support of Hamas (believed to be a billion dollars over the last two years) and the unspecified funding of Hamas that comes from the Gulf states, it is likely that charitable foreign donations/aid to the Palestinians in Gaza amounts currently to at least $3 billion dollars per year. That works out - per person - at some 60 times greater than aid received by Haiti and several hundreds times per person more than most African countries.
If even a small proportion of this aid was spent on genuine humanitarian needs and nation building then it might be partially justified. But most of the foreign aid cash given to the Palestinians is unaccounted for (possibly as much as 90%) and hence goes direct to Hamas or (in the West Bank) into the Swiss banking accounts of PA officials (this is how Yasser Arafat accumulated several billions of dollars in his own private accounts). The massive, disproportionate charitable donations to Palestinians not only ensures a culture of total dependence (hence stopping any real economic development) but is also the primary enabler of their continued terrorism. You would have thought that Western governments would have twigged by now just how counter-productive it is, but the liberal elite in charge simply cannot resist the lure of Palestinian victimhood.
If you want to do something about it then one small thing you can do is tell anybody you know never to give to the charities that are most agressively and politically 'pro-Palestinian' (or, more correctly 'anti-Israel' like the ones I've listed above. In particular, these are the charities that most benefit from "Comic Relief" - if you support Israel make sure you never again buy a red nose. See the report here for details:
Since that report was written things have got a whole lot worse, especially with the charity "War on Want":
Monday, June 14, 2010
But, while the BBC news website did not consider this terrorist attack newsworthy, it has quite a big splash on its front page criticising Israel's probe into the flotilla incident. Under the front page headline "Israel raid probe 'not impartial'" we find the article here with the more informative headline "Israel Gaza probe criticised by Turkey and Palestinians" . Of course, Turkey and the Palestinians are the objective people we need to be listening to here. I don't remember the BBC running a headline "Nuremburg trials criticised by Nazi leaders" in 1946 but it would have made just as much sense.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Here is the UAF's web page about it (the UAF is a front for the Socialist Workers Party):
The accompanying leaflet on the webpage talks about the EDL being a bunch of violent Nazis. The EDL actually has nothing about the demo on their webpage but there are details of a recent EDL march in Newcastle. In complete contradiction to the narrative presented by the UAF, it is clear that the EDL is intent on peaceful, legal - and specifically non-racist - demonstration as is clear from the following statement:
"Thank you all for your patience in waiting for this information, as you all know this Saturday the English Defence League will be holding a peaceful demonstration to oppose militant Islam in Newcastle upon Tyne....Our stewards and Northumbria police will be working side by side to make sure that anyone that is trying to disrupt our march will be ejected from it, racist chants and slurs will not be accepted ..."
In fact all violence at previous EDL demos appreas to have come from the UAF who have confronted them.
But here is the really interesting thing. What the UAF is not telling anybody is that the REAL event planned in Tower Hamlets on 20 June has nothing to do with the EDL but is an Islamist hatefest at the Troxy. This event - featuring some of the vilest, most racist anti-semitic Islamfascists around - was exposed here for example:
The EDL demo was, I understand, simply a planned protest against this event. So, to say that the UAF has spun a different narrative on what is going on is an incredible understatement. They are deliberately covering up/ignoring an event where the speakers would genuinely be stirring racial violence (in their distorted view Muslims can never be racists or offensive of course). But a group of people demonstrating peacefully against them - well that is something to get very angry about. They must be the racists. It is a classic case of reason turned on its head.
But in the last few hours there has been a major development. As a result of the Council issuing a statement yesterday requiring the 'no hate pledge' for events at the Troxy, the Troxy has decided to cancel the conference as they felt that they could not meet the pledge:
Above is the full article by Frankie Boyle on 4 June in the Sun (click to enlarge it) that was cited in my complaint to the Press Complaints Commission yesterday as an example of their biased and inaccurate anti-Israel coverage of the flotilla incident.
I decided to file a special complaint about this article today as follows:
The main article on the Frankie Boyle page (page 17) titled “Comic Relief must be bloody in Israel” contains a number of blatantly false and offensive anti-Israel claims that collectively constitute a blood libel. The worst examples were:
- “Israel attacked and killed a numbe of charity workers who were peacefully arriving on a boat”. This claim was proven to be false by the afternoon of 31 May through extensive video evidence.
- “Some of the protesters on board were teachers – presumably not teachers from England, as they tend to side with Israel on the policy of beating children to death”. This is an especially offensive slur which cannot be simply dismissed as a joke.
- “The Israeli forces abseiled from helicopters carrying machine guns”. The Israeli weapons that had been originally claimed to be 'machine guns' by the anti-Israel activists were proven to be paintball guns on 31 May (4 days before the article was published).
Frankie Boyle, of course, has form with regards his vicious anti-Israel hatred - as you can see here:
I have no doubt that he would claim to be very offended by being called anti-semitic. But, as is explained very well in the following articles, the unique obsessive hatred with Israel is always confirmation of anti-semitism:
Wednesday, June 09, 2010
Nevertheless, while I fully expected the irrational blood libel against Israel to pour out of the Guardian, Times, Independent, and Mirror over last week's flotilla incident, I never for one minute expected the Sun to follow suit. Yet, not only did it do just that, but its coverage was in many ways far more damaging - as explained in detail below - because almost uniquely among the British media it completely ignored the mass of evidence to support Israel's case day after day. Given the Sun's previous pro-Israel stance and the fact that it commands by far the largest readership in the UK, this is an exceptionally damaging development. It means that most people in the UK are completely unaware of Israel's side of the story.
I therefore felt moved to make a formal complaint to the Press Commission today as follows (note especially the details at the end of the complaint concerning the Frankie Boyle column).
To the Press Complaints Commission
My complaint is against the Sun newspaper for its coverage (over a number of days) of the anti-Israel flotilla incident that took place in the early hours of 31 May. The coverage breached two clauses of the Code Of Conduct, namely clause 1 (accuracy) and clause 2 (Opportunity to reply). By way of example I cite three specific articles during the period 1-7 June) that clearly breach Clause 1. One of these (on 4 June) is especially serious since it contains a sequence of blatant lies that amount to a blood libel. The Sun breached clause 2 by not offering the opportunity for any reply to the unfounded allegations against Israel.
The general complaint
For the entire duration (1 to 7 June) the coverage presented a narrative about the Israeli raid that was based purely on the perspective of the anti-Israel demonstrators on board the flotilla. This narrative – that the passengers on board the Turkish ship Mavi Marmura were peace-loving activists massacred in cold blood by Israeli commandos illegally boarding the ship in international waters, was proven to be false by the afternoon of 31 May. The proof, in the form of extensive video and audio evidence, showed that:
- The Israeli commandos entered the ship legally (see below) and were armed with paintball guns, not machine guns, as they had been told by the Turkish authorities that there would not be any violent resistance.
- In a well prepared and planned attack, an organised gang of some 100 Turks from the terrorist organisation IHH, armed with knives, metal poles, slings (and possibly also guns) viciously attacked and stabbed the Israeli commandos as they landed one by one. Only when a number of Israeli commandos were critically injured during the lynching (including at least two of whom were shot by handguns either stolen from the commandos or already on board) did the Israelis get permission to use their handguns to save their men.
- The Israeli commandos had entered the ship as a last resort when the ship’s commander refused repeated requests to steer the ship to the Israeli port of Ashdod. Given the legal blockade of Gaza from the sea (to stop the import of weapons to the Hamas regime) this request, and the subsequent boarding when refused, were normal legal actions of the kind carried out routinely by governments all over the world to prevent hostile cargo and personnel reaching their shores.
- Before leaving Turkey hundreds of flotilla members had chanted slogans glorifying the historic slaughter of Jews by Muslims, while several had made ‘martyrdom’ videos. Moreover, during a radio conversation with the Israeli coastguard, the commander of the Mavi Marmura told the Israelis to ‘go back to Auschwitz’ and ‘remember 9/11’.
The relevant videos, which were widely available from the afternoon of 31 May can be found, for example, here:
Many other pictures and videos are available here:
Yet, despite this overwhelming evidence, the Sun chose to ignore it all for the entire duration of its coverage of the story (which ran each day from 1 to 7 June). Indeed, the Sun continued to rely totally on ‘eye witness’ accounts from anti-Israel demonstrators, some of whom were not even on the Mavi Marmura. In all cases these accounts were clearly proven to be false from the video evidence.
The specific complaints
1 June: The coverage was on page 1, continued on pages 8-9. The page 1 headline was “19 Killed in Israel attack” while on pages 8-9 the headlines spoke of “Israel ship massacre” and “Bloody Disastrous”.
The article was inaccurate in all aspects (as discussed above). Also, the figure of “19 killed” was an exaggerated figure provided by the anti-Israel demonstrators immediately after the incident and was known to be false long before the Sun went to press on 1 June. The actual figure was 9 dead. No mention at all was made of the Israeli casualties.
4 June: The main article on the Frankie Boyle page (page 17) titled “Comic Relief must be bloody in Israel”. This article (update: see here for the full version) is nothing less than a blood libel containing a string of total fabrications from start to finish. The examples include:
- “Israel attacked and killed a number of charity workers who were peacefully arriving on a boat”.
- “Some of the protesters on board were teachers – presumably not teachers from England, as they tend to side with Israel on the policy of beating children to death”
- “The Israeli forces abseiled from helicopters carrying machine guns” (That this false accusation could be repeated on 4 June when the Israeli weapons were proven to be paintball guns on 31 May is especially revealing)
7 June: On page 2 in an article titled “Israel’s bloodied troops” the Sun is guilty of showing two photographs which were proven to be cropped versions of photos that had appeared in a Turkish newspaper. The original versions showed the full context: bloodied Israeli soldiers being dragged by Turkish attackers holding knives. The cropped version removes the knives and most of the key context. The cropping has been admitted – and subsequently corrected – by Reuters in what has become known as the Reuters photo cropping scandal. Details (including the full pictures) can be found here:
Yet, although Reuters had corrected the ‘error’ on 6 June, the Sun still chose to display the incorrect versions on 7 June. Moreover, the emphasis of the story accompanying the photos was support for a narrative that was demonstrably false, namely (quoting directly from the article): “the pictures show activists tending wounded commandos”.