They should just keep that POS.

it makes you wonder...

if the Jews control the media, why do they get such lousy press?

Whoa, first?!

Excellent!

Too true, the UN would call for Nukes on Israel if they kidnapped the reporteer.

What if Israel had shelled a Pali refugee camp?

Same question, same answer: International outcry, UN condemnation, and demands to "end the apartheid". Same old, same old.

Didn't Israel also create the Teletubbies, as a Zionist conspiracy to brainwash non-Jewish children?

Shoot, some quick draws around here.

If ANYONE but Muslim terrorists committed their crimes there would be a worldwide outcry. Petro dollars and 1.2 billion people have a strong influence on the cowardly.

My second favorite expression:

Nothing in this world really happens UNLESS they can blame Israel, or the USA.

Well, isn't anything the Pali's do Israel's fualt? Just askin'.

Lovely tagline at the Toronto Globe and Mail, about the Six Day War:

---
Six days fuelled 40 years of fighting

How Israel's 1967 offensive reshaped the world

---

Is that how history remembers the 6-day war, as an Israeli "offensive"? To me, 6 armies massing on your borders is pretty offensive. Defending onself from it is not.

OT

Iraqi Insurgents Claim to Have Killed Missing Soldiers

Check out some of the comments from the moonbats at this site. Thses people are truly pathetic.

There's a lot of money in being the world's most professional 'victims', and scum like Fatah, Hamas, Hezbollah, al Queda, Muslim Botherhood, etc. have the lock.

It's a bigger cash cow than global warming, by far.

#4 lance

What if Israel had shelled a Pali refugee camp?

I've been bringing up the same point with people. We would have heard of a couple massacres by now. Seen all kinds of fake footage.

#10 Tricky Dick
Koskidz have some nice komments on that too...
Breaking: Kidnapped 19-yr old soldier executed on video.

Double Standard!

Jews = Omnipontent Oppressors (always)

Arabs = Helpless victims (always)

Poor Israel, having the worst neighbors on the globe. Can you just imagine living next door to people who continuously attack you, throw things at you and your house, and then when the cops come, they blame you!

Sorry, OT, but interesting:

Now you have all the search power of Google, with none of the evil!

Via [Link: www.worldnetdaily.com...]

What if Britain were illegally occupying territories?

White Man's burden, old chap.

Britan would demand they be allowed to capitulate,the Royal Navy would steam at full speed to the Isrealie coast with orders to surrender to the first row boat they come across,after that it's anyones guess.

On the one hand...

PA Supports New Cease-Fire (What if you threw a cease-fire and no-one came?)

On the other hand...

Egyptian Police Find 1.5 Tons of Explosives in Sinai

The explosives were intended to reach Gaza.

Maybe johnston can report on this one live from the scene...

ENOUGH OF THE FALSE JEWISH/JUDAISM - MUSLIM/ISLAM DICHOTOMY!

14 MILLION Jews worldwide.

1.4 BILLION Muslims worldwide.

I really hope they do let him go.
I wonder if Johnston will still be a liberal when he is released.

I have long wondered: Is the majority of the media deliberately evil or just pig-ignorant? Or both?

/apologies to pigs

Liam Bailey got deservedly slammed on the comment page for his piece of fiction.

Who’s Behind Abduction of BBC Journalist in Gaza?

[Link: blogcritics.org...]

Forcing a BBC hostage to voice public abuse at the nonleftist, anti-proislamist, mindset still trying to survive in his country is akin to forcing a starving tiger to eat.

#18 Iron Fist 6/04/2007 1:08:31 pm PDT

I'd bet money that if the Israelis scraped Gaza off into the sea the West Bank would become civilized overnight.

Lebanon:

Status: Disengaged.
Launching site of Hezbullah missiles into Israel.

Gaza:

Status: Disengaged
Launching site of missiles into Israel.

West Bank:

Status: Occupied
Spent the weekend there.

:-)

Wanna see something really scary?

Click here!

I don't understand. I thought that the BBC had handed over it's johnson to Islamo-nazis a long time ago.

18 Iron Fist

I'd bet money that if the Israelis scraped Gaza off into the sea the West Bank would become civilized overnight.

No way in hell. It would be 1948 or 1967 all over again, except this time Olmert would be the "leader", and their best international friends would be Bush and Pelosi.

Cleaning out Gaza the right way (take and hold the territory, arrest anybody in a suit, shoot anybody wearing a mask) and making it part of Israel would mean multi-national war.

#21 Ben Hur

And despite that insane and staggering disparity in numbers
we will still destroy them utterly in the end.

Hashem will raise his right hand, just when you think all is lost, He will not let His people Israel be devoured by Stan's Beast.

Gideon only had 300.

He stopped the sun for Joshua.

David was a weak little boy.

Daniel in a Lion's Den.

The three Hebrew children in the furnace.

Elijah and the prophets of Baal throw down .

David a million times more.

40 years ago it only took us 6 days.

If we would fight like that again, righteous, holy, in the Name above all Names...
it may only take 6 minutes.

IT IS A HOLY WAR.

The Living GOD Israel is the Avenging GOD of of History.

They have ALL tried to kill us.

We are still here.
And we will be here when they are long gone.

Later Lizardia

#27 Tricky Dick - You shouldn't otta do that to people on a Monday, not nice to scare people.

Anyone else remember Terry Waite?

Kidnapped by the Lebanese terror gang called "Islamic Jihad" in 1987, held for four years, with no consequences whatsoever to the thugs.

Maybe that's why they do this... Just a thought.

-jcr

#34 Iron Fist

Q:What do you do against billions of people who so passionately proclaim and further demonstrate their willingness to die for their abominable blood guzzling god?

A: Accommodate them. As many as possible. It's the polite thing to do.

BBL

PIMP MY LUNCH!

TORONTO LIZARD LUNCH-Tomorrow TUESDAY JUNE 5th. DOWNTOWN LOCATION.

PLEASE E-MAIL ME FOR DETAILS.

Must include LGF nic.

OT Meanwhile, elsewhere in the UK :

Naked Blair at centre of art show

[Link: news.bbc.co.uk...]

They say a picture can say a thousand words, well, this guy has got it down to just fourteen: - "Tony Blair bad because he send men to do bad things to nice people".

And for this amazingly acute, nuanced and penetrating analysis of world events he gets a prize from the art establishment.

Didn't lefties of old at least have standards?

Six days fuelled 40 years of fighting

How Israel's 1967 offensive reshaped the world

The fact remains that Israel has (in self defence) killed a miniscule amount of Muslims in comparison to those intentionally killed by other Muslims.

And it's only "reshaped" the world because the U.N. and the MSM insist that the Islamic violence directed at Israel is purely a land issue, and not what it actually is - anti-semitism and part and parcel of the Global Jihad.

#2 Querent

if the Jews control the media, why do they get such lousy press?

Must be them self-hatin' Jews.

#22 NoSubmission

They will release him as soon as Israel does what it must not do...give in to their demands.

And the Jew-hating, Israel-hating, arab-loving POS Johnston will quickly blame Israel before the first released terrorist even has a chance to get his weapons, and ululululululululations, and sweetmeats, along with the requisite rifles being shot into the air.

And then there will be the usual Israel-bashing articles online, on al-beeb. Blame Canada Israel.

#37 Jimmah

Mate, you can pile up a three foot high mound of horseshit and call it 'serendipity' and they'll call that art these days.

British artists are adept at being just about the most annoying and pretentious bunch of tosspots of the lot in that world of theirs.

Damian Hurst and Tracy Emin are two 'artists' I'd particularly like to see hung, drawn and quartered.

Sigh...
All I can say is: Bibi Bibi Bibi
The Palis need a real wakeup call.

In a conflict as emotive as this, the BBC prefer to avoid using the word "terrorism", as this would display bias.

Describing the suicide bomb attacks on Israeli bars, buses, restaurants, discos and shopping malls as "terrorism", simply casts negative judgement on incidents that some people see as legitimate resistance.

"Terrorism" implies criminality and amoral, political psychosis. Militant just means "political fighter" and is therefore a much more "neutral" term.

Since the BBC is sensitive enough to avoid taking a moral position on the deliberate, random killing if civilians, I wonder if they intend to strive for impartiality on other controversial issues.

Will they avoid the term "Pedophilia" in favour of something less judgemental like, say, "child-centric sexuality"?

When they report on Darfur, will they avoid emotive terms like "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide" and opt for the more neutral "social restructuring"?

I mean, the BBC shouldn't be taking sides now...

#43 Uptight

When they report on Darfur, will they avoid emotive terms like "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide" and opt for the more neutral "social restructuring"?

I mean, the BBC shouldn't be taking sides now...

Well said (true dat!).

#41 Wishbone

Don't get me started on that scabby wee cow Tracy Emin. I'll just say she'd make good raw material for one of Damien Hursts chainsaw pieces and leave it at that...

Charles Moore's article is quite brilliant. Do read the whole thing.

# 46 Sabraguy

Indeed -- it's a great article. Some of the comments are pretty good too. My favorite is this:

Sitting in my comfortable living room on the "other side of the pond," I find that I am congratulating myself at not having to be exposed to the fatuous farting of antisemitic Brits pretending to be "objecive journalists," and their self-serving and equally antisemitic apologists such as NoBrain or whatever he calls himself. I have read Charles Moore's column twice today and find his arguments cogent, well-reasoned and grounded in the real world. It is more than telling that those who disagree with him fall back on the worn out old arguments that the Jews were terrorists also, back in the bad old days before Israel became an independent state, or that the Arabs who kidnapped him are not terrorists but are rather brave soldiers fighting for their country. Puh-leeze!

The Irgun and Stern gangs attacked military targets and installations. The "freedom fighters" of Hamas, Hizbollah and their ilk avoid military targets to go after civilians, including the British reporter they kidnapped. In 1948, the majority of those who we later came to know as Palestinians were either incited or forced to leave by the leaders of the Arab nations allied against Israel. Why are they still refugees 60 years later? Why is it the responsibility of the US and the UK to fund the Palestinians? Why aren't the oil rich Arab nations giving them money? Oh, wait, I forgot the bonuses of $25,000 to the families of the "martyrs" who blew themselves up in the midst of crowds of innocent civilians. I suppose that's one way of controlling their astonishing birth rate and infusing cash into their moribund economy. What other nation in the history of the world has gained territory in a war and then agreed to give it back to the aggressor nation in order to have at least a semblance of peace? I could go on and on, but I think the point is clear. Those who attack Israel as an aggressor, practitioner of apartheid or purveyor of racism not only don't know Israel, they don't know, or choose not to know, history.

#27 Tricky Dick

OMFG! Where in the name of Elvis dead on the can in Graceland did you find THAT?! GROSSBUCKETS! I'll be lucky to avoid rip-snorting nightmares for a week!

Thank you very much for an instructive shocker.

#27 Tricky Dick

I ain't clickin that link.

The War Against the Jews, by Melanie Phillips
[Link: www.melaniephillips.com...]

re #51

June 3, 2007
The war against the Jews

The hatred of Israel that now courses through Britain’s veins has now erupted in yet another frenzy whose irrationality and spite are scarcely credible. One now gets a whiff of what it must have been like during the witch-hunts of the Middle Ages; one now begins to understand just what Kafka was describing. British Jews are being swept up in a psychic maelstrom targeted at their right to peoplehood. As the violence against Israel increases with more than 300 rockets fired on Sderot and the western Negev since May, killing two Israeli civilians, wounding many others and traumatising untold numbers in addition; as Hamas threatens Israel with an endless war of annihilation; as Iran races towards the nuclear bomb to finish Israel off, Britain’s industrialised and professional classes are deciding once again to take the high ground of moral nihilism and punish not the instigators of this genocidal onslaught but the nation that is their victim.

Delegates at the first conference of the new University and College Union in Bournemouth voted by 158 to 99 to recommend to its branches’ a comprehensive and consistent boycott’ of all Israeli academic institutions. The Alan Johnston video was clearly made under duress but the British licence-fee payer might must have wondered why Fatah al Islam bothered to kidnap him for eleven weeks in order to get him to blame Israel for everything — and blame Britain for Israel as well as for Iraq and Afghanistan — when such views are transmitted by the BBC virtually every day of the week. The Hamas/al Qaeda script on Israel is now the British orthodoxy. And this week’s 40th anniversary of the Six-Day War will usher in a wave of hate-fuelled demonstrations by people supporting those who are working on that same script towards the destruction of Israel, Jewish peoplehood and Jews worldwide.

re #51

There are, it must be said, many good people in Britain who are horrified by the boycott and its implications for the fight to defend the free world. And the UCU boycott call might be rescinded by academics opposed to the far-left cabal which has captured this union. This capture of the UCU was predicted two years ago when the first academic boycott was introduced and then swiftly reversed. People assumed that the danger had gone away, but it was clear to some of us that the boycott had been fought on the important but ultimately secondary grounds of freedom of speech. Crucial though this principle clearly was and is, the deeper and more important issue was the Big Lie about Israel’s Sin of Occupation and even greater Original Sin of Existence which now passes for the orthodoxy on campus and are the obsessions that fuel the boycott.

Those obsessions, which are built upon lies, have never been challenged. They are the result of a world-wide Arab propaganda campaign shrewdly targeted to manipulate and exploit the preoccupations of the liberal west, which is all too eagerly disposed to take at face value any third world narrative of ‘colonial’ dispossession by western interests, even when this is demonstrably and verifiably untrue in every detail. This has been no mere propaganda campaign but a carefully calibrated strategic inversion of history and reality in order to turn the Arab aggressors into victims and the Israeli victims into aggressors in the western mind. It is a military strategy of systematic deception, dissimulation, fabrication and falsification. And it has surely succeeded – thanks to the intellectual and moral evisceration of British and western intellectuals – beyond the Arabs’ wildest expectations.

re #51

The organised Arab strategy behind the boycotts, which set out to draw an analogy between Israel and apartheid South Africa to fill the void caused by the collapse of real apartheid in the cause-hungry liberal psyche, is set out here:

"The analytic link with South African apartheid helps to clarify the real nature of Zionism as a reactionary and exclusivist colonial project. The strategic demands of boycott, divestment, and sanctions that we put forward help to illustrate the powerful ties between North American and European capital and the Zionist state. We can also build upon the experiences and lessons of the earlier anti-apartheid movement."

"There is a powerful momentum building around the world for a boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) campaign. On July 9, 2005 a call was made by over 170 Palestinian organizations to launch a global BDS campaign. Churches in North America have begun to investigate the possibility of divestment. In Norway, the first provincial council to have adopted a boycott of South African apartheid recently did the same in regards to Israel. Twenty Quebec organizations, including the Fédération des Femmes du Québec (FFQ) and the provincial union of CEGEP teachers, have endorsed a new campaign to boycott Israeli products and companies supporting Israeli apartheid…"

"A boycott, divestment, and sanctions campaign based upon an apartheid analysis can provide an overarching framework for our other Palestine work. It doesn’t replace the need for outreach, education, and action around the myriad of issues connected to Palestine such as refugees, the apartheid wall, or prisoners. Rather, a BDS campaign can answer the question: what to do next? It provides a concrete strategic focus that raises consciousness around Palestine as we carry it out. Pushing a divestment motion through a union requires sustained work to convince the membership of Israel’s apartheid character. Recent successes show that these demands are winnable and can provide tangible gains."

The apartheid comparison is of course a demonstrable and grotesque lie — and a profound insult, moreover, to all those Africans who suffered under real apartheid. The comparison is indeed a kind of apartheid denial. But then all facts are being stood on their heads by the Israel-haters. Israel is blamed for the plight of the Palestinians when the Palestinians are responsible for the plight of Israel. Israel is represented as the aggressor and the Palestinians its victims whereas the Palestinians are the aggressors and Israelis the victims of terror attacks, human bomb atrocities and 1400 rockets from Gaza since disengagement. Israel is accused of preventing Palestinian statehood whereas in reality the Jews agreed to it repeatedly in 1937, 1948, 1967 and 2000 and it was the Arabs who rejected it and tried to destroy Israel instead.

Israel is accused of apartheid, ethnic cleansing and genocide. But it is Israel where Arab students attend university and sit in the parliament and the courts, and where not a day passes when Israeli hospitals aren’t treating Palestinian children injured in the fighting between Palestinians in Gaza; whereas it is Iran that is committed to genocide, and the Palestinians to ethnic cleansing from a Palestine which would be Judenrein and where no Jews would be allowed to live (by fervent agreement of the boycott supporters for whom not one Jewish settlement is to be allowed in ‘Palestinian’ territory.)

re #51

Why are facts being turned inside out like this? The UCU resolution had the gall to say that criticism of Israel was not antisemitism, with the clear implication that it never could be antisemitism. Well, no-one has ever said that criticism of Israel is antisemitism. But what’s going is not criticism of Israel. It’s a unique delegitimisation based on lies and libels as a softening up process for Israel’s extinction. It’s singling out Jewish peoplehood uniquely for denial. And it’s that double standard that cannot be explained other than by a profound prejudice.

As the Nobel Laureate Professor Steven Weinberg of Texas University said when he cancelled his proposed visit to Imperial College London in July in protest at the NUJ boycott:

"I know some will say that these boycotts are directed only against Israel, rather than generally against Jews. But given the history of attacks on Israel and the oppressiveness and aggressiveness of other countries in the Middle East and elsewhere, boycotting Israel indicates a moral blindness for which it is hard to find any explanation other than anti-Semitism. (The only other explanation I can imagine is a desire to pander to the growing Muslim minority in Britain.) I see this bias reflected from time to time in the news reporting of The Guardian, The Independent and the BBC, so it is not really surprising that the NUJ would take this action."

Indeed. And how else are we to describe this editorial comment by the once august Financial Times on May 31:

"Fourth, the timing of this ill-thought through initiative could hardly be worse. For the first time in more than a generation, the pro-Israel lobby in the US, where informed debate on the Middle East is far less vigorous than it is in Israel, is being openly challenged and can no longer rely on bullying Americans into a consensus that is bad for Israel and makes it impossible for the US to articulate its own national interest in the region."

Or how else are we to describe this reported comment by Pamela Hardyment who, justifying her backing for the NUJ boycott, described Israel as:
"a wonderful Nazi-like killing machine backed by the world’s richest Jews"
and referred to the

"so-called Holocaust"

before concluding:

"Shame on all Jews, may your lives be cursed."

re #51

There is still more madness to come. This week will see a rally in London by Israel-haters under the banner of ‘Enough’ on a platform entitled ‘The World Says No to Israeli Occupation’. The world does not apparently say ‘No’ to the planned genocide of the Jews by Iran. It apparently does not say ‘No’ to the aim to annihilate Israel and every Jew that is the policy of Hamas. On the contrary, the rally will broadcast a video message from the Palestinian Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh. This is what Hamas says in its Covenant:

"Hamas has been looking forward to implement Allah’s promise whatever time it might take. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him…In order to face the usurpation of Palestine by the Jews, we have no escape from raising the banner of Jihad. This would require the propagation of Islamic consciousness. We must spread the spirit of Jihad among the [Islamic] Umma… introducing fundamental changes in educational curricula in order to cleanse them from all vestiges of the ideological invasion which has been brought about by orientalists and missionaries… ‘I swear by that who holds in His Hands the Soul of Muhammad! I indeed wish to go to war for the sake of Allah! I will assault and kill, assault and kill, assault and kill’."

Those attending the Enough rally will not be saying ‘No’ to this

re #51

Also on the platform will be the Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem, Riah Abu El Assal. Bishop Riah has falsified Jewish history and claimed of Palestinian Christians:

"We are the true Israel. No-one can deny me the right to inherit the promises, and after all the promises were first given to Abraham and Abraham is never spoken of in the Bible as a Jew. He is the father of the faithful."

Those attending the rally will not be saying ‘No’ to this.

re #51

Then there will also be Lord Phillips of Sudbury who wrote in the Times on March 26 2004:

"If terrorism is ‘the systematic use of violence and intimidation’, then Israel, too, is guilty of it."

Those at the rally will not be saying ‘No’ to this.

There will be Dr Azzam Tamimi. Dr Tamimi has supported suicide bombings against Israelis and was denounced in Parliament for inciting hatred against the Jews.

Those at the rally will not be saying ‘No’ to this.

Indeed, this rally will not be saying ‘No’ to Israeli occupation. It will be saying ‘No’ to Israel’s existence and Jewish peoplehood. It will be saying ‘No’ to respecting the equality and dignity of the Jewish people. It will be saying ‘No’ to the truth.

re #51

Meanwhile, in Lebanon, more than 100 people are said to have been killed in the attack upon the Nahr al-Bared camp. According to the Observer:

"Those inside reported dire conditions. ‘ More than 60 per cent of the camp has been destroyed,’ Abu Darwish, a resident, said….The violence - the worst internal fighting since the end of Lebanon’s civil war 17 years ago - has driven up to 25,000 of the camp’s 31,000 residents to flee. Thousands remain trapped. ‘This is it. We tried to negotiate, but it didn’t work,’ said one special forces officer. ‘The army will continue until they are all dead. There is no stopping.’"

"…Some Lebanese government officials have accused Fatah al-Islam of using civilians as human shields and having fired on people who were attempting to escape the camp. ‘The last civilians I took out of the camp were a family with a handicapped father five days ago,’ said one civil defence worker. ‘Fatah al-Islam would shoot at us every time we entered the camp. The Lebanese army would have to fight them just to get us close enough to take out the sick and the wounded. I could hear them screaming “Allahu Akbar” [God is great] as the soldiers killed them while we were taking out wounded civilians,’ he said."

No-one in Britain is saying ‘No’ to this. No-one in Britain is organising boycotts or demonstrations against Lebanon. No-one seems to care at all.

What is happening to England, once the most civilised, humane, fair-minded country on earth, but now consumed by hatred of its allies and the desire to grovel to its mortal enemies, is a tragedy.

I see that #49 Out West is continuing its libels against Israel. Israel does not deliberately shoot innocent civilians.

If people are assisting the terrorists or are embedded with them, they can get hurt in the gunfire. But Israel does not deliberately shoot innocent civilians.

This is an attempt by Out West to spread more lies by inverting who are the terrorists.

This is pure slander by #49 Out West:

Israel doesn't kidnap journalists it doesn't like, Israel shoots them.

Unlike Out West's terrorist allies Hamas who blow themselves up in buses, and other public places, Israel has rules of engagement, and does not deliberately shoot at innocent civilians.

Out West:

You don't happen to be a journalist, do you?

#63 Out West
And are you a mind reader that knows that there is a deliberate effort to shoot innocent civilians? If you attribute motives like that it seems that you are the slanderer.

Also, your statement on another thread that Israel has turned the Palestinian Authority territories into a "prison" indicates that you have no consideration for the slaughter of innocent civilians that was taking place when islamikazi terrorists were able to blow themselves up easily on Israeli buses, restaurants, and in public places. That indicates at least a disregard for the threat from the terrorists that Israel has been protecting itself against.

Also, your brushing off the kidnapping of journalists by Palestinian terrorists indicates that you are an apologist for the terrorists.

Local "Palestinians" waving Press Credentials, "embedded" with the genocidal "martyrs" does not equal "Journalists."

Out West
Here is the same kind of lying crap when Eason Jordan declared that American troops in Iraq are deliberately targetting journalists.
[Link: www.commondreams.org...]

Mr. Jordan surely couldn't know the motivations of the American soldiers that he claimed were deliberately targetting journalists. But he attirbuted evil motives to them anyhow.

Same with your biased source concerning Israeli troops, and I don't trust it any more than I trust the well-placed but lying Eason Jordan when he accused American troops of deliberately targetting journalists.

It does not come as much of a surprise that the lies fabricated against American troops are also fabricated against Israeli troops.

It is clear to me that the practitioners of the global jihad are the ones that are using terrorist tactics, and that includes the splodydopes.

The lies fabricated against American and Israeli troops should not be too surprising when we live in an era when the percentage of people who believe that 9/11 and 7/7 were inside jobs runs into double digits.

#62 Out West

I hadn't heard of the IPI before, so I looked at your links. Given that the letters linked include mentions of "military offensive against Palestinians" (as opposed to "terrorist groups," the actual targets) and called the offensive "an apparent punitive measure", I doubt your claim that the group is unbiased.

Even if you were right and IPI is only pro-journalist, you have to consider the sources they quote. Or rather, the fact that they rarely quote specific sources. "According to IPI's sources..." "eyewitness accounts", etc. Who are the sources? Who are the witnesses? The way it reads, they could just as easily be talking about 100 Arab civilians who saw the whole thing from their windows or 4 Islamic Jihad guys who "happened" to be in the area.

Even IPI doesn't deny that the journalists involved were in a war zone, and were wandering around outside during gunfights. I don't think any resulting deaths should be attributed to a deliberate targeting of the press.

OK, I just noticed that IPI also calls Israel "a foreign military occupying power." And accuses Israel of obstructing freedom of the press by failing to grant Israeli press cards to whatever Arab journalist asks for one (gee, I wonder why, there's no potential for abuse there).

Basically, you're quoting a group that's horribly biased at best, and are asking us to believe claims based on reports by unknown sources. I don't think that's very reasonable.

#70 Out West

The IDF's numerous shootings of Palestinian civilians are well documented, as is the impunity they are treated with.

There you go again with your slander, implying that Israel deliberately shoots innocent civilians.

Recently, the union of British journalists decided to take part in the economic jihad against Israel. Can they be both participants in the jihad and also be taken seriously as impartial observers? I don't think so.

An example of the bias among UK journalists was their gullibly assuming that the claims of the Palis that thousands had been massacred by Israel at Jenin was the truth. They took those accounts as being truthful, when in fact there were only some 50 Palis killed at Jenin, mostly gunmen, and Israel itself suffered about 25 soldiers killed. They are simply very ready to believe that the Palis tell the truth, and that the Jews are evil. This combines a gullibility concerning the Palis, and the resurgence of anti-semitism toward Israel now that the Holocaust memories have faded into history.

How much of the accounts that you rely on are influenced by editors and journalists in the UK? I would not trust those that are participants in the economic jihad against Israel.

As for the impartiality of other internationals, there is the fact that at the UN, about half of its time is devoted to condemning Israel. Meanwhile, there is genocide going on in Darfur, in the Sudan, and the UN has an obvious bias against Israel.

Suggesting that Israeli deliberate firing at innocent civilians is "well documented" doesn't make it so, and doesn't make the accounts truthful.

In Israel, as in other democracies, there is an independent judiciary. People are free to bring charges in court, and an independent judiciary will hear those charges and determine if there is guilt.

On the other hand, there is no rule of law at all among the Pali terrorists, including Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the Fatah Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades.

If you cannot see the difference between what the terrorists are doing, and what its victims are doing to defend themselves, under the constraints of a liberal democracy with an independent judiciary, and you make slanderous statements concerning motives by Israel to kill innocent civilians, then you seem to have a moral blindness concerning what is going on.

#69 happy nomad

I hadn't heard of the IPI before, so I looked at your links. Given that the letters linked include mentions of "military offensive against Palestinians" (as opposed to "terrorist groups," the actual targets) and called the offensive "an apparent punitive measure", I doubt your claim that the group is unbiased.

Good post that you have.

By lumping the terrorists and gunmen into a broad category of "Palestinians", and by attributing motives to Israel by saying "an apparent punitive measure", the IPI is showing its bias.

#69 happy nomad

OK, I just noticed that IPI also calls Israel "a foreign military occupying power." And accuses Israel of obstructing freedom of the press by failing to grant Israeli press cards to whatever Arab journalist asks for one (gee, I wonder why, there's no potential for abuse there).

Good observation. More indications of bias of the IPI.

Out West is silent concerning your excellent observations, including the fact that the IPI sources are highly suspicious.

#69 happy nomad

consider the sources they quote. Or rather, the fact that they rarely quote specific sources. "According to IPI's sources..." "eyewitness accounts", etc. Who are the sources? Who are the witnesses? The way it reads, they could just as easily be talking about 100 Arab civilians who saw the whole thing from their windows or 4 Islamic Jihad guys who "happened" to be in the area.

Good post.
This gullibility by the IPI recalls the gullibility shown by editors and journalists in the UK concerning the alleged massacre an Jenin, which turned out not to involve thousands of dead as the Palis originally claimed, but some 50 killed and some 25 Israelis killed.

#75 Out West
I have noticed your slanderous statements about Israel indicating that Israel deliberately targets journalists and innocent civilians. You are presuming motives that are not there. Israel's interest is primarily survival in the face of the jihad that has been, is being, and promises to be waged against it. This is very different from the death cult islamofascist ideology of Hamas that has a covenant that seeks genocide against Israel.

If you cannot see the difference, then you have a moral blindness.

I have also seen your obsession with attacking Israel. It is an obsession that uses a different standard for Israel than that used for the rest of the world, and expects Israel to meet an impossible standard that could not be expected of any state. Like other liberal democracies, Israel has rules of engagement for its soldiers (unlike the jihad terrorists), and it has an independent judiciary (unlike the jihad terrorists).

Your moral blindness by equating a death cult islamofascist terrorist entity with the liberal democracy of Israel, and your obsession with attacking Israel and demanding that it perform to a different standard than the rest of the world must have some explanation. It might not be anti-semitism on your part, but if it is not, I cannot imagine what might explain it.

In #78 Out West adds slander to slander against Israel. It tries to outdo itself in manufacturing slanders against Israel.

There must be some explanation for this bizarre behavior, and for the moral blindness of not seeing the difference between a liberal democracy versus a death cult jihad terrorist islamofascist entity like Hamas, and for the demand that Israel be held to an impossible standard that no state in the world can perform to. There must be some explanation for it. It may not be anti-semitism that motivates it, but if it isn't, I am at a loss to understand what else it might be.

In order to back up his libel that Israeli soldiers deliberately target journalists, Out West trots out another libel that Israel deliberately targets innocent civilians, and in seeking to prove that libel he trots out, in #81, the Gaza Beach calumny. This was investigated by the IDF, and it was established that the charge was false. Whatever the cause of the explosion, it was not due to an Israeli artillery shell being fired at that beach at that time of the explosion. Israeli records prove that.

Here is Atlas's article concerning the Gaza Beach calumny.
[Link: atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com...]

re #84, at Atlas Shrugs' blog, Nidra Poller writes about the Gaza Beach blood libel.

Nidra is in Tel Aviv covering the Gaza Beach blood libel. Here is her seminal report, unedited. Only here in the Atlas sphere.

LET THE DEAD BURY THEIR DEAD
Nidra Poller
Tel Aviv June 14 2006
Eight Palestinian civilians are killed by an explosion on a Gaza beach and Israel is immediately accused, chided, chastised, rebuked …on the basis of a questionable news report from vaguely identified sources. Outrage is intense and close to unanimous. When, in the space of a few short days, the Israeli Defense Ministry produces the results of a serious investigation that clears Israeli troops of responsibility for the deaths, the media tamper with the evidence! In a sham of scrupulous caution, the IDF report is picked apart as if it were necessarily shoddy, while undue credibility is given to a lone expert, Marc Galasco, working for Human Rights Watch. Le Monde reports that the Israeli investigation is incomplete, suggesting it is half-baked, when in fact it will be voluntarily pursued to determine whether the accident was caused by buried Palestinian artillery or an unexploded Israeli shell aimed at rocket-launchers on a previous occasion. CNN-World reported Galasco’s “findings” as if they were Pentagon brand high-tech, only revealing his HRW affiliation hours later.
In the face of this perverse pussy-footing, a forthright reply is in order. Israel does not target sunbathing civilians. Israeli civilians are in fact targeted by an incessant rain of rockets fired from the recently evacuated Gaza strip. Israel attacks launching pads, launchers, and vehicles transporting rockets. If jihadis deliberately operate from the midst of civilian populations, what is Israel to do? What would you want your army to do if the rockets were landing on your house?
Reliable information was available from varied sources shortly after the initial broadcast of what looks like a Hamas-produced exploitation video passed off as news. A thorough scientific investigation has now been presented, countering allegations of Israeli guilt. To pretend that reasonable doubt subsists is simply dishonest. To claim that the Hamas version should be given equal weight with the IDF investigation is to abandon all notion of rational analysis and, consequently, all sense of reality. To maintain that we should give equal credence to both sides of the story is to engage in life-threatening mental contortions.
Every single Western media with a claim to integrity should not only publish a retraction of the unjust accusations thrown at Israel, they should explore their own readiness to pick up and relay these unfounded accusations. And, further, they should admit that the death of the Galia family and the grief of the 11 year-old orphan Huda were cynically exploited. The image of Huda running across the sand, discovering the dead bodies, throwing herself around hysterically, crying, and mouthing totally inappropriate accusations should be reviewed, cleansed of the twisted emotional impact it was designed to provoke, and studied as a stunning example of blood libel.
Nothing less than this is acceptable. And it should be understood that Israel is not the only victim of this manipulation. The target is much larger. It includes the entire Western world, our values, and our future.

A report from HonestReporting about the Gaza Beach libel
[Link: www.honestreporting.com...]

re #87

Gaza Beach Libel

Following Palestinian claims and the media reports of Israeli culpability in deaths on a Gaza beach, the real story emerges...

It is now becoming clear that, despite the claims of the Palestinians and the international media's rush to blame Israel, the deaths of seven Palestinian civilians on a beach in Gaza on 9 June were not caused by the IDF. Investigations by the IDF and others over the past few days have revealed new evidence that a Hamas mine was most likely the cause of the beach blast:

1) Shrapnel removed from two of the wounded Palestinians evacuated to Israeli hospitals was not from Israeli-made ordnance.

2) No large crater was evident on the beach as would be expected from the impact of an artillery shell landing from above. The blast site would suggest the likelihood of a mine exploding from below the sand rather than above.

3) The IDF fired six shells towards the Gaza area, one of which remained unaccounted for. All of the shells were fired, however, more than 10 minutes before the blast that killed the Palestinians.

It is now increasingly likely, that in true "Pallywood" fashion, as seen in the Mohammed Al-Dura case and the Jenin "massacre" libel, the Palestinians have attempted another cover-up in order to smear Israel:

1) Palestinian Television broadcast doctored scenes showing file footage of Israeli naval vessels shelling Gaza, interspersed with video of the beach victims, despite the fact that the Israeli Navy was not responsible for any shelling at the time. Click here to see the footage courtesy of Palestinian Media Watch.

2) Suspicions were initially raised by the Palestinian refusal to cooperate with Israeli investigators and the remarkably swift cleansing of evidence from the blast scene by Hamas gunmen who arrived shortly after the incident. Palestinian spokespeople usually display parts of Israeli shells to the international media - but not this time.

3) Israeli intelligence suggests that Hamas had mined the beach area in order to prevent Israeli naval commandos from landing there as part of anti-terror operations to prevent Qassam missile launches.

re #88
1) Shrapnel removed from two of the wounded Palestinians evacuated to Israeli hospitals was not from Israeli-made ordnance.

2) No large crater was evident on the beach as would be expected from the impact of an artillery shell landing from above. The blast site would suggest the likelihood of a mine exploding from below the sand rather than above.

3) The IDF fired six shells towards the Gaza area, one of which remained unaccounted for. All of the shells were fired, however, more than 10 minutes before the blast that killed the Palestinians.

Human Rights Watch switches stories on the Gaza Beach deaths
(article at the Adloyada blog)
[Link: adloyada.typepad.com...]

re #91

Human Rights Watch switches stories on the Gaza beach killings

It was Mark Garlasco of Human Rights Watch who was more than anyone else responsible for casting doubt on the official Israeli enquiries findings, that the tragic June 9th deaths of a Palestinian family on the Gaza beach were not caused by shelling they had done earlier.

Garlasco's account was enthusiastically promoted by the British press, notably by Chris McGreal of The Guardian. He uncritically reported Garlasco's assertions as recently as Saturday 17th June in an article subheaded Guardian investigation casts doubt on Israeli claim that army was not to blame:

"..the army's account quickly came in for criticism, led by a former Pentagon battlefield analyst, Marc Garlasco, investigating for Human Rights Watch. "You have the crater size, the shrapnel, the types of injuries, their location on the bodies. That all points to a shell dropping from the sky, not explosives under the sand," he said. "I've been to hospital and seen the injuries. The doctors say they are primarily to the head and torso. That is consistent with a shell exploding above the ground, not a mine under it." "

"Mr Garlasco also produced shrapnel from the site apparently marked as a 155mm shell used by the army that day."

In my most recent post on the contradictory IDF and Garlasco explanations, I reproduced the Human Rights Watch report of Garlasco's findings verbatim. It actually relied heavily on Palestinian witness and bomb disposal staff statements about the timing and location of what they claimed was the shelling they witnessed.

Now Human Rights Watch and Garlasco have admitted that the IDF account "cannot be contradicted". Without directly saying so, they have conceded that despite Garlasco's previous assertions, the deaths were not directly caused by artillery shelling as they had claimed.

re #92

Now Human Rights Watch and Garlasco have admitted that the IDF account "cannot be contradicted". Without directly saying so, they have conceded that despite Garlasco's previous assertions, the deaths were not directly caused by artillery shelling as they had claimed.

If the Gaza Beach libel concerns an event attributed to Israel that didn't even happen (the deaths were not directly caused by artillery shelling as was falsely claimed by the Palis), then how does that Gaza Beach libel "prove" that Israel deliberately targets civilians, and how does that prove that Israeli soldiers deliberately target journalists?

Here is what #81 Out West wrote:
"• On 9 June, seven members of the Ghalia family - five children and their parents - were killed and some 30 other civilians were injured when Israeli forces fired several artillery shells at a beach in the north of the Gaza Strip. The beach was crowded with Palestinian families enjoying the first weekend of the school holidays. The Israeli army denied responsibility for the killings but failed to substantiate their claim." -- Out West, #81

It's a lie, it's a canard, it's a libel.

Out West (#81)--
Q: What do a 10-month-old Jewish baby on a playground, a 17-year-old Hamas member with an M-16, and an 11-year-old Arab boy stoning tanks during a gunfight have in common?

A: If shot, they will all be listed as "child victims of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" by AI and similar groups.

Anyone with even the slight remnants of a moral compass can tell that there's a difference between the three. However, AI regularly reports "120 child deaths" without mentioning that the breakdown is something like: 12 accidental child deaths during airstrikes, 20 children killed while running around during gunfights/next to the security fence, and 88 teenaged "children" killed while armed and attacking.

As for the specific incidents in the report, EE already responded to the "beach bombing" claim. The bombing in Beit Hanoun doesn't exactly advance your claims either. While it was certainly tragic, there were plenty of charges filed. Investigations were done, heads rolled, etc. Maybe it didn't make the international media, but it happened.

As for children being shot near the fence, or during gunfights with terrorists, that's also tragic, no question. However, not to be heartless, but I think you need to take a broader perspective. At least 95% of the people who come close to the fence are terrorists trying to plant bombs or to sneak through. If the IDF were to stop responding to such attempts with live fire (and btw they do shout multiple warnings first, in Arabic), terrorists would inevitably increase their efforts and at some point succeed. Israeli Jews would die in terrorist attacks, and eventually the army would strike back, and Arab civilians would probably be caught in the crossfire. More people, both Jews and Arabs, would die than in the current situation.

Out West feels that it is ok to talk about the migration of Jews to what is presently Israel (and what formerly was called "Palestine"), but to speak at all about the migration of Arabs to that land, during the time that the Jews developed the land and created many jobs, is "racist". That "racist" charge is pure slander, just like the Zionism=racism resolution of the UN.

Out West easily throws around the "racist" charge because he/she is basically a slanderer. Just as CAIR uses the term "islamophobe" to prevent any discussion of Islamism that is really needed, Out West dishes out the term "racist" to prevent any discussion of Arab migration to what is now Israel and that used to be called "Palestine".

For those who want a serious discussion of Arab migration to Palestine, the excellent scholarly book by Joan Peters, From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict Over Palestine, is the best book on the subject.
Here is what Philip M. Hauser, Director Emeritus of the Population Research Center, University of Chicago (former Acting Director of US Census) had to say about the book:

"Joan Peters' book provides necessary demographic and historic perspectives which have been inexplicablyand substantially ignored until now, but without which misconceptions and policy distortions are inevitable. The reader will be most impressed with the thoroughness and prodigious input this work entails, as I was."

Those who want to have a serious presentation concerning the Arab migration into Israel (then Palestine) should definitely read this exellently documented and authoritative book. I doubt that Out West has read it, since Out West would much rather engage in ad hominems and slander (it shouts: racist!) when the subject comes to Arab migration into Palestine.

Is that you, Ward Churchill?

#109 Out West

"A theory invented by some extremist Israelis"
?

The author of the excellent and authoritative and well documented book , From Time Immemorial, is Joan Peters, who is not an extremist Israeli. She is not an Israeli. She is not even Jewish.

Read the book, and then see if you can dispute the very well documented material that is in it.

Out West believes the Arafat Big Lie that the Arabs who were living in Palestine during the two years that the UN uses to define Palestinian refugee status are descended from people who lived there from time immemorial. It's a lie. And the book by Joan Peters, From Time Immemorial, shows how false and ridiculous that lie is. It discusses the Arab migration in a factual manner.

According to dhimmi-kapos of the left who are supporters of Hamas, people like Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein, with help from Alexander Cockburn, it is racist to even discuss the migration of the Arabs into Palestine, although it is perfectly fine to discuss the migration of the Jews.

Can you tell me on what basis it is ok to discuss the migration of Jews into Palestine, but it is "racist" to delve into the statistics that show the migration of Arabs into Palestine?

Here are some comments on the hard data that Joan Peters found.

"A superlative book... To understand what is happening in the Middle Ease, one must begin with its past, which Miss Peters traces to the present with unmatched skill." -- Theodore H. White.

"Joan Peters' book provides necessary demographic and historic perspectives which have been inexplicably and substantially ignored until now" -- Philip M. Hauser, former Acting Director of U.S. Census

"Contains much valuable information .. deserving attention of anyone seriously concerned with the Palestinian problem." -- S. D. Goitein, The Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton

"From Time Immemorial provides abundant justification for reversing the moral and legal presumptions that have cast Israel in the role of defendant before the court of world opinion." -- William V. Obrien, Georgetown University

"From Time Immemorial is impressive, informative, absorbing. All those who are interested in the Arab-Israeli questjions will benefit from Joan Peters's insight and analysis." -- Elie Wiesel

"The most thoroughly researched and solidly documented work on the origins of the Arab-Jewish conflict.. A book that smashes conventional wisdom... Unassailable in its thoroughness" -- Christian Century

"From Time Immemorial will surely change the way we think about that still fiercely contested land once called Palestine. For Joan Peters has dug beneath a half-century's accumulation of propaganda and brought into the light the historical truth about the Middle East. With a wealth of authoritative evidence, she exposes the tangle of lies and false claims by which the Arabs have tried to justify their unending violence." -- Lucy Dawidowicz

"The Israeli-Arab confrontation is the heart of the matter and no one can pretend to an opinion or judgment without understanding the background as revealed in From Time Immemorial." -- Angier Biddle Duke, former Ambassador to Morocco.

The massive research Ms Peters did ... would have daunted Hercules. In the course of it she turned up a great deal of interesting material from Ottoman records, the reports of Western consular officers and observant travelers and other sources."-- New York Times Book Review.

This acclaim is part of what is listed on the covers and first pages of the book itself. Get it and check it out.

Out West, why are you so afraid of getting the actual facts and statistics? Why are you so afraid of getting the book and reading it and making up your own mind?

Can you explain why discussing Jewish immigration into Palestine is ok, but discussing Arab immigration into Palestine is racist?

This name-calling is just slander. If it isn't racist to discuss Jewish immigration into Palestine, then it isn't racist to discuss Arab immigration into Palestine.

The notes and bibliography for the book From Time Immemorial comprise hundreds of pages. When faced with inconvenient truths, it's a lot easier to just put one's head in the sand and shout "Racist! Racist!" then to actually deal with the massive amount of evidence that Joan Peters provides.

There is Arafat's Big Lie that the "Palestinians" have been in that spot of land in the Arab empire from time immemorial, and ignoring all of the migrations that have taken place among Arabs moving throughout the Arab world. It appears that Out West comes to its anti-Israel fanaticism from accepting whole the Big Lie that the Arabs did not have any migration at all into Palestine. Out West joins the slanderers who scream "Racist!" when faced with an inconvenient truth. Out West accepts whole all the slanders of the radical Left against Israel, and suggests falsely that Israel deliberately targets journalists. Out West suggest falsely that Israel targets innocent civilians.

The slanders of Out West, the moral blindness in being unable to distinguish the difference between a liberal democratic state with rules of engagement and having an independent juduciary versus the Hamas terrorist entity, and the impossible standard that Out West holds Israel to that could not be satisfied by any actual state, all point to some hate-Israel syndrome. I see now that it comes from the radical Left, which has bought into the lies of Arafat and the Arabs who settled in that land and who now call themselves "Palestinians".

After the first world war, it was the Jews who referred to "Palestine". The Arabs of the region insisted that they were and wanted to be considered part of Al-Sham, which is Greater Syria. No doubt that today there is a Palestinian identity, but before WWI that didn't exist. Also, no doubt that Arab migration existed; the question is how much Arab migration was there into the land that became Israel. When the Jews migrated into Palestine, and sought to drain the marshes and make the desert bloom, jobs were created, and Arabs came for the work. Joan Peters book goes far to examine Ottoman statistics to find out just how large the Arab migration was.

But anybody who wants to discuss the actual facts is called a "racist", by the slanderers.

There is the white race, there is the black race, there is the red race, there is the yellow race. But why is any discussion of Arab migration into Palestine considered "racist"?

Are we to assume that there is a saintly race in addition to the above, consisting of those Arabs who migrated to Palestine, and that any criticism of this saintly race is a crime against a sacred-cow topic? "Racism?"And any discussion of the actual Arab immigration into Palestine is also therefore "racist" because it harms a sacred-cow subject?

Reminds me of the "islamophobia" charge that prevents any discussion of Islam, or of what is happening in the Muslim world. It is designed to shut down honest discussion. Same with the charge "Racism" when anybody says something truthful about the Arabs who migrated to Palestine.

re #115
"The massive research Ms Peters did ... would have daunted Hercules. In the course of it she turned up a great deal of interesting material from Ottoman records, the reports of Western consular officers and observant travelers and other sources."-- New York Times Book Review.

Is The New York Times "racist" for having read that interesting material from Ottoman records, the reports of Western consular officers and observant travelers and other sources? Of course not.

Be like The New York Times and delve into that fascinating source of information, that is in From Time Immemorial, and don't be afraid of the slanderers' libels.