Posts Tagged ‘Anti Israel Bias’

Israel’s ‘moral clarity letter frustrates Islamic-Fascists and radical leftists so-called “activists”

April 16, 2012

Israel’s ‘moral clarity’ letter frustrates Islamic-Fascists and radical leftists so-called “activists”

israel today | Israel News | Anti-Israel

fly-in protest is a bust – israel today
Sunday, April 15, 2012 | Ryan Jones

Anti-Israel fly-in protest 

is a bust

Israel was on

alert Sunday for a planned mass fly-in protest,

or “flytilla,” by foreign anti-Israel activists

protesting the Jewish state’s control of Judea

and Samaria, including the eastern half of

Jerusalem. But by the end of the work day, a mere

27 activists had managed to land in Israel. They

were quickly detained and deported.

The stunt was largely thwarted by Israel

loudly publicizing the fact that it would deny

entry to the activists, insisting that they were

arriving for the sole purpose of provoking

unrest. As a result, most airlines cancelled the

activists’ tickets rather than be billed for

their return flights upon deportation from

Israel. Unable to even reach Israel, hundreds of

the activists demonstrated at an airport in

Paris.

Those who did make it to Israel were presented

an official letter of welcome by Israel’s Foreign

Ministry. The wry letter read:

Dear activist,

We appreciate your choosing to make Israel the

object of your humanitarian concerns. We know

there were many other worthy choices.

You could have chosen to protest they Syrian

regime’s daily savagery against its own people,

which has claimed thousands of lives.

You could have chosen to protest the Iranian

regime’s brutal crackdown on dissent and support

of terrorism throughout the world.

You could have chosen to protest Hamas rule in

Gaza, where terror organizations commit a double

war crime by firing rockets at civilians and

hiding behind civilians.

But instead you chose to protest against

Israel, the Middle East’s sole democracy, where

women are equal, the press criticizes the

government, human rights organizations can

operate freely, religious freedom is protected

for all and minorities do not live in fear.

Therefore we suggest to let you solve first

the real problems of the region, and then come

back and share with us your experience.

Have a nice flight.

The letter was seen as a public relations

victory, as it strongly highlighted the grossly

exaggerated attention paid to Israel and its

conflict with the Palestinian Arabs, a conflict

that pales in comparison with so many other

crises around the world. For

many, it is that gross exaggeration, that

irrational obsession with what “the Jews” are

doing, that marks such schemes as

anti-Semitic.

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsIte

m/tabid/178/nid/23189/language/en-US/Default.aspx

Israel to ‘thank’ fly-in activists in mocking

letter



Jerusalem Post

14 Apr 2012

By HERB KEINON, YAAKOV LAPPIN, TOVAH LAZAROFF



Israel plans to bar entry by some 2,000 activists

from at least 15 different countries, mostly in

Europe, either by preventing them from boarding

their flights or by deporting them once they

arrive.



The activists want to draw attention to Israel’s

practice of barring foreigners it believes could

cause trouble by engaging in pro-Palestinian

activities during their visit.



The letter – drawn up in the Prime Minister’s

Office – noted, that the activists “could have

chosen to protest the Syrian regime’s daily

savagery against its own people, which has

claimed thousands of lives.”



Alternatively, they could have chosen to protest

“the Iranian regime’s brutal crackdown on dissent

and support of terrorism throughout the world.”

Or, if they simply had to come to this part of

the globe, they “could have chosen to protest

Hamas rule in Gaza, where terror organizations

commit a double war crime by firing rockets at

civilians and hiding behind civilians.”



Instead, “you chose to protest against Israel,

the Middle East’s sole democracy, where women are

equal, the press criticizes the government, human

rights organizations can operate freely,

religious freedom is protected for all and

minorities do not live in fear.”



The letter concludes with a suggestion that the

activists first solve “the real problems of the

region” and then “come back and share with us

your experience.”



In an indication that Israel will not let the

protesters in but will instead deport them back

to their countries of origin, the letter ends

with the line: “Have a nice flight.”



Meanwhile, Foreign Ministry officials said

Saturday night that responsibility for dealing

with the flytilla was in the hands of the Public

Security Ministry, which will be in contact with

the consulates of the countries whose nationals

are to be barred from entering the country.



The Foreign Ministry has over the past few weeks

been in discussions with its counterparts in

capitals around the world, explaining Israel’s

position regarding the fly-in and making clear

that those coming to engage in provocative

actions would not be given an entry visa.



Israeli authorities circulated to the airlines

the names of some 1,200 pro-Palestinian activists

expected to participate, in the hope that the

companies would prevent them from boarding.



One official explained that if someone flies into

a country without the necessary visa or is not

given that visa when he or she lands, the

responsibility – and expense – for flying the

person back falls on the airline.



Already on Wednesday, Amnon Shmueli, who heads

the Immigration Authority at Ben- Gurion Airport,

sent a letter to all airlines with a list of

names of the people it believed were planning on

participating in flytilla, according to a

document posted on its website.



The document said, “Due to statements of

pro-Palestinian radicals to arrive on commercial

flights from abroad to disrupt order and confront

security forces at friction points, it was

decided to deny their entry.”



“Attached is a list of passengers that are denied

entry to Israel. In light of the above mentioned,

you are ordered not board them on your flights,”

the letter states.



“Failure to comply with this directive will

result in sanctions against the airlines.”



According to the website, already as early as

Tuesday a foreign visitor from Sweden who entered

Israel from Eilat was asked to sign a pledge not

to be a member of a pro-Palestinian organization,

not to be in contact with any pro-Palestinian

organizations and not to participate in

pro-Palestinian activities.



Public Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch

confirmed Saturday night that Israel had asked

airlines not to board fly-in passengers.



“They acted pretty much accordingly,” he said.



The public security minister, who is in charge of

Israel’s response to the flytilla, said a

passenger plane with activists could land in

Israel as early as Saturday night.



“We’ve started initial preparations tonight,” he

said on Saturday.



“Tomorrow is the main day…. Clear instructions

have been given to police, the interior

minister… to prevent provocations and not allow

disturbances at Ben-Gurion Airport.”



Those identified by Israel as provocateurs who

manage to circumvent the no-fly lists and land in

Israel will be “isolated from the central

airport,” Aharonovitch said.



Activists who get past all of Israel’s measures

“will be arrested if they cause disturbances,” he

added.



Two European airlines, Jet2.com and Lufthansa,

told passengers on Friday that they planned to

comply with Israel’s demands, according to the

Welcome to Palestine website.



Jet2 advised passengers that Israel had denied

them entry and as such they might not be able to

board their flights. Lufthansa informed the

passengers in question that their tickets had

been canceled.



The pro-Palestinian website #Airflotilla2

uploaded a scanned image of one of the tickets

canceled by Lufthansa and reported that the same

notification had been sent to dozens of activists

on Thursday, informing them that their

reservations had been canceled “by order of

Israel.”



Hundreds of unarmed police officers will guard

the airport on Sunday, when anywhere from 500 to

1,000 activists try to land in Israel, according

to police estimates.



Sunday is expected to be one of Israel’s busiest

air travel days, with some 45,000 passengers

landing and taking off from Ben-Gurion.



Central police district chief Cmdr. Bentsi Sao

will oversee the operation, which is aimed at

ensuring routine at the airport.



Palestinian activist Mazin Qumsiyeh, a professor

at Bethlehem University and one of the organizers

of the event, said that Israel was only harming

itself with its “hysterical” reaction.



“Why do they want people to lie to them at the

airport?” he asked. “Why can’t they say they are

coming to visit us in Bethlehem?”



Jerusalem Post staff contributed to this

report.

http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPol

itics/Article.aspx?id=266012

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Pallywood at Reuters – Another application of Reuters fauxtographyAnother application of Reuters fauxtography

March 12, 2012

Source: R-MEW – http://r-mew.blogspot.com/2012/03/another-application-of-reuters.html

Another application of Reuters fauxtography

Reuters is notorious for its fauxtographyscandals, where photos published by the agency have been doctored in an effort to conceal or distort the facts associated with the incident portrayed (see our right side panel).Less well-recognized is that Reuters editors frequently select photos for publication that only tell one side of a story. Even more egregious, are those times when editors select photos which are entirely unrelated to the associated story.

Consider this story by Reuters historical fabricators Nidal al-Mughrabi and Allyn Fisher-Ilan about the latest round of (92) Palestinian rockets and mortars launched at civilian communities in Israel and the targeted killing of Palestinian terrorists by the Israeli military.

Reuters runs two photo slides with the story; one, of a woman in distress being supported by a man with the caption:

A Palestinian woman reacts at a hospital after an Israeli targeted attack on a car in Gaza City March 9, 2012.

The second photo is captioned:

Palestinian demonstrators run away from tear gas fired by Israeli security officers during clashes at a weekly protest against a nearby Jewish settlement, in the West Bank village of Nabi Saleh, near Ramallah, March 9, 2012.

A glaring illustration of a non sequitur in the context of a story about the exchange of aerial missiles between Israeli forces and Palestinian terror groups in Gaza.

No photos are provided depicting the psychological effects, property damage, or injuries sustained by Israeli civilians as a result of the Palestinian attacks.

Reuters the recidivists.

UPDATE MARCH 11, 2012:

Reuters runs another unrelated photo in this update.

Moreover, note how al-Mughrabi (please tell us why this pathological liar is still employed at the agency) obfuscates on the number of Palestinian combatants killed versus civilians:

Israeli aircraft have continued to fly attacks over the Gaza strip, killing at least 16 people, including militants, since Friday.

Depending upon source, between 94 percent and 100 percent of Palestinians killed in this exchange of fire were combatants.

By comparison, the United Nations estimates that the average ratio of civilian to combatant deaths in similar conflicts worldwide is 3:1 — three civilians for every combatant killed.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Watching the anti-human-rights of the so-called “Human Rights Watch” when it comes to the Middle East

September 15, 2011

Watching the anti-human-rights of the so-called “Human Rights Watch” when it comes to the Middle East


It is long overdue that this (and others like it) come under scrutiny for being systematically blindly anti-Israel biased, distortion of facts and simply obsessive in singling it out, while covering for Arab-Islamic crimes against humanity. [You know when an orgainaztion is in real trouble, when, even, its founding chairman criticizes it for utter and complete failure].

“Human rights” organizations’ conspiracy-collective war on Israelis’ Human Rights.

It doesn’t matter if its (like the UN) influenced by Arab oil / Lobby, Islamic lobby, Arab “street anger,” or impacted by the powerful mythology of “strong Israel vs. poor weak Arab” – (deriving from a distorted image, naively based on looking at a raw-but-shallow picture of balance-of-armament VS reality, underestimating the Goliath power of “Palestinians” and Hezbollah use of their civilians against cautious and Humane Israel) is the source of it, or if it’s by an individual bigot in charge at HRW.





IN GENERAL


See examples, updates at:

1) CAMERA.org here and here.

2) HonestReporting.com here and here.


HRW Founder Bernstein Starts Advancing Human Rights (AHR)

March 03, 2011

Robert Bernstein, the founder and former chairman of Human Rights Watch who publicly renounced his ties with the organization due to distorted and disproportionate focus on free and open Israel at the expense of the rest of the Middle East — mostly unfree — has just launched a new human rights organization, Advancing Human Rights.


Why the need for a new organization? Bernstein, 88, explains:


Some human rights organizations, like Human Rights Watch, do not condemn incitement to genocide, Arab hate speech being spewed daily in Gaza, particularly, and Saudi textbooks being taught to young children calling Jews “monkeys and pigs.” Hate speech is the precursor to genocide.

http://blog.camera.org/archives/2011/03/hrw_founder_bernstein_starts_a.html


“Human Rights Watch Coverup”
Jerusalem Post
April 13, 2004
By Anne Bayefsky


When it comes to anti-Semitism and anti-Israel bias, Human Rights Watch still has a lot of explaining to do ­ notwithstanding Executive Director Ken Roth’s umbrage at criticism.


Roth, however, volunteers a test of his organization’s reliability when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict, namely Human Rights Watch’s behavior at the UN’s infamous “anti-racism” conference held in Durban, shortly before 9/11. If the organization’s actions were assailable there, he says, it would make “it easy to reject the objectivity of Human Rights Watch reports on Israeli conduct.”


It is a test that Human Rights Watch fails hands down. I know because I was there as the representative of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists (IAJLJ). Roth himself did not attend.
Just prior to the conference Roth telegraphed his convictions in an interview on US National Public Radio, August 14, 2001, when he said about the pending controversy and the effort to focus attention on Israel: “Clearly Israeli racist practices are an appropriate topic.”
So in the lead-up to Durban, Human Rights Watch fanned the flames of racial intolerance ­ notwithstanding that ‘s citizens are one-quarter Arab and enjoy democratic rights they have nowhere else in the Arab world, while neighboring Arab states are Judenrein.


At Durban one role of Human Rights Watch was to exclude the representative of Jewish lawyers and jurists from over 40 countries. Here’s what happened:
As a representative of the IAJLJ, I was a member of the caucus of international human rights nongovernmental organizations. Human Rights Watch, along with others such as Amnesty International and the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights (renamed Human Rights First), was also a member of this caucus. Together we had a right to vote on the final NGO document, and hours before the last session gathered together to discuss our position.
The draft included egregious statements equating Zionism with racism, and alleging that is an “apartheid” state guilty of “genocide and ethnic cleansing designed to ensure a Jewish state.”


As we arrived at our meeting the chief Durban representative of Human Rights Watch, advocacy director Reed Brody, publicly announced that as a representative of a Jewish group I was unwelcome and could not attend. The views of a Jewish organization, he explained, would not be objective and the decision on how to vote had to be taken in our absence. Not a single one of the other international NGOs objected.


THE HUMAN Rights Watch role at Durban? To inhibit Jewish lawyers and jurists from being fairly represented or defended.


Later that afternoon, my colleague Daniel Lack and I insisted on entering the meeting, but their minds were made up. In the face of the flagrant anti-Semitism all around them the group, including HRW had decided neither to approve nor disapprove of the final declaration, and not to vote.
 
Instead the international NGOs, including HRW planned to introduce an introductory paragraph that would cast the document as a legitimate collection of the “voices of the victims.”


In the evening, as the declaration was considered, a motion was made to delete draft language that had come from the Jewish NGO caucus. The Jewish caucus had proposed including a statement that the demonization of and the targeting of Jews for destruction because of their support for was a form of anti-Semitism.


The vote to delete the Jewish caucus’s proposal succeeded and all Jewish organizations from around the world walked out.


What did Human Rights Watch do? The organization said nothing. It made no move to vote. It stayed. Notwithstanding that the Jewish voices had been silenced, two days later at a press conference, HRW (along with Amnesty International, and the Lawyers Committee/Human Rights First) repeated the claim that the “voices of the victims” had legitimately prevailed at the NGO conference. HRW spokesperson Smita Narula said: “The document gives expression to all voices.”


What else did Human Rights Watch do in Durban? It misrepresented the final outcome to the world press.


AFTER THE fact, Human Rights Watch got nervous about the possible reaction of its many Jewish funders. So the cover-up began.
On September 6, 2001 Human Rights Watch spokespersons Reed Brody and Joel Motley wrote in the Conference News Daily that the NGO declaration “marks a major success… and recognizes the scourge of anti-Semitism.”
They neglected to mention that the declaration had redefined anti-Semitism, changing its meaning from the hatred of Jews to something which included “anti-Arab racism.”


Six months later, in February 2002, Human Rights Watch published an update stating: “What really happened at the World Conference Against Racism in Durban? The conference we participated in was completely different from the one covered in American newspapers.”
What else did Human Rights Watch do after Durban? It denied what happened there.


As for Roth’s claim of the organization’s objectivity in reporting on governments throughout the region, one need look no further than its inability ­ despite an annual budget of $22 million ­ to produce a specific report on human rights abuses in a country like Libya, or the relative paucity of attention over the years given to states with appalling human rights records like Saudi Arabia and Syria, as compared to Israel.


So there should be no surprise when HRW wrongly describes as violating international legal norms, for example, by labeling the killing of someone like Sheikh Ahmed Yassin or Ismail Abu Shanab an “assassination” or “liquidation.”


International law does not protect all combatants from being targeted before judicial process, or grant them immunity from military operations when they use civilians as human shields.


Having the courage to speak out against the tide of hate directed at and the Jewish people is not one of the strengths of Human Rights Watch.
When will this leading international human rights NGO stop believing it has to earn its stripes by demonizing Israel, or that to stay in business it must avoid criticizing Israel’s enemies?
The writer, a professor at York University in , is an international lawyer and a member of the Governing Board of UN Watch, based in Geneva.
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article.php?id=908


Op-Ed Contributor – Rights Watchdog, Lost in the Mideast – NYTimes …
By ROBERT L. BERNSTEIN. Published: October 19, 2009. AS the founder of Human Rights Watch, its active chairman for 20 years and now founding chairman …The organization is expressly concerned mainly with how wars are fought, not with motivations. To be sure, even victims of aggression are bound by the laws of war and must do their utmost to minimize civilian casualties. Nevertheless, there is a difference between wrongs committed in self-defense and those perpetrated intentionally.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/opinion/20bernstein.html

Pollak: Human Rights Watch is Biased Against Israel – WSJ.com
Jul 30, 2009 – Double Standards and Human Rights Watch
The organization displays a strong bias against Israel
By NOAH POLLAK
Over the past two weeks, Human Rights Watch has been embroiled in a controversy over a fund raiser it held in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. At that gathering, Middle East director Sarah Leah Whitson pledged the group would use donations to “battle . . . pro-Israel pressure groups.”

As criticism of her remark poured in, Ms. Whitson responded by saying that the complaint against her was “fundamentally a racist one.” And Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, declared that “We report on Israel. Its supporters fight back with lies and deception.”

The facts tell a different story. From 2006 to the present, Human Rights Watch’s reports on the Israeli-Arab conflict have been almost entirely devoted to condemning Israel, accusing it of human rights and international law violations, and demanding international investigations into its conduct. It has published some 87 criticisms of Israeli conduct against the Palestinians and Hezbollah, versus eight criticisms of Palestinian groups and four of Hezbollah for attacks on Israel. (It also published a small number of critiques of both Israel and Arab groups, and of intra-Palestinian fighting.)

It was during this period that more than 8,000 rockets and mortars were fired at Israeli civilians by Palestinian terrorist groups in Gaza. Human Rights Watch’s response? In November 2006 it said that the Palestinian Authority “should stop giving a wink and a nod to rocket attacks.” Two years later it urged the Hamas leadership “to speak out forcefully against such [rocket] attacks . . . and bring to justice those who are found to have participated in them.”

In response to the rocket war and Hamas’s violent takeover of Gaza in June 2007, Israel imposed a partial blockade of Gaza. Human Rights Watch then published some 28 statements and reports on the blockade, accusing Israel in highly charged language of an array of war crimes and human rights violations. One report headline declared that Israel was “choking Gaza.” Human Rights Watch has never recognized the difference between Hamas’s campaign of murder against Israeli civilians and Israel’s attempt to defend those civilians. The unwillingness to distinguish between aggression and self-defense blots out a fundamental moral fact—that Hamas’s refusal to stop its attacks makes it culpable for both Israeli and Palestinian casualties.

Meanwhile, Egypt has also maintained a blockade on Gaza, although it is not even under attack from Hamas. Human Rights Watch has never singled out Egypt for criticism over its participation in the blockade.

The organization regularly calls for arms embargoes against Israel and claims it commits war crimes for using drones, artillery and cluster bombs. Yet on Israel’s northern border sits Hezbollah, which is building an arsenal of rockets to terrorize and kill Israeli civilians, and has placed that arsenal in towns and villages in hopes that Lebanese civilians will be killed if Israel attempts to defend itself. The U.N. Security Council has passed resolutions demanding Hezbollah’s disarmament and the cessation of its arms smuggling. Yet while Human Rights Watch has criticized Israel’s weapons 15 times, it has criticized Hezbollah’s twice.

In the Middle East, Human Rights Watch does not actually function as a human-rights organization. If it did, it would draw attention to the plight of Palestinians in Arab countries. In Lebanon, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians are warehoused in impoverished refugee camps and denied citizenship, civil rights, and even the right to work. This has received zero coverage from the organization.

In 2007, the Lebanese Army laid siege to the Nahr al-Bared Palestinian refugee camp for over three months, killing hundreds. Human Rights Watch produced two anemic press releases. At this very moment, Jordan is stripping its Palestinians of citizenship without the slightest protest from the organization. Unfortunately, Human Rights Watch seems only to care about Palestinians when they can be used to convince the world that the Jewish state is actually a criminal state.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574318344040299638.html

TNR publishes “Minority Report: Human Rights Watch fights a civil war over Israel”
April 28, 2010   Richard Landes
The New Republic has just published a major piece on Human Rights Watch and their deeply disturbed relationship to Israel. Its a case study of demopaths and dupes, human rights complex, masochistic omnipotence syndrome, and the left-jihadi alliance. Below, a few choice passages.


Minority Report
Human Rights Watch fights a civil war over Israel.
Benjamin Birnbaum April 27, 2010 | 12:00 am


[snip]


With Palestinian suicide bombings reaching a crescendo in early 2002, precipitating a full-scale Israeli counterterrorist campaign across the West Bank, HRW’s Middle East and North Africa division (MENA) issued two reports (and myriad press releases) on Israeli misconduct—including one on the Israel Defense Forces’ assault on terrorist safe havens in the Jenin refugee camp. That report—which, to HRW’s credit, debunked the widespread myth that Israel had carried out a massacre—nevertheless said there was “strong prima facie evidence” that Israel had “committed grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions,” irking the country’s supporters, who argued that the IDF had in fact gone to great lengths to spare Palestinian civilians. (The decision not to launch an aerial bombardment of the densely populated area, and to dispatch ground troops into labyrinthine warrens instead, cost 23 Israeli soldiers their lives—crucial context that HRW ignored.) It would take another five months for HRW to release a report on Palestinian suicide bombings—and another five years for it to publish a report addressing the firing of rockets and mortars from Gaza, despite the fact that, by 2003, hundreds had been launched from the territory into Israel. (HRW did issue earlier press releases on both subjects.)


In the years to come, critics would accuse HRW of giving disproportionate attention to Israeli misdeeds. According to HRW’s own count, since 2000, MENA has devoted more reports to abuses by Israel than to abuses by all but two other countries, Iraq and Egypt. That’s more reports than those on Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Syria, Algeria, and other regional dictatorships. (When HRW includes press releases in its count, Israel ranks fourth on the list.) And, if you count only full reports—as opposed to “briefing papers,” “backgrounders,” and other documents that tend to be shorter, less authoritative, and therefore less influential—the focus on the Jewish state only increases, with Israel either leading or close to leading the tally. There are roughly as many reports on Israel as on Iran, Syria, and Libya combined.


HRW officials acknowledge that a number of factors beyond the enormity of human rights abuses go into deciding how to divide up the organization’s attentions: access to a given country, possibility for redress, and general interest in the topic. “I think we tend to go where there’s action and where we’re going to get reaction,” rues one board member. “We seek the limelight—that’s part of what we do. And so, Israel’s sort of like low-hanging fruit.”


[snip]
[Bernstien and] Edith Everett, a member of both the MENA advisory committee and the HRW board, a former stockbroker, and a philanthropist who has donated millions to aid Druze Arabs in Israel, eventually came to believe that their concerns were falling on deaf ears. For Everett, the 2006 Israel-Lebanon war was a turning point. “Participating on the board became most difficult since [that war],” she recalls. While Everett agreed with some of HRW’s critiques—on Israel’s use of cluster munitions, for example—she took issue with many of the organization’s conclusions, including its reporting on human shield use in Lebanon. (In a 2007 report, HRW insisted that Hezbollah fighters did not shield themselves and their weapons among the local civilian population on a widespread basis.) For a long time, Everett had felt there was a healthy exchange about these issues inside HRW, but that had begun to change. “I felt in recent times there was less of a dialogue,” she says. “It seemed to me that there was a commitment to a point of view—that Israel’s the bad guy here.”


[snip]


Robert James—a businessman, World War II veteran, and member of the MENA advisory committee who has been involved with HRW almost since its inception—calls the group “the greatest NGO since the Red Cross,” but argues that it is chronically incapable of introspection. “Bob is bringing this issue up on Israel,” he says. “But Human Rights Watch has a more basic problem. … They cannot take criticism.”


[snip]


Critics have pointed out that a number of Whitson’s colleagues in MENA—such as Joe Stork, who came to HRW after decades as a leader of the left-wing Middle East Research and Information Project, where he was part of an editorial collective that ran an extremely anti-Israel journal—arrived at the organization with backgrounds in the pro-Palestinian movement. Sid Sheinberg argues that the mere appearance of a biased jury at MENA ill-serves HRW. “Is it smart to have a number of people about which questions can be asked—in either direction?” he says. But, when I asked Whitson about this critique—and, specifically, about a former researcher on Israel who, before starting at HRW, wrote pro-Palestinian dispatches from the West Bank and Gaza describing Israeli soldiers as “protected by arrogance and hatred and a state and an army and the world’s superpower”—she said she didn’t see a problem with this situation. “For people who apply for jobs to be the researcher in Israel-Palestine, it’s probably going to be someone who’s done work on Israel-Palestine with a human rights background,” she explained. “And guess what? People who do work with a human rights background on Israel-Palestine tend to find that there are a lot of Israeli abuses. And they tend to become human rights activists on the issue.” For his part, HRW program director Iain Levine, who oversees the organization’s 16 divisions, acknowledges that people from many divisions—and not just MENA—arrive from “solidarity backgrounds,” but insists that, “when they come to the door of this organization, they park those things behind.”


Whether or not Whitson has done so, she clearly favors a tough approach toward the Jewish state. She has argued that, far from being too harsh toward Israel, HRW is actually too lenient. “[B]elieve me,” she wrote in an e-mail to a MENA advisory committee member, “on israel in particular, we are overly cautious and extremely kid-gloved because of the harassment we endure.” Less definitive—but still arguably revealing—evidence about Whitson’s politics can be found in her opinion of Norman Finkelstein, the activist and avowed Hezbollah supporter who has likened Israel to Nazi Germany. The two became acquainted years ago, and she brought him to HRW to discuss his 2005 book Beyond Chutzpah. (“He had a very mixed reception,” she remembers. “I think people did not find his style particularly persuasive.”) In late 2006, when Finkelstein launched a letter-writing campaign demanding that HRW officials apologize for a press release critical of Palestinian officials (which they eventually did), one HRW observer e-mailed Whitson to share thoughts on Finkelstein’s over-the-top rhetoric. Whitson replied: “I agree w/ u that norm undermines himself and his cause w/ the language he uses, and his anger sometimes gets the better of him and his brilliant mind and generous spirit. I continue to have tremendous respect and admiration for him, because as you probably know, making Israeli abuses the focus of one’s life work is a thankless but courageous task that may well end up leaving all of us quite bitter.”


[snip]


Bernstein also raised some of his concerns with then-HRW board member Richard Goldstone, who would go on to write the U.N.’s much-maligned report on the Gaza war. There are few more reviled figures in Israel right now than Goldstone, but even he sympathized with Bernstein on certain points, such as the politicized nature of the U.N. Human Rights Council, which, after being created in 2006, had directed its first nine condemnations at Israel. In March 2008, barely a year before he accepted UNHRC’s mandate to investigate the Gaza war, he told Bernstein that he thought the body’s performance had been hopeless and expressed ambivalence as to whether HRW should continue appearing before it.


He also agreed with Bernstein that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s increasingly aggressive anti-Israel rhetoric, in combination with his threatening policies, was an issue worthy of HRW’s attention. Goldstone pushed Roth to address it, but to no avail. (When I asked Roth in a February interview at his office about HRW’s refusal to take a position on Ahmadinejad’s threats against Israel, including his famous call for Israel to be “wiped off the map,” Roth quibbled about the way the statement had been translated in the West—“there was a real question as to whether he actually said that”—then told me that it was not HRW’s place to render judgments on such rhetoric: “Let’s assume it is a military threat. We don’t take on governments’ military threats just as we don’t take on aggression, per se. We look at how they behave. So, we wouldn’t condemn a military threat just as we wouldn’t condemn an invasion—we would look at how the government wages the war.” Whitson, who sat in on the interview, offered her two cents: “You know, that statement was also matched by Hillary Clinton saying that the Iranian regime should be destroyed or wiped off the map. Again, so, very similar statements, side by side, close in time.” For his part, Goldstone told TNR that he eventually came around to the view this was not an issue HRW should take up.)
http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2010/04/28/tnr-publishes-minority-report-human-rights-watch-fights-a-civil-war-over-israel/


____________



THE SOROS EFFECT


Obama-Sponsor Gives $100M to Anti-Israeli ‘Human Rights Watch’
 – Sep 13, 2010 – Anti-Israeli secular-Jewish billionaire George Soros has pledged $100 million to the New York-based Human Rights Watch (HRW),
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/139596


Human Rights Watch sells out to Soros–Gerald Steinberg – NYPOST.com
Sep 13, 2010 – Selling Out to Soros
Rights group’s dubious recordBy GERALD STEINBERG


Last Updated: 6:20 PM, September 13, 2010
Posted: 11:44 PM, September 12, 2010


In accepting a huge grant from George Soros, Human Rights Watch has spurned the public advice (and warning) offered nearly a year ago by its founder Robert Bernstein. Rather than grapple with the serious problems of credibility and bias, HRW Executive Director Kenneth Roth has cemented relations with Soros — a partisan ideologue who also supports Moveon.org, a controversial advocacy group.


Bernstein severely criticized HRW in a New York Times oped. To “resurrect itself as a moral force in the Middle East and throughout the world,” he warned, the organization must return “to its founding mission and the spirit of humility that animated it.” In its earlier days, he noted, “to create clarity in human rights,” HRW aimed to “draw a sharp line between the democratic and nondemocratic worlds.”


Soros: His $100 million donation to Human Rights Watch will make up for grants lost because of recent scandals. Over the years, HRW lost its moral compass and substituted ideology and an Israel-obsessed agenda. Bernstein was trying to awaken the group’s leaders to the decayed state of what was once a human-rights superpower.


Instead, Roth has opted to accept Soros’ $100 million grant — which should offset nicely the income lost from core donors who’ve walked away in the wake of a host of scandals. It won’t, however, address the root problems.


In May 2009, HRW launched a fund-raising drive in Saudi Arabia, using its anti-Israel record to solicit funds from “prominent members of Saudi society.” That September, HRW “senior military analyst” Marc Garlasco was “outed” as an avid collector of Nazi memorabilia — a troubling hobby for the main author of a number of HRW reports that accused Israel of “war crimes” and other violations.


Add to this the recent work by NGO Monitor, the watchdog group that I lead, and others on the severe ideological biases at HRW’s Middle East and North Africa (MENA) division. The systematic research in NGO Monitor’s report and articles in The New Republic and the Sunday Times detail the severe ideological biases of MENA director Sarah Leah Whitson and deputy director Joe Stork.


Both Whitson and Stork came to HRW with backgrounds in pro-Palestinian political activities, and continue to promote their anti-Israel political agendas through their “human rights” work.


Whitson was and remains an advocate of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. In July 2009, she referred to Israel’s “system of apartheid.” Stork’s publications in the Middle East Research and Information Project from the 1980s and 1990s focus on attacking Zionism, Israel and American “imperialism” in the Middle East, while promoting the Palestinian narrative.


This is further evidence of Bernstein’s conclusion that HRW is “helping those who wish to turn Israel into a pariah state.”


The group has relentlessly promoted the UN-commissioned report by one of its former board members, Richard Goldstone — a report that reflects the same biases and dubious research practices as so many recent HRW papers. In 2009, HRW’s 34 pro-Goldstone publications outnumbered its documents on all the countries in the Middle East except Israel and Iran.


The bias is indisputable: HRW’s publications on “Israel and the Occupied Territories” made up 28 percent of its total Mideast output in 2009.


Which makes it a fine fit for George Soros, whose own biases are well-established. In the Middle East, for example, his Open Society Institute exclusively supports advocacy groups that campaign internationally to undermine the elected governments of Israel — organizations such as Adalah, Peace Now, Breaking the Silence, Gisha and Yesh Din.


In extending his control over HRW, Soros seeks to increase its staff by 40 percent, reposition it as a major international player and restore its influence as an arbiter on universal human rights. But while his grant will alleviate the crisis caused by HRW’s declining income, it only deepens the moral crisis.


Only by changing the organization’s hiring practices, research priorities, methodologies and biases — especially at MENA — can Human Rights Watch recover its image as the “gold standard” of human-rights groups.


Gerald Steinberg is president of NGO Monitor, a Jerusalem-based research institution, and a professor of political science at Bar Ilan Uni versity
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/selling_out_to_soros_iYfn7YXaZg8xEFCp5iEcCJ


_____________



EXPLODING CRITICISM IN THE WAKE OF CRITICIZING ISRAEL, WHILE ISLAMIC-HEZBOLLAH DELIBERATELY CAUSES CIVILIAN DEATHS IN LEBANON (2006)


First Word: What is ‘Human Rights Watch’ watching – Jerusalem Post
 –  ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
08/24/2006 16:48


Many former supporters of the organization have become alienated by its obsessive focus on Israel.


When it comes to Israel and its enemies, Human Rights Watch cooks the books about facts, cheats on interviews, and puts out predetermined conclusions that are driven more by their ideology than by evidence. These are serious accusations, and they are demonstrably true. Consider the following highly publicized “conclusion” reached by Human Rights Watch about the recent war in Lebanon between Hizbullah and Israel: “Human Rights Watch found no cases in which Hizbullah deliberately used civilians as shields to protect them from retaliatory IDF attack.” No cases! Anyone who watched even a smattering of TV during the war saw with their own eyes direct evidence of rockets being launched from civilian areas. But not Human Rights Watch.


How could an organization, which claims to be objective, have been so demonstrably wrong about so central a point in so important a war? Could it have been an honest mistake? I don’t think so. Despite its boast that “Human Rights Watch has interviewed victims and witnesses of attacks in one-on-one settings, conducted on-site inspections and collected information from hospitals, humanitarian groups, and government agencies,” it didn’t find one instance in which Hizbullah failed to segregate its fighters from civilians. Nor apparently did HRW even ask the Israelis for proof of its claim that Hizbullah rockets were being fired from behind civilians, and that Hizbullah fighters were hiding among civilians. Its investigators interviewed Arab “eyewitnesses” and monitored “information from public sources including the Israeli government statements.” Human Rights Watch ignored credible news sources, such as The New York Times and The New Yorker. “Hizbullah came to Ain Ebel to shoot its rockets,” said Fayad Hanna Amar, a young Christian man, referring to his village. “They are shooting from between our houses.”
Mr. Amar said Hizbullah fighters in groups of two and three had come into Ain Ebel, less than a mile from Bint Jbail, where most of the fighting has occurred. They were using it as a base to shoot rockets, he said, and the Israelis fired back. – Sabrina Tavernise, “Christians Fleeing Lebanon Denounce Hizbullah,” The New York Times, July 28, 2006. Near the hospital, a mosque lay in ruins. A man approached and told me that he was a teacher at the Hariri school. I asked him why he thought the Israelis had hit a mosque, and he said, simply, “It was a Hizbullah mosque.” A younger man came up to me and, when we were out of earshot of others, said that Hizbullah had kept bombs in the basement of the mosque, but that two days earlier a truck had taken the cache away. – Jon Lee Anderson, “The Battle for Lebanon,” The New Yorker, August 8, 2006. Even if the location of UN posts were known to Israeli commanders, that doesn’t rule out the possibility that Hizbullah fighters used one as a shield from which to unleash fire. They’ve done so in the past, says Maj.-Gen. Lewis MacKenzie (ret’d.), who witnessed the technique while on peacekeeping assignments in the area. “It’s the same as if you set up your weapons systems beside a mosque or a church or a hospital.” – Carlie Gillis, “Diplomacy Under Fire,” MacLean’s, August 7, 2006.
The surgeon led a group of journalists over what remained: mangled debris, shredded walls and a roof punched through by an Israeli shell. “Look what they did to this place,” Dr. Fatah said, shaking his head. “Why in the world would the Israelis target a hospital?” The probable answer was found a few hours later in a field nearby. Hidden in the tall grass were the burned remnants of a rocket-launcher.


Confronted with the evidence, Dr. Fatah admitted his hospital could have been used as a site from which to fire rockets into Israel. – Sonia Verma, “Hizbullah’s Deadly Hold on Heartland,” National Post, August 5, 2006. [Samira] Abbas said, she heard from relatives that her house in Bint Jbeil had been destroyed. She said Hizbullah fighters had gathered in citrus groves about 500 yards from her home. – Mohamad Bazzi, “Mideast Crisis – Farewell to a Soldier; Reporting from Lebanon; Running Out of Places to Run,” Newsday, July 28, 2006 “What that means is, in plain English, ‘We’ve got Hizbullah fighters running around in our positions, taking our positions here and then using us for shields and then engaging the (Israeli Defense Forces),'” said [Lewis] MacKenzie, who led Canadian peacekeepers in Bosnia. – Steven Edwards, “UN contradicts itself over Israeli attack,” CanWest News Service, July 27, 2006. It was also reported that Hizbullah fired from the vicinity of five UN positions at Alma Ash Shab, At Tiri, Bayt Yahoun, Brashit, and Tibnin. – United Nations interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), Naqoura, July 28, 2006 (Press Release).
While these pictures have escaped the ravaged country, other images and footage taken by local newspaper and television teams are routinely seized by armed Hizbullah fighters at road blocks. In one image a group of fighters, including youths, are preparing to fire an anti-aircraft gun just metres from an apartment block with laundry sheets drying on a balcony.
Others show a Hizbullah fighter armed with a nickel-plated AK47 rifle guarding no-go zones after Israeli blitzes. Another depicts the remnants of a Hizbullah Katyusha rocket in the middle of a residential block, blown up in an Israeli air attack. The Melbourne man who smuggled the shots out of Beirut told yesterday how he was less than 400m from the block when it was obliterated. “Hizbullah came in to launch their rockets, then within minutes the area was blasted by Israeli jets,” he said. “Until the Hizbullah fighters arrived, it had not been touched by the Israelis. Then it was devastated. “After the attacks they didn’t even allow the ambulances or the Lebanese Army to come in until they had cleaned the area, removing their rockets and hiding other evidence The fighters used trucks, driven into residential areas, as launch pads for the rockets, he said. Another image shows a line of decimated trucks sitting behind a 5m crater.
The tourist who smuggled the images back to Melbourne said the trucks had been carrying rockets. The release of the images comes as Hizbullah fighters face increasing censure for using innocent civilians as “human shields.” – Chris Tinkler, “Revealed: How Hizbullah puts the innocent at risk; They don’t care,” Sunday Mail (Australia), July 30, 2006.


HOW COULD Human Rights Watch have ignored – or more likely suppressed – this evidence from so many different sources? The only reasonable explanation is that they wanted there to be no evidence of Hizbullah’s tactic of hiding behind civilians. So they cooked the books to make it come out that way.


Even after the fighting ended and all the reports of Hizbullah hiding among civilians were published, HRW chief Kenneth Roth essentially repeated the demonstrably false conclusions that “in none of those cases was Hizbullah anywhere around at the time of the attack.” So committed is Human Rights Watch to its predetermined conclusions that it refused to let the facts, as reported by objective sources, get in its way. Many former supporters of Human Rights Watch have become alienated from the organization, because of, in the words of one early supporter, “their obsessive focus on Israel.” Within the last month, virtually every component of the organized Jewish community, from secular to religious, liberal to conservative, has condemned Human Rights Watch for its bias. Roth and his organization’s willful blindness when it comes to Israel and its enemies have completely undermined the credibility of a once important human rights organization.


Human Rights Watch no longer deserves the support of real human rights advocates. Nor should its so-called reporting be credited by objective news organizations.
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=32731


Human Rights Watch: Irrelevant, Immoral on Mideast Conflict
By Abraham H. Foxman
National Director of the Anti-Defamation League 
This article originally appeared in The New York Sun on August 2, 2006 


Human Rights Watch has come out with a stinging attack on Israel for its actions in the conflict against Hezbollah, calling the tragedy in Qana a “war crime.”


Since Human Rights Watch is not an organization that has ignored human rights issues in the Arab world — it has done studies on such issues as human rights violations in Egypt and suicide bombings — what the organization says is given much weight and credibility in certain circles.


The truth is, however, that the overwhelming thrust of Human Rights Watch work regarding Israel and the Arab world falls on Israel. Included was a rush to judgment in its accusation that Israel in Jenin had committed war crimes in seeking out suicide bombers, as well as the fact that in one year (2004), according to NGO Monitor, of 33 HRW documents dealing with Israel, 25 were critical of the Jewish State.


More significantly, there are questions about HRW’s broader perspective in its work in the Middle East. Kenneth Roth falls back on technical interpretations to justify what his organization criticizes and what it doesn’t. He says that it doesn’t go into the cause of war. He doesn’t want to talk about the intentions of various parties. He doesn’t want to look at the larger picture because, he claims, all of this would undermine the neutral posture that gives his organization credibility.


More than any specific criticism, it is this explanation of what HRW is about that is so problematic. First, he inappropriately compares his organization in this respect to the Red Cross, but that body has a very different purpose. HRW, by its reports and statements, has a major impact on political judgments.


Far more important is that his explanation of HRW’s perspective — at least as it applies to the conflict of Israel and the Arab world — leads inevitably to the conclusion that HRW is either irrelevant or immoral, or maybe both. On one level, his explanations of all the factors that don’t come into play when doing analyses and passing judgment should lead to the conclusion that they truly aren’t relevant to the fundamental issues of peace, war, and justice that are embodied in a conflict such as this. If the intentions of Syria and Iran are not to be examined, if the takeover of part of a country by a terrorist group committed to the destruction of Israel is not something important, if the continuous flow of rockets, launchers and other weapons from Iran and Syria to an illegitimate group is not worthy of consideration, then ultimately why should anyone take seriously what Human Rights Watch has to say?


On a deeper level, one can conclude that despite painting itself as a great moral arbiter, in fact Human Rights Watch’s approach to these problems is immorality at the highest level. Let’s remember that Israel has been able to survive and prosper in a region where it has been surrounded by neighbors, close and far, who have been committed to Israel’s destruction for five decades, because of one reason: its strength and power of deterrence.


The State of Israel, which emerged out of the ashes of the Holocaust, understood early on that it must be able to convince its enemies that attacking the tiny Jewish State would be a big mistake. Israel had to make clear to the Arabs that they would be hurt far, far more than the pain they could inflict. In other words, without Israel hitting back (not in an “eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth” fashion which Mr. Roth cited and is a classic anti-Semitic stereotype about Jews) but in a much stronger way, Israel would have been destroyed long ago.


The moral issue, the human rights issue that overrides everything else in this conflict is that if Hezbollah, Syria and Iran don’t understand that they will pay an overwhelming price for these rocket attacks on Israel, then eventually the rockets will be armed with chemical weapons and the warheads with nuclear weapons. In other words, a second Holocaust would be in the works.


So yes, Israel is striking very hard at Hezbollah and the infrastructure that allows it to operate and to receive weapons from Iran and Syria. And yes, there are tragically civilian casualties. Israel must do everything in its power to limit these casualties. But it is Hezbollah that has cynically created a dilemma for Israel by embedding their missiles not only in civilian areas, but literally in civilian households. The dilemma for Israel was: should it be so careful to avoid civilian casualties — for its own sake, for the sake of the Lebanese people and their attitudes toward Israel, and for world opinion — that Israel would not effectively destroy the missile threat that was turning northern Israel into a hell for its residents? Or, should Israel strike at Hezbollah with significant force, inevitably producing civilian casualties because of the placement of missiles, which would turn the people of Lebanon and the world against Israel? Israel has sought its way through this minefield. It has tried both to protect its people and to limit civilian casualties.


It is no accident that Human Rights Watch gets it wrong or has a habit of rushing to judgment as it did in Jenin and as it did in Qana. If one sees military activity by Israel in a vacuum, ignoring the threats to its security and existence, ignoring the intentions and growing capabilities of its enemies, ignoring the cynical actions of its foes which seek either to hurt Israel and its citizens on the ground or to make Israel look bad in the eyes of the world, then, of course, Israel will look like the neighborhood bully and will be accused of all kinds of things.


I would therefore recommend that Human Rights Watch be viewed for what it is, at least when it comes to the great struggle in the Middle East that may determine not only the future of the State of Israel but of mankind itself: as irrelevant or immoral.
http://www.adl.org/NR/exeres/EB055C60-4506-
4FAF-98A0-49AEAAC82227,213018C9-567C-418C-BDEA-1CBDA8F58810,frameless.htm


Roth’s False God
Editorial of The New York Sun | August 8, 2006


After The New York Sun ran an editorial and two op-ed pieces taking Human Rights Watch to task for anti-Israel bias, the organization’s executive director, Kenneth Roth, has finally found it in himself to denounce Hezbollah for placing troops and weapons near Lebanese civilians. And to acknowledge, for the first time, that the use of ambulances by Palestinian groups to transport weapons or suicide bombers is “a clear humanitarian violation.” We’re tempted to congratulate Mr. Roth. Too bad it had to be wrung out of him.


Call us optimists, but we still hold out hope that Mr. Roth will abandon his view, expressed in a letter to the editor printed in the adjacent column, that the Israeli government defending itself from Islamist terrorist aggression is engaged in “extremist interpretations of religious doctrine” like the terrorists themselves. Maybe in his next letter to us he’ll finally concede, too, that, as widely reported, the Iranian military is in Lebanon. Maybe he’ll concede that the fact that Hezbollah was not “in sight” is no evidence they were not there. Until then, Mr. Roth and his donors, staff, and board of directors should be aware that the American Jewish community recognizes with full clarity what Mr. Roth and Human Rights Watch are up to. It is unmistakable.


The three main religious movements of American Jewry — Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform — agree, for once. A spokesman for the Agudath Israel of America, an Orthodox group, Rabbi Avi Shafran, called Mr. Roth’s statements “loathsome” and likened him to Mel Gibson, the actor who, unlike Mr. Roth, at least had the decency to apologize for his outburst. The executive vice president of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, Rabbi Jerome Epstein, said the position of Mr. Roth and Human Rights Watch is “so biased and outrageous it is hard to take it seriously.” The national director of the Anti-Defamation League, Abraham Foxman, said Mr. Roth deployed “a classic anti-Semitic stereotype,” and said Human Rights Watch is “irrelevant or immoral.” A spokesman for the Union for Reform Judaism, Emily Grotta, said, “Abe Foxman has been speaking out about this recently and we agree with what he has been saying.”


The executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Malcolm Hoenlein, told us of Human Rights Watch that he was “disturbed by its apparent bias.” The president of the Zionist Organization of America, Morton Klein, said Mr. Roth of Human Rights Watch “is not only naïve, but shows his hatred toward Jews and Israel is greater than his hatred of Islamist terror.” The general counsel of the American Jewish Congress, Marc Stern, called Human Rights Watch’s position “a problem,” and said, “to elevate a mistake to the level of war crime is outrageous.” A spokesman for the American Jewish Committee, Kenneth Bandler, said the statements by Human Rights Watch and Mr. Roth “display a real lack of understanding.”


American Jewry stands with the Israeli government on the point. Israel’s ambassador to Canada, Alan Baker, a former legal adviser to Israel’s foreign ministry, a few months back told us of Human Rights Watch, after the organization wrote to President Bush calling for an end to all American aid to Israel, “They’ve lost their credibility.” Even Human Rights Watch’s founding chairman, Robert Bernstein, who led the organization from 1979 to 1997, is dismayed and pained at the stance the group he founded has been taking against the Jewish state, according to several individuals to whom Mr. Bernstein confided his discomfort with the organization he helped found. Mr. Bernstein declined to comment.


Mr. Roth sneers at “religious doctrine” and “Biblical injunctions” from the Torah. In an earlier letter to this page, he referred to them as the “morality of some more primitive moment.” He belittles any distinction between a terrorist group whose goal is to kill Jews, eradicate Israel, and impose Islamist law worldwide, and a pluralist sovereign state, like Israel, that apologizes and investigates when it kills civilians in the course of trying to protect its civilians and borders from the terrorist group. Human Rights Watch recently called on America to cease immediately arms transfers to Israel. If Mr. Roth’s Yale Law School degree and international law dictate cutting off Israel’s arms as it is under assault by a terrorist group out to destroy it and deliberately kill its civilians, we’ll take the Bible any day. One doesn’t need a Yale Law School degree or expertise in international law to know Israel is different from the terrorists, just a basic moral compass.


Mr. Roth’s own moral compass seems to go haywire whenever Israel is involved. More reputable scholars of international law, like Orde Kittrie writing in Saturday’s Wall Street Journal, disagree with Human Rights Watch’s conclusions. So do President Bush and a consensus in Congress and among the American public, which have supported Israel’s right to defend itself. Siding with Human Rights Watch in criticizing Israel have been the governments of Iran and Communist China, two of the worst human rights abusers of them all.


Mr. Roth may send us another letter, conceding another point or two along the way. Or not. But this is about more than Mr. Roth and his organization. The moral equivalence that has infected him and his organization has, sadly, spread far on much of the left, from the United Nations to the International Red Cross and Amnesty International and the editorialists of the New York Times, who yesterday, stunningly, said any ceasefire they would favor must allow Hezbollah “to claim some sort of victory.” That such confusion has not gained traction among American Jews or, for that matter, on the Christian right in this country is testament to the bond of shared values between America and Israel. Those values have a base in something higher than the false god of international law before whom Kenneth Roth has brought a once-idealistic institution so low.
http://www.nysun.com/editorials/roths-false-god/37473


Human Rights Hypocrites
– Aug 29, 2006 – Hezbollah occasionally did store weapons in or near civilian homes and fighters placed rocket launchers within populated areas or near U.N. observers, which … Human Rights Watch investigated some two dozen bombing incidents in Lebanon involving a third of the civilians who by then had been killed.

http://www.peacewithrealism.org/headline/hrw01.htm

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Hollywood goes Pallywood

March 31, 2011

ANTI-ISRAEL HOLLYWOOD


March, 2011

Israeli anger over Palestinian film at UN


Miral Palestine Oil the producer defended (on CNN, March 30, 2011) the Palestinian propaganda movie after being asked about the criticism that it portrays Israeli forces as the villain and not telling the Israeli side of the story as well, The producer responded the weirdest answer I have ever heard: “this is a Palestinian story, when Martin Scorcese makes a film about an Italian gangster he doesn’t tell the story of a Jewish gangster.” What an “apples & oranges” answer. Of course Martin Scorsese won’t tell an unrelated story about an Irish or Chinese mafia in an Italian gangster film. But his “Palestinian” movie is an anti-Israel directly (attack) related propaganda.



On a professional basis. This is the first time I hear that a movie producer doesn’t have to study the “entire” story.



Then again. When it comes to bashing Israel. No holds bars. There are no rules.



Moreover. This is NOT a “Palestinian” story, it’s an anti-Israel story. Unless you are telling me they’re one in the same, which I agree when it comes to Pallywood industry.



Some questions for the [Jewish Hollywood Co. in service of anti-Zionism] Weinsten Company:



1) If you are unbiased. Why did you choose to tell the “Palestinian” story before the Israeli story?



2) Couldn’t you tell the “suffering” of a “Palestinian” family connecting it to the guilty Arab leadership who always had a vesting [“victim-hood” propaganda] interest in keeping the Arab-Palestinians in shambles?



3) When are you planning to tell the IDF story? the story of an Israeli soldier who is so demonized. While he sacrifices his life in going door to door often getting into booby traps [I even know of stories where IDF personnel knocking on doors were greeted by common Arab-Palestinian women with hot burning oil on their faces], on the look out for terrorists and weapons. The humane soldier that feels for the unarmed Arab civilians much more than “brethren” Arabs do.



4) How about a dramatic story of a typical heroic Israeli policeman dismantling bombs laid by Arabs.



5) How about Israeli hospitals, the free treatment humane Israel gives to Arab-Palestinians who are injured… while they start (as always) the hostilities).



6) How about genuine chronology? If Hollywood is to narrate the Israeli-Arab conflict aught it not start off with the 1929 Hebron massacre [of non-political, pure pious Jews] where local Arabs, and Egyptian Arab immigrants in Palestine shouted “slaughter the Jews,” slit Jewish babies’ throats, and castrated old men?



7) Are you fascinated with 1948? Why, then, have you not made a movie about an Israeli family? Here’s a scenario:
A Jewish family that just escaped the Holocaust and a child is missing [died] because of the of Jerusalem, Mufti [highest ranking Islam figure] of Palestine’s intervention against rescue (as he did, especially in causing thousands of Romanian Jewish babies to parish). Later on, this family is harassed in Hebron (or Safed, or Jerusalem) by Arab immigrants from southern Syria (now called “Palestinians”), show the hatred against Jews in a typical racist Arab family as they listen to Mullahs’ sermons on official TV. Show the justification for targeting babies in main street “normal” Arab Palestine.



Show something real and truthful.


Sci-Fi w/o the Sci…
In Hollywood terminology. This film is at best: “biased” fiction without the “science.”

The dehumanization by MSM “news” agencies – Itamar massacre

March 14, 2011

The dehumanization by MSM “news” agencies – Itamar massacre


How does the “objective” MSM report / react to the Arab-Islamic aiming at infants in Israel?




Itamar Massacre: Bloggers Get It, MSM Doesn’t | IsraPort.org Source: HonestReportingBackspin
http://www.israport.org/itamar-massacre-bloggers-get-it-msm-doesn’t

Jewish Family Massacred? Not Big News for World
by Gil Ronen
As five members of one Jewish family were being laid to rest, news of their sadistic massacre had all but disappeared from the world’s leading news websites. As of 11:00 AM EDT Sunday the item was completely missing from CNN’s homepage, while appearing in a low spot on both the BBC and FoxNews websites.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/142862

___


While you get 422,000 results when you search for http://www.google.com/#q=itamar+massacre, yet, the MSM news agencies are far from seeing it in the human view.

CNN

When you search CNN: http://www.google.com/#&q=site%3acnn.com+itamar+massacre, it gives you only an “ireport”: Itamar massacre: Fogel family butchered while sleeping – CNN iReport Mar 12, 2011. Nothing (so far) by official CNN which is so quick to be “outraged” when Arab children die as their parents’ pawns.

BBC

How does the Arabist BBC demonize the victims of Arab butchery? Abbas condemns settler killings – BBC – HomepageMar 14, 2011, the dehumanization of babies as “settlers”. Everything is “politics” isn’t BBC? Is there any room for condemnation of crude Arab-Islamic crimes against humanity of targeting babies? (See more at: Baby killers: BBC Butchers Real Story

Biased CNN explains as “news” why Palestinians aim at children

December 22, 2010

Biased CNN explains as “news” why Palestinians aim at children


At the CNN news ticker the following title of “news” appeared today (Dec. 21, 2010): “5 hurt in rocket fire,  retaliation in southern Israel” as well as on the page: http://edition.cnn.com/MIDDLEEAST  .


The HTML copied:

<li><a href=”/2010/WORLD/meast/12/21/israel.rocket.fire/index.html”>5 hurt in rocket fire, retaliation, in southern Israel</a>       </li>


Though when clicking on the actual link, the language is different.
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/12/21/israel.rocket.fire/index.html


That exact title was copied automatically on those that subscribe to CNN’s feeds, e. g.: http://news.vivasoft.hu/the-news/17842-5-hurt-in-rocket-fire,-retaliation-in-southern-israel.html and http://359online.com/5-hurt-in-rocket-fire-retaliation-in-southern-israel/



This fits very well with the Islamists-appeasement policy that whatever they do, it’s just a reaction, when in fact the Arab Palestinians are always initiating the attack aimed at innocent Israelis at their homes or at kindergartens when the children are gathered there, or/and practicing the use of its own civilians.


The hidden message behind the headline which attempts almost to equate the two sides is so outrageous, as if there’s some kind of moral equivalence between those that seek death and destruction for all and Israelis that struggle so hard to defend lives. So is the naiive “understanding” that when Hamas says it does something as a “retaliation,” we should simply “believe” it. Since when is news media a mouthpiece for terrorists? No one should buy into it as a fact, or anything else beyond a Hamas’ propaganda argument. Neither CNN, nor anyone else can assert what is a “retaliation” and what is in fact, an excuse.


According to this twisted CNN view it’s all a game, they are just both fighting each other, nothing about Israelis defending citizens from Palestinians seeking civilians as targets, or/and children when they go to school. Note also CNN’s general ommission of the Israeli exact location ‘KINDERGARTEN’ repeatedly a target


Moreover, it entails a horrific cheapening of Israeli lives, that they’re hurt “only because of some retaliation” thing.


Again and again, CNN shows its real “news” colors, when its more of an opinion medium.


How about a simple non-opinionated news headline: “Palestinians fire at Israeli homes,” or “Palestinians attack Israeli kindergartens, again.” The truth for a change!

News Samples:

Rocket explodes near Israeli kindergarten‎
21 (UPI) — A Qassam rocket exploded near a kibbutz kindergarten in the Ashkelon Coastal regional council Tuesday morning, the Israeli army said.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2010/12/21/Rocket-explodes-near-Israeli-kindergarten/UPI-11441292936139/

Qassam explodes near kindergarten – Israel News, Ynetnews
Dec 21, 2010 … News: Rocket hits kibbutz in Ashkelon Coast Regional Council. Girl, 14, lightly injured by shrapnel; several people suffer from shock, …

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4002195,00.html</p

The Racist Arab MK: Ahmed Tibi who loves to shout “racism”

August 6, 2010

The Racist Arab MK: Ahmed Tibi who loves to shout “racism”

Bogus rant & disinformation

An Arab MK politician criticized for so frequently throwing around ‘racism’ even ‘fascism’ flags on routine Israeli security action, in his campaign of bashing Israel, including spreading disinformation[1], he’s part of the scene of use of epithets like ‘fascist’ and ‘racist’ becoming so commonplace [2], some have put his propaganda unfounded ranting style while Israel’s a vital democracy with full equal rights, freedom for all, that,

…using inflammatory words like “racist” and “fascist.” As is his style, Tibi failed to back up his white-hot rhetoric with hard facts… The Arab Israeli lawmaker who accused the Jewish state of having ‘racist’ and ‘fascist’ policies enjoys rights and freedoms he wouldn’t find anywhere else in the Middle East. [3]

His “assertions” & claims of events are often refuted [4], he was Arafat’s top adviser, since Arafat systematically attacked the legitimacy of Israel as a “racist” he used Israeli-Arab politicians, like Ahmad Tibi in his/this campaign[5].

The racist

Tibi has been accused of being racist.[6],

In 1997 he said:

“Whoever sells his house to Jews, has sold his soul to Satan and has done a despicable act.” [7]

He’s accused of rewriting history of the Holocaust especially the part of the Mufti & his linkage with Hitler, reviving an old canard that the real Holocaust victims were “innocent” Arabs who paid the price for Europe’s crime[8]. In an anti-Israel bashing editorial in the Palestinian Al-Quds newspaper in July 2007, he said, [the entire area of] Palestine belongs to the Arabs only, not to the Jews[9][10]. Despite alarming worries over his association with the PLO and the idea of negating Israel’s existence – seeking its destruction, inciting to racism, the democratic Israeli court [so often favoring Arabs’ side] Ok’d his party’s inclusion[11], yet, this backstabber ungrateful Arab, only knows how to smear Israel, to cast it (and its genuine security concerns) in a bad light, on world stage[12].

The violent

He has a violent background of attacking security officials[13], has been accused of supporting terror, terrorists organizations[14].

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

NYTimes: From anti-Israel bias to an anti-Israel basher

July 6, 2010

NYTimes: From anti-Israel bias to an anti-Israel basher



A. writes…

To the NewYorkTimes [letters@nytimes.com, editorial@nytimes.com]



It has been a long time since I took a peek in that paper, I apologize for being forced into it when meeting 2 relatives in a starbucks cafe, their flight was delayed, so the nytimes gained my attention, regrettably.



July 4 – 2010



Here are glimpses of the “quality” newspaper:



1) Frontpage of the (“Jewish?”) New York Times talks about strained relations between US-Israel, note, A) Mark Landler does not talk about frictions between Obama’s administration and the Netanyahu’s (A.K.A. naming the problem), but ‘between US & Israel.’

B) It titles the flotilla ship (you know, that radical-Islamists IHH led boat that attacked violently the Israeli security and called: “Kill the Jews for Allah!” and “Go back to Auschwitz! prior to that), no more and no less but: “humanitarian aid.”



2) Then, in the section: “Inside the Times” (p. 3, a summary of what awaits the reader…)

I notice briefly that Nicholas D. Kristof writes something… oh, wait where do I remember

that name from? Of course, that’s the guy that wrote about the Arab slavery & genocide

on Africans in Darfur but never had the courage to name it what it is: Arab racism, writing and writing so much material about that calamity, yet always beating around the bushes (Mr. Honigman has criticized him, a lot, google it up). So, Am I interested in anything Mr. Kristof has to say? not really. [if he can’t “see” the Arabs committing crimes against humanity in Africa, why would he see it in Arab-Palestine?] I didn’t even bother to look “inside” his article that “criticizes” Israel’s blockade over (Hamas’ controlled) Gaza.



3) Obituaries… (p. 19) Do you ever think, the bias-virus can spread there as well, sure enough in the never impartial Nytimes, anything is possible. Do you have any idea who the “chosen one” was this week? believe it or not, [Mohammed Oudeh] the planner of the infamous anti-Israel massacre by Arab-Muslim “Palestinians” in 1972, the Munich murderous cold blooded attack on Israel’s sport team [Why? “freedom fighters” of course].

So, Do you also know who provided the material for the “quality paper,” it was an Arab in Ramallah, W.B [Khaled Abu Aker – whatever] “reporting…” about how “great of a father he was,” [these loveable neutral guys always “report,” never posting opinions of course, not surprisingly the ‘Pallywood’ term pops up suddenly) aren’t

you intrigued as me to know how “wonderful” this low life murderer was?



In any case, all in all, a typical “dry” Sunday (wait until it gets interesting in Israel “Palestine”), and anti-Israel rant is all over it, and I barely had a chance to really ‘read’ the times. My family members appeared, thank you very much. I think I’ll pass, (Ma’am) Can I have 2 cappuccinos, to go, please?



I still notice how racist Arabists and Nazi KKK/supremacists call that paper “jewish,” not sure why, for all it is, it’s one staunch Arabist paper, certainly no better than the BBC,

who openly admitted a few years back of being biased against Christianity & against Israel.

I take it back, What a stupid question to wonder about haters’ “facts?”

PS
The date above says, July – 2010, but the date is irrelevant, the sample is certainly a pathetic routine.

1) Sad note: Whatever happened to the prestigious newspaper, the last 10-15 Years or so…?
2) Reality note: I guess there’s a real logic behind the huge loss of subscription, on top of deep disapppointing “opinions,” its bias has already reached a dreadful boring (not boiling) point – yawn!
3) Happy note: I am so glad that I do not have a habit to read that quality-less paper.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tips to posters on public forums fighting anti-Israel bigotry

June 23, 2010



Tips to posters on public forums fighting anti-Israel bigotry






IMPOSTORS



* Arab, Muslim posters have been known for being impostors, posing as “Christians,” as “white Nazis,” even as “Jews.”



* True, there are some radicals in the west, that post against Israel, yet, the overwhelming majority of the anti-Israel and anti-Jewish posters, today, are Muslims.



* Anti-Israel posters –like anti-Israel bigoted “activists”– cover their intolerance-agenda by “worrying” about “poor Palestinians,” which in reality, no one could care.





PRO-PALESTINIAN IS A SHAM – ITS ANTI-ISRAEL





Don’t buy the “pro-Israel” face, its never about caring FOR Arab Palestinians, otherwise they would divert all the energy in helping them get out of their self-inflicted  misery, instead they try very hard to damn Israel in front of cameras and making anti Israel headlines in the media, it’s just easier to go against Israel in a frame of “pro Palestine activism.”

Real pro-Palestinianism is almost an extinct specie.





CASUALTIES




[BODY COUNT IS NOT ALWAYS TELLING WHO THE VICTIM IS]



* What would have happened if ‘mighty’ Israel’s army wouldn’t be so humane and careful about Arab civilian lives?  The question is not how many would die, but, How many would survive?



* What would happen if the Arab Muslims would be so successful military-wise, would there be an Israel? or how many God-forbid Jews would have perished in their ultimate genocide goal?



* If the Arab-Muslims (Palestinian or Hezbollah) hadn’t used their civilian population, would there still be “massacres,” as they like to call it?



* Who are the targets of the Arab-Muslims? Army personal, or predominantly unarmed Israeli men, women & children?





DAVID VS GOLIATH



* Did you get a chance to look at the N.E. map lately? who’s threatening whom? including the “misunderstood” genocidal Islamic president in Tehran seeking to wipe off map 7,000,000 ?



* Arab Palestinians possess a much more powerful weapon, Israelis don’t have, as Israeli soldiers’ hands are tied every time there’s a crowd of unarmed Arabs, the cynical terrorists surround themselves by.





DETECTING BIGOTRY LURKING BEHIND “INNOCENT CRITICISM”



Pay attention to those that in the habit of:



* Highlighting any rare abuse case by an Israeli policeman, more than in such cases when occurring in the west.



* Obsession about Israel, singling it out.



* Demonization of all of Israel, the entire state/society/nation.

“Seeing” women & children only on the Arab side and ‘seeing’ all of Israel as nothing but one big “tank.” [This dehumanization can be detected easily through the lines, of never admitting of Israeli suffering].



* The racism of labeling all Israel does as ‘racist.’ mainly, ignoring the real picture of Israel’s fight for survival – constantly.



* Simple, crude lies about Israel’s democratic system (albeit, this might be tricky, many are simply unaware and plain ignorant, in that case it might not be intentional).





RACISM?



* Unlike the scene of the Arab-Palestine side, Israel’s a cosmopolitan country, society, with colors, races raging from the whitest of whites to the darkest of blacks.



* Israelis, Jews or Arabs are equally subject to check points, security -saving lives, is what motivates Israel’s policy, always, though the frequency of ‘checkpoints’ on roads, are stricter and more scrutinizing in the Palestinian-Arab areas, where terrorism is more frequent.



* What motivates Arabs,Muslims to target Jewish civilians (excluding Arab Israelis) just for being Jews? Is it not Arab racism & Islamic bigotry?



* What were the excuses of the Arab-Muslims in 1929 Hebron massacre on the verge to ‘kill Jews.’ was it the “occupation” of almost 40 Years later?



* Can you point to me 25% of Arab Palestine to being non-Arab, as a parallel in pluralistic democratic Israel where its 25% Arab population have full rights?

Or any Jew is prohibited from residing in racist apartheid Jew-free Arab-Palestine?



* Point to me a group, organization equivalent of B’tzelem or any other Jewish Israeli human rights groups advocating on behalf of Arabs, Is there anyone on the 100% racist Arab side that cares about Jews?





RACE, ARAB RACISM & “SEMITES”



* If there’s such a thing as “race,” then, Arab Israelis and Arab-Palestinians are of the same “race.” Even Jimmy Carter (who used the “apartheid” slur in his book after he was paid by the Arab lobby) admitted on CNN (Larry King Live) that Israel is a free and equal democracy for Arabs & Jews alike.



* If Arabs are pure “Semites” can be disputed, however, anti-Semitism, historically was always referred to anti-Jewish bigotry, exclusively, [come to think of it, if Arabs are in fact “semites,” then Zionism can never be “racism,” the hypocrite racists Arabism can’t have it both ways], in reality, racism is in one’s mind, as long as the Arabs see the Jews as a separate creed and hate it blindly, they are the true racists. Sorry, but they just can’t hide under “we are Semites” crap.

Virtually all minorities in the Arab world are effected one way or another (through violence, persecution or “plain” discrimination) from Arab racism, Kurds by Syria currently, by Iraq mainly under pan Arab racist: Saddam Hussein), Assyrians, pre-Arab invasion true indigenous Lebanese (Phoenicians), indigenous N. Africans (Berbers), Persians (Iranian), Blacks (in Sudan, Mauritania and in Arab countries), Copts (indigenous Egyptians), Jews, Asian maids (slaves – rather) in the gulf states, etc.





RELIGION AND THE BIGOTRY BY ISLAMISTS



* Israeli society is not religious, most IDF soldiers are secular, Israel’s policy is monitored by security issues and realism only.



Arab-Palestine society is by in large religiously Muslim. So is the “conflict” from their point of view. The “Allah u Akbar” when (attempting in) massacring Jews is a Muslim thing, of course.



In fact, Jews are hardly the only ones, fallen prey to the religious intolerance by Muslims, virtually all non-Muslims in the Muslim world, and many, even beyond, have been effected (more noticeably, Christians in the middle east and in Asia, non-Muslim Chinese in Indonesia, Hindus in India, Buddhists in S. Thailand, and Bahai in Iran) either by direct terror violence, expantionist Jihadism, religious fanaticism and any part of Islamists’ attempts in their Islamicizing the globe [by any means necessary] goal.



A tiny note, in Judaism, there’s no call to convert anyone to Judaism, tolerant Judaism says you don’t have to be a Jew in order to enter heaven. (see: Noahide laws).



Sorry, but ‘all religious extremism’ today are NOT all alike.



* The most extremist Zionist will only reach its “peak” to an attitude of asking Arab Palestinians who won’t accept Israel’s state and rule, to just leave the area towards Jordan (which was the original Transjordan-Palestine idea, to grant the Arabs, this idea by the very tiny minority among radicals is also known as “transfer”), nothing resembling that total genocide aim by their Islamic counterparts.



* A 2007 poll of Palestinians, where 75% don’t “give” Israel a right to exist, speaks volume of the radicalism in mainstream Arab-Palestine VS Israelis that by-in-large are even willing to go the extra mile and give the Arabs another state, a new one, which never existed before in history, an ‘Arab-Palestine,’ on top of the already 22 Arab states.



Try to conduct a poll about Jews in any moderate Arab country (as a matter of fact, a few years back, PEW’s finding about attitudes towards Jews in such an Arab country like Jordan, showed 100% negative) or street, you might already guess what you’re about to find out about mainstream Arab-Muslim bigotry.



Also, that despicable diabolic Islamic mythology of dehumanization of non-Muslims, like: ‘Christians are pigs and Jews are apes,’ [often shown in Palestinian media, and Mosques and in Saudi Arabian schools] is exclusively that, Islamic.





IT DIDN’T START IN 1948



The usual Palestine-song is “all was fine until the (re)establishment of Israel in 1948′

Fact: Arabs, Muslims have been attacking the Jews of Palestine in 1834 (Safed, many indigenous Jews – victims of a massacre & mass rape campaign of 33 days), 1920 (Jerusalem, and other locations), 1929 (Hebron massacre), 1939 (Tiberias), etc.





CAUSE = INTOLERANCE



It [historic perspective] matters, because the root cause was never about land, but about intolerance. Though the slogans sometimes change, according to the conditions, providing any “updated” excuses.

The Satanic Arab-Muslim theme running through their childhood education and inspirational religious icons are along the lines of: “Jews are not humans,” and ‘Kill a Jew – go to heaven’ doesn’t exist in the Jewish education system.





INDIGENOUS “PALESTINIANS” FROM… ARABIA, SYRIA & EGYPT



Prompted by that racist Arab Helen Thomas’ outburst of calling to an ethnic cleansing of Jews (June, 2010), we should all remember and remind everyone else, to the true origin of Palestinian Arabs, who were (previously) either called Arabs or S. Syrians, where their majority’s roots are from, some have migrated from Egypt, S. Arabia and other regional Arabian zones.

The two major differences between both immigrations are, 1) The Jewish immigration was highlighted, scrutinized and restricted by the British, while the Arab migration was allowed to flow and not even recorded so frequently. (It might have been a result of attempting to appease the Arab population).

2) [Unlike Arab relatively new history in the area] There was always a Jewish presence in the area, it is a well known fact that some Jews in Pekiin (for example) have stayed for all the generations, dating back 2,000 years, to the destruction of the second Jewish temple by the Romans who changed the name Israel to “Palestine.”



Don’t be fooled by such ideas like: color, as Arab Palestinians are “brown” so they must be from there… and yes, over 50% of Israeli Jews are of “brown” color as well.


A note about posters “inspired” by Nazi-hate sites.



1) FACTS?

Yes, we have all seen the crappy “facts” the “jew watchers” haters put up, never highlighting what Jews by-in-large help around the world in an over-representative way, like over 2/3 of their donations are to non-Jewish causes, or doctors without borders, helping the homeless, feeding the poor, or in any humanitarian cause where the Jewish minority in the world is so PROMINANT and over represented, but they will highlight ONE (out of thousands, or even in a larger ratio) dubious obscure “story” [true or false] of a person, that may, or may not be connected to a “jewish” origin, Well, that’s what hate is for.



2) INFERIOR ARAB RACE & NAZIS
The amazing thing is how such low life losers-Muslims are involeved in the “white nazi oroginated” supremacy sites, as we all know how Hitler has regarded the Arabs as a inferior race almost as LOW as the Jews, he saw them as half apes… he only managed to use the Arab Muslim nazi Mufti in his war against the Jews, but he would have burned them all in the oven, after that… of course.



3) NON-JEWISH COMMUNISTS & WHITE CHRISTIAN JOSEPH STALIN
Most of the communist were non Jews, but why not blame anything you can think of on the MINORITY Jews? While the awful truth is, the butcher of those so many Christians, Joseph Stalin was rather a white Christian who studied to be a PRIEST, he especially persecuted the Jews, very much so.



4) FAKE QUOTES
They also like to repeatedly quote the FAKE (or out-of-context) “quotes” of the Talmud (already exposed many times over), when they will NEVER quote the real peaceful humanitarian quotes of the Talmud.
Nevermind that most Israelis are secular, so is the army and most don’t even know what the Talmud says.



5) ARAB CONTROL ON MEDIA & ON U.N.
…Not only are the majority of Jews in the media anti-Israel critics… (remind me again on who’s side are CNN journalists or a tycoon like Joe Soros?) but the owners of mainstream media is controlled by such Arab Muslim billionaires as Saudi Bin Talal, checkout how much he owns of the elephant CNN or evn of Foxnews…

That’s besides the very “original” pure own Arab media flooding the west like Al Jazeera…

Or BBC? They have admitted openly (a few years back) of being anti-Israel biased, so much for “control in the media.”

The case of total ARAB MUSLIM CONTROL in amnesty and in the UN (aided in part by the international Arab oil lobby power), is far worse, which “exlains” the obssessive senseless almost boring “condemnations.”

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

‘Islamic bigotry, not Palestinian statehood, fuels Jihad’- whistleblower Dr. Tawfik Hamid

March 27, 2010

‘Islamic bigotry, not Palestinian statehood, fuels Jihad’- whistleblower Dr. Tawfik Hamid: If it was about the “conflict”… what about the Christian Arab Palestinians? why don’t they do suicide bombing?, it’s not about the Israeli-Arab conflict but about teaching hatred of the Jews and Israel, driven by Saudi radical-Islamic system through their oil power, eventhough the Koran teaches a lot of praise for the Jewish people – Bani Israel… but through different interpretations the main line is against Jews…

‘Islamic bigotry, not Palestinian statehood, fuels Jihad’- whistleblower Dr. Tawfik Hamid

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-D_X_nd9QRQ

YouTube – Dr. Tawfik Hamid – “The Roots of Jihad” … Jihad is fueled by Islamism, not Palestine…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fj2Ag5PiaWg

YouTube – Dr. Tawfik Hamid – “The Roots of Jihad” 5/6They threatened his life, forcing him and his family to flee Egypt, and then Saudi Arabia. As Dr. Hamid says “The powers of darkness … Jihad is fueled by Islamism, not Palestine- Dr. Tawfik Hamid …. reform islam 00:45 speak the truth 01:15 it’s not all about israel-arab conflict 03:15 ie Christian Palestinians …

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aPetV-3auo

American Thinker: A Conversation with Dr. Tawfik Hamid Feb 15, 2008 … Dr. Tawfik Hamid, 47, was born in Egypt into a secular Muslim family. … al-Islam (the domain of Islam), and the refusal of Palestinians and Saudis in … certainly assist in making a change in the Arab perception of Israel. … some verses could obviously create hatred towards Jews and Christians. …

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/a_conversation_with_dr_tawfik.html

The Roots of Jihad, Although Dr. Tawfik Hamid, the author of The Roots of Jihad, won’t allow his face to be photographed and refuses to divulge where he lives, …

http://www.aish.com/jw/me/48925132.html

Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: Inside Jihad: Understanding and …Inside Jihad by Dr. Tawfik Hamid is a book that must be read in order to truly understand radical … This book brilliantly explains Jihad. A doctrine that aims for Islam to dominate America and … Dr Hamid spent much of his life in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. …

http://www.amazon.com/Inside-Jihad-Understanding-Confronting-Radical/product-reviews/0981547109

News | Dr. Tawfik Hamid- Speaker, Author & Muslim ReformerJul 9, 2009 … Christians, Buddhists, and Hindus live under the same … For centenaries reformation within Islam has been impeded by several factors. …. In this lecture, Dr. Tawfik Hamid will discuss: The need for a …. Question #1: President Obama bowed to king Abdulla of Saudi Arabia as a sign of respect. …

http://www.tawfikhamid.com/news/

Jihad Watch: Dr. Tawfik Hamid nearly boarded a plane decades ago on an … the spread of this virulent form of Islam to the rise of Saudi Arabia as an …

http://www.jihadwatch.org/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/br0nc0s/managed-mt/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=1&search=Dr.%20Tawfik%20Hamid