יום חמישי, 10 בנובמבר 2011

Elder of Ziyon Daily Digest

Elder of Ziyon Daily Digest

Lancet nonsense

Posted: 09 Nov 2011 08:45 PM PST

From The Lancet:
Everything one can say about the health-care system in Palestine was summed up by the physician and political leader Haidar Abdel-Shafi in the wake of the Oslo Agreement in September, 1993. He said: "We cannot take care of health and education as long as we live under occupation".

...[N]ow, as the Palestinian Authority waits to hear whether the UN Security Council will back its bid for full membership, the situation is much the same. Israel has used health and medicine as an instrument of control and oppression of the Palestinian people and leadership in the occupied Palestinian territory throughout the years since 1967. We at Physicians for Human Rights—Israel conceive this situation as a disease for which the cure is the total removal of control by Israel over the Palestinians. There is no way that a future Palestinian state, if there ever is one, can handle the health-care system (or any other socioeconomic system) if the Israeli occupation and control continues.
Is it really impossible to build and support a healthcare system while under "occupation"?

Then it must be truly miraculous that somehow, before 1948, Jews who were under Ottoman and British occupation managed to build so many medical centers:

Bikur Holim Hospital (1826)
Shaarei Tzedek Medical Center (1902)
Hadassah Hospital (1934, but earlier medical facilities as early as 1913)
Rambam Hospital (1938)
Beilinson Hospital (1936)

These were all built  right under the noses of their occupiers!


I believe that Zionists even managed to put together a few major universities while under British occupation. Yes, while the British controlled all imports and exports for Palestine, border control, access to roads and every other aspect of life in the area, somehow these institutions were built - and without the help of billions of dollars from NGOs and other countries.

I know, I know...it is impossible. My history must be very, very wrong.

(h/t YM)

Unity! Hamas and Fatah still have not scheduled a meeting

Posted: 09 Nov 2011 05:55 PM PST

Hamas leader Salah Bardawil says that no meeting has yet been scheduled between Hamas and Fatah leaders to work on the reconciliation that they announced some six months ago.

According to Bardawil, the reason there has been no meeting is that the two sides have not yet agreed on an agenda, and Hamas does not want the meeting to be merely ceremonial.

Hamas is claiming that Fatah has not yet even fulfilled its responsibilities under the watered-down agreement reached last May. In addition, Hamas wants to be represented in the PLO and to discuss security arrangements.

Bardawil also accused Fatah of lying about wanting to meet and blaming Hamas for this failure.

And the unity sham continues....

A visionary leader (ElderToons)

Posted: 09 Nov 2011 01:45 PM PST

Steven Spielberg's name covered on Lebanese movie posters

Posted: 09 Nov 2011 12:20 PM PST

From Blog Baladi, via TheJC:
I went to Cinema City in City Mall yesterday to watch the new Tintin movie. The movie was produced by Steven Spielberg, but you wouldn't know that just by looking at the posters. Steven Spielberg's name is blacked out on all posters!

I guess that we shouldn't mention or see his name since he's jewish, but we can go ahead and watch a movie he produced. Hypocrisy at its best. I wonder whose decision this was: Cinema City or the Government?

k

A new settlement plan!

Posted: 09 Nov 2011 11:35 AM PST

Palestine Today reports of a nefarious new Israeli initiative, where it plans to build some 1400 new apartments in what it called a "settlement plan."

Some 228 acres will be expropriated for this scheme.

And where is it planned for?

Haifa.

Gee, you'd think that they don't differentiate between Jews living on either side of the Green Line.

"30,000 Syrians preparing for martyrdom operations in Tel Aviv"

Posted: 09 Nov 2011 10:25 AM PST

Palestine Today quotes Iran's Fars news agency as saying that some 30,000 Syrian and Palestinian Arabs are preparing for terror attacks against Tel Aviv.

The article claims that the 30,000 have been training for these operations for the past three months. They have requested that the Syrian government allow them to infiltrate into Israel.

They claim to have been trained in martial arts and guerrilla warfare to be able to handle the "harshest conditions" in Tel Aviv.

The article claims that some five Arabs managed to make it into Tel Aviv on the last "Naqba Day" but were foiled by the Zionist security forces.

More lies from the Left

Posted: 09 Nov 2011 09:09 AM PST

Max Blumenthal has another column in Al Akhbar filled with provable lies.

It is entitled "Despite major rebuke, Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin endorses slaughtering Palestinians."

He writes:
On October 25, here at Al Akhbar, I drew attention to Washington Post "Right Matters" columnist Jennifer Rubin's re-tweet of a call by professional neocon Rachel Abrams for the mass murder of Palestinians. In my post, I urged readers to write Washington Post ombudsman Patrick Pexton and inquire if the Post has a policy regarding staffers who promote mass murder, ethnic violence, and hate speech. Yesterday, Pexton weighed in on the matter in his "Post Roast" column, crediting my post at Al Akhbar with exposing Rubin's re-tweet.
Pexton asked Rubin if her re-tweet was simply an innocent gesture intended to direct her followers to a widely discussed piece of inflammatory writing, or if it was an explicit endorsement of Abrams' call for murdering Palestinians, whom she described as "unmanned animals" and "child-sacrificing savages." Rubin replied matter-of-factly that it was the latter: she supported Abrams' message. According to Pexton, "But in this case Rubin told me that she did agree with Abrams. Rubin said that she admires Abrams, has quoted her a lot, thinks she's an excellent writer and endorsed the sentiment behind the Abrams blog post."
Though Pexton stopped short of calling for Rubin to be fired, he concluded that by endorsing what amounted to a call for mass murder, if not genocide, "Rubin did damage to The Post and the credibility that keeps it afloat."
Now, look at what Pexton actually wrote:
But in this case Rubin told me that she did agree with Abrams. Rubin said that she admires Abrams, has quoted her a lot, thinks she's an excellent writer and endorsed the sentiment behind the Abrams blog post. Rubin said, however, that she did not see it as a call to genocide against all Palestinians: "The post expressed an understandable desire for righteous vengeance against the kidnappers and human rights abusers of Gilad Shalit. It is a sentiment I share. If I were writing on The Washington Post Web site, I would not have used that language. . . but the sentiment underlying it — that the captors deserve the final penalty -- is one that I share."

Abrams's post is so full of dashes it's hard to follow, but the subject of her run-on sentence does appear to be "captors" not Palestinians in general.
So while Blumenthal is accusing Rubin of supporting genocide - and using Pexton's column as proof - he is deliberately deleting the parts of the column that show, as I had proven before, that the original post said no such thing.

Similarly, Pexton's criticism of Rubin was for her judgment in retweeting a message that was, in his words, "over the top." Nothing to do with calls for genocide or mass murder, as Blumenthal says.

This is not a mistake. It is a deliberate deception on Blumenthal's part to misrepresent what Pexton and Rubin said. It is tantamount to libel. There is no way to spin this.

Al Akhbar's submission guidelines say
Al-Akhbar firmly adheres to the principles of journalistic integrity. Submissions selected for publication are expected to live up to high standards of factual accuracy, source accountability, and proper accreditation where necessary.
Yet even three hours after I wrote this information in the comments, not only is the article still up - but my comment has yet to be published.

Journalistic integrity, indeed.

Blumenthal used his earlier column to ask his unthinking drones to write to the Washington Post and demand that Rubin get fired. Wouldn't it make sense to write to Al Akhbar and demand that they drop Blumenthal as a columnist and apologize for propagating his lies?

Here's their contact form.

Hillary's speech on Islamists

Posted: 09 Nov 2011 07:35 AM PST

On Monday night, Hilary Clinton gave the keynote address at the National Democratic Institute's 2011 Democracy Awards Dinner. Her speech has been much discussed since then.

Let's look at what she actually said:
How will America respond if and when democracy brings to power people and parties we disagree with?

We hear these questions most often when it comes to Islamist religious parties. Now, of course, I hasten to add that not all Islamists are alike. Turkey and Iran are both governed by parties with religious roots, but their models and behavior are radically different. There are plenty of political parties with religious affiliations—Hindu, Christian, Jewish, Muslim—that respect the rules of democratic politics. The suggestion that faithful Muslims cannot thrive in a democracy is insulting, dangerous, and wrong. They do it in this country every day.

Now, reasonable people can disagree on a lot, but there are things that all parties, religious and secular, must get right—not just for us to trust them, but most importantly for the people of the region and of the countries themselves to trust them to protect their hard-won rights.

Parties committed to democracy must reject violence; they must abide by the rule of law and respect the freedoms of speech, religion, association, and assembly; they must respect the rights of women and minorities; they must let go of power if defeated at the polls; and in a region with deep divisions within and between religions, they cannot be the spark that starts a conflagration. In other words, what parties call themselves is less important to us than what they actually do. We applaud NDI for its work to arrive at a model code of conduct for political parties across the political spectrum and around the globe. We need to reinforce these norms and to hold people accountable for following them.

In Tunisia, an Islamist party has just won a plurality of the votes in an open, competitive election. Its leaders have promised to embrace freedom of religion and full rights for women. To write a constitution and govern, they will have to persuade secular parties to work with them. And as they do, America will work with them, too, because we share the desire to see a Tunisian democracy emerge that delivers for its citizens and because America respects the right of the Tunisian people to choose their own leaders.

And so we move forward with clear convictions. Parties and candidates must respect the rules of democracy, to take part in elections, and hold elective office. And no one has the right to use the trappings of democracy to deny the rights and security of others. People throughout the region worry about this prospect, and so do we. Nobody wants another Iran. Nobody wants to see political parties with military wings and militant foreign policies gain influence. When members of any group seek to oppress their fellow citizens or undermine core democratic principles, we will stand on the side of the people who push back to defend their democracy.
Clinton seems to be watering down the definition of "Islamist." The term itself is somewhat controversial, but I believe that a pretty good starting point for a definition is the one Wikipedia uses for Islamism: A set of ideologies holding that Islam is not only a religion but also a political system.

Now, Islam itself no doubt is a political system. Islam is not a personal religion but an encompassing worldview. So a more accurate definition for Islamism would be "a set of ideologies demanding that Islam be the basis of a political system instead of a personal religion." Or, simply, political Islam.

Given this, Clinton's statement about "faithful Muslims" is a red herring. Muslims in a democracy who accept the fundamental tenets of personal freedoms and equal rights are, by definition, not practicing Islamism. And the analogy with Judaism, Christianity and Hinduism is silly, as no one is seriously threatened by any political versions of those religions taking over any countries.

So here is the problem. Clinton is saying that the US would only support "Islamist" parties who accept freedom of religion, respect the rules of democracy,support full rights for women and so on. But if they do that, they are not Islamist by definition!

However, Clinton said that the Ennahda party in Tunisia has promised to "embrace freedom of religion and full rights for women." How can that be?

Because it didn't win a majority of the votes!

Islamists are nothing if not strategists. They are quite willing to compromise on their core principles in order to form coaltions, they are willing to set aside their beliefs in order to obtain leadership positions. But those are tactical moves. Their overall strategy remains the same, to ultimately use Sharia law as the basis for all legislation in the country - not only for personal laws governing marriage, for example, but also for foreign policy, for national initiatives and for everyday circumstances. If Ennahda won a majority vote, you can be certain that women would be barred from many jobs by law.

This speech betrays a fundamental flaw in American thinking on foreign policy.

Chances are that Clinton doesn't even believe what she is saying but the desire to work with Islamist parties that are distasteful outweighs, in the opinion of the State Department, the option of marginalizing them.

It is worth looking at history though. Three times in recent decades have Islamist parties been democratically elected to leadership roles.

In Turkey, the Islamists have been slowly dismantling the aggressively secular government policies of their predecessors.

In the Palestinian Arab territories, Hamas has forcibly taken over Gaza and freedoms are almost non-existent. It is literally inconceivable that Hamas would voluntarily give up their power base in Gaza in any agreement with the PA or as a result of any election.

In Lebanon, Hezbollah has been maintaining their own separate militia and are well on their way to destroying a vibrant multicultural society.

The track record of democratically elected Islamists is very, very bad.

And time is not on the side of liberal democrats who espouse freedoms.

(Barry Rubin is much less charitable than I am about this speech.)

Hezbollah slowly taking over Lebanese army - and planning new kidnappings

Posted: 09 Nov 2011 07:02 AM PST

Mako reports an analysis by the Northern Command of the IDF on the latest from Lebanon.

According to IDF sources, the number of Shiites who are joining the Lebanese army has dramatically increased in recent years. In the past, the senior command was dominated by Christians but now some 40% of them are Shiite, and a majority of  junior officers are also pro-Hezbollah.

Also, while most of the Christians in the army are deployed in the central part of the state, the Shiites are concentrated towards the Israeli border.

Moreover, there has been a recent increase in the expansion of villages in southern Lebanon near the border with Israel. This trend intensified in the last year and a half, and many new buildings can be identified within a few hundred yards from the blue line. "Of course some of this expansion is natural, but there are exceptions where some structures we know are not innocent," said an IDF source. "There are more patrols in vehicles belonging to Hezbollah, more observations and more buildings used by the organization."

The reason is to make it easier to kidnap Israeli soldiers and hide them quickly. Even though Hezbollah has not made recent kidnap threats the way Hamas does, it is clearly still part of its strategy. The Northern Command says it is on the alert for such a scenario.

(h/t Yoel)

Anti-semitism on PA TV

Posted: 09 Nov 2011 05:36 AM PST

From Palestinian Media Watch, quoting PA TV:
The golden dome [of the mosque] shines with colors of the sky, with the white of clouds, while the joyous holiday [Eid Al-Adha] is good to the residents. The light rain cleanses the steps of the foreigners [Jews] so that the feet [of Muslims] in prayer will not step on impurity.


The program helpfully show a clip of religious Jews while talking about the "foreigners' impurity."

Isn't it great that Allah sends rain so that fervently devout Palestinian Arabs can play soccer on the Temple Mount - using the Dome of the Rock as a goal - without their feet stepping on impurity?


Not to mention - volleyball:

Egyptian forfeits Taekwondo match with Israeli

Posted: 09 Nov 2011 03:55 AM PST

Al Ahram reports that Egyptian Rowan Ali refused to compete against Israeli Sivan Fenster in the quarterfinals of the women's 47 kg category of the 17th Zagreb Croatia Open Taekwondo competition.

When Ali learned that her next opponent was an Israeli she withdrew from the competition.

Fenster won a bronze medal as a result.

Altogether the Israeli team won four bronze medals at Zagreb.

Usually one only sees Iranians refuse to compete with Israelis. The idea that a country ostensibly at peace with Israel would allow such behavior tells you more about Egyptian-Israeli relations than any political analysis can.

An Iranian champion did refuse to attend a medal ceremony where Israeli Liran Malachi received his bronze so as not to stand next to him on the podium.

A lexicon of the Middle East

Posted: 09 Nov 2011 01:01 AM PST

A great article at FrontPage, cross-posted at Honest Reporting.

Excerpts:

I have come to realize just how difficult it may be to decipher news about the Middle East, Islam, Israel, the Arab World, and all these powerful and explosive issues of our times for those who rely on such media stalwarts as The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the major television networks, cable news, etc. for their information. For example, how is a person to ascertain whether the slayer of a family is a terrorist or a militant or a gunman or an assailant or an activist or a freedom-fighter?

So, purely as a public service, I have organized the following glossary of the most pertinent terms and expressions, as typically used in the above-mentioned news sources. I hope, insha'allah, the reader will find it helpful to unravel the Gordian Knot of language that is today's (and yesterday's and tomorrow's) Middle East!

Aggression: Killing people who are trying to kill you.

Apartheid: The political/social system of the one and only country in the Middle East that integrates Jews, Beduins, Arabs, whites, blacks, Muslems, Ethiopians, Russians, Christians, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Bahai, et al.

"Apes & Pigs": See "Jew" below.

Arab King: Military dictator.

Arab President: Military dictator.

Arab Prime Minister: Military dictator.

Arab Spring: Replacement of one dictatorship with another, with the help of Western money and media cheerleading.

Compromise: To give something palpable, such as land, in return for a promise not to keep on trying to annihilate you.

Developing Country: A country that is not developing.

Disproportionate Response: Winning.

Father of the Palestinian People: An Egyptian man, raised by his uncle, Hitler's buddy, and one of the world's most successful kleptocrats. (See "PLO" below.)

Hamas: The democratically elected government of Gaza whose founding charter calls for genocide.

Holocaust: That genocide that did not happen, but that the Jews orchestrated in order to steal Arab land, and that of which the Jewish presence in Palestine is worse than.

Moderate Palestinian Leader: Former KGB operative, Holocaust denier, and financier of Munich Olympic massacre.

Peace: War of attrition.

Peace Process: The dismantling of Israel.

Peace Talks: The avoidance of peace.

PLO: Organization created in 1964 to end the 1967 occupation.

Palestinian Authority: The world's most successful kleptocracy.

Palestinian Hero: Murderer of children.

Zionism: The ideology of the Jews who aspire to control, dominate and take over the world.

Zionist: Someone who is worse than a Nazi.

Zionist Entity: That place that does not exist, as on Arab maps, but that must be destroyed.
There's lots more, read the whole thing.

(h/t Ruchie)
פורסם על ידי zoom ב- 0:05

אין תגובות:

הוסף רשומת תגובה

הירשם ל- תגובות לפרסום (Atom)