Much Mass Media Coverage of Israel-Palestinian Issues Is Propaganda, Not Journalism

by Barry Rubin

So constant are the lies told in mass media coverage of Israel-Palestinian issues that it is hardly worthwhile to critique individual articles any more.

Following the horrendous murder of the Fogel family, a number of Internet—but not print—writers have pointed out that various mass media institutions have either not reported the killings at all, only minimally did so, didn't gives the ages of the children killed, or buried the story amidst a much longer explanation that the settlements are terrible and the settlers are bad people (who deserve it?).

Equally dismaying is the disinterest in getting right even the most basic facts. Consider this AP story, remembering that AP now provides most international coverage for almost all American newspapers today.

When you read something like this the conclusion is inescapable that the reporters involved are pushing a specific political agenda, deliberately twisting or leaving out material. Part of the evidence for this is that every distortion, mistake, and example of slanting is always entirely against Israel.

The article claims:

“Palestinian opposition to settlement construction on lands they want for a future state has brought negotiations to a virtual standstill over the past two years, with Palestinians refusing to negotiate directly with Israel as long as it persists.”

In fact, the Palestinian Authority walked out of talks in January 2009 over the Israel-Hamas war that began after Hamas abandoned the ceasefire and attacked Israel with a barrage of rockets and mortars. Construction was not an issue until President Barack Obama made it his central theme. Then, Israel froze construction on settlements for nine months yet during that period—until conveniently a few days before the end—the PA still refused to talk.

So it is Palestinian opposition to negotiations that has brought negotiations to a virtual standstill.

The phrase “settlement construction” is also misleading. Many (most?) readers probably believe that Israel is still building new settlements—I know this because people keep claiming this to me--something not true since 1993, before today's first-year college students were even born. The construction of apartments on existing settlements--which is the issue--is not the same thing as expanding the size of existing settlements or building completely new ones.

Finally, a minor point for some but one that made my blood boil, is this statement:

“The Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, a mostly defunct Palestinian militant group, took responsibility for the killings. But it was not clear if the group really was responsible because it frequently takes credit for attacks it didn't commit in a bid to raise its profile.”

So, even if the Brigades did take responsibility, the AP goes out of its way to assure us that they are probably innocent. Moreover, by not mentioning that the Brigades are an integral part of Fatah, which runs the Palestinian Authority, is dishonest. Reading about some unknown or “independent” terrorist group is not the same for a reader as being informed that terrorists who proudly said they murdered three infants are members of the same party as Palestinian Authority “president” Mahmoud Abbas.

And, of course, the Brigades are in no way “mostly defunct.” That is something merely made up in this article.

One reason this makes me angry is that I was just involved in a court case as a consultant. The Palestinian Authority, which was the defendant, claimed that it had nothing to do with the Brigades and thus in no way responsible for its terrorism. I researched this and came up with much proof to the contrary.

But the item I thought most cogent is this: If you go to the Brigades’ official site it says in Arabic that the Brigades are part of Fatah.

Not too hard to find out the truth, is it?

Original URL: http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2011/03/much-mass-media-coverage-of-israel.html

Barry Rubin

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The Jasmine Revolution Comes to Asia

by Ryan Mauro

The Jasmine Revolution and its aftereffects are usually thought of as a regional phenomenon confined to the Middle East but such a picture is incomplete. Barely noticed clashes have erupted in North Korea, calls for revolution are been voiced in Vietnam and the Chinese government is scrambling to stop protests that have been planned for every Sunday.

The North Korean government had good reason to be worried and set up a special force once the Jasmine Revolution began. For the first time, its population expressed outrage at the government’s currency reform plans in November 2009. The backlash was enough to force the policy to be dropped. An apology was even made and a top official was executed. Over half of the population is now reading foreign news and an underground network circulates information in and out of North Korea. The succession process makes the regime more nervous, resulting in military provocations and political purges.

Trouble began for the regime on February 14 after it failed to deliver promised goods in the days leading up to Kim Jong-Il’s birthday. Dozens of people in North Pyongan Province demanded electricity and food. On February 18 in Sinuiju, the security forces had a confrontation with traders at the market, resulting in an assault on one trader to the point where he was unconscious. The family members of the victim protested and were quickly joined by other traders, resulting in the deployment of more soldiers and police. A source to one newspaper reported that “hundreds” were involved in the clashes. The true number is unknown but the clashes are an unprecedented and important development in the Hermit Kingdom.

South Korea has also begun trying to incite unrest by sending tens of thousands of helium balloons delivering messages, medicine, food, clothing and radios up to 200 kilometers into North Korea. The messages inform the readers of the revolutions in the Middle East and boldly say, “a dictatorial regime is bound to collapse.” The regime is threatening to attack the areas from which the balloons are launched and has said it will destroy loudspeakers near the border if they broadcast anti-government messages into the country.

The communist government of Vietnam is also frightened. A top democratic opposition leader named Nguyen Dan Que was arrested in late February after calling on the Vietnamese people to follow in the footsteps of the Tunisians and Egyptians. He spoke of accomplishing a “clean sweep of Communist dictatorship and build[ing] a new, free, democratic, humane and progressive Vietnam.” He was shortly thereafter released but 60,000 files from his computer were taken. The government says they will question him further as their investigation into opposition activities continues. Que is allowed to go home at night but must return to a police station during the day.

The Jasmine Revolution’s domino effect has even reached China. On February 19 and 20, the authorities deployed a large amount of security forces to stop planned protests in Beijing, Shanghai and 11 other cities. Over 100 democratic activists were arrested or placed under house arrest. Greater Internet censorship began with more websites being blocked and users were even prevented from searching the word “jasmine” on Twitter and other social networking websites.

A crowd of hundreds still formed in Beijing and Shanghai and activists are spreading the word about protesting every Sunday by having “peaceful strolls” with no signs or chanting so that the police have little reason to arrest them. University campuses have been surrounded by security forceswhen the government has learned of the demonstrations and journalists are not being permitted to visit the protest sites. Those who do say they are harassed. Major streets and commercial centers are the scene of police dogs, security agents dressed as civilians, paramilitary personnel and special forces. The ruling party is now discussing further Internet censorship and at least 20 have been charged for their role in organizing the protests.

Gordon Chang, author of The Coming Collapse of China, told FrontPage that “We are, in short, witnessing the last days of the People’s Republic” and a single action could cause a chain of events resulting in huge changes in the government.

“At the moment, many are intimidated by the overwhelming police presence that Beijing employed at Jasmine Revolution sites. Yet no amount of state power can change the minds of the Chinese that they need a new form of government,” Chang said.

“When the Chinese lose their fear—and that moment is coming soon—we will see the strength of the discontent in society,” he said.

No oppressive government can be confident in times like these. The world is focused on the rapidly changing events in the Middle East but there is a freedom movement just as important in Asia, even if few are paying attention to it.

Original URL: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/03/18/the-jasmine-revolution-comes-to-asia/

Ryan Mauro

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Netanyahu in 1978

by American Thinker

In a remarkable video from 1978, 28 year old MIT grad Benjamin Netanyahu debates whether there should be a Palestinian state created on the West Bank and Gaza. Netanyahu argues that such a state would have but one goal: to destroy the Jewish state of Israel. He reviews the history from 1948 to 1967, when Gaza was controlled by Egypt and the West Bank by Jordan and there were no calls to end the occupation, or for national sovereignty for the Palestinians.

But one thing was similar in that period and today: terror attacks against Israeli Jews. Netanyahu went by the name of Benjamin Nitay at the time. His brother, Yonatan was an Israeli commando who led the Entebbe raid on July 4, 1976 during which he died. Netanyahu chose to use the name Nitay at MIT, where he was one year behind me, in large part for security reasons due to his brother's notoriety and the spate of Palestinian terror attacks aimed at Israelis all over the world.

One of Netanyahu's interrogators in the clip is Fouad Ajami, the well known political analyst.

Netanyahu's strong defense of Israel rings as true today as it did in 1978. The clip is only ten minutes and is well worth watching.



Original URL: http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/netanyahu_in_1978.html

American Thinker

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

While the World Watches Libya, Hamas Strikes

by Rick Moran

Hamas fired about 50 rockets into Israel on Saturday, clearly taking advantage of the fact that the world's attention was riveted on Libya.

Los Angeles Times:

The Islamist militant group Hamas said Saturday it had resumed mortar attacks against southern Israel for the first time in more than two years, as tensions escalated between Israel and the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip.

About 50 mortar shells were fired Saturday morning into Israel's Pitchat Shalom region, damaging a home and wounding two people, military officials said.

Israel retaliated by firing tank shells at several targets in Gaza, wounding five people, including three Hamas militants, Palestinian officials said.

Hamas' military wing claimed responsibility for firing 33 of the projectiles, marking the first time Hamas has acknowledged firing mortar shells into Israel since January 2009 at the end of the 22-day Israeli offensive in Gaza.

Hamas officials said the mortar attacks were in response to recent Israeli airstrikes that killed two members of the group.

Although southern Israel is still routinely struck with rockets and mortar shells from Gaza, Hamas has blamed the attacks on rival militant groups operating in the territory.

Not that Hamas is necessarily worried about bad press. They beat up a bunch of reporters who were covering a small demonstration against the oppressive rule of the terrorists. But the attack, coming as it did just as the west was taking on Libya, had to be seen by Hamas as a freebie; nobody cares if mortar shells rain down on Israel civilians when there's so much other news to cover.

Original URL: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/while_the_world_watches_libya.html

Rick Moran

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Libya and the Left's Sickening Hypocrisy on the Use of Military Force

by Michael Filozof

An evil Arab dictator has been in power for decades. He personally controls his country's vast oil wealth. A sponsor of terrorism, he has provoked the West to take military action against him in the past. Islamic fundamentalists despise him as much as the West does. When his people rise up against him, he murders them ruthlessly. The United Nations Security Council has passed resolutions condemning him. An American president, intent on promoting democracy in the Middle East, demands that the dictator abdicate. When the dictator fails to leave, the American president authorizes the use of military force. Our "allies," including Great Britain, are asked to help. The endgame for the use of force is unclear.

Sound familiar? No, we're not talking about Moammar Qaddafi and Barack Obama. We're talking about Saddam Hussein and George W. Bush. The difference is this: in almost the exact same set of circumstances, Bush was called "Hitler" by the Left. Leftists wrote plays and stories and movies about killing him. Democratic Party politicians, like Sen. Dick Durbin, likened our troops to "Nazis." Democratic Senators like John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, who voted for the military action, accused the president of lying. Mass demonstrations and protests, sponsored by the communist and socialist Left, broke out in the U.S. and Great Britain. Antiwar groups like Code Pink staged demonstrations at military recruiting stations, and had to be dragged shrieking from the halls of Congress. Opponents of the war shouted that Saddam's Iraq never attacked us, and that our military action was a violation of international law. The Left cried for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney.

President Obama has just committed American forces to engage in acts of war against Moammar Qaddafi. Where are the protesters? Where are the accusations that Obama is a liar and a Nazi? Where are the groups of "artists" wishing death upon the "warmonger" Obama? Where are the cries for Obama's impeachment? There aren't any, and there won't be any, either. Obama - who made a fetish out of his opposition to the "surge" in Iraq, yet ordered a "surge" of his own in Afghanistan - has just committed American forces to combat action against a third Muslim country. No matter. He won the Nobel Peace Prize a priori. The Left regards him as a man of peace in its own mind; the facts are irrelevant.

The Left's hypocrisy on matters of war and peace is sickening. When the Democratic Party is in power, it routinely commits America to war. When Republicans are in power, Democrats engage in shameless demagoguery and paint the Republicans as bloodthirsty warmongers.

In the 1996 presidential campaign, Republican candidate Bob Dole raised some hackles when he said that the majority of American lives lost in combat in the 20^th century had been lost in "Democrat wars." Well, Dole was right. Democrat Woodrow Wilson sent American forces to Europe in 1917 not for concrete American interests but for the hazy notion of making the world "safe for democracy." 100,000 were killed. Germany became democratic, all right, and in 1932 the Nazi Party won enough seats in the Reichstag to get Adolf Hitler appointed Chancellor.

When World War II broke out in Europe, Americans wanted neutrality. Democrat Franklin Roosevelt wanted involvement, but public opinion would not allow him to send troops when the British were being bombarded by the Luftwaffe in 1940. When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, Congress rightly declared war on them; but commander-in-chief Roosevelt committed American forces first to North Africa, then to Italy, then to Germany. Japan, the only Axis power to actually attack the U.S., was defeated last. 400,000 Americans were killed.

Democrat Harry Truman sent American forces to defend South Korea after communist North Korea invaded in 1950. The communists believed they had a green light to attack when Truman's Secretary of State Dean Acheson failed to include South Korea in America's defense "perimeter." Truman refused to use nuclear weapons to save American lives. End result: 50,000 American dead for a stalemate. Sixty years later, communist North Korea is still there, and now it has nuclear weapons.

Democrat John Kennedy began American involvement in Vietnam, and Democrat Lyndon Johnson escalated the war, sending 500,000 American troops. End result: 58,000 American dead, and a humiliating withdrawal. When Republican Richard Nixon was elected in 1968, he promised to end American involvement in Vietnam; yet he and his National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger are regarded as "war criminals" by the Left.

Democrat Bill Clinton sent American warplanes to bomb Serbia, which never attacked us; and on Dec. 16, 1998 (which just happened to be the night before he was to be impeached) Clinton ordered four days of bombing missions against Iraq. Did anyone call him "Hitler" or a "war criminal"?

By contrast, Republicans have been reticent to commit American forces to combat operations, and have acted decisively when they have. It was Eisenhower who produced a cease-fire in Korea, refused to commit troops to Vietnam, and warned us of the "military-industrial complex." It was Reagan who committed aid but not troops to anti-communists in Nicaragua, and acted decisively and quickly in Grenada. Partially as a result of Reagan's defense build-up, the USSR collapsed without a shot being fired by American forces. And it was George H.W. Bush who produced quick, decisive victories with almost no casualties in Kuwait and Panama.

Democrats and liberals commit American forces to war promiscuously because they are arrogant and cocksure that their gassy ideals about "democracy" and the "international community" are correct and everybody else is stupid. Woodrow Wilson, the college professor, vowed to "teach Mexico to elect good men." When he went to Versailles in 1919, he was accompanied by a group of professors nicknamed "The Inquiry" who were going to fix the world. FDR had his famous "Brain Trust," and Kennedy and Johnson had the "Best and Brightest." The world thought otherwise.

By contrast, Republicans have been concerned with concrete American interests. When Bush invaded Iraq, making sure that Saddam did not possess weapons of mass destruction that could be given to terrorists was indeed a concrete American interest. He went "off the reservation" when the mission morphed into creating an Iraqi democracy.

What are the concrete American interests in Libya? If promoting a "democratic" uprising in the Middle East is our goal, what do we do if Qaddafi is replaced by America-hating Muslim fundamentalists in a democratic election? And why didn't we call for a "no-fly zone" in Iran during the uprising of 2009? If promoting democracy in the Middle East is our goal, should we back the protesters trying to overthrow Saleh in Yemen? Should we back the Shi'ite uprising in Bahrain -- home of the U.S. 5^th Fleet? If there is an uprising against the royal family in Saudi Arabia, should we commit American forces to help overthrow King Abdullah?

Who knows how this will end? Surely not Obama. Like virtually all military interventions instigated by the Democrats, the Libya involvement is not well thought out at all. And Democrats will not concern themselves with opposing war until the next Republican is in power.

Original URL: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/03/libya_and_the_lefts_sickening.html

Michael Filozof

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Israeli/Not an Israeli: Lives that Do and Don’t Count in the Jewish American Playbook

by Susan L. M. Goldberg

Pop culture’s hip new trend is to fight back against bullying, but nothing much is new in the Jewish world. Perhaps that is why a video of a kid beating up a bully can go viral while the story of five tragic murders of innocent Israeli civilians is passed off rather quietly. After all, where’s the news in the story of another family of Israeli settlers being murdered in their home? It isn’t as if they belong there anyway–they were asking for it. So, let’s move on to more important topics, like talking about how bad bullying is. Right?

The truth is that the worst and most blatant case of bullying on a worldwide scale happens every day, right under America’s collective nose. The worst part of it is that the ones being bullied are so punch drunk they don’t even realize what is happening anymore. They’ll just do whatever it takes to make the beating stop.

American news outlets like the LA Times described the Fogel family as “Jewish settlers” murdered in their “tightly guarded compound.” Explaining to their readers that, “Most of the international community…views Israel’s settlements as illegal,” as if international opinion is justification for cold-blooded, anti-Semitic-fueled murder. Caroline Glick smartly contrasts this report with the bulk of European coverage that simply began with the aggravating fact that the Netanyahu government permitted 400 more homes to be built in Judea and Samaria, remarking, “at least [The Times] mentioned the murders.”

And, at least the Times–unlike Israel’s own Ha’aretz–did not go so far as to use the horrific nuclear events in Japan as a metaphor for the supposed “threat” of a few thousand Israelis risking life and limb to live in desert outposts.

The coverage, or lack thereof, of the murder of a family of Israelis by bloodthirsty anti-Semites sends a clear message to Israel and Jews everywhere: If you’re being bullied, don’t expect the international community to be on your side.

The real news, however, comes from the Jewish American reaction. According to the New York Jewish Week, the newly formed opinion of the Israel Action Network (a joint effort of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs and the Jewish Federations of North America) is that:

“One can support a targeted boycott of Israeli settlements and even a cultural ban against the West Bank settlement of Ariel–as long as one also supports Israel as a democratic Jewish state.”

In other words, in an attempt to have their cake and eat it, too, the American Jewish community has effectively decided who is and isn’t an Israeli in their Playbook of International Politics. Ironically, it all boils down to who does and doesn’t acknowledge the idea that Israel should be a Jewish state. By dealing from the “Jew/Not a Jew” deck they are playing into the hands of the same “international community” that justified, for all intents and purposes, the murder of innocent Jewish Israelis because they dared to walk on the wrong side of the world-drawn line in the sand.

And I thought the IDF was the organization responsible for enacting apartheid policies.

This takes the culturally Jewish in-fighting over who does and doesn’t count at the bema to a new and dangerous level. In the world of bullying there are bystanders and upstanders, yet this unspoken acquiescence to the BDS movement by two major Jewish American organizations signals their election of the dirtiest role of all: the sellout. Abraham Lincoln once warned a warring nation that a house divided against itself cannot stand. It was a warning first given from an Israeli king to his son, one that was published for his nation to hear.

The real question is: Amidst all the infighting, have we lost the ability to listen?

Original URL: http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/03/19/israelinot-an-israeli-lives-that-do-and-dont-count-in-the-jewish-american-playbook/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+nrb-rte+%28NewsReal+Blog+%C2%BB+Right+to+Exist%29

Susan L. M. Goldberg

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Operation Odyssey Dawn Begins

by Ryan Mauro

Today, on March 19, 2011, the U.S., U.K. and France at long last intervened in Libya as Qaddafi’s forces began the final assault to finish off the rebels. After thousands of deaths and incalculable destruction, Operation Odyssey Dawn began with air and missile strikes on Qaddafi’s tanks and air defenses in an attempt to perform an 11^th hour rescue.

France fired the first shots by destroying four of Qaddafi’s tanks near Benghazi, the capital of the opposition. Over 100 Tomahawk missiles were then fired from U.S. and British warships and submarines to destroy about 20 air defense sites. The immediate objective is to prevent Qaddafi’s forces from putting a quick end to the conflict by overrunning Benghazi and pave the way for the establishment of a no fly zone. Various European countries will soon be involved and Arab countries like the United Arab Emirates and Qatar are expected to contribute and Egypt is arming the rebels.

The West says that the goal of military operations is not to overthrow Qaddafi. U.S. Vice Admiral William Gortney said that the objective is to “deny the Libyan regime from using force against its own people.” French President Sarkozy said regime change is not being sought but Qaddafi must “allow the Libyan people to choose their own destiny.” The apparent goal is a ceasefire as Sarkozy stated the “door to diplomacy will reopen when the fighting will stop.”

The Libyan uprising began on February 15 and escalated into a civil war as Qaddafi’s forces used brutal violence to try to crush its opponents, which included tactics such as machine-gunning attendees at funerals. The opposition consistently begged for help from the United States and international community that did not include the deployment of ground forces. The Libyan ambassador to the U.S. who turned against Qaddafi said in exasperation, “’All the options are on the table,’ they say all the time. I say, ‘Take one option at least.’” He explained that the lack of U.S. action was vindicating anti-American beliefs in the Arab world that it “has only a materialist mind—they don’t care about human rights…except when it comes to their own interest.” The public prediction of the U.S. Director of National Intelligence that the rebels would lose certainly didn’t help.

A military commander in Tobruk who defected to the opposition said that he hoped the West would not be dissuaded from doing the right thing because of its oil business with Qaddafi. As far back as February 19, a woman in Benghazi was being interviewed on CNN where she begged over and over for help, pleading, “Mr. Obama, please help us.” France and the U.K. became the loudest supporters of establishing a no fly zone and supporting the rebels and France formally recognized the opposition. The U.S., on the other hand, delayed action as Qaddafi’s forces were able to turn the situation around and begin taking back territory. By the time the Arab League and United Nations approved a military intervention, many people had lost their lives and the rebels were on the brink of defeat. One estimate put the number of deaths at 10,000.

Qaddafi has reacted by saying Libya is the victim of “barbaric, unjustified Crusaders’ aggression” and vowed to make the Mediterranean Sea a “real battlefield.” He also wrote a strange letter of admiration to President Obama. Qaddafi told him that even though the U.S. and Libya are at war, “you will always remain a son.” He then asks for advice. “What would you do if you found them [Al-Qaeda] controlling American cities with the power of weapons? What would you do, so I can follow your example,” his spokesman read from his text.

The Libyan dictator must now decide his next move. He has not ended military operations and so it is likely he will try to take over or destroy Benghazi and as much of the rebel forces and their territory as possible before his ground forces are bombed. The city had already become a battleground shortly before the strikes began. He previously said that if the West attacked, all sea and air traffic in the Mediterranean Sea, both military and civilian, would become legitimate targets. He also said he would align with Al-Qaeda and declare a jihad on the West, even though he consistently claims the rebels are a part of the terrorist organization. The Qaddafi regime could potentially enlist the support of terrorists or directly carry out terrorist attacks itself as it has in the past.

Qaddafi will also probably turn to his own international friends for support. Hugo Chavez is harshly condemning the operations and he has gotten aid from Algeria, Syria and Belarus. Over two dozen Syrian pilots are reported to have been helping him fight back against the rebels. However, Syria’s best ally, Iran, has vocally supported the rebels. On March 18, anti-American demonstrators in Iran protested in support of the uprisings in Bahrain, Yemen and Libya and the head of the Guardian Council encouraged the rebels to fight until Qaddafi is overthrown.

The Libyan rebels now have hope to survive but may have to accept only a partial liberation of the country as a ceasefire, not regime change, is the objective of this intervention. The cause is not lost as it is probable that much of Qaddafi’s forces will rather lay down their arms or defect than face Western military might and the opposition will win more support as time progresses. For Qaddafi, the military operations dash his hopes of reclaiming all of Libya but he can feel some sense of victory for preserving his rule when it seemed as if its end was near.

The West may impose a ceasefire in Libya but it will not, by any means, end the conflict. The rebels will not give up their goal of overthrowing Qaddafi and he will not give up his goal of crushing them and punishing all those who dared to challenge him.

Original URL: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/03/19/operation-odyssey-dawn-begins/

Ryan Mauro

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The Arab Spring Won’t Die

by Ryan Mauro

The revolutions in the Arab world show no sign of dying down. The instability is most affecting allies of the U.S. with escalating tension in Yemen and Bahrain and the spread of instability throughout the Gulf, including Saudi Arabia. Fortunately, there is growing dissent in Lebanon, the Gaza Strip, Syria and Sudan. It is unclear where the region is headed but it is certain that a decisive moment in its history has been reached.

The world’s attention right now is focused on the civil war in Libya, where Qaddafi’s forces have regained the momentum and recaptured Bin Jawad, Ras Lanuf, Brega and could soon threaten Benghazi, the capital of the opposition. Qaddafi has hired a large number of foreign mercenaries. When one of his military’s planes was shot down, the body of a Syrian pilot was found. The Arab League has endorsed a no fly zone but that may not be enough to stop the rebels from losing or reaching a shaky stalemate. The opposition is asking for targeted airstrikes and French President Sarkozy is suggesting limited bombing raids.

The uprisings in Yemen and Bahrain are becoming more intense. Over the weekend, Yemeni President Saleh’s security forces attacked protesters in the capital, killing between two and four people on Saturday and one to five people on Sunday. The police are using tear gas that is hospitalizing protesters who are now holding up banners comparing Saleh to Iraq’s Chemical Ali. Members of Saleh’s party continue to resign and he has promised to oversee the writing of a new constitution that will create an independent parliament and judiciary but the opposition will not renege on its demands for his resignation. The violence over the weekend will likely cause a backlash, prompting one expert on Yemen to say of Saleh, “This is his final dance.”

There was also violence in Bahrain on Sunday when demonstrators clashed with police for two hours when they tried to break through barricades on a main road in Manama. The protesters are becoming more aggressive, entering the financial district in disregard of the police’s orders and having a stand-off with the police when they tried to march on the royal palace. Some have written signs in English to express their dissatisfaction with America’s ties to the government outside the U.S. embassy.

The Bahraini opposition says it is not sectarian in nature but clashes between Sunnis and Shiites have started. The protesters are calling for the deportation of foreign Sunnis given citizenship by the government. The Shiite opposition also says it has no relationship with the Iranian government and is fighting for genuine democracy, but when there were reports of Saudi tanks arriving in Bahrain, one hardline opposition leader said foreign intervention would give them “the right to appeal for help from Iran.”

There was a lot of worry last week about a planned “Day of Rage” in Saudi Arabia on March 11. In the days leading up to the event, Saudi security forces fired rubber bullets to disperse 200 Shiite demonstrators in the Eastern Province and top clerics told the population not to participate. The “Day of Rage” was ultimately thwarted by a huge security presence and a ban on all demonstrations but two days later, dozens gathered in front of the Interior Ministry to demand the release of jailed relatives.

Other Gulf allies are seeing their people rise up in larger amounts, especially in Oman. Sultan Qaboos bin Said is reacting to fierce protests in Sohar with concessions such as adding government jobs and firing three high-level officials. Over the weekend, he also agreed to give more power to the state council. Hundreds of Kuwaitis rallied to try to force the sacking of the Prime Minister and 200 Bedouins demonstrated for more rights later in the week. Weekly protests led by the Muslim Brotherhood are slowly growing in Jordan. About 150 academics and former officials have signed a petition in the United Arab Emirates for reform.

American allies in North Africa are also feeling the heat. Protests have dwindled in Algeria but 10-20,000 police officers recently protested for higher wages. King Mohammed VI of Morocco has reacted to protests of hundreds on March 6 by giving a rare address to announce a commission to study reforms that will include giving power to regional authorities and free parliamentary elections. Protests are planned for March 20.

The enemies of the U.S. are not entirely immune, however. In the Gaza Strip, Hamas is under increasing pressure. On February 28, it dispersed dozens of protesters calling for a unity government with Fatah, the release of political prisoners and greater freedoms. Hundreds protested in favor of unity on March 6, resulting in 6 arrests. Hamas announced a minor government reshuffle and made an offer for a unity government to the Palestinian Authority but it was rejected. Protests are planned in both Gaza and the West Bank this week starting on March 15.

The Syrian government has been very successful in preventing an uprising but there are growing expressions of dissatisfaction. On March 7, 13 political prisoners in Adra began a hunger strike. One day later, a leading human rights activist was pardoned and a dozen Syrian groups called for an end to discrimination against Kurds and freedom for human rights groups. Dozens of jailed Kurds have now joined the hunger strike. A Facebook group calling for a protest on March 15 has been set up but it is unclear how much support for it is coming from inside Syria. Notably, four Syrians in Beirut who passed out fliers in front of the Syrian embassy have gone missing.

On March 14, tens of thousands of Lebanese protested in Beirut in favor of the disarmament of Hezbollah. The terrorist group did not publicly address the rallies, though banners were seen that said, “Israel also wants Hezbollah disarmed.” There were smaller protests in favor of secularism and against Hezbollah in the two weeks leading up to this event.

Protests also continue to pop up in Sudan against the Omar Bashir regime. An opposition coalition called the National Consensus Forces is calling on the people to follow in the footsteps of the Tunisians and Egyptians and over 50 protesters were arrested on March 9. The next day, about 200 recent college graduates who have been unable to find jobs protested.

The Arab Spring is undoubtedly more threatening to the friends of the United States than to its enemies. Each regime’s main problem is now its own people and not Israel or Iran and each must decide whether to use excessive force to squash its opponents or to try to placate them. The governments of the Middle East are now doing a delicate balancing act and one wrong move could affect them all.

Original URL: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/03/17/the-arab-spring-won%E2%80%99t-die/

Ryan Mauro

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Glen Beck on the Slaughter of the Fogel Family in Itamar

Glen Beck describes the slaughter and the Palestinian response:




The inspiring words of Ruth Fogel's bereaved father:




The strength and nobility of an amazing 12-year-old daughter of Israel:



Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Sheer Sophistry - Palestinian Myths

by Jed Gladstein

It is sheer sophistry for American "elites" to maintain that Israeli settlements in the West Bank are a genuine obstacle to peace in the Middle East. To even assert such nonsense is to ignore three thousand five hundred years of history. Neither is "Palestinian pathos" the explanation for the contemporary blood libel that attempts to legitimize Arab claims to the West Bank at the expense of Jewish settlements.

For many, it is naked anti-Semitism that feeds the flames of the Palestinian narrative, and the fuel for that fire is Arab oil money. Without it, the "elites" who propagate the myth of Arab sovereignty over parts of the Jewish homeland would be powerless to weave the web of delusion in which so many Westerners are now ensnared. But for Westerners who honor truth rather than prejudice, a few historical facts may suffice to put out the fire of that Arab fiction.

The ancient Holy Land of the Jews included the West Bank that the Arabs now claim. The Arab claim is asserted on behalf of "Palestinian" Arabs. But the word "Palestinian" doesn't even refer to Arabs. It derives from the Romanized version of "Philistine," which refers to a seafaring people from Mycenean Greece who conquered a part of the southern coastal plane of the Holy Land then known as Canaan, and were later conquered by the ancient Hebrews. The Mycenean sea people were neither Arabs nor Semites. They were Indo-Europeans. Thus, even the "Palestinian" name under which the Arabs now claim sovereign rights over the West Bank is an historical deception.

Before the word "Palestine" was ever applied to the Holy Land, the land was known as Judaea. After the massacre and deportation of hundreds of thousands of Jews by Nero's legions in 66-70 A.D., the Holy Land became a backwater of the Roman Empire. But the memory of national independence and territorial sovereignty burned fiercely in the Jews who remained in Judaea, and on two later occasions they rebelled unsuccessfully against Roman imperialism. The second rebellion is known as Bar Kokhba's revolt, which took place in 132-135 A.D., after which the Emperor Hadrian changed the name of the Holy Land to "Syria Palaestina" in order to humiliate the Jewish people by attempting to erase even from memory their historical ties to the Holy Land.

The modern word "Palestinian" thus derives from a massive land theft by the Romans, and an act of existential malice perpetrated in classical times against Jewish patriots and freedom fighters by Indo-European imperialists. That the Arabs seek to perpetuate the land theft today in the name of "Palestinian" rights would be laughable if it weren't so tragic for everyone concerned. But even that is not the heart of the problem, for it is the Arabs' existential malice against all non-Muslims that must first be overcome if peace is to reign in the Holy Land. To understand this, it is necessary to take a little trip through post-Classical history.

Although a majority of Jews were killed, or enslaved and deported, by the Romans, a significant remnant remained in the Holy Land. Those Jews were ruled by Roman administrators and Greek colonists. After the fall of the Roman Empire in the Fifth century A.D., and the collapse of Rome's bureaucratic civil administration in the Holy Land, a more atavistic way of life settled over the entire area. Many nomads from the deserts of Arabia wandered into the Holy Land and squatted on land that had been stolen from the Jews at the height of the Roman Empire. For more than two hundred years, the Arab squatters and the Jewish inhabitants of the Holy Land were able to peacefully coexist with one another, but in the Seventh century A.D. all of that began to change.

In 638 A.D., Muhammad's army conquered the Holy Land. Islam was on the rise at the time, and was being spread by blood and sword in vast swaths across the Middle East and North Africa. This began the rule over the Holy Land by the Muslim Caliphs and the religion of Islam. Jerusalem still remained a backwater; potentates who lived far away in Mecca and Medina ruled the Holy Land. Arabs living in the Holy Land did not form a "nation," nor was it ever part of the Islamic Caliphate ideology that they should do so.

The control of the Arab Caliphate over the Holy Land was supplanted after 432 years by the Seljuk Turks (another Islamic conqueror) in the year 1072. Twenty-four years later, in the year 1096, the Holy Land was wrested from the Seljuks by the Crusaders. The Crusaders retained control over the Holy Land for 195 years, until the Mameluke Turks conquered the land in 1291. The Mameluke Turks ruled the Holy Land as a province of their Islamic Turkish Empire for 225 years, until 1516, at which time the Ottoman Turks conquered the land for Islam. The Ottoman Turks ruled the Holy Land as a province of their empire for 402 years, until the defeat of Turkey by the Allied powers of Europe and America in World War I.

During none of the periods of Islamic rule was there a nation of Palestine, or an Arab nation by any name whatsoever in the Holy Land. During all of those periods, Jews continued to live in their ancient homeland, albeit as oppressed peasants, menial servants and second-class citizens subject to onerous tax burdens, social humiliation, political disenfranchisement, and invidious discrimination under Islamic law. Despite their degraded status, the Jews clung tenaciously to the Holy Land as their home, and nobody ever claimed the land in the name of "Palestinian" Arabs.

Following World War I, the British were given a mandate to administer the Holy Land by the League of Nations. The 1922 mandate declared that, as a matter of international law, the Jews were entitled to re-establish their own nation state in their ancestral homeland. Maps showing the international boundaries of that day reveal that the land to be included in the Jewish state consisted of modern day Israel and the West Bank and Gaza Strip. However, when the United Nations declared the existence of the State of Israel in 1948, it muddied the legal status of the West Bank, and gave the Arabs the excuse they have been using ever since to try to legitimate their opposition to the State of Israel.

But the Arab opposition to the Jewish state has nothing to do with the West Bank. And it has nothing to do with the fact that Israel isn't an Arab state. It is about Israel being Jewish instead of Muslim. It was the non-Muslim character of the state authorized by the League of Nations that led the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem to declare jihad on the Jews of British mandatory Palestine in 1922. The Grand Mufti's call to arms resulted in years of local riots and the murder of many Jews. But when the United Nations declared the existence of the State of Israel in 1948, the entire Arab world rose up in arms and commenced an all-out war of extermination against the Jews of the Middle East. Since that time, the Arabs have instigated two more unlimited wars against Israel, two limited wars, two bloody intifadas, and a continuous reign of terror and carnage.

This unremitting hostility of the Arabs to the Jews of Israel has nothing to do with an "Arab-Israeli" dispute, nor does it have anything to do with Israeli settlements or territorial concessions. It is about the implacable hostility of Islam to any other belief system. The Islamic Arabs never revolted against the Islamic Turks, even though the Turks are not Arab and were in the habit of treating the Arabs like dirt. And the Islamic Arabs never waged a war of extermination against the Islamic Iranians, even though the Iranians are not Arab and are actively trying to dominate the Arab Middle East. Yet, for ninety years, the Arabs have been waging a genocidal war against the Jews, and that war started a quarter of a century before the modern State of Israel was even born.

So, the problem is not between Israelis and the Palestinian Arabs, as today's "elites" would have the world believe. Anyone who believes that is a deluded fool, and anyone who proclaims it is a perfidious knave if they know anything about history. The real problem is between imperial Islam on the one hand, and the freedom loving peoples of the world on the other. Given their history -- which includes two lengthy periods of slavery in Egypt and Babylon -- the Jews of Israel stand on the side of freedom. The same, unfortunately, cannot be said for the Arabs of the Middle East, and anyone who says otherwise is guilty of sheer sophistry.

Original URL: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/03/sheer_sophistry.html

Jed Gladstein

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.