Dead Arabs Don't Matter to the World -- Unless Israel Killed Them

The hypocrisy of the major world powers, of those who dominate the international mass media, is long known. Khaled Abu Toameh reminds us once again of how cynical the world media, most of it Western, can be. Abu Toameh points out how international journalists and international "human rights" bodies --the ones that are always dragging their halos around-- customarily overlook Arab victims whose sufferings have nothing to do with Israel. The purpose is to smear and hurt Israel... If a particular case of suffering cannot be attributed to Israel then it is hardly worth writing about.
In line with this of course is that the Palestinian Arab suffering that is deemed worthy of attention is only that of Arabs in Judea-Samaria, not that of those in Syria to be sure, since that suffering cannot be blamed on Israel. Nor does the Palestinian Authority --Mahmoud Abbas' statelet on the way-- care about any of this. Even those who speak in the name of the Palestinian Arabs care little about the suffering of Palestinian Arabs that cannt be blamed on Israel.

Here are some highlishts of Abu Toameh's essay:

Nearly 3,500 Palestinians have been killed in Syria since 2011. But because these Palestinians were killed by Arabs, and not Israelis, this fact is not news in the mainstream media or of interest to "human rights" forums.                                                         
• International media outlets regularly report on the "water crisis" in Palestinian towns and villages, especially in the West Bank. This is a story that repeats itself almost every summer, when some foreign journalists set out to search for any story that reflects negatively on Israel. And there is nothing more comfortable than holding Israel responsible for the "water crisis" in the West Bank.                                                          
• But how many Western journalists have cared to inquire about the thirsty Palestinians of Yarmouk refugee camp in Syria? Does anyone in the international community know that this camp has been without water supply for more than 720 days? Or that the camp has been without electricity for the past three years?

• When Western journalists lavish time on Palestinians delayed at Israeli checkpoints, and ignore bombs dropped by the Syrian military on residential areas,  one might start to wonder [what] they are really about.

Since the issue of Israeli water supplies to Arabs in Judea-Samaria became a major topic for international news agencies and "human rights" agencies in the past few years, let's look at Abu Toameh's information. He explains that whether or not Arabs, or Palestinian Arabs specifically, are deprived of water is of little concern to them. Again, the issue is what can be blamed on Israel reasonably, or even unreasonably very often. 

International media outlets regularly report on the "water crisis" in Palestinian towns and villages, especially in the West Bank. This is a story that repeats itself almost every summer, when some foreign journalists set out to search for any story that reflects negatively on Israel. And there is nothing more comfortable than holding Israel responsible for the "water crisis" in the West Bank.

But how many Western journalists have cared to inquire about the thirsty Palestinians of Yarmouk refugee camp in Syria? Does anyone in the international community know that this camp has been without water supply for more than 720 days? Or that the camp has been without electricity for the past three years? Yarmouk, which is located only eight kilometers from the center of Damascus, is the largest Palestinian refugee camp in Syria. That is, it was the largest camp. In June 2002, 112,000 Palestinians lived in Yarmouk. By the end of 2014, the camp population had been decimated to less than 20,000. Medical sources say many of the residents of the camp are suffering from a host of diseases.

Just bear in mind that there is no reason to rely on the international media or the self-styled "human rights" agencies.

Pope Acknowledges He Was Misquoted/Mistranslated by MSM Press

This piece from Times of Israel reports that the Pope is personally acknowledging that he was misquoted/mistranslated by press agencies and publications such as New York Times, Associated Press (AP), Reuters and Agence France Presse (AFP) [also see: here & here&here].

In comments made to veteran Portuguese-Israeli journalist Henrique Cymerman Thursday, Francis was quoted as saying that “anyone who does not recognize the Jewish people and the State of Israel — and their right to exist — is guilty of anti-Semitism.” 

Francis was also said to have backtracked on statements he was reportedly heard making earlier this month designating the visiting Abbas “a bit an angel of peace.”
The pope recalled telling Abbas in Italian that he hopes the Palestinian chief might one day become an angel of peace in the future, according to Cymerman — although ostensibly he has not yet reached that level.

Jewish-Portuguese journalist Henrique Cymerman, August 03, 2013. (Moshe Shai/FLASH90)

The comments were sent by the Pope in writing to Cymerman along with Argentine Rabbi Abraham Skorka, one of Francis’s close interfaith colleagues, after the duo approached him following his meeting with Abbas, Channel 2 reported.

Israeli Medic Tried to Treat Abu `Ayn But He Was Pulled Away by His Friends & Followers

Link added at bottom 12-12&13-2014

One of the ironic aspects of this sordid affair, replete with lies and hypocrisy as it is, is that Abu `Ayn might have been saved if the Israeli medic had been allowed to hook him up to intravenous injection of medications which could have helped him avoid death due to his coronary infarction.

First, although the efforts of the Israeli medic have been generally overlooked in this episode, they were reported, albeit sketchily, by Le Point, the French weekly, using a report from Agence France Presse [AFP]:

Ziyad Abu `Ayn collapsed on the grass while holding his chest, a  photographer for AFP reported. An Israeli woman soldier [a medic] tried to supply him with first aid before he was brought to the hospital [in Ramallah] where he passed away. [Le Point from AFP 10 December 2014]

Ziad Abou Eïn s'est affaissé dans l'herbe en se tenant la poitrine, a rapporté le photographe de l'AFP. Une soldate israélienne a tenté de lui apporter les premiers secours avant qu'il ne soit emmené à l'hôpital, où il a succombé. [Le Point from AFP 10 December 2014]

Now here is a video that shows, in two places, hands in blue gloves rubbing one of Abu `Ayn's arms in order to prep [prepare] it for an injection or infusion. She is either looking for a suitable spot for a needle or rubbing the arm with surgical cotton soaked in a disinfectant. An injection would probably be some sort of blood thinner or anti-coagulant used commonly in heart attack cases. An intravenous infusion might include blood thinners, anti-coagulants and/or heart beat regulators etc. As you watch the video, look out for the blue hands in two places.

It appears that some of the film in the video is repeated. That is, some scenes are shown twice. But besides the hands in blue gloves, what is significant is that while the medic is prepping his arm, Abu `Ayn's "friends" pull him up and away from the medic so that she cannot continue treating him. Ironically, as said above, by preventing treatment at a critical time, his "friends" and followers may have made his death certain.

Why did they pull him up and away from the medic? It seems that they wanted to bring him before the press so that the press photogs and reporters could see how badly the Israelis had supposedly treated him.
- - - - - - - - - - -
See our previous posts on the Abu `Ayn Affair: here & here

Sky News asked the obvious question that I asked: Could Abu `Ayn have been saved if the medic had been allowed to do her work?:  http://news.sky.com/story/1389277/palestinian-minister-dies-after-row-with-soldier
Hélène Keller-Lind: "Ziad Abu Ein, ou comment une manipulation éhontée fait de la mort d’un homme souffrant de cardiopathie ischémique un crime" [ici]

How Hamas Talks out of Three Sides of Their Mouth

Hamas sends a different message to each of three different groups, to three bodies of public opinion or audiences that it wants to influence. It tells the Arabs and the Muslim world that it won the war, that it was victorious and triumphant, that it caused great losses to Israel, great losses among both Israeli soldiers and civilians, that it is a movement of mighty heroes.
It tells the West, the self-styled "Left", the Liberals and the would-be humanitarians that the victims on its side in the war were nearly all civilians, that its martyrs were women and children, that Israel targeted civilians, woman and children, as well as UN facilities. It pretended to be weak and helpless and innocuous and innocent. This was of course in direct contradiction and contrast to its messages to the Arab and Muslim worlds.

Lastly, in youtube messages to Israelis it  threatened that it would slaughter them. It was trying to terrorize them with pix of death and destruction in Israel and threats in Hebrew, usually poor Hebrew, that they were going to be killed, slaughtered, massacred. When Israelis were aware of this terror propaganda they usually laughed at it.

It's a three-way media/propaganda strategy. Aaron Magid spells it out on Tablet:

. . . .  on Aug. 26, hours before the Egyptian-mediated ceasefire in Gaza began, Hamas’ military wing—Al-Qassam Brigades—launched its final attacks on Israel. In addition to the dozens of rockets shot by Al-Qassam Brigades, @qassam_Arabic1, Al-Qassam’s official Arabic Twitter account, defiantly posted dozens of tweets declaring unconditional triumph. Sprinkling religious messaging on their Arabic Twitter page, Al-Qassam frequently utilized Quranic language to inspire its followers.

At the same time, in English, Al-Qassam was posting online messages employing terms such as “human rights” to attract a Western audience while emphasizing Palestinian suffering . . . . [emphasis added]

But the message sent to Israelis was altogether different from the other two:

 . . . . . While Al-Qassam’s English messaging was designed to show Hamas as the moral underdogs, the organization’s Hebrew social media team focused primarily on intimidating the Israeli public. One Tweet included an Al-Qassam fighter inside a tunnel aiming a rifle at the viewer with “see you later!” written in Hebrew. [emphasis added]

Intimidating is too mild a term for the Hamas message to Israelis. They were trying to terrorize  us with pictures of death and destruction inside Israeli cities. However, one of the videos was taken over by Israelis who used it to ridicule the Hamas. It featured mighty Hamas warriors --at least in their own eyes-- in battle on land, sea and air, and featured headlines coming out of the screen such as Mavet l'Yisrael [death to Israel]. It also featured films and still pix from Hamas mass murder terrorist attacks on Israelis from the past 15 years, like the neon sign outside Café Moment in Jerusalem where a dozen Israelis were murdered about 13 years ago and ambulances at scenes of terrorist attacks. Nevertheless, the Hebrew language  facet of Hamas propaganda did not work as well as the distinct  messages aimed at the Arab & Muslim worlds and at the West/the Liberals/would-be humanitarians, etc.

Speaking to a Western audience, Khalid Mesh`al was at his oily, hypocritical best:

When Hamas political leader Khaled Meshal was interviewed by Western media outlets, as happened repeatedly throughout and after the war, he shifted Hamas’ messaging away from Hamas’ more combative Arabic tweets toward the kind of language that Western audiences would receive as more moderate and reasonable. On BBC, Meshal twice mentioned that “our Palestinian people have a right to their own state in the West Bank and Gaza”—as though Hamas was fighting for a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. Yet, Hamas TV consistently called all Israelis, including those who lived in pre-1967 Israel, “settlers,” in consonance with the organization’s charter and repeated public declarations laying claim to “all of Palestine.” In a separate interview with PBS’ Charlie Rose, Meshal stated that “we do not fight the Jews because they are Jews per se. We fight the occupiers. I’m ready to coexist with the Jews”—again suggesting, to Western listeners who were willing or eager to hear him talk that way, a potential willingness to recognize an Israeli state within the 1967 lines. At the same time in Arabic, Al-Qassam was celebrating the death of a 4-year-old Israeli “settler” from Nahal Oz, who lived far away from any West Bank settlement.

. The Hamas whining about its own Gaza civilians being killed was especially hypocritical since it was trying to get its own civilians killed by firing from civilian areas, including UN compounds, including even areas where the foreign press was staying, In this vein, it built underground bunkers to protect its leadership and its rockets but not bomb shelters to protect its civilians. Under international law, Israel would be in its rights to shoot at a military target, such as a rocket launcher, located in a civilian area and surrounded by civilians.

[Geneva Convention, adopted 12 August 1949,
Article 28 The presence of a protected person {= civilian} may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations]

However, Hamas would use the civilian deaths from such an Israeli counterattack as an illustration of its claim that Israel commits war crimes, whereas one of Hamas' purposes stated purposes in its charter is the genocide of Jews [see especially Article 7 of the Hamas charter]. Furthermore, Hamas has made clear that it does not believe that Israeli civilians can be truly civilians. In fact it described a  four-year old Israeli boy killed by a Hamas mortar as a violator [see Magid's article http://tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/186373/hamas-twitter-messaging]. Hamas and other Arab terrorist factions and parties argue that there are no Israeli civilians, only settlers and soldiers and occupiers and what Hamas calls violators, even if they are only four-years old.

What is important to bear in mind is that skillful propaganda aims different messages at different groups. Thus the message has to be tailored to fit the preexisting beliefs and attitudes of the target audience. Hamas failed to intimidate Israelis, however its propaganda focused on Western/liberal/would-be humanitarian/ audiences was a tremendous hit, highly effective, although obviously deceitful and fraudulent.

See Magid's article here.

Why You Cannot Trust the Media on Israel -- A Veteran Reporter Explains

Is there anybody who still trusts the media, especially but not only concerning Israel?

Mati Friedman, a veteran reporter for the Associated Press (AP), has not only demonstrated the bias of the AP, where he worked, but of the media generally. What you have probably sensed long ago, is now confirmed by Friedman, who goes on to explain some of the mechanisms and rules governing media anti-Jewish, anti-Israel bias. It is also likely that there is media bias on other issues and against other countries. Knowing the methods and biases of the media generally can help the informed reader better understand what he is reading or watching on TV.

Here is an example of media bias and method of bias, as reported by Friedman:

A representative article from a recent issue of The New Yorker described the summer’s events by dedicating one sentence each to the horrors in Nigeria and Ukraine, four sentences to the crazed génocidaires of ISIS, and the rest of the article—30 sentences—to Israel and Gaza.

Friedman makes clear that worldwide hate atmosphere against Israel derives not simply from events but from how those events are presented by malice aforethought in the media:

While global mania about Israeli actions has come to be taken for granted, it is actually the result of decisions made by individual human beings in positions of responsibility—in this case, journalists and editors. The world is not responding to events in this country, but rather to the description of these events by news organizations. The key to understanding the strange nature of the response is thus to be found in the practice of journalism, and specifically in a severe malfunction that is occurring in that profession

According to the rules of most international media, what is important is what Israel does, not what the Arabs called "palestinians" do. They are seen, by the rules, as always passive victims:

A reporter working in the international press corps here understands quickly that what is important in the Israel-Palestinian story is Israel. If you follow mainstream coverage, you will find nearly no real analysis of Palestinian society or ideologies, profiles of armed Palestinian groups, or investigation of Palestinian government. Palestinians are not taken seriously as agents of their own fate. The West has decided that Palestinians should want a state alongside Israel, so that opinion is attributed to them as fact, though anyone who has spent time with actual Palestinians understands that things are (understandably, in my opinion) more complicated. Who they are and what they want is not important: The story mandates that they exist as passive victims of the party that matters

He goes on to discuss the reality of Hamas intimidation of journalists, and its effects and reach:

There has been much discussion recently of Hamas attempts to intimidate reporters. Any veteran of the press corps here knows the intimidation is real, and I saw it in action myself as an editor on the AP news desk. During the 2008-2009 Gaza fighting I personally erased a key detail—that Hamas fighters were dressed as civilians and being counted as civilians in the death toll—because of a threat to our reporter in Gaza

The aversion to the truth of Western media organizations is so strong that they even forego scoops if the information contained in the scoop contradicts the pro-Arab narrative:

 In early 2009, for example, two colleagues of mine obtained information that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had made a significant peace offer to the Palestinian Authority several months earlier, and that the Palestinians had deemed it insufficient. This had not been reported yet and it was—or should have been—one of the biggest stories of the year. The reporters obtained confirmation from both sides and one even saw a map, but the top editors at the bureau decided that they would not publish the story

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/183033/israel-insider-guide

You have been warned. Don't trust the media on Israel.

Why Are Ukrainian Officials & Bashar Assad Allowed to Call Enemies "Terrorists" but the Western Press Won't Use the Word?

Forty years ago in the 1970s, the Irish Republican Army Provisional faction was performing acts of terrorism and sometimes mass murder in Northern Ireland. And the BBC called them "terrorists." In the same years, the Fatah --meaning conquest of a city in Arabic-- was acting as a mass murderous terrorist group. Neither Fatah nor its partners in mass murder terrorism against Israelis and Jews, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine,  the Popular Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine plus half a dozen smaller murder factions, was called "terrorist" by the BBC. Who can reckon why this discrepancy? Why were IRA Provos called "terrorists" but not Fatah or the PFLP or the PDFLP?

Maybe the BBC thought that British blood was redder than Jewish-Israeli blood. I can only speculate.

In recent years it is not only the BBC that refuses to call terrorists what they are. Now it is a well-established widespread practice in Western press and media outlets that terrorists are called "militants." In earlier years, a militant was a guy who came out to walk the picket line during a strike, a guy who came to the picket line every day, even in bad weather when most people would be more comfortable at home. A militant for a revolutionary faction was somebody who would pick up a thousand leaflets printed by his faction and stand on a street corner all day giving them out. But nobody in those far off days  would call somebody who planted a bomb in a school playground a "militant."

But the word "terrorist" is still  used these days. Bashar Assad called his domestic enemies "terrorists" in 2011 even before allies and cothinkers of al-Qa`ida had joined the struggle against Assad, or what is now a struggle  to determine the future of Syria.
When Assad started calling the rebels against him "terrorists" before it was  true, back in 2011, he was wrong. But he knew very well what and who were terrorists. He himself and his father before him had funded and trained Arab terrorists attacking Israel. The Assad regime in Syria had funded and trained several of the smaller PLO factions since the 1960s, and Hamas & Hizbullah, since the 1980s. After the  US invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Assad regime armed and trained terrorists who operated in Iraq against the foreign occupation troops, including Americans of course. These Syrian-trained terrorists especially took to using bombs to slaughter the Shiite population in Iraq. Surely the Assad regime knew that these were terrorists. By the way, today Assad is allied with Shiites warriors against Sunni Muslim rebels against him.

Now we know that Assad's regime is greatly aided by the Russian government. The Russian govt also supports rebels and insurgents in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea. These rebels and insurgents who favor Russian rule over their home areas in Eastern Ukraine, in the Don Basin, and so on, are rough and abusive and often thuggish. But they are hardly terrorists in the sense of Hamas or Hizbullah or al-Qa`ida. Yet officials of the Ukrainian government, Yatsenyuk and Poroshenko and so on, call these rebels/insurgents "terrorists." This is one of the things that keeps the new Ukrainian govt from having any credibility,

Now the new Ukrainian govt is supported by Western powers including the EU & USA. So Russia's ally in Syria, Assad, called his opponents "terrorists"  even when the rebels fighting him were not terrorists.
Today, Ukrainian officials supported by the EU & USA call the rebels that Russia supports "terrorists" when they are not.

Meanwhile, Western news outlets like BBC, France24, the New York Times and so many others, call the real terrorists mere "militants."

Hence the word terrorist has become an ill-treated orphan. Can't somebody sort out the meanings and  usages of the words "terrorist" & "militant"? Where is Orwell when we need him?

The Turkish "Humanitarian" Armada -- An Italian View

UPDATING 6-14 & 10-17-2010 at bottom

The peace process means peace of mind for antisemites

Fiamma Nirenstein, the deputy chairperson of the foreign affairs committee of the Italian Chamber of Deputies, discerns a slight improvement in the international view of Israel's action to stop the fake humanitarian Turkish armada from breaking the blockade of Gaza, now ruled by Islamic fanatics and bigots. Her piece is remarkable for her real knowledge of what was going on compared to the fashionable, simplistic Judeophobic accounts elsewhere in the world's "news" media.


The Left Is Now Rethinking: Enough Mud on Israel

Il Giornale 9 June 2‏010

After the accusations poured on Israel, now comes the mea culpa of the international press and observers. Even Bernard-Henri Levy condemns the disinformation. Reuters is accused: blood and knives removed from the photos

* * * * * * *

Israel is a major subject for discussion in today’s world. It is the apple of discord, the preferred pretext for attacking the West, the best weapon for legitimizing the old striped totalitarian Soviet peace flag. It is the worm that gnaws at the soul of Leftist Jews who adore their narcissistic-diasporic legitimization that exempts them from the hardly elegant experience of being a people, indeed, a nation. Above all, it is the issue that enables the antisemites to express themselves under cover and enables the automatic UN majority to be strong. It is also the best of the red capes to wave in front of the Islamist bull, as Ahmadinejad did in Istanbul, when he promised to wipe out Israel, and as Bashar Assad did in Syria and Erdogan, the Turkish prime minister, did, who is building an Islamist career for his country by threatening Israel.

But excess is deforming and the huge amount of mud poured on Israel lately has disgusted even Bernard-Henri Levy, one of the most active critics of Israeli policy (He and others authored the leftist so-called JCall document against the Israeli government and criticized Israel immediately after the flotilla event). Precisely in HaAretz, a pacifist, hypercritical paper, he condemned the disinformation and criminalization deployed against Israel, while retaining his reservations about the “stupidity” of the operation and of the Netanyahu government.

The world is rethinking, and maybe that is also because the slow realization of reality is weakening the pressure, Israel is showing courage on the issue of a [international investigating] commission. Jerusalem has many good reasons for rejecting an international commission that, according to the UN Council for Human Rights (Italy voted No), is supposed to investigate the behavior of the Jewish State during the unfortunate boarding and takeover of the ship Marmara. The French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner considers it a good idea and in order to reinforce the meaning of the commission he requests that Turkey take part in it. That is strange, given the certainly non-neutral role of Turkey in that event and given that Erdogan stokes the fire and threatens, together with Ahmadinejad, to go to the coast of Gaza with his own ships, even personally.

In general, Israel’s experience with investigating commissions, with UN institutions moreover, has been disastrous. An outstanding illustration was the commission directed by Judge Goldstone which used only sources sympathetic to the Palestinians to draw up a devastating report about the Gaza War. In fact, it forbade Israel to defend itself and quoted only activist-witnesses that call armed units and human shields for Hamas “civilians.” Israel, that can judge itself very severely by itself, as demonstrated by the Winograd Commission that was pitiless on the Lebanon War of 2006 and caused the dismissal of many civilians and military men, is planning therefore at the moment two independent investigating commissions, even if Netanyahu is still awaiting American approval for the second: The first, military one, will be guided by General Giora Eiland, a calm personality, admired for being cultured; the second is to be made up of local jurists, expert on international and maritime law and of two international jurists, one an American, as observers. It will not be their duty to interrogate the soldiers, whom Bibi is careful not to let be directly accused. The commission should examine the conditions of the encounter on the ship Marmara, the legality of the naval blockade, the question of “proportion” in the encounter.

In reality, with the passage of the hours, as many international observers, the press, the TV, Bernard-Henri Levy and companions make their mea culpas, the circumstances of the event on the Marmara have become ever clearer. Criticisms have been made by many of the military modality of the attack, but that the “pacifist” ship was transporting armed thugs belonging to an organization that had supplied weapons to Hamas, to the Islamic Jihad and even to al-Qa`ida and that it was sprinkled with persons who wanted to win paradise through becoming shahids, is certain.

What has not been well clarified, however, is the role of Turkey, that launched the fleet although warned of the danger that that entailed; that knew who the men of the IHH were, and that allowed them to embark anyhow in conspicuous numbers from a different port without checking them, that now rides the event in the most blatant way, using Istanbul as a launch platform for bellicose operations. Turkey acts enthusiastically in every domain: It was reprimanded by Angela Merkel by her defining herself as prime minister for the Turks who live in Germany; it raised eyebrows when it sought de facto to save Iran from the sanctions by offering to enrich Iran’s uranium itself; when a radar station within Turkey collapsed unexpectedly while NATO is supposed to have needed information on Georgia, obtained by radar.

Standing out is the fact that Abu Mazen went personally to Erdogan to explain to him that what he is doing gives Hamas an advantage over its worst enemy, Fatah. A fire like the one that Turkey is threatening to kindle to Israel’s detriment can spread even to the detriment of the arsonists.

- - - - - - - - - end- - - - -for original see here- - - - - -

It may well be that world public opinion is turning away from the lies of Erdogan and of his Western comrades in the "Free Gaza movement." After all, there has been too much real information that emerged before and after the boarding of the Mavi Marmara about the thuggish character of the IHH operatives on the boat who attacked Israeli commandos who came down one by one from a helicopter, thereby facilitating the endeavor of the Turkish thugs to seize and beat and stab them. That was an Israeli mistake of intelligence evaluation and of command. But the thuggish character of the "peacemongers" was obvious for all to see in many videos and audio recordings and still photos. So even many of the usual anti-Israel hypocrites had to step back and reconsider what went on.

What is disappointing in the article above is that Israel's govt and prime minister seem to be giving in to a hypocritical demand by certain Western govts and the UN, etc., that an "international invesigating commission" be set up to investigate only Israel and not Turkey, an investigation that would supposedly be "transparent" and "impartial" and any other suitable adjective that the reader may care to add . Meanwhile, Erdogan and Ahmadinejad's open incitement to war and threats of war against Israel are not openly or directly condemned by the West, including the USA. Israel should take its case to the so-called International Court of Justice at the Hague where of course, Israel will get no justice because of the inherently political structure of the ICJ and the UN as a whole, but it would be helpful to raise the issue, to make the accusations anyhow, to accuse, in my opinion. The UN "human rights council," which is dominated by tyrannies and, in particular, the Organization of the Islamic Conference [OIC] (its chairman a Turk named Ihsanoglu), should not be allowed to be the party making accusations and demanding investigations. The role of the Islamist Turkish govt of Erdogan in instigating and executing this affair should be exposed to the whole world.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
UPDATING 6-14-2010
Eve Garrard, a writer, points out some of the widespread hypocrisy deployed against Israel, especially on account of the Turkish armada incident [here].
Leon de Winter, Dutch novelist, perceives the international Left's hypocrisy over the Turkish armada [here]
UPDATING 10-17-2010 The important Italian daily, Il Giornale [which Fiamma Nirenstein writes for] of 1 June 2010 judged that "Israel did right to shoot" at violent jihadist thugs on the Mavi Marmara [here]. "With the excuse of pacifism, a fleet of ships wanted to violate the sovereignty of the Jewish state and bring aid to Hamas." The novelist Amos Oz disagreed with the Israeli government decision to stop the "aid convoy." But he adds, "I don't know them, these pacifists. Many of them cannot be defined as such. They are Islamic militants sympathizing with Hamas. They have ties with terrorist organizations. I believe that they were looking for a provocation. This is a fact. Among them, to be sure, were pacifists in good faith. . ." Here's a problem. Can pacifists in "good faith" sympathize with Hamas? Were they so ignorant as not to know what Hamas stands for? That their convoy was making publicity for Hamas? Were they 100%, sincere and consistent pacifists?

Fake Human Rights Outfits like Human Rights Watch Form a Central Axis of the MSM's Anti-Israel Strategy

UPDATING link added 10 September 2009

. . . Many Lies resembling Truth. . .
Hesiod, Theogony

Sources of fake "information" that present themselves as ostensibly loyal to lofty ideals are part of a well-developed propaganda-cum-indoctrination machine. A fake outfit, ostensibly devoted to a lofty principle, such as human rights, uses its undeserved image of decency, idealism, truthfulness and impartiality to smear a target, a designated enemy. It doesn't use bullets or guns but words. Yet in the long run, the words are meant to play a military role too. The process entails a fake human rights group or fake "peace group" etc, like Human Rights Watch, drawing up a report falsely accusing Israel of killing civilians in warfare, either intentionally or negligently/carelessly. The report is passed on to the complicit Mainstream Media or --to use a somewhat dated term-- the Establishment media. The various media/press/broadcasting organizations --not all to be sure-- report on the report, perhaps further dramatizing it. A smear, a libel, a slander spreads throughout the world. The target has been effectively smeared. The smear is especially effective among readers or listeners who are weak in their knowledge of history, sociology, political science, comparative religion and so on and so forth, as well as being weak in their ability to carefully read what is written, to discount speculative accounts without well-identified credible witnesses, and so on. That is how Human Rights Watch and similar entities can operate.

A commenter on the Augean Stables site, which was founded precisely to deal with frauds and distortions in the media, sees the link between the media and the fake "NGOs" and groups with ostensibly lofty goals, as follows. He points out part of the strategy of the MSM in promoting false "news":

Denting the credibility of ‘trusted sources’ like HRW is precisely what the MSNM carefully tries to avoid even while pretending balance. It regularly uses apparently neutral sources which are actually deeply committed players to force a covert agenda on the audience as a magician forces a card on a dupe. [Lorenz Gude at Augean Stables 8-14-09]

By the way, Gude goes on to mention the impact of the Internet and intelligent blogs on MSM/Establishment control of the "narrative."

Now an unruly audience gets to point out when the magician is pulling a fast one.

That is probably true but the MSM still have more power than the blogs.

Another trick is to pretend that one is neutral, maybe merely interested in having the law obeyed or that one is opposed to one's own ally and allied with one's enemy. This trick is often used against Israel, with the MSM and State Dept pretending to defend Israel against Arab enemies while the truth is the opposite. The Israeli govt also plays along with this lie, which is another problem.

Academic international relations specialists Walt & Mearsheimer were well regarded in the United States in their profession and specialty. They were also both State Department consultants. The State Dept has almost always been hostile to Israel and Jews since before the rebirth of the State of Israel. However, public opinion in the United States has often been sympathetic to Israel and this sympathy has sometimes thwarted State Dept policies hostile to Israel. It seems that one purpose of Walt & Mearsheimer's notorious book, The Israel Lobby, was to create a hostile atmosphere for Israel in the United States, a hostile body of public opinion in order to replace or counter the body of opinion sympathetic to Israel. In that way, the State Dept would be less restricted by public opinion in what it does to harm Israel. W & M falsely claimed that Israel had controlled even dictated American Middle East policy through the so-called Israel Lobby which is at best a very amorphous body of public opinion, often pulling in different directions.

They went so far as to claim or insinuate that the US-led invasion of Iraq --in which Israel's old nemesis, the UK-- took a major role-- had been dictated or forced on America by Israel. W & M knew that this was a lie. Indeed, Mearsheimer went on at length in an interview on National Public Radio [the US Govt broadcaster; also see here] that when Israeli officials had learned of the US intention to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein, they --the Israelis-- had tried to dissuade the Americans from doing this and to convince them [the Americans] that, if they were going to go to war anyway, it would be better to attack Iran than Iraq, since Iran was more dangerous in the Israeli view, with its undisrupted efforts to develop a nuclear bomb, etc. Needless to say, the Israelis did not succeed in convincing the Americans and the invasion of Iraq went ahead. This admission by Mearsheimer, probably inadvertent, did not stop W & M from lying afterwards about Israeli control of US policy. And of course the MSM routinely claim that Israel is a favored ally of US policy whereas, especially under Obama, Israel is a target, an enemy meant to be attacked. While doing their "book," W & M, overlooked the close ties and cozy financial relationships between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, American administrations, the State Dept and -- former State Dept employes who had worked in Saudi Arabia and later got on the Saudi payroll. Charles Freeman, whom Obama had originally wanted to appoint to a highly sensitive intelligence post, was one of these. Of course, W & M were aware of the Saudi-American connection, especially close under the two Bush administrations [Sr & Jr], as described in detail in Craig Unger's book on the House of Saud.

In another example, Pres Obama has been denouncing "special interests" such as insurance companies and big pharmaceutical outfits for being opposed to his so-called health plan. In fact, he is already allied with Big Pharma [see here too] and seems to have the insurance industry on board as well. This is a blatant example of this technique. He denounces the big drug companies, whom he and his advisors knew were disliked and distrusted by the public, in order to win public support for his program. They, the Big Pharma firms, are against Me, against Little Me. Meanwhile, Obama and Big Pharma are allied.

Further, Obama's supporters throw out the label "astroturf" to smear opponents of his plan. Astroturf is a brand name for a kind of imitation grass used in some sports stadiums. The label is meant to say that opponents of his plan do not represent the real "grass roots" but are fake grass, astroturf, organized by the Republican Party or the Big Interests, such as Big Pharma [as insinuated]. There couldn't possibly be anything wrong with Obama's health plan.

In tsarist Russia, the government conducted an anti-Jewish campaign in various ways. One way was to finance and encourage a group called the Black Hundreds [tshernotentsy] that blamed the Jews for all of the Russian Empire's troubles and carried out anti-Jewish pogroms. When such pogroms broke out, often instigated and organized by the Black Hundreds, the police often did little or nothing to protect the Jews. They pretended to be helpless before such a "spontaneous" outburst of popular hatred of Jews.

Getting back to "human rights watch," it pretends to objectivity and impartiality. These pretenses have been easily disproven by a number of serious reports in various publications and blogs. Among these, see the Augean Stables blog and --especially-- the NGO Monitor blog, both linked to on our blog roll. Emet m'Tsiyon has considered hrw's tragi-farcical charade several times in the past [see here & ici & aqui & qui ]

HRW ought to be severely discredited due to recent revelations that it sent some of its top officials to Saudi Arabia for fundraising [see here & NGO Monitor & Augean Stables], with three Saudi officials present at meetings [according to an AFP report]. Bear in mind that Saudi Arabia, with its Wahhabi Muslim ideology and legal system, rejects the whole notion of human rights in principle. Likewise discrediting is the fanatically anti-Israel career of top HRW operative Joe Stork, who has not changed his extreme anti-Israel views since he openly identified himself as a "radical leftist" years ago. This too ought to discredit HRW. See Stork's background here.
- - - - - - - - -
UPDATING link added on 10 Sept 2009
David Bernstein on HRW seeking funds in Saudi Arabia, from the Wall Street Journal [published 16 July 2009].
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Coming soon: Arabs and State Dept helping to fund the "J Street" lobby outfit, Lies supporting the "peace process" and Obama/State Dept policy.

The Mecca Massacre 1987 -- The Power/Influence of Saudi Arabia in the USA

UPDATING 3-19 & 3-21 & 3-26-2009 & 1-19-2010

Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools

A bloody event in Mecca on July 31, 1987, demonstrated the power or influence of Saudi Arabia in the United States, and over the communications media in particular. During the yearly Muslim haj pilgrimage to Mecca --occurring in July that year according to the Gregorian calendar-- Saudi police beat to death [or shot] a mass of Iranian pilgrims, estimated in numbers from 400 to 1500. Either the minimal or maximal number would be a shocking number of victims of police brutality. Now, police brutality had become a theme for outrage for many Americans, especially those considering themselves "liberals", "progressives", "leftists" and "radicals". If this shocking incident would end up by applying the label of "police brutality" to Saudi Arabia, that could cause difficulties for the Saudi-American relationship, a relationship which was profitable in money terms not only for the Saudi royal family but for their numerous American associates, followers, hangers on, hirelings, and so on. It should be added that the US-Saudi relationship provided military security/protection for the Wahhabite monarchy which would in any case be threatened by enemies within the Arab and Islamic worlds for all sorts of reasons.

What happened that day in Mecca? Other than the issue of just how many were killed, which I cannot pretend to answer with authority, there is the issue of who began the incident and how, the issue of how to describe the incident [massacre of civilians unprovoked by them, a riot by these Iranian pilgrims, a mere political demonstration by the Iranians in favor of Khomeini which the Saudi royals could not tolerate for various reasons, including the Sunni-Shi`ite split, etc], and the issues of who were killed [only Iranians or Saudi police too] and how [by shooting or beating]. From what I know, the Iranians were sent on pilgrimage by their government --by Khomeini's regime-- with the purpose of embarassing the Sunni Saudis by staging a pro-Khomeini demonstration during the pilgrimage. When they staged their demo, with prepared signs featuring political-religious slogans, the Saudi police reacted by beating them, perhaps on the orders of their commanders. And they beat them to death. At least 400 Iranian demonstrators, according to the low figure of which I am aware, were killed.

At that time, the Iran of the ayatollahs was winning its war with Saddam Hussein's Iraq, a war that began with an Iraqi attack on Iran in 1981, that is, Iraqi aggresssion. Since Israel was not involved, the UN security council was not much concerned, nor was the international press nor were the so-called pro-peace, pro-human rights, pro-civil rights NGOs excessively perturbed by the massive loss of life in the war. Now in the summer of 1987 the war had gone on for six years. Since Iran had come from behind to gain the upper hand, there was the danger that the Mecca massacre might provoke a retaliatory Iranian attack on Saudi Arabia. Many wars in history had begun with much less provocation. Of course, we bear in mind that the USA had supported both Saudi Arabia and Khomeini's regime [quite openly at its very beginning]. One difference between the two Muslim states was that many prominent Americans had a major financial interest in the continued generosity towards them of the House of Saud--we need only mention the House of Bush [two recent American presidents] and the "bright, analytic mind" and foul mouth of one Charles Freeman, a paid Saudi lobbyist who blamed criticism of his appointment to a high intelligence post on another lobby, the Israel lobby, whereas his critics were in the main not paid lobbyists for anyone.

The Freeman case reopens the question of whether Israel and its American supporters, or Saudi Arabia and its American supporters, hired hands or not, are more influential. The Mecca massacre can be instructive in settling the issue. The reaction in the American media shows that Saudi power/influence was much stronger than Israeli at that time and, it is reasonable to conclude, since then up till now. Curiously, although Freeman was a lobbyist for both Saudi Arabia and China, the Tien An Men Square massacre of 1989 in Peking was generally deemed bad and evil, in the USA, whereas the Mecca Massacre was JUSTIFIED by many high US officials and prominent journalists writing in the NYTimes and the Washington Post, Time and Newsweek, and so on. Newspaper readers were told that the Saudis just HAD TO DO IT!! Tien An Men was bad; Mecca was good.

Chaz Freeman stands on the common ground of two states that both massacre civilians when necessary. These are two states that he represents for cash compensation. Yet, Saudi massacres and other illiberal Saudi deeds or misdeeds are forgiven --even justified-- whereas American politicians and mass media often scold China for abusing human rights, although China does this much less than Saudi Arabia does. Freeman, to be sure, defended the Tien An Men massacre, complaining only that suppressive action should have been taken earlier. If nothing else, Freeman was consistent in supporting both governments over their massacres.

Clearly, Saudi Arabia, then, and since, has enjoyed a much more favorable approach than either Israel or China from the US mass media, often called the MSM, despite its vast social inequalities, medieval punishments of offenders, massacres of civilians, training and subsidizing of Islamic religious fanatics at home and abroad, prohibitions on non-Muslim religious worship, a ban on Jews entering the kingdom [sometimes waived for stars like Kissinger], the abuse of foreign workers, the fact that 15 out of 19 9/11 terrorist hijackers were Saudis, etc.

Let us note that whereas Israel is constantly scrutinized for the purpose of detecting offenses to liberal principles, civil rights, human rights and so on, and often found wanting, on the grounds of fact or imagination or invention, Saudi Arabia's offenses are overlooked, minimized, etc. Saudi inequalities include the much inferior status of women, the humiliating treatment of foreigners, especially non-Muslims, even Westerners, the abuse of Saudis who happen to be Shi`ites, the legal/judicial system where non-Muslims get Muslim justice, shari`ah justice, not the justice held to be part of 20th or 21st century civilization, etc. Heads, hands and feet are still chopped off in Saudi Arabia according to the offense under shari`ah. Yet Saudi Arabia is spared the opprobrium that other states would receive for the same kinds of actions and social practices. Israel is often charged with offenses against the palestinian Arabs, while the terrorist bodies that dominate palestinian Arab society are often funded in large part by -- Saudi Arabia. But Saudi offenses are overlooked and quite often, so are those of the Saudis' palestinian Arab proteges. Hence, we deduce that for the American mass media, the MSM, human rights and civil rights are out or perhaps simply a stick to beat Israel with.. The so-called "Left" follows the same line as the MSM, likewise the "civil rights" and "human rights" so-called "Non-governmental organizations" funded by governments. Saudi Arabia is over all, uber alles, beyond reproach no matter what. The Mecca Massacre of 1987 is hardly remembered today, unlike Tien An Men.

To close, isn't it insufferably arrogant of Chaz Freeman, a PAID lobbyist for the Saudi royals, to point the finger of blame at the so-called Israel Lobby, when most of those many who opposed him were not paid or professional lobbyists, albeit many were probably supporters of Israel, although not all?? Saudi influence is stronger in Washington but it must work in the shadows. It withers in the light of publicity.

Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools

- - - - -
Researching the July 31, 1987, Mecca Massacre:
First of all, I recommend going back to the American and British press of the time. Check especially the accounts of the events in Mecca plus the editorial and op ed commentary in the New York Times, Washington Post, TimeMagazine, Newsweek, The International Herald Tribune, Boston Globe, Wall Street Journal, and Christian Science Monitor.
Martin Kramer [here]
MedLibrary [here]
Lastly, see the book by Gilles Kepel & Anthony F Roberts, Jihad: The Trial of Political Islam [2006]
On how American, British and French oil policy helps enrich Saudi Arabia and other oil states.
[here & here with references].
On the Bush family's ties to the al-Sa`ud family, see
Craig Unger, House of Bush, House of Saud (expanded edition; London: Gibson Square 2007).
- - - - - - - - -
If there were ever any company closely connected to the US and its presence in Saudi Arabia, it's the Saudi Bin Ladin Group.
Charles Freeman, quoted in Craig Unger [book ref above], p 6; and Wall Street Journal, 9-27-2001.
Tony Blair claimed that a huge weapons sale by a British firm to Saudi Arabia was a "strategic interest" of the United Kingdom.
UPDATE 3-26-2009 Saudi Arabia's hired mouthpiece, Chaz Freeman, hits Israel again [here].

UPDATE 1-19-2010 Kuwait newspaper reports on recent Iran-Saudi hostility arising from Sunni-Shi`ite differences and also brings up the 1987 massacre:
"A week ago, Iran's conservative-dominated parliament slammed a Saudi Friday prayer leader, saying he insulted neighbouring Iraq's top Shiite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali Husseini Al-Sistani. MPs urged the Saudi government to take legal action against prayer leader Mohammed Al-Areefi for allegedly calling Sistani an "atheist and debauched". The Muslim holy places and the annual pilgrimage there which is one of the pillars of Islam have been repeated bones of contention between Iran and Saudi Arabia in the past.

"In 1987, Saudi police attempts to stifle a protest by Iranian pilgrims chanting "death to America," and "death to Israel," in the streets of Makkah led to a riot in which 402 people died, 275 of them Iranians. When Saudi Arabia sided with Saddam Hussein's Iraq in its 1980-88 war with Iran, Iran's late revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini accused the kingdom of being a lackey of the United States that was incapable of looking after the holy places. Riyadh cut relations between 1988 and 1991. - AFP" [see Kuwait Times, 18 January 2010, here]
- - - - - - - - -
Coming: Obama's anti-peace peacemongering, dancing with the ayatollahs, adopting the Commie policy of a "Two State Final Solution," Jerusalem archeology, propaganda analysis, etc.

Arab Fibbing Goes Way Back

One of the outrageous phenomena of our ongoing war with the Arabs is not only that they lie often to the press/media, telling some extravagant and outrageous lies sometimes, groundless lies, sometimes merely silly fibs that only influence fools in the West --but that the Western media and fake "human rights" and "peace" and "humanitarian" outfits are quite pleased to accept the Arab lies, that is, they don't mind being lied to if Arabs do it. Among the more notorious Arab lies in the Oslo War that started in September 2000 are the Muhammad al-Dura hoax [2000], the Jenin massacre hoax [2002], the lie that the war began with Ariel Sharon going up onto the Temple Mount in late September 2000 [more on the actual beginning time of the war in later posts], etc.

But the Arab propensity to lie --even about things that are relatively unimportant-- goes way back. Byzantine Greeks noticed this habit of mendacity back in the Middle Ages.

. . . many Byzantine authors complain indignantly of the unreliability of the Saracens. Indeed one searches the Byzantine sources in vain for a favorable judgement about the Arabs.
[Vassilios Christides, "Saracens' Prodosia in Byzantine Sources," Byzantion XL (1970), p 12]
. . . the constant Byzantine suspicions of Arab trustworthiness.
[p 13]

The propensity of the Arabs to lie, Arab mendacity for short, puts Israel at a disadvantage in the contest for world public opinion and the diplomatic support of governments. Even Shimon Peres is said to have mentioned this in a strategy discussion with an American Jewish professor back in the 1970s. "We can't lie like the Arabs can," Peres is supposed to have explained to the professor. At that time, Peres' Labor Party was still in power in Israel.
At any rate, Peres made the mistake, in my view, of failing to see the propensity on the part of the Western press/media, diplomats, governments, politicians, and "humanitarian activists" of various labels to accept these lies, even the silliest and most unlikely, and to spread them [on the part of the press/media] as an even greater threat to Israel than the lies themselves.
- - - - - - - - -

Coming: More on Obama the war candidate, More on the anti-Jewish racism of the "Peace Process," Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron, the Land of Israel, archeological updates, peace follies, propaganda, etc.

The Intensity of Propagation and Gramscian "Hegemony" of the Al-Durah Hoax Deceive Even Those of Good Will

A rather good Wall Street Journal editorial of 5-27-2008, shows that even those with good intentions get taken in by the al-Durah myth. The Journal writes that:

The iconic image of the terrified child crouching behind his father helped sway world opinion against the Jewish state and fueled the last Intifada.

If we actually look at the film we see that the boy is crouching in front of his father. The father is next to the wall. The boy is more exposed than the father is to shooting coming from anywhere on a 180 degree arc [that is, within a semi-circle] based on the outermost point of the barrel and on a vertical plane parallel to the wall. This mistake by even a fair-minded observer shows how the myth created by Gaza Arab cameraman Talal Abu Rahma, by France2 correspondent Charles Enderlin, and by countless Islamic jihadist and pro-Arab Western propagandists ["journalists"] has the power to cause the highly visible empirical fact that the boy crouches in front of his father to be overlooked in the general gestalt view that the saintly father was trying to protect his martyred son. If anything, the boy is shielding his father. Here we have more testimony to the power of suggestion in a situation of ongoing indoctrination and emotion.

for more on the al-Durah Hoax or l'Affaire al-Dourah, see the foregoing post.
- - - - - - -

Coming: the anti-Jewish racism of the "peace process," more on Zionist activists and other Jews in the Armenian genocide, propaganda, peace follies, Condi Rice's anti-Israel Bigotry, etc.

Philippe Karsenty Acquitted by French Appeals Court of Having Slandered News Faker Charles Enderlin for the al-Durah Hoax

UPDATED - LINKS ADDED & new link and commentary added on 6-4-2008

Today, 21 May 2008, a small piece of justice was done. Late, but better late than never. Philippe Karsenty, who runs a media rating and review web site [Media Ratings], called for Charles Enderlin to resign or be dismissed from France2 TV [a state TV broadcaster] for having endorsed and broadcast the filmed hoax of little Muhammad al-Durah allegedly being deliberately shot to death by Israeli troops in Gaza. Viewing some 20 minutes of the film taken that day by Enderlin's Arab cameraman as well as film by other cameramen taken at the same time and place, shows that young al-Durah was highly unlikely to have been killed at that time and place, let alone killed by Israeli soldiers guarding the Jewish civilian settlement of Netsarim in the Gaza Strip.

After Karsenty called for his resignation or dismissal, Enderlin and Arlette Chabot, his superior at France2, sued him for insulting, libelling, defaming a public official, since Enderlin works for France2, a state agency. Today Karsenty was acquitted. Here is material on the acquittal and the case in general.

Mena News Agency -- Stephane Juffa
14:30 à Paris, mercredi 21 mai.

La présidente de la Cour d’Appel de Paris, Madame Laurence Trébucq, a prononcé, il y a quelques minutes, la relaxe de Philippe Karsenty, qui avait été condamné en première instance pour diffamation à l’encontre de Charles Enderlin et de la chaîne publique de télévision française, Fr2.

Lors d’une audience qui aura duré moins de deux minutes, la présidente n’a pas explicité sa décision.

A en croire des confidences d’avocat, le tribunal aurait jugé qu’en considération des éléments existants, le débat sur l’authenticité du reportage de France2 était légitime et que le fait d’accuser la chaîne et son correspondant de mise en scène n’était pas diffamatoire.

On ignore, au moment de diffuser, si FR2 et Charles Enderlin vont se pourvoir en cassation.

Une petite dizaine de journalistes assistaient à l’audience, dont des confrères israéliens ainsi qu’un représentant de l’AFP.
Wednesday 21 May [13:14:00 BST]
[for more from Juffa and the Mena web site, in both French and English, hit the first link above. Also see the seconddraft website and the Media Ratings sites, both linked to from the blog roll on the right side of the Emet m'Tsiyon blog roll.

Bear in mind that the al-Durah blood libel was the pretext for massive anti-Israel, anti-Jewish and even anti-Western violence and mass murder over the past seven and a half years.
- - - - - - - -
More links on the al-Durah case:
the French daily Liberation, Augean Stables, Camera #1. Camera #2. The Camera #2 link provides useful notices about the important personalities in the al-Durah/France2 Affair. Prof Richard Landes of the Augean Stables blog is also the director of the Seconddraft website which displays much more footage about events at the Netsarim intersection in Gaza than were presented by France2's original hate-inciting broadcast. The site presents additional footage by Talal Abu Rahma, the cameraman for France2 [and its Jerusalem correspondent, Charles Enderlin], as well as unedited film by other cameramen on the scene at the same time.

In an article in the WSJ, Nidra Poller, an American author living in Paris, summarizes the court decision and the meaning of the case for journalism in the 21st century.
- - - - - - -

UPDATING 6-4-2008
A rather good Wall Street Journal editorial of 5-27-2008, shows that even those with good intentions get taken in by the al-Durah myth. The Journal writes that:

The iconic image of the terrified child crouching behind his father helped sway world opinion against the Jewish state and fueled the last Intifada.

If we actually look at the film we see that the boy is crouching in front of his father. The father is next to the wall. The boy is more exposed than the father is to shooting coming from anywhere on a 180 degree arc [that is, within a semi-circle] based on the outermost point of the barrel and on a vertical plane parallel to the wall. This mistake by even a fair-minded observer shows how the myth created by Gaza Arab cameraman Talal Abu Rahma, by France2 correspondent Charles Enderlin, and by countless Islamic jihadist and pro-Arab Western propagandists ["journalists"] has the power to cause the highly visible empirical fact that the boy crouches in front of his father to be overlooked in the general gestalt view that the saintly father was trying to protect his martyred son. If anything, the boy is shielding his father. Here we have more testimony to the power of suggestion in a situation of ongoing indoctrination and emotion.
- - - - - - -

Coming: the anti-Jewish racism of the "peace process," more on Zionist activists and other Jews in the Armenian genocide, etc.