יום ראשון, 4 בדצמבר 2011

Elder of Ziyon Daily Digest

Elder of Ziyon Daily Digest

Poor little anti-semitic cartoonist getting death threats from Muslims

Posted: 03 Dec 2011 08:31 PM PST

We have discussed Carlos Latuff's many anti-semitic cartoons before. While he has been heavily criticized for them, as far as I know nobody has threatened his life because of them.

But when he drew a fairly mild cartoon about the results of the Egyptian elections, all hell broke loose.

And his reactions showed him to be the classy guy we always suspected.

A Brazilian cartoonist whose caricatures against the former regime of Hosni Mubarak won him praise in the Arab world is now in the spotlight himself amid Egypt's divisive election.

Carlos Latuff's latest illustration, pointing to a sharp surge in support for Islamic candidates, was not received favorably Saturday by many Egyptians on social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook.

Reaction on Twitter was unexpectedly harsh, considering Latuff's series of cartoons encouraging pro-democracy protesters in Egypt, and his uncompromising criticism of the SCAF. The cartoons often showed up on signs in Tahrir square, he says.

But anger directed toward the latest caricature underscores resentment that outside interests still seek to dictate to Egyptians their political affairs, while often failing to distinguish between established religious parties and fundamentalists.

Adding fuel to the fire, Latuff shocked many of his followers by dismissing any criticism outright and responding with expletive-laden contempt, including one crude private message to a female tweeter.

Many said it was Latuff's hostility, not his cartoon, that sparked the outcry.

At the same time, Latuff said he had received multiple death threats in response to the caricature, while his supporters condemned the uproar as an attempt to stifle the artist's freedom of expression. They ridiculed as childish a campaign to "unfollow" him on Twitter.
While you gotta hand it to him to at least note that Islamists winning the Egyptian election is not wonderful, it is hard to feel sympathy for such a sickening piece of trash.



Washington Post repeats PCHR lies about civilians in Gaza

Posted: 03 Dec 2011 05:30 PM PST

In an Washington Post article about how Gazans have to live with the constant presence of Israeli drones, we read:

The Palestinian Center for Human Rights says 825 people have been killed by drones in Gaza since the capture of Shalit, who was released in October. Most of those killed, according to the organization, have been civilians mistakenly targeted or caught in the deadly shrapnel shower of a drone strike.
The WaPo says that PCHR is saying that the civilians killed in Gaza are mostly mistakenly targeted. But PCHR claims that Israel deliberately targets civilians. The name of the report I am quoting is "Targeted Civilians."   This is the first indication that PCHR is not telling the truth.

I could not find any specific report at PCHR listing the victims of drone attacks to see how many were really civilian, but we have already shown that the PCHR definition of "civilian" includes members of every major terror organization.

A small example:

In that same report on the Gaza war, they say:
At approximately 17:20 on 3 January 2009, an IOF drone fired a missile at the western gate of Martyr Ibrahim al-Maqadma Mosque in the north of Jabalia Refugee Camp, near Martyr Kamal 'Odwan Hospital. The missile landed only 2 meters away from the mosque's gate. 12 civilians, including 4 children and a father with his son, who were praying at the time of the attack, were immediately killed. Another 30 civilians were injured in the attack. A number of the injured were transferred to al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City. Later, medical sources announced that 3 had died. A total of 15 civilians were killed in this attack.
However, 6 or 7 of those killed were actually terrorists congregated outside the mosque - the targets of the attack.

Another from the same report:
Also at approximately 14:00 pm [January 7], IOF drones bombed al-Salatin area in the north of the Gaza Strip. Mohammed 'Ali Ahmed al-Sultan, 55, who was near his house was killed as a result.
PCHR calls him a "civilian" but here is Hamas' Al Qassam Brigades memorial page for him, where we learn that even at the age of 55 he volunteered to be a member of the Qassam Brigades and that he was "in the first row in battle, fighting the enemies of God, the invaders." He was apparently relaying the positions of Israeli planes to the "mujahadeen" at the time he was targeted. In no way could be considered a civilian.

All in all, as I have documented, the PCHR categorized some 363 terrorists killed as "civilians" during the Gaza war.

Without the PCHR details I cannot prove that most of those targeted by drones are militant, but from reading about every airstrike over the past five years, I am certain that the percentage of civilians killed by drones is far less than 50%.

But the Washington Post does not bother to find out these basic facts. Israeli drones have been shown to be remarkably accurate and effective in targeting terrorists - not perfect, but about as good as any weapons used in history in a heavily populated area. But rather than dig a little deeper in a long article about drones, the WaPo uncritically believes an NGO that has been shown to lie, repeatedly, in its reports about this specific topic.

Stand With Us' response to the Forward - that The Forward didn't publish

Posted: 03 Dec 2011 02:49 PM PST

I wrote about hit piece in the Forward last week, written by former Ha'aretz reporter Nathan Guttman, that painted the pro-Israel organization Stand With Us as an unethical right-wing group that should be, according to Guttman, registered as a foreign agent.

Stand With Us was understandably not happy with the article and asked The Forward to publish their response.

It will surprise few that a left-wing anti-Zionist newspaper that pretends to support free speech refused.

So here is SWU's letter to the Forward that was not published:

To The Forward,
StandWithUs appreciates your recent coverage of our dynamic growth, and of our multiple educational and advocacy efforts in cities around the world.
However, we were disturbed by the bizarre angle of your article, which tried to discredit us as "right wing," and absurdly asked whether StandWithUs should register as an agent of a foreign government even though your own sources emphatically rejected this notion. You even tried to imply that there is something suspect about our funding sources though the Jewish Federation of Los Angeles and Birthright Israel can hardly be considered suspect.
Your readers deserve to know the facts.
StandWithUs does not and has never advocated specific policies for Israel.  Our work and our respect for Israel's democratically elected government is not contingent on which parties are in power.  Instead, since our founding, our mission has been to counter the vicious anti-Israel, anti-Semitic propaganda campaign that was unleashed along with the Intifada in September, 2000.  Our goal is to educate the public about Israel—and empower others to educate their communities—to counter the demonizing propaganda and to make it possible to have reasonable, informed conversations about Israel's policies on campuses and in communities.  
Your readers should be informed about the virulence of the anti-Israel propaganda campaign.  Israel is the only modern state whose right to exist is still questioned.  If you consider support for the existence of the Jewish State a right wing position, then indeed we are right wing. Yet you repeatedly confused anti-Israel propaganda with "reasonable criticism" of Israeli policies.  But the boycott  movement against Israel is not just critical of Israel's occupation and settlements as you claimed.  The movement opposes the very existence of the Jewish state.  Read their literature and their websites which are biased screeds that ignore ongoing terrorism and falsify facts.  We objected to the Israeli soldiers' group speaking on campuses not because they are critical of the Israeli government  but because they misrepresent the IDF to vilify it and contribute to the malicious misinformation about Israel on American campuses.
Similarly, your article misrepresented why we object to J Street. It is not because J Street "criticizes" Israel's government policies, but rather because it attempts to get the American government to strong arm Israel into adopting specific policies that Israeli voters clearly rejected in their democratic elections. It is an effort to bypass Israel's democracy. Furthermore, J Street has often supported blatant demonization of Israel, as when it tried to facilitate bringing Richard Goldstone and the infamous UN Goldstone Report to Congressional members.  Even Goldstone himself has admitted the inaccuracy and bias of that report.
Indeed, it seems you had to search hard to find some evidence that would justify your criticism of StandWithUs.  Though you claimed that StandWithUs has many critics, the only one you cited by name is well-known for his extremist  views.  Your criticism of some specific facts in our educational materials is simply erroneous .  Despite your claim, Israel's founding in May, 1948, did not cause the Palestinian refugee problem.  Indeed, no responsible historian, including Benny Morris, disputes the fact that had Palestinian leaders accepted the UN Partition plan instead of launching a war to destroy the newly declared state, there would have been no refugees and a Palestinian Arab state would exist today.   The Danny Ayalon video simply laid out the historical facts about the West Bank. It is disputed territory, and both Palestinians and Israelis have legitimate claims to it.  What policies Israel and the Palestinians choose in light of these facts is a political question that will hopefully be hammered out in negotiations.  StandWithUs does not recommend any specific policies, but rather elucidates the facts and history so there can be reasonable discussions about different policy options.
It is a shame that The Forward, while seeming to congratulate our growth and achievements during the last ten years,  nonetheless chose to malign our efforts. 
These are difficult times for Israel.  The Arab spring has created instability in the region and allowed the rise of Islamist forces that oppose Israel's existence.  Iran is racing to develop nuclear weapons and constantly reiterates that it wants to wipe Israel off the map.  Hezbollah and Hamas continue amassing arms. The anti-Israel propaganda campaign, often called the "new anti-Semitism," (for good reason)  persistently tries to make inroads in liberal Western democracies.  StandWithUs alerts and educates the public about these challenges, while the Forward minimizes them, doing a disservice to its readers.
Roz Rothstein, CEO
      StandWithUs
_________________________________________

If you find the original Forward piece to be offensive and (as I had written) smarmy, feel free to go there and comment.

Again, a disclaimer: I have done some work with SWU.
פורסם על ידי zoom ב- 0:04

אין תגובות:

הוסף רשומת תגובה

הירשם ל- תגובות לפרסום (Atom)