On issues of concern to the American Muslim public, CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations), is often the first to be quoted by the media. An investigative report by the Washington Times, however, reveals that CAIR, with its extremist ties, actually speaks for a small -- and decreasing --number of American Muslims:

Membership in the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has declined more than 90 percent since the 2001 terrorist attacks, according to tax documents obtained by The Washington Times.

The number of reported members spiraled down from more than 29,000 in 2000 to fewer than 1,700 in 2006. As a result, the Muslim rights group's annual income from dues dropped from $732,765 in 2000, when yearly dues cost $25, to $58,750 last year, when the group charged $35.

The organization instead is relying on about two dozen donors a year to contribute the majority of the money for CAIR's budget, which reached nearly $3 million last year. . .

Critics of the organization say they are not surprised that membership is sagging, and that a recent decision by the Justice Department to name CAIR as "unindicted co-conspirators" in a federal case against another foundation charged with providing funds to a terrorist group could discourage new members.

M. Zuhdi Jasser, director of American Islamic Forum for Democracy, says the sharp decline in membership calls into question whether the organization speaks for American Muslims, as the group has claimed.

"This is the untold story in the myth that CAIR represents the American Muslim population. They only represent their membership and donors," Mr. Jasser said.

"Post-9/11, they have marginalized themselves by their tired exploitation of media attention for victimization issues at the expense of representing the priorities of the American Muslim population," Mr. Jasser said.

Posted by TS at 03:29 AM |  Comments (2)

HRW: Palestinians Endanger Journalists

Human Rights Watch's report on the internal Gaza Strip fighting among Palestinians, condemns "serious violations of international humanitarian law, in some cases amounting to war crimes," including the exploitation of journalists' protected status:

In the June 9 incident, four armed Palestinians drove a white jeep bearing “TV� insignias to a fence on the Gaza-Israel border and fired at Israeli soldiers. The Israelis returned fire, killing one Palestinian. Spokesmen for Islamic Jihad and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, an offshoot of Fatah, claimed responsibility for the attack. An Islamic Jihad spokesperson denied that Palestinians had put press markings on the jeep used in the June 9 attack, and accused the Israeli military of doing so after the fact. However, photos taken by the Associated Press as the attack was under way show the letters “TV� written in red on the front of the jeep.

“Using a vehicle with press markings to carry out a military attack is a serious violation of the laws of war, and it also puts journalists at risk,� said Whitson.

Customary international humanitarian law provides that journalists not taking direct part in hostilities in armed conflict zones “shall be considered as civilians.� The deliberate abuse of this protected status in order to breach the confidence of an adversary in an attempt to kill, injure or capture them, would amount to an act of perfidy, a serious violation of international humanitarian law.

Posted by TS at 03:00 AM |  Comments (0)

Al Hurra Free of Register

In the wake of last week's Congressional panel in which additional funding to the U.S. funded Arabic network was rejected because it became a platform for Islamist terrorists and Holocaust deniers, news director Larry Register resigned. Joel Mowbray updates in Powerline blog:

In the long, sordid saga of the Larry Register era at Al Hurra, which ended Friday with the news director's "resignation," what was most troubling was not all that he had done, but rather what finally did him in.

Register's masters at the State Department and the network's oversight panel, the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), demonstrated remarkable tolerance for his misdeeds.

Ordering an interview with an alleged al Qaeda operative who expressed joy that 9/11 "rubbed America's nose in the dust"? No problem. Airing live speeches from the leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah? Not an issue. Providing fawning coverage of Ahmadinejad's Holocaust denial conference? Forgivable. Insisting that Al-Hurra refer to the creation of Israel in 1948 as "the castatrophe"? Mistakes happen.

So what was it that finally caused State and the BBG to rescind its previously unwavering support of Register? It was the great green motivator: money.

A key Congressional panel last Tuesday sent an unmistakable signal that lawmakers weren't as enamored of Register as State and the BBG, zeroing out an expected $14 million increase in Al Hurra's funding for fiscal year 2008.

That sealed Register's fate.

With Register out of the way, things are looking up for Al Hurra:

But here's the good news: The Al Hurra story could yet have a happy ending. New BBG chairman James K. Glassman was sworn in last week, and his tenure could see better behavior from the board. He has not made any public comments, but Glassman is a media veteran, and he's compiled a largely successful track record.

Most encouraging, though, is that the named replacement for Register's now-vacated post of Al Hurra news director is Danny Nassif. He won't require much of a learning curve, as Nassif already runs sister network Radio Sawa. And when the former news director, Mouafac Harb, was traveling -- which was often -- Nassif ran the show in his absence.

Though Nassif has never run a TV news operation on more than a temporary basis, a quick review of his professional writings from before starting at Radio Sawa indicates that he will take a firm stand against terrorists and Islamic extremists.

And as the BBG was quick to note in announcing his appointment, Nassif is a "native Arabic speaker," which compares favorably to Register, who didn't speak Arabic at all.

Under the new leadership of Glassman, let's hope that Nassif gets as much support from the BBG when he attempts re-build Al Hurra as Register did while almost destroying it.

Posted by TS at 02:21 AM |  Comments (0)

June 12, 2007

At Least He Recycles

Jimmy Carter's Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid has a number of factual errors and distortions that in a normal world would disqualify it as a work of non-fiction. (Apparently, the firewall between fact and fiction is a bit porous at Simon and Schuster.)

Nevertheless, Carter’s book does have one redeeming value -- it demonstrates the former president's commitment to recycling. Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid is filled with a number of passages should be somewhat familiar to readers of The Blood of Abraham, also authored by Carter and published by the University of Arkansas Press in 1985.

For example, on page 22 of Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, Pres. Carter writes about how he and his wife Rosalyn prepared for their 1973 trip to Israel.

In preparing for this trip, we pored over maps and reviewed both the ancient and modern history of Israel. Our choice of how to spend the ten-day visit was a series of compromises because I was torn between the pleasure of visiting the Christian holy places I had always longed to see and the knowledge that I should concentrate on preparing for another political career. With only a handful of my closest friends knowing my dreams, I was seriously planning a future role as president.

This passage is quite similar to one that appears in The Blood of Abraham on page 21.

In preparing for this trip, Rosalyn and I had pored over maps and reviewed both the ancient and modern history of Israel. I was torn between the pleasure of visiting the Christian holy places I had longed to see as a child and the knowledge that I should be preparing for a future career. (At the time, my plans were known to only a small group of people and would not be revealed for another 18 months, when I announced my candidacy for President of the United States.) So our choice of how to spend the precious days in Israel was a series of compromises.

Carter also recycles his description of poor attendance at religious services at a kibbutz in Galilee. In Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid¸ Carter writes:

The next morning was the Sabbath, and at the appointed time we entered the synagogue, said a silent prayer, and then stood quietly just inside the door. Only two other worshipers appear. When I asked if this was typical, Giora [Carter’s guide] gave a wry smile and shrugged his shoulders as if this was not important either way.

In The Blood of Abraham, Carter writes:

It was the Sabbath, and we asked if we could attend the worship service. At the appointed time we entered the synagogue and stood quietly just inside the door. There were only two other worshipers. When I asked if this was typical, our guide gave a wry smile and shrugged his shoulders as if it was not important either way.

Admittedly, if there were substantial differences between the two versions of the same events, it would undermine confidence in Pres. Carter’s ability to recount important facts about the Arab-Israeli conflict. But it is interesting to note the minor changes Carter introduces in his “new� book.

In his 1985 description of standing in the synagogue, he says he “stood quietly inside the door.� In his more recent description, he writes that he “said a silent prayer.� Given the subjective experience of prayer, we’ll have to take Carter’s word for it, but it seems that as time passes, the former president seems intent on burnishing his reputation as a devout Christian.

Carter also recycles his description of a conversation with Prime Minister Golda Meir, during which he raises concerns about the lack of religious fervor in modern Israel. In The Blood of Abraham, the former president writes:

She was not pressed with state business that morning so we stayed for an extended talk. When she asked if we had any concerns, I replied that there was one of a religious nature that I hesitated to mention. I knew that she had been born in Russia and that neither she nor the key members of her cabinet were known to be devout Jews. With a smile she encouraged me to go on, and I told her about the sabbath (sic) service at Ayelet Hashahar and a general absence of religious interest among the Israelis. I commented that during biblical times, the Israelites triumphed when they were closed to God and were defeated when unfaithful. She laughed aloud and agreed with me, but added that this was not a matter of concern to her because there were certainly enough “orthodox� Jews around. She was referring to the religious Jews in the Israeli parliament, who were sometimes a real thorn in her side. She added, “If you attend a session of the Knesset, you will see them in action and will know that they have not lost their faith.� With Israel’s system of elections, which necessitates a coalition of parties to form a ruling majority, the minority religious parties had an influence far exceeding their numerical strength.

Neither Mrs. Meir nor I realized it then, but a member of one of the larger minority parties was destined to play a major role in her country’s history, and much of his political strength would come from his deep fundamentalist convictions, based on a rigid interpretation of scriptures.

Carter describes the same episode in Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid as follows:

With some hesitation, I said that I had long taught lessons from the Hebrew Scriptures and that a common historical pattern was that Israel was punished whenever the leaders turned away from devout worship of God. I asked if she was concerned about the secular nature of her Labor government. She seemed surprised at my temerity and dismissed my comments with a shrug and a laugh. She lit one cigarette from another and then said that “orthodox� Jews still existed and could assume that portion of the nation’s responsibility. She was referring to the religious Jews in the Israeli parliament, who were sometimes a real thorn in her side. She added, “If you attend a session of the Knesset, you will see them in action and will know that they have not lost their faith. With Israel’s system of elections, which necessitates a collation of parties to form a ruling majority, the minority religious organizations had an influence far exceeding their numerical strength.

Neither Mrs. Meir nor I realized it then, but Menachem Begin, the leader of the Herut Party with only 22 percent of the Knesset seats, would be prime minister of Israel within four years…

While Carter does add some interesting details to his description of his conversation with Prime Minister Golda Meir, there are two constants – his willingness, as a Christian, to judge Israel, the Jewish homeland, and its leaders against a metric of religious fervor, and a contradictory disdain for the influence of religious Jews in the Knesset.

Carter also recounts for a second time his participation in a military graduation ceremony at Bethel. While he does not offer a word-for-word recitation of the ceremony in Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, it’s pretty similar – with one added detail: In Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, Carter reveals that his handing out Hebrew Bibles to the graduates was “one of the few indication of a religious commitment that I observed during our visit.� Clearly, Carter has a problem with Israel’s irreligious nature and that it has only gotten worse as time passes.

Careful readers will note that in his description of his 1973 trip to Israel, Carter adds another wrinkle to his narrative in Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid when he talks about meeting with Samaritans who “complained to us that there holy sites and culture were not being respected by Israeli authorities—the same complaint heard by Jesus and his disciples almost two thousand years earlier.�

That Carter has recycled passages from his own book isn't that surprising. For example, Psalm 18 appears in its entirety toward the end of II Samuel. The interesting thing about Carter’s recycled passages (and the added detail for which he wracked his memory) is that they all suggest that for Carter, there is a direct line between ancient Israelites, those parochial and stiff-necked people who rejected Christ and harassed the Samaritans, and modern-day Israelis, who won't listen to his advice about how to make peace with the Palestinians.

For Pres. Carter, some tropes are just too good to discard.

Posted by CameraBlog at 04:17 PM |  Comments (0)

Financial Times Fears Israel Boycott Might Help Netanyahu

The Financial Times of London has come out in opposition to the British University and College Union (UCU) resolution promoting a boycott of Israel, but in large part out of a concern that the boycott might work to Israel's advantage.

The Financial Times offers “five solid reasons� in its editorial, “Boycotting Israel� published on May 31 for opposing the boycott resolution passed on May 30 . Three of the five reasons are tactical considerations that reflect a fear that the boycott might backfire.

To ensure that no one would accuse the Financial Times of being overly sympathetic to the Jewish state, the second sentence of the editorial clarifies where the paper stands:

“No reader of these columns would be in any doubt about the Financial Times’ view of the occupation and the continuing and expanding colonisation of Palestinian land; illegal, immoral, self-defeating for Israel and incendiary for the Middle East.�

Having firmly established its bonafides as a critic of Israel, the Financial Times offers its reasons for opposing the boycott:

1. Israel’s academics are the source of much of the criticism of Israeli policy.

Boycotting them is counterproductive in their view.

2. The boycott is ill-timed. The initiative will interfere with burgeoning efforts to challenge what the editorial describes as the “bullying� Jewish lobby’s control over American policy.

The editors attribute American support of Israel to a nefarious Jewish lobby rather than acknowledge the strong support of the American public for Israel that is reflected in poll after poll. For example, a recent poll found Israel is favored over the Palestinians by a lopsided ratio of 10 : 1 and that Americans oppose Israel ceding land to the Palestinians by a ratio of 5 :1 (McLaughlin and Associates, March 25, 2007).

3. The boycott may backfire by handing a “political gift� to Israel’s “irredentist right� who will be able to pin the charge of anti-Semitism on the boycotters.

If boycott supporter Pamela Hardyment's reported comments on a Jewish community Web site in the UK are any indication of the sentiments of those promoting boycotts, the charge of anti-Semitism may be warranted.

The editorial expresses the concern that the ideological successor (in their view) of Ze'ev Jabotinsky, “modern paladin� Benjamin Netanyahu, stands to gain. The mention of Jabotinsky and the Revisionist Zionists in the final paragraph is most telling of the viewpoint prevailing at the Financial Times. Jabotinsky was the bitterest opponent of English policy in Mandatory Palestine - a policy which opposed the emergence of a Jewish state in the 1930s and 1940s by restricting Jewish immigration and using its military might to seal off the escape routs for desperate Jews facing extermination during World War II.

The editorial also opposes the boycott on the grounds of academic freedom and because of the obvious double standard involved in singling out Israel for approbation. Noticeably absent, however, from the list of reasons to oppose the boycott is any mention of Israel’s status as an embattled democracy that fosters free speech and free thought in a region of the world where such freedom is rare.

Posted by SS at 04:04 PM |  Comments (0)

June 11, 2007

Howard Jacobson on Boycotts and Six-Day War Revisionism

In today's Independent, author and columnist Howard Jacobson comments on the link between Six-Day War revisionism and the British movement to boycott Israel.

Some of his pithy observations:

• "... it is a false syllogism which goes Criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic; I am a critic of Israel; therefore I am not an anti-Semite."

• "It is, anyway, a red herring. ... You don't have to be an anti-Semite to be a blackguard. And you certainly don't have to be an anti-Semite to be a fool. Boycotters assure us of their innocence of anti-Semitism as though that settles once and for all the question of their intellectual and moral rectitude."

• "A person cleared of anti-Semitism might still be guilty of something else. If anti-Semitism is repugnant to humanity, then it is no less repugnant to humanity to single out one country for your hatred, to hate it beyond reason and against evidence, to pluck it from the complex contextuality of history as though it authored its own misfortunes and misdeeds as the devil authored evil, to deny it any understanding (which is not the same as sympathy or succour), and — most odious of all — to seek to silence its voices."

• "... if the war changed us, we have, in our turn, changed the war. Compare what was said about it at the time with what is said about it now and it is hard to believe it is the same event."

• "... to understand the motives of a suicide bomber and not the motives of those who seek to keep him out is to understand nothing."

• "the assumption on which the entire boycott is based ... is breathtaking. An Israeli scholar dare not be in even the most partial agreement with his government. For an Israeli academic not to think exactly as they think on the campuses of Birmingham and Brighton is to be guilty of a crime for which the punishment is expulsion from the international community of thought."

Read the whole piece here.

Posted by at 11:37 AM |  Comments (1)

June 10, 2007

Hamas Man: The Barrier Works

Like a Palestinian Islamic Jihad counterpart before him, Hamas' Moussa Abu Marzouq, deputy chairman of the political bureau, admits that the West Bank security barrier is effective in preventing Palestinian attacks on Israelis. Responding to a question at an Egyptian meeting June 1, Marzouq noted that the number of attacks are down because “[carrying out] such attacks is made difficult by the security fence and the gates surrounding West Bank residents."

Posted by TS at 06:31 AM |  Comments (0)

English Israeli Radio Gets the Axe

Listeners of Israel Broadcasting Authority's English-language tv and radio news reacted with "protest, outrage and disbelief" that that the English program will be cut along with other foreign language broadcasts (excluding Arabic ones). The Jerusalem Post reports:

The planned closure "comes only a few months after Al-Jazeera's 24/7 English programming became available for free through its Internet site," noted another Post protester. "Without an English IBA broadcast, pro-Arab images and spin will monopolize the projection of local Mideast news into English-speaking countries. Israel cannot afford any more stupid PR moves like this."

"What is the government of Israel thinking?" asked one correspondent from the US. "I listen to IBA on the Internet every single day. It's the only way I get the real news from Israel. Not only that, the syndicated Middle East English broadcast Mosaic, on Link TV, features news from several Arab countries and broadcasts from Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya. If IBA were not on with those broadcasts, only the Arab view would be presented."

A reader in South Africa echoed the theme: "The move to cancel this station would only be seriously detrimental to those that are trying to fight Israel's case abroad," she wrote.

"It would be madness to abandon English broadcasts," wrote one correspondent from the UK, citing a perceived anti-Israel bias of the BBC "influencing a whole UK generation... But then madness seems to be a common malady in today's Israel."

"Instead of shutting down we should be expanding this incredible resource," concluded an Israeli writer. "If there are major problems, repair them. This is our face to the world." . . .

Posted by TS at 04:21 AM |  Comments (0)

Not One Dime for Al-Hurra

Investigative reporter Joel Mowbray has relentlessly exposed how Larry Register's mismanagement of Al-Hurra has turned the U.S. funded Arab language network into yet another platform for anti-American, anti-Jewish, anti-Israel invective. Writing in Powerline blog June 6, Mowbray reports on the June 5 congressional hearing:

Dealing a sharp blow to embattled Al Hurra news director Larry Register, a powerful Congressional panel yesterday expressed its dissatisfaction with the "new" Al Hurra in the strongest possible terms: It withheld millions in funding.

Al Hurra had asked for -- with the strong support of Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy Karen Hughes -- an additional $11.1 million in funding over fiscal year 2007 levels for new programming. The network didn't get one dime of it.
By the time the appropriations process winds its way through Congress, the requested funding could be restored -- but that most likely could happen only if Register is fired.

And if the stars align, Register could be gone within a week.

As recently as late last week, officials at Al Hurra and at the network's oversight panel, the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), were expressing confidence internally that they were going to receive a double-digit percentage increase in funding over the current fiscal year. Word around the BBG and Al-Hurra was that Foreign Operations Appropriations Chairwoman Nita Lowey (D-NY) was in their camp.

Turns out she wasn't.

Though it didn't mention him by name, the Lowey-led subcommittee explained that Register's determination to turn Al Hurra into a platform for Islamic terrorists and Holocaust deniers was the reason the network's funding was being frozen:

"The Committee is deeply troubled by several programming decisions at Alhurra television during the period [of] Novemeber 2006 through March 2007. On more than one occasion, the network aired live, and without opposing comment, statements by Hezbollah and Hamas leaders that were hateful, anti-American, and anti-Israel. The Network's coverage of the Holocaust Denial Conference also evidenced a lack of journalistic judgment and sensitivity. While just a portion of the overall broadcast program, these incidents call into question the management and overall journalistic philosophy of the Network's leadership."

And there was even more good news. Rep. Lowey's subcommittee also "requested" substantive actions to fix Al Hurra and restore public confidence through dramatically increased transparency. . .

Posted by TS at 03:35 AM |  Comments (0)

June 09, 2007

DePaul Statement on Finkelstein Tenure Decision

DePaul University Statement on the Tenure and Promotion Decision Concerning Professor Norman Finkelstein

06.08.2007

DePaul University confirms that it informed Professor Norman Finkelstein today that Rev. Dennis Holtschneider, C.M., DePaul president, upheld a recommendation by the University Board on Promotion and Tenure (UBPT) - the final stage in the faculty review process - to deny his application for tenure and promotion.

Granting tenure equates to a guarantee of lifetime employment, and the same standards are applied to all faculty members under consideration. In every case, the final decision is one of balancing the various arguments for and against tenure. The tenure process, which is detailed in DePaul's Faculty Handbook, involves a rigorous review of each applicant's scholarship, service and teaching, with the recommendations at each level forwarded up to the next level for consideration. It is an evaluation of faculty by faculty.

In Professor Finkelstein's case, a faculty committee of the Department of Political Science voted in favor of tenure, submitting statements for the majority and minority, with a response from the majority. The Personnel Committee for the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences then voted to support tenure and promotion, with reservations that it asked the college dean to note in his report. Subsequently, the college's dean issued a written opinion against tenure and the UBPT voted against tenure. The UBPT report and materials from the lower committees were forwarded to the president for review. As in all cases of tenure, the final decision was made by the president.

Fr. Holtschneider said, "According to DePaul's Faculty Handbook, the president can overturn the UBPT's recommendation in rare circumstances and for compelling reasons. I find no compelling reasons here to overturn the UBPT's decision."

Fr. Holtschneider continued, "Over the past several months, there has been considerable outside interest and public debate concerning this decision. This attention was unwelcome and inappropriate and had no impact on either the process or the outcome of this case."

He added, "Some will consider this decision in the context of academic freedom. In fact, academic freedom is alive and well at DePaul. It is guaranteed both as an integral part of the University's scholarly and religious heritage, and as an essential condition of effective inquiry and instruction. On a daily basis, DePaul faculty and students explore the most important ideas of our time, including difficult and contentious issues, and they do so in ways that adhere to professional standards of academia and respect the dignity and worth of each individual."

Posted by at 07:30 PM |  Comments (9)

Finkelstein Denied Tenure

The Chicago Sun-Times and the Chronicle of Higher Education are reporting that DePaul has denied tenure to Norman Finkelstein, the controversial assistant professor of political science known for his demagogic attacks on the Jewish establishment and Israel and conspiracy theories about what he calls the "Holocaust Industry."

The Yid with Lid blog has posted a news report on the subject from the Chronicle of Higher Education and some comments from Peter N. Kirstein, a tenacious Finkelstein supporter. Read them here.

See more on Finkelstein here.

Posted by at 05:09 PM |  Comments (11)

June 06, 2007

From War to Sexual Impotence, Israel Is to Blame

In AP's "Arabs blame problems on 1967 war defeat," Nadia Abou El-Magd does not even make a shorthand attempt to acknowledge Arab responsibility for the Six Day War. It's as if Egypt hadn't illegally closed the Straits of Tiran, had not called for Israel's destruction, hadn't ejected UN monitoring forces, and hadn't amassed troops at the Israeli border. Playing along with the "blame Israel" mentality, Israel's attack comes, apparently, out of the blue. El-Magd reports:

Forty years after Israel's stunning victory over three Arab armies, the defeat still lingers in the Arab world — so much so, some blame it for everything from a lack of democracy in the region to the rise of religious extremism. On June 5, 1967, Israeli warplanes destroyed 400 aircraft belonging to Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq — most of them sitting on airport tarmacs. Egypt lost the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza Strip, Syria gave up the Golan Heights, and Jordan relinquished the West Bank and east Jerusalem. . . .

Egyptian columnist Wael Abdel Fattah wrote in the independent weekly Al-Fagr newspaper that Arabs blame the defeat for "everything" — from "price hikes, dictatorship, religious extremism, sectarian strife, even sexual impotence."

If you buy that Israel for no reason whatsoever destroyed the Egyptian air fleet, it's not such a stretch to blame Israel for sexual impotence, too.

Posted by TS at 07:35 AM |  Comments (1)

The Ban on the PA in Jerusalem

When a Palestinian conference was banned from Jerusalem yesterday, who's to blame? The AP's Sarah El Deeb originally had it that oppressive Israeli policies are at fault:

The [Palestinian conference] was banned since it was backed by the Palestinian Authority, which Israeli law prohibits from operating in east Jerusalem, police spokesman Shmuel Ben-Ruby said.

CAMERA pointed out to the AP that bilateral peace accords prohibit Palestinian Authority activity in Jerusalem. The Declaration of Principles and the Interim Agreement stipulate that the Palestinian Council shall have no authority in Jerusalem during the interim period. Moreover, the Note for the Record attached to the Hebron Protocol restated that all Palestinian Council offices and activity remain in areas under Palestinian jurisdiction -- in other words, outside of Jerusalem.

The result? A (slightly) improved updated story:

The gathering was banned since it was backed by the Palestinian Authority, police spokesman Shmuel Ben-Ruby. The authority is barred from operating in east Jerusalem, which Israel annexed in 1967 soon after capturing it.

It seems that because the ban can't be blamed on Israeli law, there's no point mentioning the real reason. After all, why draw attention to the fact that Palestinians are violating the accords they signed?

Posted by TS at 04:13 AM |  Comments (0)

How Syria Deceives the Press on Fatah al-Islam

Fatah al-Islam, the terror group which has brought death and destruction to a Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon, has been making major headlines, not all of them based on sound information. "Most journalists identify this group with al-Qaida or are just plain confused as to its identity," notes Barry Rubin, who documents that the shadowy group is a surrogate of Syria:

In fact, what is happening is a major deception operation by Syria, a rather typical case of how radical forces in the region fool the West, score against their adversaries, and avoid any retaliation for their deeds. . .

Syrian officials have been briefing some Western journalists, who know no Arabic and have no serious background in studying the Middle East. They tell these people that Fatah al-Islam is a front for Lebanon's government and even the United States. There is no evidence that this is true. What is telling is that the articles published use precisely the same phrases employed by Syrian officials about 48 hours earlier.

Posted by TS at 03:48 AM |  Comments (0)

June 05, 2007

Six Day War Myth

In an interview with the Jerusalem Post, Six Day War historian Michael Oren tackles a central myth surrounding the the war:

In an interview on the eve of the 40th anniversary of the outbreak of war on June 5, 1967, Oren said his research of documents in Arab countries had revealed clearly that the Arabs had planned to destroy Israel.

Although this seems obvious to Israel sympathizers who hold to the traditional story of the Arabs' responsibility for the outbreak of war, the intervening decades have seen the promulgation of a myth that Israel was not really in danger.

"The biggest myth going is that somehow there was not a real and immediate Arab threat, that somehow Israel could have negotiated itself outside the crisis of 1967, and that it wasn't facing an existential threat, or facing any threat at all," said Oren, who is a senior fellow at the Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies at Jerusalem's Shalem Center and author of Six Days of War: June 1967. He noted that this was the premise of Tom Segev's book, 1967: Israel, the War and the Year That Transformed the Middle East. "What's remarkable is that all the people alleging this - not one of them is working from Arabic sources. It's quite extraordinary when you think about it. It's almost as if Israel were living in a universe by itself. It's a deeply solipsistic approach to Middle East history."

For more Six Day War myths, see here.

Posted by TS at 03:22 AM |  Comments (2)

June 04, 2007

Organization of UK Universities: "We Reject Outright" Boycott of Israel

Statement from The Russell Group on UCU motion on Israeli boycott:

30 May 2007

The Russell Group of the UK’s research-intensive universities today strongly condemned the motion passed by the University and College Union for branches to debate the Israeli boycott.

Professor Malcolm Grant, Chairman of the Russell Group and President and Provost of UCL, said:
"We reject outright the call for an academic boycott. It is a contradiction in terms and in direct conflict with the mission of a university. It betrays a misunderstanding of the academic mission which is founded squarely on freedom of inquiry and freedom of speech. Any institution worthy of the title of university has the responsibility to protect these values, and it is particularly disturbing to find an academic union attacking academic freedom in this way.

"The Russell Group universities will uphold academic freedom by standing firm against any boycott that threatens it."

Posted by at 11:53 AM |  Comments (0)

New York Times Criticizes UK Boycotts

The New York Times has added its voice to the list of critics slamming recent boycott decisions by British unions:

The University and College Union, a newly formed British union of college teachers, shamefully called last week for a boycott on contacts and exchanges with Israeli academic institutions. That follows on the shameful call in April by the National Union of Journalists in Britain to boycott Israeli goods.

The editorial seems to hint that the boycott organizers might even be motivated by anti-Semitism, stating that the "the lack of similar 'solidarity' by these unions with any other oppressed or suffering people in the world, and there are plenty, reduces these gestures to an exercise in hypocrisy, or worse."

Read the piece here.

Posted by at 11:07 AM |  Comments (0)

Baroness Blasts Boycott, BBC

In criticizing the UK's University and College Union for its boycott against Israel, Baroness Caroline Cox suggested that the "bias and partiality" of boycott proponents is in part fueled by the BBC and other British media's skewed reporting of the Middle East:

Cox conceded that years of asymmetric reporting on Israel have impacted the way the British public view the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, even as she noted a "growing malaise" about the BBC's anti-Israel reporting.

Read the Jerusalem Post article here.

Posted by at 11:06 AM |  Comments (0)

Moore Can You Imagine?

Loud would have been the denunciations of the extremist doctrines of Zionism which had given rise to this vile act. The world isolation of Israel, if it failed to get Mr Johnston freed, would have been complete.

If Mr Johnston had been forced to broadcast saying, for example, that Israel was entitled to all the territories held since the Six-Day War, and calling on the release of all Israeli soldiers held by Arab powers in return for his own release, his words would have been scorned. The cause of Israel in the world would have been irreparably damaged by thus torturing him on television. No one would have been shy of saying so.

But of course in real life it is Arabs holding Mr Johnston, and so everyone treads on tip-toe. Bridget Kendall of the BBC opined that Mr Johnston had been "asked" to say what he said in his video. Asked! If it were merely an "ask", why did he not say no?

Throughout Mr Johnston's captivity, the BBC has continually emphasised that he gave "a voice" to the Palestinian people, the implication being that he supported their cause, and should therefore be let out. One cannot imagine the equivalent being said if he had been held by Israelis.

Well, he is certainly giving a voice to the Palestinian people now. And the truth is that, although it is under horrible duress, what he says is not all that different from what the BBC says every day through the mouths of reporters who are not kidnapped and threatened, but are merely collecting their wages.

The language is more lurid in the Johnston video, but the narrative is essentially the same as we have heard over the years from Orla Guerin and Jeremy Bowen and virtually the whole pack of them. . .

Posted by TS at 07:52 AM |  Comments (0)

Balancing the Divide: LA Times' Jerusalem Feature

On the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the Six Day War and the reunification of Jerusalem, the Los Angeles Times' features an online multimedia three-part series on the holy city and its many divisions. By and large, it is balanced.

The first article "A Holy City Still Divided," contains several important facts about Jerusalem often neglected by the mainstream media. For instance:

Heavy immigration had made Jews a majority in the city decades [before 1948], and by 1948 they accounted for 60% of its population.

Frequently the media diminishes the importance of the Temple Mount in Judaism by wrongly stating the Western Wall is the holiest site in Judaism. LA Times reporters Ken Ellingwood and Richard Boudreaux get it right:

Once again [after the war Israelis] had access to the holiest Jewish site: the plateau that Jews revere as the Temple Mount, which abuts the Western Wall and lies atop the ruins of the ancient Jewish temples.

And, unlike the New York Times, the LA Times makes clear that Palestinians building in eastern Jerusalem is on a massive scale, both legal and illegal.

It also allows the Jerusalem mayor to comment on the issue of disparity in infrastructure between eastern and western parts of the city:

[Mayor Uri Lupolianski] said East Jerusalem lagged because it was not developed under Jordanian rule, then grew so fast that Israeli officials couldn't keep up.

"The problem between East and West is a give," Lupolianski said. "We have to remember that we did not invent this situation. In 1967, a large part of East Jerusalem didn't have infrastructure such as running water and electricity."

Again, unlike the New York Times, the LA Times states clearly that east Jerusalem Arabs are entitled to receive Israeli citizenship:

Israel offered citizenship to Palestinians in East Jerusalem after the war, but few accepted.

The video for part 2 is also balanced, spelling out the inconveniences and difficulties for Arabs in eastern Jerusalem and the surrounding area due to the construction of Israel's security barrier, as well as discussing the context of Palestinian terror attacks against Jerusalem citizens and pointing to the dramatic reduction in these attacks thanks to the barrier.

In an interesting bonus, the LA Times provides pdf's of the front pages of the June 5-11, 1967 editions.

But there the multi-part feature has problems, too.

Most glaringly, no mention is made about the city under Jordanian occupation from 1948 to 1967, when the longstanding Jewish population was entirely expelled and synagogues and tombs were systematically destroyed and desecrated.

Also, at least twice in the videos, the reporters allow false Arab claims to go unchallenged. First, in "One City, Two Worlds," Wadi Joz neighborhood activist Moaz Zatari parrots the false canard:

It's impossible to get permission and if you build without permission, they'll fine you 300,000, 400,000 shekels and they'll destroy it anyway.

Similarly, in the video "Building Divisions," an Arab resident justifies his community's hostile rejection of their isolated Jewish neighbors by asking rhetorically:

If I go and buy a house on the Israeli side you think they will let me live there?

The answer is yes, although Ellingwood and Boudreaux don't say so there. They do report, however, in the article for part 2 that:

Rents [in eastern Jerusalem] have shot up, prompting some families to move into predominantly Jewish neighborhoods.

The last section of the series will be published tomorrow. Stay tuned.

Posted by TS at 05:42 AM |  Comments (0)

June 03, 2007

Meet the New "Bad Guy"

Stop the Presses! Here's breaking news from the front-page of the print edition of the International Herald Tribune Thursday:

The radicalization of the Palestinians; Qaeda-inspired groups fill a 'vacuum'

Of course, the Palestinians were radicalized long before global jihadi groups came on the scene, as seen by international hijackings of civilian aircraft in the 1970s, not to mention suicide bombings against civilian targets in the 1990s.

The article's author, Steven Erlanger, puts a new spin on the "'Good Guy' Fatah vs. 'Bad Guy' Hamas" approach when he writes:

Hamas and the smaller group Islamic Jihad have long made attacks on Israel and its occupation of Palestinian lands their main focus. While this has led many, including the United States and the European Union, to call them terrorist groups, Hamas officials say their fight is with Israel's occupation, not with foreigners.

By contrast, attacks on Western targets, and on America in particular, for its presence in the Middle East, have been the main stamp of Al Qaeda and similar groups.

Thus, Hamas the Bad Guy is supplanted by Al Qaeda the Bad Guy. It is fair to note the distinction between Hamas and Al Qaeda-type groups -- that Hamas' jihad is primarily Israel-centered, while the latter has a more global approach. Both both use extremist understandings of Islam to justify the targeting of civilians.

To suggest that the Palestinians were not "radicalized" until the introduction of Al Qaeda-type groups is absurd. Erlanger does so by obscuring the fact that

1) what Hamas calls the "occupation of Palestinian lands" refers to Israel within any boundaries;

2) Hamas attacks target civilians.

Posted by TS at 02:21 AM |  Comments (2)