There is a growing protest movement among the indigenous peoples in Canada, including the so-called First Nations, the Arctic-dwelling Inuit, and a group called the Métis. They are demanding a greater share of natural-resource royalties and more input on environmental issues. The story has made it into the U.S. press with stories on NPR’s “All Things Considered” and in The Wall Street Journal, which wrote:

On a recent day, several members of the tribe gathered around a fire in a teepee to mark a hunger strike by the chief of another indigenous group. They pointed at the smoking chimneys of local refineries as a symbol of the land they believe Canada has taken from them and the economic benefits they say it has promised but not delivered.

Of course, the usual suspects have been quick to link the Canadian protests, known as Idle No More, to the Palestinian cause, Ha’aretz running an article under the headline “Lessons of a ‘Canadian intifada’”. The Electronic Intifada reported on a statement of solidarity signed by Palestinian activists:

As Palestinians, who struggle against settler colonialism, occupation and apartheid in our homeland and for the right of Palestinian refugees – the majority of our people – to return to our homeland, we stand in solidarity with the Idle No More movement of Indigenous peoples and its call for justice, dignity, decolonization and protection of the land, waters and resources.

We recognize the deep connections and similarities between the experiences of our peoples – settler colonialism, destruction and exploitation of our land and resources, denial of our identity and rights, genocide and attempted genocide.

The truth is quite different, naturally. Last week, Ryan Bellerose, the son of a Métis leader wrote an article in The Metropolitain:

My people, the Métis, came to Alberta after the American Revolution, at the government’s request, to prevent the settling of the Americans in western Canada. We settled the land and followed the white man’s rules. But we were eventually evicted, our homes given to white pioneers. No one wanted us. We were forced to live in hiding, on road allowances, in the bush. We had no rights, and we were killed out of hand, as “nuisances”. Exile fractured our nation. Our people wandered with no hope and no home. Then, in the mid 1900’s, our leaders managed to secure land for us, not the land we had wanted but land that would nonetheless allow us to build a better future. We took it, built our settlements and formed a government to improve the lives of our people. We still have many problems to solve, of course, but we also have more educated people than ever and are slowly becoming self-sufficient, as our leaders envisioned. In this, the Jewish people and the Métis have walked the same road.

The Jews also suffered genocide and were expelled from their homeland. They were also rejected by everyone and forced to wander. Like us, they rebelled against imperial injustice when necessary and, despite their grievances, strived for peace whenever possible. Like us they were given a tiny sliver of their land back after centuries of suffering and persecution, land that nobody else had wanted to call home until then. Like us, they took that land despite their misgivings and forged a nation from a fractured and wounded people. And like us, they consistently show a willingness to compromise for the good of their people.

[…]

Many claim that we Natives have more in common with the Palestinians, that their struggle is our struggle. Beyond superficial similarities, nothing could be farther from the truth. Beyond the facile co-opting of our cause, the comparison with the Palestinians is absolutely untenable. It trivializes our suffering.

[…]

The Palestinians are not like us. Their fight is not our fight. We natives believe in bringing about change peacefully, and we refuse to be affiliated with anyone who engages in violence targeting civilians. I cannot remain silent and allow the Palestinians to gain credibility at our expense by claiming commonality with us. I cannot stand by while they trivialize our plight by tying it to theirs, which is largely self-inflicted. Our population of over 65 million was violently reduced to a mere 10 million, a slaughter unprecedented in human history. To compare that in whatever way to the Palestinians’ story is deeply offensive to me. The Palestinians did lose the land they claim is theirs, but they were repeatedly given the opportunity to build their state on it and to partner with the Jews — and they persistently refused peace overtures and chose war. We were never given that chance. We never made that choice.

The entire article is worth reading. Please click here to see it.

Archeology, genetics… all scientific and historical evidence proves that the Jews are the indigenous people of Israel. And yet… Where’s the coverage?

(h/t Elder of Ziyon blog)

WARNING: READER BEWARE! YAHOO IS NOT A TRUSTWORTHY SOURCE OF INFORMATION!

A Reuters article was posted today on yahoo.com,with the headline “Israel Hits Target in Syria Border Area: Sources” under which was posted a large photo of children carrying a dead body. The Israeli strike was on a Syrian convoy transferring weapons to the Hezbollah terrorist group in Lebanon. And the photo, in fact, had no connection whatsoever to the article about the Israeli strike.

We traced the origin of the photo. It was taken by a Reuters stringer on Jan. 25, 2012 and it showed children carrying the body of a friend killed by shelling during heavy fighting between the Free Syrian Army and the forces of Syrian President Bashar al Assad in the Jobar district of Damascus. Here is the screen capture of the article, as it appeared around noon, Jan. 30, 2013 on Yahoo’s news site.

The question is which editor at Yahoo made the decision to run an old photo of an unrelated death to falsely insinuate that Israelis were responsible for the death of the child? It represents journalistic bias at its worst.

Last fall, a false Ha’aretz headline and story — later retracted — that a majority of Israelis support apartheid policies gave great cheer and sustenance to the anti-Israel crowd, and also made some inroads in mainstream western media outlets. (Of course, among the former, the subsequent correction was ignored.)

Now, Ha’aretz brings a new story which excites those who like to write about “Nazi Israel.” In a news story and Op-Ed a few weeks ago, and in another news article this week, Ha’aretz has reported that Israeli authorities forced Ethiopian women to receive shots of Depo Provera, a contraception that lasts three months, in order to immigrate to Israel.

The original headline of the December 2012 Op-Ed was:

The revelation that Israel is sterilizing Ethiopian women adds to a shameful history of abuse of powerless women and communities

Just like the case of the false apartheid poll headline, Ha’aretz editors were compelled to retract this one as well. The new subhead is:

Israel’s patronizing and inhumane treatment of Ethiopian women is nothing new

The following correction appears at the bottom of the page:

The Op-Ed, by Efrat Yardai, still ends with the notion that Israel was forcibly sterilizing Ethiopian women:

If they tried to sterilize me or take my children away, I think I would be talking nonsense too.

(more…)

Regarding Gerald Scarfe’s cartoon in the Sunday Times, depicting Benjamin Netanyahu as building a wall against peace with Palestinian blood, the Telegraph reports:

Amid a storm of global condemnation, the 81 year-old media mogul offered the “major apology”, for what he described as an “offensive cartoon” published in one of his major newspapers.

His apology on Twitter came despite the Sunday newspaper launching a staunch defence of the work by leading political cartoonist Gerald Scarfe, 76.

The cartoon, which depicted Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister, building a wall using what appeared to be the blood of Palestinians as cement, was published at the weekend, in the first full edition presided over by Martin Ivens, the new acting editor.

Jewish leaders said the cartoon, published on Holocaust Memorial Day with a caption: “Israel Elections: Will cementing peace continue?”, was anti-Semitic.

The Board of Deputies of British Jews complained to the Press Complaints Commission, arguing the cartoon, was “shockingly reminiscent” of pictures used in “the virulently anti-Semitic Arab press”. . .

Tonight the Australian-born News Corporation founder apologised, hours after stating that “what I have to say about Sunday Times cartoon will not be on Twitter. Sorry”.

But later in a post to more than 400,000 followers, Mr Murdoch said: “Gerald Scarfe has never reflected the opinions of The Sunday Times. Nevertheless, we owe [a] major apology for [the] grotesque, offensive cartoon.”

USA Today’s idea of editorial balance is unbalanced, at least when Israel is the subject.

The newspaper’s editorial “Israel election leaves a glimmer of hope” (Jan. 24, 2013) asserted that an Israeli act of self-defense was the provocation for Palestinian terrorism. That is inverted, journalistically and morally. USA Today also argued that the political right in Israel right and construction of Jewish settlements in the West Bank is the biggest obstacle to peace.

But the primary obstacles are not in Israel: A 2011 poll indicated that nearly two-thirds of Israeli respondents thought a two-state solution acceptable, but two-thirds also told pollsters they did not think that a two-state solution will be reached, primarily because of Palestinian rejection. Palestinian Authority insistence on seeking a “unilateral statehood declaration” from the United Nations instead of resuming the direct negotiations with Israel it committed to in the Oslo accords bolsters Israeli doubts.

USA Today did offer an informed response, but only online. Instead of balancing the editorial in print, it let Alan Baker, a former legal advisor to the Israeli Foreign Ministry and Israeli ambassador to Canada rebut the paper’s assertion that settlements are illegal. Baker’s virtual appearance was necessary, but not sufficient. Now director of the Institute for Contemporary Affairs at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, he offered a bit of historical context largely absent from the editorial. There was no justification for not publishing it alongside the editorial.

Contrast Baker’s “virtualization” with the counter-point treatment given to the newspaper’s editorial headlined “Latest warfare in Gaza reflects Hamas’ miscalculation” (Nov. 20, 2012). It could be said to have stated a “moderately” anti-Israel opinion. But instead of publishing a pro-Israel “counter-point,” the ostensibly balancing opinion came from the implacably anti-Israel polemicist Richard Falk.

In his commentary, “U.S. cheerleads Israel’s assault,” Falk—a 9/11 skeptic who asserted that an independent (non-U.S.) investigation was still needed and whose removal as U.N. special rapporteur on Israeli-Palestinian affairs has been recommended by the Obama administration—merely restated the editorial’s view in stronger terms.

Why did USA Today think Falk had any credibility on the subject? He has endorsed terrorist violence in the pursuit of political ends, supported suicide bombings as a method of Palestinian “resistance” and opposed Western humanitarian intervention in Libya. A professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University—truth often is stranger than fiction in academia—Falk argued that no matter how distasteful the Gaddafi dictatorship was, it was the lawful government of Libya. He neglected to mention that Gaddafi came to, and stayed in power through violence, had no popular mandate and in the past promoted and conducted international terrorist acts.

In his USA Today “counter-point,” Falk does not acknowledge the refusal by Palestinian leadership to recognize Israel’s right to exist, sustained Palestinian violence targeting Israeli civilians and widespread hatred of Israelis that suggests genocidal intentions.

Meanwhile, USA Today’s editorial presents Hamas’ November conflict with Israel as a “miscalculation” rather than a reckless disregard for the safety and prosperity of Palestinian Arabs, let alone Israeli non-combatants. If it is the newspaper’s intent to offer opposing viewpoints, the balance to its editorial blaming Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s government for the impasse in Israeli-Palestinian negotiation should have been a commentary from someone who might argue, correctly, that the Gaza Strip’s greatest impediment to peace is its Hamas leadership and that the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank is perhaps most notable for spurning “two-state” peace offers in 2000, 2001, and 2008.

USA Today’s editorial page performance is oddly out of synch with the newspaper’s generally well-balanced coverage of Middle East news in general, Arab-Israeli affairs in particular. Perhaps the former department doesn’t read what the latter reports? –A. W.

It’s a trick question. They’re all similar. The large one on the right was published in the Sunday Times of London on Jan. 27, 2013, a day designated as Holocaust Remembrance Day. The cartoonist is Gerald Scarfe.

Notice the stereotypical features; The large flapping ears, the exaggerated, unpleasantly shaped nose, the dark arched brow, the sneering expression, a large lower lip, the position of the face pointed downward while the eyes are looking upward to a evoke a menacing glance. All of these features are intended to create a demonic Semitic caricature. In fact, so classic are these features that one might suspect Scarfe studied the prior “art” to craft his cartoon.

Four of the comparison cartoons feature menacing sharp tools in at least one hand intended to evoke the classic blood libel charge against the Jews.

Of course, the Sunday Times of London denies any anti-Semitic intent. Banish that thought, the paper frequently publishes cartoons of non-Jewish world figures using classic anti-Semitic visual imagery. Oh sorry, actually it doesn’t. Those collective features are reserved for depicting villainous Jews.
(more…)

In NPR’s “Weekend Edition” yesterday, Larry Abramson, covering the Israeli elections, reports:

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said today that he’s ready to work with any government that recognizes his people’s right to have their own state. Many Palestinians that I talked to are still skeptical about any Israeli government because they feel like people from the left and the right have abused them in the past. And Netanyahu is still the prime minister and there’s not a lot of trust between Netanyahu and the Palestinians.

The Palestinians are also continuing to push on some hot buttons that annoy the Israelis, like calling themselves a state, following last years United Nations vote, and they’re threatening to bring Israel before the International Criminal Court. So there’s a long way to go before peace talks can start again. (Emphases added.)

Got that? Israelis “abuse” Palestinians, while on the other hand Palestinians “annoy” Israelis. Reminds us of an equally skewed analysis by another flagship American media outlet. Covering the U.S. presidential debate, the New York Times’ Steve Erlanger lamented the lack of “discussion” of internal Palestinian upheaval, and the lack of “criticism” concerning Israeli settlements.

Maybe they were too busy bemoaning the state of Israel’s democracy to do any actual reporting, but the mainstream news media completely ignored a report by Freedom House, an independent watchdog group dedicated to the expansion of freedom around the world, that rated Israel as the only free country in the Middle East.

In the 2013 edition of its annual report, “Freedom in the World,” the organization wrote:

Israel remains the region’s only Free country. In recent years, controversies have surrounded proposed laws that threatened freedom of expression and the rights of civil society organizations. In most cases, however, these measures have either been quashed by the government or parliament, or struck down by the Supreme Court.

In other words, Israel’s democracy works. By contrast, both Gaza, under Hamas, and the West Bank, under the Palestinian Authority were rated “Not Free,” as was Jordan. Lebanon and Egypt ranked as merely “Partly Free.”

In a section called “Worst of the Worst,” Freedom House cited three of Israel’s neighbors: Sudan, “ruled by a leadership that has elements of both radical Islamism and a traditional military junta,” Saudi Arabia, “an absolute monarchy with severe social controls,” and Syria, “a dictatorship in the midst of a bloody civil war.”

To look at a map of world freedom, click on this link. You’ll have to enlarge it quite a bit to see the sliver of green freedom that is Israel in the sea of yellow (“partly free”) and purple (“not free”) that is the Middle East and North Africa.

Given the hyper-focus on Israel by the press, one might expect news outlets to at least mention this positive evaluation of the Jewish State. However, although Israeli and Jewish outlets reported the Freedom House study, CAMERA could not locate any mainstream news media that covered it. More embarrassing still, even Egypt’s Daily News wrote:

Egypt is now one of six countries in the Middle East that is classified by Freedom House as “partly free”. Eleven are classed as “not free”, while Israel is the region’s only “free” country.

A newspaper in a country that has only recently been upgraded to “partly free” covered Israel’s “free” ranking but news outlets in “free” countries did not. One has to ask, why the hesitancy to report something positive about Israel’s democracy? And, as usual… Where’s the coverage?

The ABC network has failed thus far to respond to CAMERA’s request for a correction to a misleading news brief about Israel building “new settlements in the West Bank and Jerusalem, on land considered to belong to the Palestinians.” The brief was read by “Good Morning America” (GMA) news anchor Ron Claiborne on Dec. 1, 2012.

This is the body of CAMERA’s letter to ABC/GMA:

I am writing on behalf of CAMERA concerning a misleading news brief aired at 7:05 AM on the ABC GMA broadcast of Saturday, Dec. 1, 2012:

RON CLAIBORNE: “The U.S. is criticizing Israel’s decision to build new barriers to a potential peace deal. Israel says it will build new settlements in the West Bank and Jerusalem, on land considered to belong to the Palestinians. The announcement was a quick response to the United Nations vote to recognize Palestine as a non-member observer state.”

An accurate phrasing of this news brief would be:

“Following the U.N. General Assembly vote to recognize ‘Palestine’ as a non-member observer state, Israel’s government announced plans to construct 3000 housing units in the West Bank and in Israel’s capital of Jerusalem. The U.S. is criticizing this decision. The West Bank is in dispute as is a part of Jerusalem. These areas are considered by the Palestinians as part of their hoped-for future state.”

In fact, while some argue that Jewish communities in the West Bank and in part of eastern Jerusalem are a hindrance to peace, it is erroneous to assert that they are “on land considered to belong to the Palestinians” since this implies that a sovereign Palestinian Arab state existed at some time in the past in the land that is at issue. But there never has been a sovereign Arab state in Palestine or Israel. Moreover, basic international law in this case, the League of Nations’ Palestine Mandate, Article 6, calls for “close Jewish settlement” on the land west of the Jordan River. Article 6 is incorporated by Article 80 of the U.N. Charter, sometimes referred to as “the Palestine article.” The United States endorsed the mandate, including Article 6, in the 1924 Anglo-American Convention.

The West Bank is not sovereign territory of any country, but rather land disputed by both Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Part of Jerusalem (which has never been the capital of any nation except Israel) and the West Bank were illegally occupied by Jordan from 1948 to 1967, when Israel took control as a result of successful self-defense in the 1967 Six-Day War. As Eugene Rostow, a co-author of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 (1967), the keystone of all subsequent successful Arab-Israeli negotiations pointed out, 242 does not require complete Israeli withdrawal. Rather, the status of the territory, to which Jews as well as Arabs have legitimate claims, is to be resolved in negotiations as called for in the resolution and by U.N. Security Council Resolution 338 (1973). Meanwhile, Jewish villages and towns built in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria, the ancient homeland of the Jewish people) since 1967 are no more illegal than areas built since then in previously existing Arab villages and towns.

We urge ABC to correct the misleading news brief of Dec. 1, 2012.

Thank you in advance for your follow up on this matter.

Media entities often mislead the public on the matter of “settlements” failing to recognize that the opposition to Jewish communities in Jerusalem and the West Bank can only be legitimately made on political grounds; to do otherwise is legally without basis.

Should a response be forthcoming from ABC, it will be posted here.

The news media, led by The New York Times, have been sounding the death knell for Israeli democracy in the run-up to the recent elections. Of particular concern to The Times, USA Today, Public Radio International, The Economist, The Daily Beast and other outlets was the possibility that voter turnout among Israeli Arabs would fall below 50 percent.

In fact, this is not what happened in the Israeli elections at all.

According to Ha’aretz, though voter turnout across the country was almost 67 percent:

In [the Israeli Arab city of] Tira, the picture was the complete opposite: voter turnout was only 58.8 percent, similar to the rest of the Arab cities. Incidentally, the city of Sakhnin stood out with a voter turnout of almost 80 percent.

Only 58.8 percent. Not below fifty. Not even close. But, only 58.8 percent. Only.

For comparison, the Center for the Study of the American Electorate reported that, in the 2012 U.S. presidential election, voter turnout among all Americans eligible to vote was… 57.5 percent.

An Israeli Arab woman casts her vote during the Israeli General Election on Tuesday in Tel Aviv.
(Photo: Uriel Sinai, Getty Images)