Please Be Nice to Prince Turki al-Feisal (www.saudiembassy.net)

The National Press Club in Washington, D.C. has suspended Sam Husseini for asking some tough questions of a Saudi Prince.

Husseini tells his story here.

The two-week suspension comes after Husseini challenged Prince Turki al-Faisal al-Sa’ud of Saudi Arabia about the legitimacy of his regime. Husseini may have been a bit rough around the edges in his challenge of Prince Turki al-Faisal, but the prince does represent one of the most autocratic regimes in the world.

Husseini asked questions that reporters in Saudi Arabia dare not ask. He asked about the treatment of women, the torture of dissidents, the Saudi regime’s role in suppressing the uprising in Bahrain, and its effort to stop the uprising in Egypt. (By the way, numerous reports indicate Saudi Arabia is supporting Islamists in their bid for power in Egypt.)

Husseini asked questions Faisal would never hear back home. Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah recently imposed a law under which “authorities can also ban a writer for life from contributing to any media organisation” that reports “anything that contradicts the strict Islamic Sharia law or serves ‘foreign interests and undermines national security.'”

Isn’t a good thing to challenge a prince that represents such a regime?

Snapshots readers can learn more about Husseini’s suspension here and watch the video on Youtube below the jump. It’s worth watching.

The prince’s response to Husseini’s is somewhat evasive. The prince says Saudi Arabia is a legitimate country.

Fine. But Husseini asked about the legitimacy of the regime Faisal represents, not of Saudi Arabia as a country.

To be fair, Faisal did address the issue of women’s rights in a pretty direct manner. People may not like the answer he gave, but he did answer the question. Faisal did not respond to Husseini’s challenge about the torture of dissidents in Saudi Arabia, nor did he respond to Husseini’s challenges about its policies in Bahrain and Egypt.

Another part of Faisal’s response — that Saudi Arabia provides a lot of aid to international agencies, is very interesting and worth following up on. In his blog entry about his suspension, Husseini writes:

I think his [Faisal’s] response opens the door to a lot more serious reporting. For example, Turki’s response that Saudi Arabia gets legitimacy because of its aid programs is an interesting notion. Is he arguing that by giving aid to other countries and to international organizations that the Saudi regime has somehow purchased legitimacy, and perhaps immunity from criticism, that it would otherwise not have received? This is worth journalists and independent organizations pursuing.

Just not in Saudi Arabia. And apparently not in the National Press Club.

Again, you can watch the video below the jump.
(more…)

Image from a BBC segment on the abuse of migrants in Egypt, in which the journalist notes: “Those who do make it to Israel are safe. But it’s here, in this Tel Aviv clinic, that the true horror of their journeys begins to emerge.”

Let’s assume CNN’s report on the enslavement and torture of Africans migrants in Egypt contributed to what’s being described as a mass release of the captives.

It begs the question: Had NPR, which has devoted so many words to portraying Israel as an unwelcoming destination for refugees while glossing over their abuse at the hands of Egyptians, paid attention to the real story, how many acts of torture, rape and murder might have been prevented?

We’ll never know. And if for no other reason than that, NPR owes apologies to the weak and oppressed migrants for abdicating its responsibility to them.

In two recent blog posts, Ha’aretz‘s Bradley Burston claims that the majority of Israelis oppose Israel’s ongoing presence over the Green Line. In shorthand, Burston referred on Friday (“Iran Wins“) to “the pro-occupation minority.”

Similarly, this week, he writes (“Come Visit Israel. Before it’s Gone“):

I want my nephew to know that most Israelis believe that settlements do little other than ruin their lives, stain their country, and block the way to peace.

Granted Israelis have never been polled about their views on settlements using the terminology that Burston provides, that they “ruin their lives, stain their country, and block the way to peace.” And the language and framing of a poll question can have a significant impact on the answers. Nevertheless, an in-depth study about Israeli public opinion on territorial withdrawals and the settlements by Tel Aviv University’s Institute for National Security Studies does not support Burston’s assertions.

For instance, the study found that in 2009, only 13 percent of Israelis supported “major territorial concessions.” Another 13 percent supported “unilateral disengagement with fewer territorial concessions.” On the other hand, 29 supported a “partial agreement with fewer territorial concessions,” while 45 percent supported “neither,” meaning they opposed any territorial concessions.

In addition, when asked in 2009 “whether in the context of a permanent settlement that would terminate the conflict, Israel should be ready to return any of a list of specific areas, or continue to retain them even at the cost
of avoiding a permanent settlement,” only 46 percent supported the relinquishing of isolated settlements on the mountain ridge of east Samaria, 40.9 percent favored withdrawing from Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem, 26.1 percent support withdrawal from western Samaria, 28.8 support withdrawal from Hebron, and the numbers are even less for the Jordan Valley (13.9 percent), the Temple Mount without the Western Wall (17.5 percent), and Gush Etzion (14.8 percent).
(more…)

The Christian Science Monitor published an article, “Israeli-Palestinian jolt: Why some want to dismantle PA,” that describes a potential new direction for the Palestinian Authority [PA] now that its bid for recognition has been denied by the UN Security Council. According to the article, the PA may disband in order to compel Israel to re-assume responsibility for governing the territory.

In the discussion of the PA’s dire financial situation, readers are alerted to an often overlooked fact: the PA depends on Israeli and U.S. funding to continue functioning. Despite all the lip service given to the Palestinian cause by other Arab and Muslim states and Europe, most Palestinian external commerce is conducted with Israel. The World Bank put the figure at over 90 percent of all Palestinian foreign trade. Very limited trade occurs with the rest of the Arab world and the other Arab states are notorious for not fulfilling their aid promises to the Palestinians.

From Elder of Ziyon:

In the middle of an otherwise fairly straightforward news article about Israel releasing female prisoners, Ha’aretz illustrates the story – and captions the photo – this way:

How objective Ha’aretz is!

UPDATE: The inevitable, silent correction:

Another mainstream media outlet cites radical anti-Israel activist and blogger Richard Silverstein as a source for secret information about Israel. First it was the New York Times. Today it’s Ynet, which reports:

US blogger Richard Silverstein said Saturday that Israel was the mastermind behind the blast the killed at least 17 people at an Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps base near Tehran.

In his blog, Tikun Olam, Silverstein quotes an Israeli expert as saying that the Mossad was responsible for the explosion, in collaboration with the Iranian militant opposition group Mojahedin-e-Khalq.

Of course, there is the possibility that Israel is behind the Iranian explosion. But why would a news outlet quote an extremist blogger, with a troubled record on the facts, who cites an undisclosed source? What is the news value in that? Ynet does not even bother to identify Silverstein for the anti-Israel radical that he is.

Ynet reports that “Silverstein noted that his source ‘has never been wrong so far in the reports he’s offered.'” So if an extremist blogger, who comes to the defense of Hamas and has a credibility problem of his own, vouches for the credibility of his unnamed source, we’re supposed to be impressed?

A recent piece in the Guardian about “averting accusations of antisemitism,” published shortly after Deborah Orr’s rant about the “chosen” people, is an interesting read.

In the column, Readers’ Editor Chris Elliott calls for Guardian journalists to take more care to avoid “inadvertent” antisemitism. Regardless of whether one finds his concern to be convincing or promising, he makes one statement at the close of the article that should be heeded by journalists everywhere:

“[R]eporters, writers and editors must be more vigilant to ensure our voice in the debate is not diminished because our reputation has been tarnished.”

The Arab attempt to erase the Jewish connection to the land of Israel is ongoing. Whether claiming that Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem is actually a mosque, or denying the existence of the Jewish Temple while destroying its remnants on the Temple Mount, these tactics reflect an ongoing attempt to rewrite Jewish history and distance the Jews from their Jewish homeland.

In a recent rendition of this tactic, as depicted in a new video which aired on PA TV November 6, 2011, the Jews of Jerusalem are cast as “foreign impurity.”

The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD), whose director, Jeff Halper, calls for a one-state solution (read: the eradication of the Jewish state) and supports BDS and the Free Gaza movement, got a nice, albeit unwarranted, PR boost from Reuters and AFP. In particular, in an article about last week’s release of a new ICAHD report, Reuters promoted the fringe group to “a prominent Israeli non-governmental organization.”

ICAHD, which in the past has repeatedly disseminated wildly inaccurate misinformation, continues to do so with the release of its new report.

As AFP reports:

The group’s report “No Home, No Homeland” accuses Israel of making it almost impossible for Palestinians to obtain building permits, with the Jerusalem city council granting just 18 for a population of 300,000 last year.

While the AFP did turn to Jerusalem municipality Stephan Miller for a response, the reporter failed to relay any of the specific rebuttal that Miller provided. Instead, the article includes a more general response, stating:

Miller rebuffed the allegations, saying the report contained “misleading facts, blatant lies and political spin about Jerusalem and lacks any connection to reality.”

(more…)

Gideon Levy’s shaky grip on the facts is well documented, and today’s column in Ha’aretz brings another example. He writes:

Neither is there logic in Israel’s Hamas-strengthening moves, from the continued siege of Gaza to the release only of Hamas prisoners. (Emphasis added.)

Presumably he is referring to the Shalit deal, in which mostly — but not exclusively — Hamas prisoners were released. Among the released Fatah prisoners are Ayman al-Far, Iyad Abiyat, and Chris al-Bandak. Ismail Musa Bahit represents the Popular Resistance Committee. From Palestinian Islamic Jihad are Abdel Hadi Ghanem and Tarek Hassin, among others.

Gideon Levy is free to dispute the logic of this or that aspect of the prisoner change; he is not free to invent his own facts to do so.