Tuesday, December 28, 2004

2003: European Union poll found that nearly 60% of Europeans considered Israel the greatest threat to world peace

In the context of my former post below I will here link to another piece by Alyssa A. Lappen. This one from 2003: Ritual Murders of Jews in Paris.

"An Israeli crime that wasn’t"

Two pieces signed by Metula News Agency and Alyssa A. Lappen respectively:

France 2's Deadly Defamation
By Metula News Agency
FrontPageMagazine.com | November 11, 2004

[Translated by Llewellyn Brown]

A Summary of the facts

After three years of research, more than 150 inquiries, interviews and analyses devoted to the France 2 report of September 30, 2000 at the Netzarim Junction, in the Gaza strip, the Ména has published a long series of revealing articles establishing the fraudulent nature of the reporting of this story.

The news report produced by Talal Abu-Rahma and Charles Enderlin, asserting that a Palestinian child had been assassinated by Israeli soldiers, and distributed free of charge by a French public television channel around the world is a gross staging, aimed at demonizing Israel and the Israeli army. The soldiers accused by the commentary of the permanent correspondent of FR2 at Jerusalem did not fire a single projectile in the direction of the adult Jamal Al-Dura and the child at his side, as they were completely unaware of their presence on the scene.

The supposed authenticity of the report, defended until now by the channel's management, was based on the sole testimony of its reporter Talal Abu-Rahma and principally on the declaration written, filed and ratified by the latter, 3 October 2000, in the presence of the lawyer of the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR), Raji Sourani at Gaza. In this declaration, published in its entirety, with sketches of the events to corroborate it, on the Center's web site, Abu-Rahma notably declares:

"I, the undersigned, Talal Hassan Abu Rahma, resident of the Gaza Strip and who bears ID no. 959852849, give my statement under oath and after having been given legal warning and choice by Lawyer Raji Sourani, on the killing of Mohammed Jamal Al-Durreh and the injuring of his father Jamal Al-Durreh both shot at by the Israeli Occupying Forces… Then, I focused my camera on the child Mohammed Jamal Al-Durreh who was shot in his right leg. His father tried to calm, protect and cover his son with his hands and body. Sometimes, the father Jamal was raising his hands asking for help. Other details of the incident are as they were apparently shown at the film. I spent approximately 27 minutes photographing the incident which took place for 45 minutes…"

The Metula News Agency, confirming the conclusions of the inquiry appointed by the commander of the southern front of the Israeli army, led by the physicist Nahum Shahaf, has constantly asserted that Abu-Rahma's declaration was a false testimony and that the 27 minutes of film of the incident — that is to say the filmed documents showing the Israeli soldiers firing in the direction of Jamal Al-Dura and leading to the death of the "child" — did not exist.

Until Friday, October 22, the numerous official appeals made by our agency to FR2 to view the 27 minutes of Abu-Rahma's footage, as well as our reiterated proposals to compare our respective materials, were refused. Furthermore, our agency, supported by the conclusions of our inquiry, has constantly asserted that Charles Enderlin's numerous declarations evoking the existence of this footage of pictures showing the child's death, that the permanent correspondent of FR2 says he edited in order to spare the television spectators, are a fabrication. We assert that they serve to confer an appearance of authenticity to a fictional event that it contributes to transform into an event reputed to be real.

We find a sample of this sort of declaration by Enderlin in the issue 2650, page 10, of the publication Télérama, October 25:

"I edited the death of the child. It was too unbearable. The story was told, the news delivered. It would not have added anything more."

This untruth covers up the absence of images showing the moment when the child was supposedly hit by Israeli projectiles, which are missing — and for reason — from the fiction filmed by Talal Abu-Rahma. Enderlin alludes to it in the same issue of Télérama:

"As for the moment when the child received the bullets, it was not even filmed."

Structurally, the theory of the assassination of the child by Israeli soldiers was not supported by pictures. The entire staging was based on a suggestion of the facts provided by the commentary and the possession of image of the death by Enderlin. The judicial department of France 2 became the other key element, albeit invisible, when it guaranteed the veracity of the monstrous act attributed to the Israelis. If the images existed…

On Friday October 22, the abscess burst.

In circumstances that are too sketchy to relate but that result from the presentation of evidence gathered by the Ména and summarized in the film we have devoted to the case, the president of France Télévision, Marc Tessier, invited Ms Arlette Chabot, the news editor of France 2, to present the 27 minutes of footage in France 2's possession to Luc Rosenzweig, a former journalist of Le Monde, a contributor to the Ména and a columnist at RCJ, one of Paris' Jewish radios.

The meeting was set for 3:00 pm. Rosenzweig was accompanied, for the occasion, by two eminent figures of the French media who, while being most interested in this case, do not wish for the moment to appear in the public debate it raises. One is a former lead reporter of France 2, an Albert Londres Prize winner. The second is an editorialist who is unanimously respected in Paris.

The group met Arlette Chabot cordially and then headed for their host's office near the top of the FR2 building. Didier Epelbaum, counselor to the channel's president, former member of the Francophone department of Qol Israel [an Israeli radio station] and former mediator of France 2, waited for them, holding a file entitled "Who killed Mohammed Al-Dura?", as did a representative of the judicial department of the "image analysis" section.

The atmosphere was clearly tense. Epelbaum asked: "Shall we talk first?"

To which Rosenzweig replied: "We came to see the 27 minutes of footage showing the Israeli soldiers shooting the child that Talal Abu-Rahma quotes in his statement under oath…"

The representative of the juridical department interrupted our colleague: "It won't tell you much."

That is obviously what we feared… all the more so as Didier Epelbaum immediately followed with an eminently surprising argument: "You know full well that Talal went back on his testimony, that he retracted it. He was acting under pressure, he was caught unawares…"

Caught unawares? Three days after the events, in a comfortable lawyer's office? Abu-Rahma is thus confirmed to have given false testimony: the suspense did not last long. It was, at the same time, the end of the enquiry. With the retraction of the only France 2 witness of the assassination of Mohammed Al-Dura, nothing is left of this case, nothing but a bit of bad fiction that is no longer worth a kopek.

No, the three great journalists "did not know" that the Palestinian reporter of the public channel had retracted his statement. No one in the world is aware, because France 2 has not disseminated this crucial information. France 2 has had the famous footage at its disposal for four years and has known that the 27 minutes of the incident, the sole evidence of the almost ritual crime of Israel, never existed.

Yet the public television station remained silent, letting the fiction it had distributed, that had become the incontestable symbol of the Palestinians' revolt against the Jewish barbarians, sweep over the world, spawning Mohammed Al-Dura street, postage stamps, hate-filled books and guides to shahaha [martyrdom, translator’s note]. The film begot violence, a lot of violence, revenge-lynchings in Ramallah and deadly riots at the beginning of October which left 12 people dead. And above all, this counterfeit dug a chasm of insurmountable hatred between Israelis and Palestinians, and also between Jews and Arabs, eradicating for many long years any hope of reconciliation.

The air became hot in the office of Chabot, who did not take sides, but whose legendary poker face started to crack. And Epelbaum, the architect of the channel's ethical charter, had just trampled on dozens of clauses in section 2.4 dealing with Honesty and Pluralism. I just read it, before writing this paper and I cannot miss the sub-chapter " Deepening and follow-up of news:”

“when events that have been related on the channel undergo developments that change or contradict elements previously provided by the channel, it is important to go back over them…”

Is such schizophrenia conceivable?

The people from this channel told the journalists that Abu-Rahma was in Paris to undergo treatment. Straight away, the three great witnesses suggested meeting him. Three times. Three times, the others feigned they did not hear. Epelbaum took Rozenzweig aside and whispered: "You know, he does not speak French and he speaks English badly. You will not be able to understand each other." The editorialist who heard this strange whispering suggested paying for the services of an Arab translator.

This was met with silence and blanched faces. I remember hearing Talal Hassan Abu-Rahma expressing himself very well in English, live on CNN for ten minutes, at the time of doctor Rantissi's elimination. So it is hard to fall any lower than Epelbaum's falsehood.

They watched the 27 minutes anyway and, of course, they did not contain the slightest picture of the incident that had been broadcasted by FR2 and reproduced in the Ména's film. Not the slightest picture of the most Lilliputian of Tsahal's [the Israeli Defense Forces] soldiers. The only images of Jamal, the child, involved two interviews, without any direct relationship to the incident and pictures of skirmishes between solders and demonstrators. Several times, in Abu-Rahma's footage, children pretended to be hit by Israelis, which made Epelbaum exclaim: "You see, they always do that, these kids.”

I am astounded!

The journalists also exposed another of Charles Enderlin's lies. He said he had given the footage, intact, to the Israeli authorities. On Friday, they saw the child moving, even though he was supposed to have been killed on the spot by the Israelis. On the report broadcast by France 2, these pictures were replaced by stills, to give the impression that the actor playing Mohammed Al-Dura's role was actually dead. In the context, this further mystification that would be crucial in other circumstances, suddenly appeared trivial.

Luc spoke of scenes that were "unbearable" for the spectators. Scenes of dying?

There was silence and blanched faces again. In the footage, there is no picture that could be considered, even with the most open of minds, as a death scene, nothing that is in any way more unbearable that what France 2 had already shown.

Not yet aware that his bunker had already fallen, Didier Epelbaum asked if the journalists had tangible proof that it was a fraud. He did not grasp that with their single witness caught red-handed providing false testimony and a star reporter lying, the hypothesis of the death of Mohammed Al-Dura, September 30, 2000 at Netzarim, did not even need to be criticized. It no longer existed. But Rosenzweig, in a dramatic gesture in the manner of Colombo, drew out of his jacket a USB key and plugged it into the office computer. Then appeared the picture of the small boy that died the same day at Shifa hospital at Gaza and that the authors of the false propaganda wanted people to believe was Mohammed. "It seems,” announced very serenely the man from Upper Savoie, "that there is a small problem; that the face of this corpse is not exactly the same as the one we make out on your film."

It was almost a knock-out. Arlette Chabot suddenly envisaged the strange hypothesis that the men of France 2 may have "been deceived.” She suggests having the scientific police undertake a comparison of the two faces.

Why not? At Metula we have already had the analysis done: the two children are not at all of the same age and the traces of wounds on the corpse do not at all correspond to those announced for Mohammed Al-Dura.

A conclusion, certainly, but the epilogue is missing.

As of this evening, the Al-Dura case, as a factual event of the Intifada, no longer exists. Enderlin may certainly pursue his line of defense, trumpeting that even the officers of the Israeli army fell into his trap — which is rigorously exact — or that "if it were an imposture, the state of Israel would certainly have engaged proceedings,” they are simply incidents of no causal significance in the objective analysis of the case. Moreover, and even before knowing the revelations of France 2, the Israeli government, through the voices of the head of the Government Press Office Danial Seaman and that of the Prime Minister's counselor and spokesman, Ra'anan Gissin, had already publicly stated that the French public television's report was a media imposture and that they had adopted the conclusion of the Shahaf Commission and those of the Ména. Seaman informed us that after a long meeting at the Ministry of Justice, it was decided that it was unfitting for the government of a democratic state to sue the accredited correspondents of foreign media. It was also decided that this decision in no way altered or attenuated the content of Seaman's and Gissin's declarations. And who knows, following the stinging revelations of this article, even the state of Israel may revise its principles?

The hypothesis of the assassination of Mohammed Al-Dura by the Israeli soldiers has thus been deconstructed, obliging its distributor France 2 to admit to its failings. But the dramatic end of this deceit immediately raises a host of questions concerning the interference of the media in a foreign conflict. France 2 deceived television spectators for four long years, denying the fact that the footage they possessed did not show Jewish soldiers assassinating a small Arab boy. The channel thus largely participated in resurrecting the intolerable Middle Age rumor, associating Israelites with racial characteristics of satanic origin. One would have to be extremely deranged, devoid of humanity, to single out a child in a large crowd and to aim at him for forty-five minutes until one succeeded in taking his life.

Unfortunately, the media deceit concocted by Abu-Rahma and Enderlin worked beyond its authors' hopes. So today, and since Mohammed's assassination, this picture constructed around the so-called ferocity of the Israelis clings to us and has persuaded the greater part of Francophone opinion. The task of reparation that befalls France Television is colossal. It starts tomorrow with an explanation to television spectators and victims. There must be an uncompromising recognition of the facts and a calling into question of the methods of the men who instigated the greatest and particularly the most serious masquerade in audio-visual history. And then, reason will not suffer the accomplices to this immense incitement to ethnic hatred, after having corrupted every item of our deontology, to continue claiming they inform France on the events of the Israel-Arab conflict. Nor can they claim to practice any media activity of any nature. Likewise, reason cannot allow us to imagine that they should be awarded professional prizes through the execution of their crime.

Needless to say, at the Ména, we will follow further developments with an extremely watchful eye.

The Israeli Crime That Wasn’t
By Alyssa A. Lappen
FrontPageMagazine.com | December 28, 2004

More than four years have passed since the picture of Mohammed Al Durrah was aired across the world, but the public still imagines the boy's Sept. 30 2000 presence at Netzarim junction in terms described by President Clinton in My Life:

As the violence persisted, two vivid images of its pain and futility emerged,” he writes: “a twelve year old Palestinian boy shot in the crossfire and dying in his father's arms, and two Israeli soldiers pulled from a building and beaten to death, with their lifeless bodies dragged through the streets and one of their assailants proudly showing his bloodstained hands to the world on television.

In short, Al Durrah should never have been juxtaposed with a lynching, much less by the leader of the free world. Two weeks after the Al Durrah tapes aired, two Jewish soldiers lost their way in Ramallah, where they were savagely beaten to death, their innards eaten by hysterical and frenzied crowds screaming Allah Akbar--God is great--and seeking revenge for the supposed death of the boy. Indeed, the Al Durrah case is nothing more than a classic Islamic incitement to jihad.

But evidently, the shooting was merely photographic. “The violence erupted after the Al Durrah incident,” notes Daniel Seaman, director of Israel's Government Press Office, who openly calls the incident a hoax, a staged forgery.

Since Seaman made this charge publicly in late 2002, few mainstream news media picked up the story. These include the European Wall Street Journal and New York Sun, which both ran columns in November, respectively by Stephane Juffa, the Metula Press Agency (MENA) chief in Israel and Nidra Poller, an expatriate writer in France.

Nearly two years ago, France 2 Jerusalem bureau chief Charles Enderlin -- also the vice president of Israel's foreign press association -- threatened to sue. On January 2, 2003, the legal adviser to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon wrote to Enderlin, noting that Israel is a free country. Seaman named neither Enderlin nor France 2. But if he felt injured by Seaman's remarks, Enderlin was more than welcome to take appropriate legal action. The counsel advised Enderlin, Israel has “reliable information” that the case was indeed a fraud, the counsel advised Enderlin, however. At long last, in November, attorneys of France 2 and Enderlin have sued in France -- not Seaman, not Israel, not Metula, not the Wall Street Journal, but “X.”

Before detailing French statutes making such a preposterous case possible, a brief recap of the Al Durrah hoax is in order. On Sept. 30, 2000, dozens of reporters and cameraman waited around for news as children lobbed stones, Molotov cocktails and heavy appliances from the ground and nearby buildings onto the roof of the only Israeli guard post at Netzarim Junction. In a superb investigative coup, renowned Israeli physicist Nacham Shahaf wrested three hours of raw September 30 news reels from Reuters and the Associated Press. These rushes show very clearly that the Israelis shot only when fired upon, and that Palestinians walked around without fear.

Another important fact shows too: The Israeli post was situated at a very wide angle to the position of Jamal and Mohammed Al Durrah--behind a Palestinian warehouse two times its own height.

In other words, even if the Israelis were filmed shooting, which they weren't, it was physically impossible for them to have wounded either Mohammed or his father Jamal Al Durrah, who were crouched, entirely out of view, behind a barrel topped by a cement cinder block. On the Al Durrah's side, moreover, the barrel has no bullet holes. If bullets penetrated it from the Israeli side, they did not come out.

Whoever shot at the Al Durrahs that day, it was not the Israelis. Shooting footage was Talal Abu Rahmeh, a Palestinian stringer for AP and Reuters, who created the icon of supposed Israeli brutality. Abu Rahmeh said under oath that he shot 27 minutes of film. In tapes broadcast worldwide, he asserted that Israeli soldiers subjected the man and the boy to 45 minutes of withering fire, that Israelis intentionally shot the boy dead.

Abu Rahmeh said the boy bled for 20 minutes. The father said he was shot in the hand, arm, and leg and that his elbow and pelvis were crushed--and that a bullet ripped through his son's stomach and exited from his back.

But in the rushes, there is no blood on either the victims or the ground. The supposed 27 minutes of footage was apparently less than three minutes. Three hours of additional rushes from AP and Reuters obtained by Shahaf show much more besides.

At the rear of the warehouse, inside a hollowed out room, several armed and uniformed Palestinian Arabs were filmed on Sept. 30, 2000, talking calmly with directors. The latter then clear the area before takes. Since when do fighters take their cues from civilians?

Later the same day, at least five AP and Reuters photographers taped the same Palestinians firing through a large hole in the rear cinder block wall into the empty warehouse room they had quietly occupied hours earlier. At whom were they firing? The Israeli position was on the other side of the warehouse, in a building half the size. Given their lack of fear and the positive glee of bystanders, these men were surely acting.

Thirty people were reportedly killed and hundreds wounded that day, but the rushes show not one critical injury. Every evacuation was careless of its effects on the supposed patients. One man grabs his leg as if shot, but like the Al Durrah's remains unbloodied. He is then roughly loaded onto a gurney--on his “injured” leg. Another young man hands off a Molotov cocktail before being swooped into his colleagues arms and thrown into the back of a waiting prop--one of several Red Crescent and UN ambulances. Actors clap and laugh as its doors close. Others were caught sunbathing, talking on cell phones, standing nonchalantly, their backs turned to the Israelis. Clearly, these are mises en scene.

Only Talal Abu Rahmeh, with alleged ties to terror groups, filmed the supposed shooting of Mohammed Al Durrah. No one taped the evacuation of the wounded boy and his father.

Finally, a Reuters cameraman behind the Al Durrah's caught many others running by in supposed fear as the boy and his father talked calmly in the background, and stayed put behind their barrel.

Says Enderlin now, “I am really fed up with this story. We are very confident it was not staged, and there is no doubt about that. Our cameraman caught the scene, and other cameramen were there and they caught part of the scene.”

Really? That is not what Enderlin said at the time. Indeed, on Sept. 30, 2000, he personally hand delivered copies of the France 2 footage to every major foreign news outfit at the Jerusalem Journalism Studio House, according to MENA's Stephane Juffa. If the incident were real, wouldn't other cameramen also have grabbed some footage?

Enderlin also says now “We NEVER got any formal request about any inquiry or complaint about Mohammed Al-Durrah from any Israeli Authority. I wrote the Israeli Army spokesman in November 2000 that our legal department might consider an official request to participate in an inquiry. I NEVER got any answer.” By Enderlin's reckoning, the official Israeli investigation under the direction of General Yom Tov Samia and Physicist Nacham Shahaf was not official.

Now, Enderlin is suing “X.” One of those ostensibly covered by this legal appellation is Philippe Karsenty, who runs the Media-Ratings Agency in Paris, the first organization in France to objectively critique and expose the routine manipulations of its foreign print and broadcast media. The agency has taken on many other issues, too, at its www.m-r.fr website. “The democracy in France stops when the press follows foreign affairs,” says Karsenty today.

“All the media are talking the same language and have corporate attitudes. If the media says the moon is green, then the moon is green for everyone.” Since France 2 is, like the British Broadcasting Corporation, government-funded and chartered, correcting this outrage can occur only with help from French politicos.

To that end, Karsenty on November 28 visited French Minister of Culture and Communications Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres and on December 3 showed his counselors MENA's film, exposing the fraud. “They were shocked,” he says, adding that Media-Reporting will not be intimidated by the France 2 suit.

The network evidently hopes to use a statute most often applied to criminal cases in which the perpetrators are unknown. “By suing X,” says Juffa, “they are saying, 'Please investigate and discover who did it'.” Enderlin himself confirms as much. “For French justice, a name and address on a website is not proof that the person is the author of the material,” he says. France 2 could “file against these people, but since you have no proof that they are a company registered under the law, [you] cannot file a suit against [them]. The judge must file against these people....” At press time, Enderlin's attorney had not responded to questions.

But Metula, Media-Ratings, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Sun, are well-known companies with published addresses. “They have taken a big risk,” says Juffa. “The prosecutor in this case must include the Wall Street Journal in the procedure, must include the state of Israel, must include Daniel Seaman.” Moreover, some years ago, in a hearing before 40 witnesses, Enderlin publicly refused to provide Israeli General Yom Tov Samia with a full set of tapes. If France 2's case ever goes to trial, which Juffa and Karsenty doubt, Enderlin will be obliged to produce the evidence that seems to contradict almost everything he has said to date.

The list of anomalies goes on and on. The major ones:

The tapes show no blood on the Al Durrahs or, following their evacuation, at the scene.
Only Abu Rahmeh caught the film, although several other cameramen were present.
Doctors Juna Saka and Mohammed El Dawil at the Shifa hospital in Gaza say the father and boy arrived at the hospital between noon and 1p.m., but Enderlin reported that the incident began at 3 p.m.
The evacuation was not filmed.
The tapes show no bullet holes on the Al Durrah's side of the barrel.
No bullets were ever recovered.
Palestinian Arab officials ordered no autopsy and conducted no investigation.
In three hours of Palestinian-produced rushes, Israelis were not seen firing.
In the background, Palestinian cameramen loitered casually, without fear.
At the hospital, France 2 tapes show a body much larger than that of Mohammed Al Durrah, with surgical abdominal wounds, not wounds from high-powered gunshots, according to forensic medical experts who have seen the France 2, Reuters and AP footage.
Shots fired at the Al Durrahs triggered small round clouds of smoke. Subsequent ballistic tests showed that only head-on shots could produce such small circular clouds. Upon impact, shots fired at a wide-angle throw off great clouds of smoke in the opposite direction.
The bottom line: the tapes suggest that the man and boy were not shot, period, least of all by the Israelis.

Speaking last summer, Foreign Ministry press director Gideon Meir said that reopening this four-year-old case would only cause more damage to Israel: The myth has taken on a life of its own, he said. Besides, some Israeli newsmen say, exposing the lies of Palestinian newsmen and leaders would be like reporting that it rains in the spring, or it's hot in August. It's not news.

But the power of the myth may be precisely why Israel should make a federal case of this affair. Perhaps the Jewish state will do so if France 2 ever presses its case. After all, Mohammed Al Durrah played a huge role in the incitement of global jihad; the episode has real significance as the first blood libel of the 21st Century.

Press behavior was equivalent to that in the 19th Century Dreyfus Affair. For the media industry, this case could be equivalent in scale to the Enron accounting scandal.

In September and October 2000, the endless airing of newsreels and photos from this non-event immediately wiped out all good-will generated by Prime Minister Ehud Barak's historic offer of peace at Camp David II. It directly prompted Arab riots in Israel, resulting in the deaths of 13 youths two days later. “I live in the Galilee with many Arabs,” says Juffa. “After this incident, I went to talk to them.” Until then, they knew (and trusted) Israeli policy that forbade shooting at civilians. “But after seeing these tapes over and over, they thought the Israeli policy had changed,” he continues. “They thought their lives were at stake and they were in danger.”

The affair also fired the largest worldwide wave of jihad attacks on Jews in history. Daniel Pearl's murderers used Al Durrah's image in their grisly snuff film. Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi referred to the case, as did even Osama bin Laden. If Mohammed Al Durrah is the poster boy of the 21st century jihad, Jews are at the epicenter of the hatred.

Besides for more than 30,000 attacks on Jews and Jewish institutions in Israel, 1,000 killed and thousands wounded, hundreds of far-less publicized incidents have occurred worldwide. Jewish schools and synagogues have been firebombed in London, Munich and Paris and rabbis have been stabbed in broad daylight.

In Texas in August 2003, Ariel Sellouk was murdered by a longtime Muslim friend. In France, one year ago, Jewish shopkeeper Chantal Piekolek and famed Parisien DJ Sebastian Sellam were brutally murdered within one 24-hour period. Sellam was the son of refugees from Morocco and spoke fluent Arabic. He met his death in his parking garage, en route to work. A Muslim he knew since childhood slit Sebastian's throat, carved up his face with a fork and gouged out his eyes. He then climbed the stairs to the Sellams' apartment and showed the horrified mother his bloody hands. “I have killed my Jew,” he said, “I will go to heaven.” Piekolek's 10-year-old daughter heard her murder while cowering in the shop storage room. Neither of these murders were reported in the mainstream French press. In all three instances, officials dismissed anti-Semitism as the motive. No motive? Shouldn't law enforcement officials call jihad a motive?

The Western press corps in Israel--too politicized to believe that Palestinians might lie about the Al Durrah episode, and much else besides--is almost certainly taken in daily by many more (albeit smaller) hoaxes. Journalists are undoubtedly duped, day in and day out, in turn duping the global public, at Jewish expense. Ultimately, the survival of Western civilization may hang on press refusal to apply professional skepticism equally to both sides.

Consider these examples:

In April 2002, Rula Amin of CNN alleged, through photographs, that Israel was imposing a Holocaust on Palestinians in the village of Rumana. She appeared with a naked man, wrapped in an army blanket, who had been incarcerated for only 36 hours, but looked starved nearly to death. He was probably ill. But this scene silently invoked the Holocaust, and her text almost didn't matter. CNN apparently later edited or deleted the account.

This year, when terrorists forced young boys to carry suicide bombs, one Irish newscaster suggested that Israel wants the world to see “a young boy, allegedly ready to kill.” She stated Palestinian allegations, however, as fact. For most commentators, this is routine.
In June 2003, a BBC special report on weapons of mass destruction accused Israel of using poison gas on Palestinians. The report was based solely on Palestinian allegations. The BBC excluded proof, issued the same day, that the allegations were false. The reporters consulted no scientists or medical officials--and simply repeated the blood libel perpetrated in 1983, described by Raphael Israeli in the book, Poison. Palestinians then alleged that Israel had used poison gas to contaminate a girl's school, a case later unequivocally proven to be mass hysteria.

Once errors have been made, says Malcolm Downing, a BBC assignment editor, there is no effective way to make corrections. “The truth is racing away, and the correction is laying behind,” he said. “We never catch up, and that's true for everyone else in addition to us.” Asked if anything could be done about that, he said, “I don't think there is, to be honest.” There would be, if only the press would post its corrections under banner headlines on the front page. The Al Durrah case deserves such treatment.
After cartoonist Dave Brown depicted Ariel Sharon eating babies, one reporter asked British Cartoon Society director Dr. Tim Bensen why Arafat was not depicted eating babies. “Maybe because Jews don't issue fatwas,” he said. “Well, if you upset an Islamic or a Muslim group, fatwas can be issued by an ayatollah and such like.... [Cartoonists] could be in trouble...[if they] depict an Arab leader in the same manner. They could suffer death, couldn't they? It's rather different.”

In other words, the media are not only political, they are intimidated.

Last summer, spokesman for the Prime Minister Ra'anan Gissin, and Foreign Ministry Press officer Gideon Meir suggested that the U.S. press is most friendly to Israel. Certainly, the press outside the U.S. is more hostile to Israel. Nevertheless, interviews with a few reporters at major U.S. metropolitan dailies showed the differences are not all that great.

Take Washington Post bureau chief John Anderson, who has spent the better part of the last decade in Iran, Central Asia and Turkey, but learned not a single language spoken in those places. In Israel for the last two years, he and his wife, Molly Moore, speak neither Arabic nor Hebrew, and rely totally on translators to conduct interviews and report. They were in Istanbul for 13 months before moving as a “twofer” team to Jerusalem. They planned the move for six months, but say they could not learn the languages while working. In 13 years as foreign correspondents, the only foreign language they learned was Spanish, while in Mexico.

Anderson admits that Israeli translators are unimpeachable, while Palestinians are merely good. Their chief advantage, he says, is being “on the ground in the territories,” where Israelis cannot go. As for context, he admits to having read no regional history before or during his tenure in Jerusalem. He sees himself as something of a “fireman,” what is known in the trade as an “ambulance chaser.”

Furthermore, despite a decade of reporting from Islamic nations, Anderson has never learned the dominant laws or tenets of Islam, much less the laws of jihad. These laws require Muslims must to invite infidels to Islam, and if they reject the faith, to prosecute holy war. They apply even in modern times.

Anderson contends that writing for 13 years with Farsi, Arabic, Kurdish, Hebrew, Spanish, Tamil, Hindu and Pashtan translators, he and Moore have learned enough to accurately weigh the veracity of translations. It is sufficient, he says, to know an interpreter's level of English proficiency, education and his political leanings--which Moore and Anderson ascertain while en route to appointments and from the types of interviews he arranges.

But Western reporters in Israel are 100% reliant on Palestinian “fixers,” as reporters call them, say journalists and officials. The vast majority come with political and ideological baggage. A few attempt to report the truth about corruption, murder and censorship in the territories, says one unusual Palestinian journalist, but 99%--and 100% of the fixers for the Washington Post and New York Times--are allied with the PLO, Fateh, Hamas, Islamic Jihad or even Hezbollah. Their understanding of the truth is correspondingly one-sided.

“You can't blame the Palestinians,” says the Palestinian. “This is the way they were trained, to be loyal, not to air the dirty laundry, this is media in the Arab world,” he says. “Unfortunately 100% of the fixers see themselves as foot soldiers in the revolution. They will not tell foreign journalists anything that reflects badly on the PA.” As an Israeli journalist notes, they are also starving, and most can be bought for $50. Consequently, Western reporters rely too heavily on spokesmen like Nabil Sha'ath and Sa'eb Erekat; when a corruption scandal hits the news, they are surprised.

Foreign journalists in Israel come in four stripes. They may be flown in for one-shot coverage. They may know nothing and realize they know nothing. They may know a little and assume they know much more. But often as not, they know nothing and don't want to know. The last type are especially “arrogant, prejudiced against Israel, and do not let the facts get in the way,” he says. Even Americans are overly sympathetic to Palestinians and hostile to Israel.

Dig deeply, and the picture of the foreign press in Israel deteriorates further. Evidently, networks and newspapers rarely if ever investigate reporters before hiring or posting them to assignments. A few cases in point:

Lawahez Ga'abri, also known as Lawahez Burgal and for her membership in the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine since age 15, has applied for a press pass under the auspices of NBC. Its producers, and indeed, the staff of the Columbia Journalism school, seem unaware that she belongs to a group listed by the State Department as a terror organization.

Most Palestinian journalists have been imprisoned at some time--for genuine cause, says the Palestinian reporter.

Ali Durehmeh, a reporter for the Associated Press for nine months, spent the prior two years as a “field researcher” for B'tselem, according to spokesman Noam Hoffstater in Jerusalem. Its methods of verifying information also seem extremely shoddy. They are based solely on Palestinian allegations and generally lack rigorous cross-checks with medical and other officials. It is one thing to allege murder, and another to verify the identity of a body--and scientifically establish the cause of death.

Leileh Odeh, an Abu Dhabi network journalist whose press pass was revoked in April 2002 but continues stringing for foreign news organizations, in 2003 appeared as a translator and mediator for the family of Marwan Barghouti, who was then on trial for serial terrorism. Odeh was instructing the children how to respond to questions, says the GPO director Seaman, who personally witnessed the episode.

In March 2002, a German journalist was filmed instructing Arabs to find him some good pictures featuring the devastation that was falsely and widely reported worldwide.

Wafa Amer, a Jordanian reporter, printed false hearsay from an unnamed Palestinian source, accusing the Israel Defense Forces of beating and murdering a victim whose brains he said had oozed out.

Charles Enderlin consults for French government officials and the European Union, both clear conflicts of interest, say others who know him.

In March 2002, a prominent Israeli TV newsman, an immigrant from an Arab country fluent in Arabic, overheard this conversation: In a Jerusalem elevator, two Palestinians working for foreign news agencies plotted to preserve bodies from the Jenin hospital, so as to inter them in mass graves and later accuse Israel of mass murder.

Israeli officials allege that press passes provide cover for many evils: One reporter passes information to Hamas in Samaria and Judea; another works as a Russian spy; a third transferred suicide bombers in his car; an Australian transported armed terrorists from one part of the disputed territories to another. Following a suicide attack that killed three, a reporter was caught photographing Israeli targets for its enemies. Others charge that a key Ha'aretz reporter leaks information to PA operatives in Hebron.

The first victims of the corrupt Palestinian Authority and press naivete are Arabs. “This peace is killing us,” says another Palestinian reporter who, after the Palestinian leadership, blames the Western press most of all. “An entire generation has been irretrievably destroyed.”

In 1993, if the foreign press had reported on the corruption, murder and totalitarianism in the Palestinian Authority, says this Palestinian source, the current war might have been avoided. But the mainstream press treats Palestinians “with silk gloves.”

The Washington Post's Anderson, however, admits none of this. Questioned concerning alliances of his own Arab translators, he says “I don't believe all the fixers are affiliated. If they are and you don't know it, you haven't done a very good job.” As for his own fixers, “we use very independent minded people,” he says. Not according to others who know them.

Translators would not lie to the point of fabricating stories, says Anderson. “They have a point of view, they have an agenda, and they try to get their point of view across. I try to play it down the middle.”

But playing it down the middle, for him, means accepting the Palestinian charge, for example, that Israelis once set up a road block outside Ramallah simply to dismantle it for show and put it up again a few miles down the road when no pressmen were looking. “They made the cage a little bit bigger.... The whole thing was a scam,” he says.

As to whether the Al Durrah case was also a scam, Anderson last summer thought it unlikely. “There were so many camera crews,” he says. “You never want to say never, but on a new story that big, if it was totally bogus, it would have gotten out.... There is not a vast conspiracy among Palestinian journalists to keep that kind of thing quiet.”

On the contrary, says a Palestinian journalist, the Arab press organizes so as not to reflect badly on their leaders, whatever that requires. Anderson thinks he knows better.

In other interviews with foreign journalists the results were pretty much the same: a lot of skepticism greets the notion that Palestinians fabricate news.

“It's part of being a professional and a correspondent and a fireman, to be able to assess the situation, get over the language barriers and get on [the story],” says Anderson. By this reckoning, foreign pressmen in Israel are nothing more than cub reporters and most think, like Anderson, “in fact there is incitement on both sides.”

So was Mohammed Al Durrah an incitement? Anderson of the Washington Post would say no, and the vast majority would agree with him.

In the end, dismantling this press roadblock to the truth will take another Emile Zola. Failing that, readers should assume that news fakery will continue to erode the very underpinnings of our way of life. They should also apply to reports from Palestinian Authority areas the skepticism that newsmen do not.

Click here and here for the links.

Monday, December 27, 2004

Emanuel Winston: "UN Planned State of Israel as a Still-Birth?"

By Emanuel A. Winston, Middle East Analyst & Commentator

July 11, 2002

There is every indication that the leaders of the United Nations never intended that the nation of Israel was to live very long after she declared her independence May 14, 1948. But, after the massacre of European Jewry, the nations of the world had a brief moment of self appraisal and were shocked at their complicity in the most massive Genocide this planet had ever known. They all recognized that they had participated. From the instrument of Hitler’’s Germany, through the Christian Europeans, the Church, the Red Cross, including the decision by the Western Allies not to rescue, feed or house the Jewish refugees –– all were guilty of committing Genocide. [Note Evian and Bermuda agreements]

The records are plain, published and available for review by doubters or would-be revisionists. However, as a brief indication of their collective, pervasive hostility as exemplified by the U.N., I will list a short U.N. voting record.

Security Council: 175 total resolutions –– 74 neutral; 4 against perceived interests of Arab state or entity, 97 against Israel.
General Assembly: Cumulative number of votes cast with or for Israel: 7,938 - Against Israel: 55,642. Since it first convened in 1946, at least one Arab state sat on the 9 country Security Council in 39 of its first 43 years. Israel never sat on the Security Council. [In June 2002 Syria who is still listed on the U.S. State Department as a Terrorist State, was voted in as Head of the Security Council.] The Security Council "condemned", "censured", "deplored", "strongly deplored", etc. Israel 49 times; the Arabs: Zero. The Security Council passed 131 Resolutions: 43 or 33% were neutral; 88 criticized or opposed or judged against Israel. Zero critical of Arab state, body or the PLO (founded by the Arab League in 1964).

The General Assembly passed 429 Resolutions against Israel’’s desires (62%); only 56 against Arab desires (8%). the General Assembly "condemned", "vigorously condemned", "strongly condemned", "deplored", "strongly deplored", censured"", "denounced" Israel 321 times –– the Arabs Zero condemnations. (1) This record demonstrates the extreme bias of this body of nations and their unremitting efforts to assist the Arab nations in eliminating Israel.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ADOPTED RESOLUTION 181, Nov. 29, 1947, partitioning Mandated Palestine into a Jewish & Arab State
For a brief moment after the Holocaust, goaded by guilt of omission or commission, they made a slim gesture to the Jewish remnants of that great massacre through the United Nations.
The U.N. portioned off a sliver of land from the original Palestinian Mandate under Great Britain to create a Jewish homeland, "closely settled" by the Jewish people. This was the Biblical center of the ancient homeland of the Jewish people. The general area, including the land captured from the Ottoman Turks in the Allies WWI victory was subsequently partitioned into the Arab/Muslim nations of Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Iran, Saudi Arabia and in 1922, Trans-Jordan. The borders of these newly created countries were arbitrarily drawn by England and France. 78% of the Palestinian Mandate intended for the Jews was cut off for a kingdom to Abdullah after he was forced out of Saudi Arabia and was called Trans-Jordan.

The Map of what was to be the Jewish State became a ragged, narrow slice of land that was so empty of critical mass that it was clearly designed to disappear. (Look at the Map drawn by the U.N. and note that it left a slice of land that a man could stroll from border to the Sea in hours.) It was entirely indefensible with few natural resources –– including scant water. This was a State that was planned to be still-born. Regardless, the Jews accepted the partition, the Arabs refused pledging occupation and elimination.

But, there was more to the planning of her demise than just the vulnerability of her borders and zero defensive depth. For political reasons, the nations of the U.N., each for local consumption, knew that they had to make the gesture of creating the Jewish State for the refugees many helped to generate. Those in control also concurrently recognized or believed that a Jewish nation with pre-pledged enemies on so massive a scale could not possibly survive more than a few weeks.

Even before the historic U.N. vote of 11/29/47, Arab statesmen had declared their resolve to destroy Israel by all possible means. November 30, 1947, the Arab League made public its program for the "occupation of Palestine by the armies of the League and the forcible prevention of the establishment of a Jewish State". (2) Also on November 30, 1947, Dr. Hussein Halide of the Palestine Higher Committee called for a "holy war to be waged on the Jews, vowing that partition would lead to an Islamic crusade against them." By the end of that week after the vote, the Arabs had attacked and out of a population of 600,000 Jews, 105 Jews had been killed with many more wounded in concerted attacks all over Palestine.

On April 10, 1948, the Security Council stated: "Armed Arab bands from neighboring Arab lands have infiltrated the territory of Palestine and, together with local Arab forces, are defeating the purpose of the Partition Resolution by acts of violence" . On May 15, 1948, the day when Israel proclaimed her independence, Azzam Pasha of the Arab League announced the "Arab intention to wage a war to the end, a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades." May 15, 1948 marked the full-scale invasion of Israel by the regular armies of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq –– joined by Saudi Arabia and Yemen. (3) Note! The U.N. did absolutely nothing but observe what they thought would be the termination of Israel.

The U.N. had within its body those same nations, in addition to the Europeans, ready and eager to insure Israel had a still-birth. All the Arab nations had pledged that they would attack and occupy the fledgling Jewish State upon her birth. They didn’t wait for the niceties of a legal declaration but were already fighting and killing Jews by 1947. Each of the Arab/Muslim nations’’ leaders had, for international consumption, made numerous speeches describing the joy they would experience while wading in Jewish blood. The major nations of the U.N. knew precisely what the Arab/Muslim nations were saying and what they were capable of doing.

Such nations as France, England, Germany, the Soviet Union, America knew to an exacting number, the manpower, armor, artillery, aircraft of each Arab/Muslim nation. Similarly, they knew exactly what the fledgling Jewish State did NOT have in men, weapons or the funds to purchase new weapons. To compound the weakness of the Jewish State, after the U.N. vote to establish the State, the U.S., France, England, ‘‘et al’’ voted to embargo arms to the combatants in the Middle East.

While the Arab/Muslim states were already well-armed with standing, trained armies, Israel was cut off from even purchasing weapons. Despite this vote to embargo arms to the "combatants" virtually nothing was withheld from the Arab nations. They could add to their already considerable armories with funds in their established treasuries from the very nations who instituted that embargo. Israel had no such treasury and had to rely upon donations from World Jewry. All of this was well known to the U.N. and particularly those who were considered powerful nations. [As a relevant aside, today the nations of Germany, England, France, Norway, Spain and others of the E.U. have again embargoed shipment of spare parts and equipment to Israel –– just as they did in 1948.]

Israel had to scrounge the junkyards of Europe for old World War I and II equipment. Even then, they were charged exorbitant prices for what most nations would consider scrap. There was no doubt in the minds of the United Nations that the "Jewish Problem" which irritated the Arab Muslims would soon be solved. Except for the vote that gave Israel the spark of life, the Jews of Israel understood that they were on their own. No nation would assist or rescue the Jews!

Simultaneously, the Arabs were already partying and celebrating a victory that would return their Pride and self-esteem. As a culture they had not had a military victory since the 12th century when the Kurd, Saladin, had driven the Christian Crusaders from Jerusalem. The twin pillars of Arab/Muslim Pride and Shame which had crumbled to dust over the centuries would at last be rebuilt over the bones of the Jews.

All problems with the Jews would be quickly settled by the 7 invading Arab armies. There would, of course, be no opportunity for rescue –– except for a possible token late arrival of some troops from England, France or America. They would find a handful of Jews left whom they would rescue with great fanfare and self congratulations. The Arab Muslims would have "danced in the blood" of the Jews and reclaimed their trampled manhood –– just as they proclaimed they would do before the 1947 U.N. Vote enabling the State of Israel to be born. No doubt, a Fund would be voted upon in the U.N. to re-settle the few remaining Jews who had survived the massacre and the World would continue its commerce with the Arab/Muslim oil world with scarcely a blip.

But, something happened which startled the World and disrupted their expectations.

When the 7 Arab/Muslim armies of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen and Saudi Arabia attacked as promised on May 15, 1948, the untrained Jewish remnants from the graveyards of Europe fought back with junk equipment and miraculously beat the combined, vaunted Arab/Muslim armies who were stopped and chased across the deserts. However, the Armistice Lines left the Egyptians in occupation of the Gaza Strip and Jordan occupying Judea and Samaria (which they now called the ‘West Bank’) as well as a large part of Jerusalem. No one objected - certainly not the U.N.

The Arab/Muslim leaders were shocked and began to explain to their people that they lost only because the American Army and its Air Force had joined the fight against the Arabs. Surely, those Jewish shopkeepers they despised could not defeat the great Arab fighters of Islam! Clearly, it must have been the Americans who had defeated the Arabs. The Arab masses accepted the lie and their testicle-driven macho self-image was protected by the fiction of undefeatable men of Islam so dear to the heart of the Arab/Muslims.

There followed 5 more wars where the Arabs gambled away their land in an effort to overrun Israel in another great Genocide. The Arab/Muslims continued to proclaimed that they would occupy the land of all historic Palestine (including all of Israel), ignore the U.N. partition and Islam would eventually triumph. There were actually 7 wars that the Arabs started and lost: 1947-8 - the War of Independence, 1956 - the Sinai Campaign, 1967 - Six Days’ War, 1969-70, War of Attrition, 1973 - Yom Kippur War, 1982 - Lebanon War (to prevent PLO attack) and 1991- Saddam’’s 39 SCUDs Gulf War.

In between the wars, there were the ongoing Terrorist wars of Attrition. Each time Israel won a war and took the land the Arabs had gambled away, a hue and cry from the nations said: "Return the Land and ‘perhaps’ they will recognize your ‘‘right to exist". The International Lawyers mounted irrelevant arguments, maintaining that "aggressor nations could wage war and expect whatever they lost to be returned to them". Twisted Orwellian logic drove the Leftists and Pacifistic legalists to promise any aggressor nations that they ran no risk or penalty - such as forfeiting land lost in aggressive wars. Also the major nations would invariably force Israel to halt her successful advances, insuring the rescue of the Arabs from complete defeat, surrender - or to negotiate a final peace.

As a result, even when Israel did try to negotiate the failed concept of "Land for Peace", the Arab/Muslim attacks continued. The same Arab nations still pledged to eliminate Israel and the same U.N. nations continued to press Israel to take another –– then another chance on peace. The ""Peace Process"" became a mantra and an open invitation for national suicide. The Arabist U.S. State Department, representing the Arab oil nations and U.S./multi-national oil corporations, made every effort to undercut the existence of Israel. The E.U. (European Union), dependent upon Arab oil, also worked diligently to assist the Arab/Muslim nations to rebuild their armies after each defeat, hopeful that one day Israel would lose "One" war. Both of the above worked hard to defeat the 1947 Vote for Partition of Mandate Palestine but, having failed, they continued their war against Israel to this very day.

Israel continues to face the same enemies today that planned her still-birth. This includes the U.N., the E.U., the G-8, the Arab/Muslim nations of Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Iran, Iraq, Libya and Lebanon. One still sees the U.S. State Department collaborating to insure the vulnerability of Israel. The French, British and Germans lead the Europeans in trying to establish another State of Palestine which shall truncate Israel and bring her to her knees for the final ‘coup de grace’. Presently faced with the facts of Israel’s continue existence and success at fighting Arab/Muslim Terrorism, a virulent anti-Semitism is sweeping Europe, reminiscent of their days of infamy when they cooperated with Hitler’s "Final Solution to the Jewish Question".

There are numerous reasons for the U.N. and the E.U. to aim their hostility against a Jewish State:
1. To generalize, most of these nations had been deeply imbued with ethnic Jew hatred taught by the Church for centuries before WWII.
2. During WWII, these nations were finally able to advance beyond relatively smaller pogroms and give full vent to their hatred of Jews by collaborating with the Germans in their Genocide of all the Jews in whatever nations they conquered.

3. Both the Christian Church and Islam denied the Hebrew/Jewish people’’s claim to G-d’’s Covenant on earth. The Jews were simply an impediment to each as claimant for G-d’’s Covenant (Contract) with the Jews for as long as they existed on earth.

[Note! 1, 2 and 3 relate to the deeper underlying strata of religious conflict which theologians and objective historians understand very well. The conflict of Life after Death as the reward in the hereafter for those presumably first-in-line or closer to G-d has motivated man sometimes more than life in the present.]
4. Other motivating forces among the nations are the grand designs of trade, commerce and energy. Therefore, within the present religious, political and economic value systems, the resources of oil concentrated in Muslim countries, the cash flow, the extraordinary profitability in the sale of weapons’ systems all coalesced together to create the calculation of the comparative value of one Jewish State vs. the many Arab/Muslim oil nations and their lucrative markets. Here we find the classic clash of values between good vs. evil; money vs. ethics and morality, aggressor vs. victim, etc.

5. Most of the nations who belong to the U.N. were and are debtor nations, looking for any scapegoat to deflect the rage of their citizens for the self-generating poverty they face. Many, including the Super-Powers sold their allegiance and votes to the Arab dictatorships when oil was king. Some hoped for a hand out from the Arabs or, at least, favorable pricing, if they assisted the Arabs by voting against Israel in the U.N. For this bit of treachery and pandering, they got virtually nothing. The Arabs instead spent their fabulous wealth on themselves (not their citizens) and on vast weapons’’ inventories with little trickling down to their ignorant poverty-stricken masses. The motivation of oil (translated into purchasing power and status) combined with inbred hostility to the Jewish people [as in 1, 2 and 3] were powerful driving forces for the United Nations. Each nation, from the Super-Powers down to the smallest nation in Africa, relied upon keeping the Arab/Muslim oil nations placated as illustrated in the U.N.’s voting record.

If this meant acting as proxies for Islamic fervor and transferring Arab/Muslim hostility to the Jewish State, either through the U.N. or via embargoes - this is what was done. The taught hatred of Jews combined with being thwarted in their elimination had raised their frustration to levels to a form of insanity, if you agree that Genocide is a pathological expression of madness.
After amassing wealth of unimaginable proportions and wasting it on vast accumulations of weapons and orgies of glorious spending, they are faced with staggering debt and poverty for the masses.
The U.N. reported July 2nd that "Arab nations had squandered the wealth generated by oil and deprived millions of their people of basic political freedoms. Researched during the past 18 months by scholars and experts from the 22 Arab League countries whose population is 280 million people. It found that 65 million adults are illiterate, 10 million children do not attend school and the unemployment rate is 15%, the world’’s highest. 50 % of Arab women are illiterate, while only 3.5% of all parliamentary seats in Arab states were filled by women". "Oil revenues are not always invested productively in the region," said the report, commissioned by the UNDP (U.N. Development Program). But, despite the frank admissions of mismanagement, malfeasance and internal prejudices against their own people, the report still claimed that: "Israel’’s occupation of Arab lands is one of the most pervasive obstacles to security and progress in the region."

In brief, they still cannot face the reality of their self-imposed poverty, driven by a religion that enslaves them in poverty. Had they welcomed the Jews as co-equals and cousins of Abraham, with the wealth of oil and Jewish talent, the entire region would have rivaled the industry of the West.

Strangely, this bias against Israel in order to gain access to Arab oil continued long after the Middle East oil lost its dominant role, as global exploration turned up huge quantities of oil elsewhere. The habit of hostility as practiced was hard to break. Even when radical Islamic fundamentalist Arabs exported Terror across the globe, the nations made a great effort to blame the Jews in order to appease the Arab/Muslims. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell is still dragging himself around to Arab nations, most of whom are either on or should be on the State Department’’s list of Terrorist nations, begging them to be a part of a non-existent coalition against Terror.

However, this appeasement was futile because the Arab/Muslims, while first teething on the Jewish State, really hated the entire Western civilization. This clash of major cultures is understood by our deeper thinkers but the rest of the West has not yet grasped the fact that we in the supposedly Free West are really at war declared by radical Islam. The Arab nations have fallen far behind the West in every sphere of industry, education, excessive poverty and they hate us in the free and democratic West for their comparatively backward status.

There is one bizarre twist worth watching:
The U.N. and the E.U. resent American Power and, by extension, the democracy of Israel. They are furious with President George W. Bush for his Global anti-Terrorism policy and his publicly citing Yassir Arafat as an irredeemable Terrorist. They see Israel as a Jewish outpost of American policy. Given that they resent and even hate America, they, therefore, also hate the Jewish State and are frustrated over their own history of failure. Having to be rescued from two World Wars and to be rebuilt with American dollars and know-how through the Marshall plan was humiliating and, therefore, unforgivable. They now use the U.N. to vent their collective frustration at America and Israel. There was a lot of silent and not-so-silent applause for 9/11 from both the Arabs and Europe.

I see a time when the Europeans finalize their separate efforts to create a mini European NATO without the Americans. Then they will use their collective forces in an attempt to force a military solution on Israel - in concert with the Arab/Muslim nations in an attempt to consolidate their commercial relations with the Arab nations and their lucrative markets... They will claim that their intentions are to foment peace but, it will be a reflection of their age-old hatred of the Jews –– just ask anyone who has traveled in Europe lately about the open anti-Semitism.

Therefore, I would not be surprised to see the same nations who turned against the Jews 60 years ago, join the Arab/Muslims under the auspices of the United Nations. To paraphrase Ezekiel 39:3 p. 1224 (Stone Tanach) "The nations will gather from the North and assault the Jewish nations before they themselves will be destroyed".

Here`s the link.

Friday, December 24, 2004

About destroying Israel

"Fatah chief Farouk Khaddoumi said the Palestinian strategy toward Israel was two-fold. In the first stage, he said, the Palestinians would accept a Palestinian state alongside Israel. In the second stage, the Palestinians would seek to eliminate the Jewish state."

"He said he always opposed Israel's existence and cited the Arab numerical superiority over the Jewish state.
"[There are] 300 million Arabs, while Israel has only the sea behind it," Khaddoumi said.

Khaddoumi said his platform was endorsed by the PLO in 1974. He said the strategy called for a phased plan that would establish authority over any territory obtained from Israel, concluding with an Arab war to destroy the Jewish state."

You can read the whole thing here.

Tuesday, December 21, 2004

"Stanford's Islamist Threat"

Stanford's Islamist Threat

By Alyssa A. Lappen
FrontPageMagazine.com | December 21, 2004

He denounces American “imperialism” on Al-Jazeera Television. A former Zionist, he refers to jihadist suicide bombers as “martyrs.” He praised Mideast scholars for ignoring the issue of terrorism, and he regularly repeats the most twisted and paranoid claims of Islamist regimes as though they were historical fact. He is Stanford Middle East history professor Joel Beinin, and his influence extends far beyond his classroom.

If one individual can showcase all the flaws of Middle East Studies in academia, Joel Beinin is that man. A former president of the Middle East Studies Association, Beinin teaches Middle East history at Stanford University. This professor’s politics color his work; the result is mediocre scholarship, baseless conspiracy theories, and partisan classroom instruction.

Beinin’s biography reads like a parody of an American radical. Born in 1948 to Labor Zionist parents,[1] he experienced an ideological transformation at age 22 while living on Kibbutz Lahav. Beinin joined the “New Left” at Hebrew University, then migrated to Trotskyite anti-Zionism and finally to Maoism.[2] A Marxist ever since,[3] he received his BA, MA, and Ph.D. from Princeton, Harvard, and the University of Michigan respectively. He has received Ford Foundation funds, and has taught in France, Britain, Israel and Egypt.[4]

Beinin and his wife Miriam support the Jewish Voice for Peace,[5] a Bay area group and reported Palestinian front.[6] The professor appears regularly on radical Radio Pacifica,[7] although he refuses many local invitations to legitimate debate.[8] Beinin blames the United States for major problems facing the Middle East, and he attributes U.S. actions to aggression and ill will. Just a few examples of his most outrageous actions include:

Before the 2003 Iraq war, Beinin appeared on Al-Jazeera to condemn U.S. “imperial” policy in the Arab world. President Bush, he informed his Middle Eastern audience, planned to establish “a puppet regime” in Baghdad to benefit U.S. oil interests and force what he called “Israeli dictates” on the Palestinians.[9]

After the war began, Beinin accused Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and other U.S. policymakers of collusion with “Israel’s Likud Party”[10] and asserted that the U.S. and Israel had collaborated with Arab regimes to block “democracy and economic development in the Arab world.”[11] Beinin insisted that the U.S. was bent on showing “the overwhelming military power of the US…to make and unmake regimes and guarantee access to oil.”[12] American conservatives, in his opinion, wanted to ensure that “Islamist forces would forsake legal political action and engage in armed struggle.”[13]

Beinin rejects critical thought regarding terror, and with it any opportunity to sensibly evaluate the current U.S. war. He mocks this effort as “terrorology.” A year after 9/11, he actually congratulated fellow MESA academics for their “great wisdom” in refusing to examine terrorism, much less address what nearly all agree is the gravest national security threat to the United States.[14]

Pro-Palestinian Apologist

Beinin’s antagonism toward Israel pervades his commentary concerning the Jewish state. He maintains that exodus of Jews from Arab lands after 1948 resulted not from their forced expulsion by Arab governments but from “provocative actions by Israeli agents.”[15] Despite the fact that Israel offered Jews a haven from mass murder in Europe, and atrocities and mass expulsion from Muslim lands,[16] Beinin holds that “Modern Zionism is a revolution against traditional Judaism, not its fulfillment.”[17] (He shares this view, ironically, with a tiny minority of anti-Zionist ultra-Orthodox Jews.)

The violence of the first intifada (1988-92) was, in Beinin’s view, actually a “strike for peace.” With Hamas-like rhetoric, he has praised “the first martyr of the uprising,” and excused the “small number of violent incidents” against Israelis[18] (overlooking that they led to 160 murders).[19]

After September 11, 2001, Beinin ignored Osama bin Laden’s explicit calls for jihad; instead, he pointed to “Israel’s disproportionate use of force” against Palestinians.[20] This ignores the obvious fact that Al-Qaeda opposes Israel’s very existence, rendering irrelevant the level of force it deploys.

In spite of overwhelming evidence, Beinin refuses to acknowledge the threat that Islamic terrorism poses to civilians. In March 2002, a Hamas terrorist entered a hotel in Netanya, Israel, and killed 30 civilians, including children, as they celebrated the Passover holiday.[21] The following day, Beinin addressed an anti-Israel demonstration and did not even mention this atrocity.[22] Instead, he insouciantly denied that Palestinian terrorism “posed an existential threat to Israel.”[23]

As for American involvement in the Arab-Israeli conflict, despite staggering diplomatic efforts and vast sums of money given to the Palestinian Authority, Beinin can see only a “consistent [U.S.] denial of independence and self-determination” for the Palestinians.[24]

Whitewashing Egyptian Anti-Semitism

Beinin’s specializes in Egyptian history. Here, too, his work bears an anti-Zionist tone and frequent contradicts the facts of history. In opposition to “the Zionist project,”[25] he instead favors “Levantinism,” an Israel-replacement ideology that calls for revitalizing the “fruitful compromise” of cultures he believes existed in the past.[26] Scholars and Jewish refugees from Muslim lands both maintain that such idyllic harmony never existed,[27] but Beinin romanticizes and politicizes their history.[28] He also dismisses bona fide work on Arab and Muslim attitudes toward Jews by such writers as Yehoshafat Harkabi and Bat Ye’or, calling this perspective a “neo-lachrymose interpretation”[29] that inexcusably has “distracted attention from Palestinian claims.”[30]

It appears that Beinin delves into history only to support his own preconceived theories. He ignores facts that contradict his ideas, sweeping certain events aside as if they never occurred. In his 1998 book on the fate of the Egyptian Jewish community, The Dispersion of Egyptian Jewry, Beinin ignores the 1730s riots that destroyed Cairo’s Jewish quarter, killing 5,000 to 10,000, at least half its population.[31] He makes no mention of the 1901 blood libel leveled at a Cairo Jewish woman.[32] He condescendingly informs a former Jewish resident that the harat al-yahud was “not a ghetto,”[33] when in fact it was. He minimizes Egypt’s 1929 Nationality Law,[34] which blocked citizenship for Jews and many Christians, making some 40,000 Jews apatrides—stateless.[35] He downplays the 1947 Company Law that made it nearly impossible for minorities to work in Egypt.[36] He insultingly twists Egypt’s Jews into “Arabized” nationalists who would have been happier without Israel’s existence.[37]

Beinin even neglects Egypt’s state-sponsored publication of hateful tracts like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an edition of which was issued by Gamal Abdel Nasser’s brother Shawki.[38] He denies the inherently anti-Semitic nature of arrests of Egyptian Jews during the 1940s and 1950s on trumped-up charges.[39] He asserts that Nazi officials in Egypt’s government[40] cannot be traced – and anyway, that they had no political influence – ignoring a well-documented record of Nazis having moved to Nasser’s Egypt and their significant impact there.[41]

In 1956 and during 1967-70, Jewish males over 19 were imprisoned in the Abu Za’bal and Tura camps.[42] They were tortured, forced to walk barefoot on broken glass and recite “I am a coward Jew. I am a Jewish donkey.”[43] Beinin makes no mention of these camps.

In Egypt, leaders of Jewish communities were forced to publicly denounce Zionism. Incredibly, Beinin takes these denunciations at face value.[44] In fact, these Jews were Zionists; Cairo’s Jews fasted for Israel’s safety in 1967 and then massively resettled there.[45]

Teaching Bias

To the chagrin of Stanford students and their fee-paying parents, Beinin uses the classroom to promote his wacky revisionism.[46] So notorious is he for biased teaching that the Stanford Review, a campus newspaper, has run an item called “Beinin Watch” to inform readers of his antics. The editor likens Beinin’s courses at Stanford to “expensive training for the Marxist press corps.”[47] When students rejected his request to attend an antiwar rally instead of his own class, Beinin trumped them by holding his lecture at the rally itself.[48]

At AllLearn, a joint online venture of Oxford, Stanford and Yale universities,[49] Beinin teaches a course on “Palestine, Zionism and the Arab-Israeli Conflict,” and his lessons are fraught with conspiracy theories.[50] The “Zionist lobby” in Washington, he informs students, has the power to induce Washington to adopt an “uncritically pro-Israel foreign policy.”[51] For “serious” reading, he recommends Egypt’s state-run Al-Ahram,[52] a newspaper that routinely features anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and Holocaust denial, likens Israeli leaders to Nazis,[53] and praises suicide bombings.[54] Al-Ahram’s editor Ibrahim Nafie was actually sued in France for a piece claiming that Jewish rituals require the use of Christian children’s blood.[55] Jonathan Leffell, a student of Beinin’s online class, informed AllLearn that the course was a “miserable hate fest.”[56]

And yet, through his positions as a professor and writer, Beinin claims many converts. Last June, a former Stanford student confessed to fellow radicals training with the International Solidarity Movement, “I used to support Israel until I took some classes with Joel Beinin, who set me straight.”[57] Beinin reaches an audience broader than Stanford’s student body. Last spring, he sounded off against the war in Iraq in The Nation.[58] His works are often cited by groups like anti-American touring companies like the Wheels of Justice,[59] or reproduced in books.[60]

As MESA’s president, Beinin influenced the education of middle and high school students through the Teachers’ Curriculum Institute (TCI), according to Frontpage contributing editor Lee Kaplan. TCI writes textbook entries and social studies curricula to meet standards in 20 states, including California, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.[61] Beinin filled its Middle East committee with such ideologues as Betsy Barlow (a U.S. coordinator for the Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center),[62] Glenn Perry (of Indiana State) and Kamran Aghaie and Abraham Marcus (both of the University of Texas).[63] One high school handout gives Hamas greater political significance than Israel’s Labor and Likud parties.[64] TCI high school textbooks include class “exercises” that pit students in roles of “advantaged” Jews against others posing as “disadvantaged” Palestinian Arabs. Playing the role of a world power, teachers are instructed to unfairly oppose the “Arabs.”[65]

Getting It Wrong

Through the years, real life has disproved Beinin’s theories and predictions. In 1991, Beinin dismissed U.S. concerns over Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait as “patently ridiculous,” insisting that the real American goal was to maintain weak, unstable “mini-states,” thereby assuring cheap oil and generating demand for U.S. weapons.[66] To this day, Beinin never acknowledged that his expectation was entirely off base. (The U.S. left Saddam in power precisely out of fear of Iraq breaking into mini-states).[67]

In 2002, Beinin initiated a petition that charged Israel with plotting the “ethnic cleansing” of Palestinians under cover of the approaching war in Iraq.[68] He predicted that Ariel Sharon would use the war as an opportunity “to push the Palestinians into Jordan.”[69] As Martin Kramer has noted, Beinin thus condemned Israel “in advance for something it had no intention of doing”[70] — and did not do. In this matter, too, Beinin refuses to concede that he was wrong.

The U.S. government “has given Israel nearly one trillion dollars,”[71] according to Beinin. This is a completely fictional sum;[72] total aid to Israel since 1949 has actually come to just over $90 billion, including $15 billion in loans.[73] Informed of his whopper, Beinin insisted, “The basic point still stands.”[74]

Joel Beinin’s career as a voice of academic authority parallels the unscholarly behavior common in academia in general, and in Middle East Studies and MESA in particular. We must continue to shine the light of scrutiny on their pro-terrorist indoctrination tactics, or they will become more insulated from criticism -- and more pose a larger threat to innocent civilians around the world.

Alyssa A. Lappen undertook this research for Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum, to review and critique Middle East Studies in North America with the aim of improving them.


[1] Beinin, Joel, The Dispersion of Egyptian Jewry: Culture, Politics and the Formation of a Modern Diaspora, (1998), pp. Library of Congress Cataloguing Data, 25, 27; Wall, Alexandra J., “Outspoken Stanford prof supports 2-state-solution,” Jewish Bulletin of Northern California, Mar. 15, 2002.

[2] Beinin, Joel, Dispersion of Egyptian Jewry, pp. 25-28; Wall, Alexandra J., “Outspoken Stanford prof supports 2-state-solution,” Jewish Bulletin of Northern California, Mar. 15, 2002; interviews with former Beinin students and associates.

[3] Kurtz, Stanley, “The More Things Stay the Same,” National Review, July 22, 2002, http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz072202.asp; former associates, interviews.

[4] Beinin, Joel, Stanford University Department of History Faculty profile, http://history.stanford.edu/faculty/beinin; Beinin, “Egyptian Jewish identities," http://www.hsje.org/beinin.htm.

[5] Not in My Name ad, http://www.nimn.org/gushad/publishedAd1.pdf.

[6] Kaplan, Lee, "Purge at San Francisco State,” FrontPageMagazine.com, Feb. 26, 2004, http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12354.

[7] Stanford University professors; Bernstein, Dennis, “Flashpoints Radio,” Jan. 25, 2002, http://www.flashpoints.net/index-2002-01-24to29.html; “Democracy NOW! in exile,” Pacifica news, Nov. 26, 2001; “Palestine/Israel discussed at Petaluma festival,” Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Nov. 2001, http://www.wrmea.com/archives/november01/0111063.html.

[8] Bernstein, Ralph, email invitation to debate in Palo Alto, Sept. 9, 2002; Beinin, Joel, email refusal of invitation, Sept. 9, 2002; interviews with associates and former students.

[9] Beinin, Joel, interview with Ahmed Mansour, Al Jazeera, Feb. 10, 2003, http://www.aljazeera.net/programs/no_limits/articles/2003/2/2-10-1.htm#L6

[10] Beinin, Joel, “Pro-Israel hawks and the Second Gulf War,” Middle East Report Online, Apr. 6, 2003, http://www.merip.org/mero/mero040603.html.

[11] Beinin, Joel, “Pro-Israel hawks and the Second Gulf War,” Middle East Report Online, Apr. 6, 2003.

[12] Beinin, Joel, “Pro-Israel hawks and the Second Gulf War,” Middle East Report Online, Apr. 6, 2003, http://www.merip.org/mero/mero040603.html; Freedland, Jonathan, “That is a Racist Slur,” The Guardian, May 7, 2003,

[13] Beinin, Joel, “Pro-Israel hawks and the Second Gulf War,” Middle East Report Online, Apr. 6, 2003.

[14] Beinin, Joel, “Why do they Hate Us,” Peninsula Peace and Justice Center speech, Sept. 17, 2001, for Peninsula Peace and Justice Center, Palo Alto; “Middle East Studies After Sept. 11,” MESA 2002 Presidential address, Nov. 23, 2002, http://fp.arizona.edu/mesassoc/Bulletin/Pres%20Addresses/Beinin.htm

[15] Beinin, Joel, AllLearn online chat with Joel Beinin, Dec. 3, 2002.

[16] Abdel Wahed, Joseph, “Exodus today,” National Review, Apr. 17, 2003.

[17] Beinin, Joel, ibid, online chat with Joel Beinin, Oct. 24, 2002.

[18] Beinin, Joel, “From Land Day to Peace Day and Beyond,” Intifada: The Palestinian Uprising Against the Israeli Occupation (1989, Beinin, ed with Lochman, Zachary), pp. 205-216.

[19] www.terrorvictims.com

[20] Beinin, Joel, “Why do they Hate Us,” Peninsula Peace and Justice Center speech, Sept. 17, 2001, for Peninsula Peace and Justice Center, Palo Alto, http://www.peaceandjustice.org/nowar/1beinin.html; reprinted, Jordan Times, Oct. 23 2001.

[21] http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0le00 http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110002948

[22] Beinin, Joel, “Another Bloody Passover,” Mar. 27, 2002, AlterNet, http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12711; and “Suspend military aid to Israel,” Jewish Voice for Peace, Mar. 28, 2002,

[23] Beinin, ibid.

[24] Beinin, Joel, “Origins of the Gulf War,” University of Wisconsin, Nov. 30, 1990, reproduced in Open Pamphlet Series, Feb. 19, 1991.

[25] Beinin, Joel, The Dispersion of Egyptian Jewry: Culture, Politics and the Formation of a Modern Diaspora, (1998), pp. 25-28, 140-51, 263-4; Wall, Alexandra J., “Outspoken Stanford prof supports 2-state-solution,” Jewish Bulletin of Northern California, Mar. 15, 2002.

[26] Beinin, Dispersion of Egyptian Jewry, pp. 54-59, 207-248; Alcalay, Ammiel, After Jews and Arabs: Remaking Levantine Culture (1992).

[27] Goitein, S.D., “Evidence on the Non-Muslim Poll Tax from Non-Muslim Sources,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, Vol. 6, 1963, pp. 278-79; Margoliouth, David S., “The Status of the Tolerated Cults: Lecture IV,” The Early Development of Mohammedanism (1914), pp. 99-134; Sarshar, Houman, ed. Esther’s Children: A Portrait of Iranian Jews (2002), pp. 95-136; Interviews with Egyptian Jewish refugees; Author communication with Bat Ye’or.

[28] Ibid; Murad al-Qudsi, Just for the Record in the History of the Karaite Jews of Egypt in Modern Times (2002), pp. 202-230.

[29] Beinin, Joel, Dispersion, pp. 14-19; expression first used in Cohen, Mark, Under Crescent and Cross (1994).

[30] Beinin, Joel, Dispersion, pp. 14-19.

[31] Landau, Jacob M., “The Decline of the Jewish Community in Eighteenth-Century Cairo: A New Interpretation in the Light of Two Iberian Chronicles,” in Shamir, Shimon, ed., The Jews of Egypt: A Mediterranean Society in Modern Times (1987), pp. 15-27.

[32] Al-Qudsi, Murad, Just for the Record in the History of the Karaite Jews of Egypt in Modern Times, Wilprint, 2002, p. 228.

[33] Beinin, Joel, letter to Murad al-Qudsi, June 11, 1997, Just for the Record (2002), pp. 212.

[34] Beinin, Dispersion of Egyptian Jewry, pp. 18, 37-38.

[35] Shamir, Shimon, “The Evolution of the Egyptian Nationality Laws and their Application to the Jews in the Monarchy Period,” Shamir, ed., Jews of Egypt,
pp. 33-67.

[36] Beinin, Dispersion, p. 38; Shamir, ibid.

[37] Beinin, Joel, Dispersion, pp. 2-4, 20-24, 38-44, 72-76, 179-203.

[38] Beinin, ibid, pp. 90-100; Bat Ye’or, Juifes ibid; Harkabi, Yehoshafat, Arab Attitudes to Israel (1972), pp. 229-237.

[39] Beinin, ibid, pp. 103-5; interviews with Egyptian Jewish refugees.

[40] Bat Ye’or, Les Juifes en Egypte (1971), Annex I and II pp. 66-69, citing Frankfurter Illustrierte Aug 25, 1957, "Patterns of Prejudice" (Institute of Jewish Affairs, London), May-June 1967; separately she cites Yad Vashem; Tatu, Michel, interview with Simon Wiesenthal, Le Monde, Jun. 9, 1967; Amoni, M.S. Le Nationalisme Arabe et les Nazis (1970); “Tableau des nazis devenus conseillers des pays arabes,” Les dossiers du Lien, No. 204, Mar. 2003, after Falligot, Roger and Kauffer, Remi, Le croissant et la croix gammee (Albin Michel, pp. 165-7); [41] Harkabi, ibid.

[42] Beinin, ibid.; Al-Qudsi, Murad, ibid, pp. 202-230; Al-Qudsi letter to Beinin, April 1997, pp. 218-219; Al-Qudsi, ibid, Ovaida, David, President, Karaite Jews of America, pp. 215-219; interviews with Karaite community, Blumenzweig, Jacques, interview June 21, 1999, http://www.hsje.org/NASSER'S%20JEWS%201_2.htm

[43] Review of Dispersion, by zz2122 from Ashdod, Israel, Jul. 2, 2003.

[44] Beinin, ibid. pp. 34; Al-Qudsi, ibid; Ovaida, ibid; Interviews with Karaite community.

[45] Al-Qudsi, ibid; Ovaida, ibid; interviews with Karaite community.

[46] Multiple interviews with former Beinin students, Beinin colleagues and Beinin research subjects.

[47] Hudson, William, The Stanford Review, Feb. 26, 2003.

[48] Fairbanks, Joe, “Beinin Watch,” Stanford Review, Vol. XXX, No. 3, Mar. 13, 2003, http://www.stanfordreview.org/Archive/

[49] http://www.allianceforlifelonglearning.org/

[50] Beinin, Joel, Palestine Zionism and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, Introduction and Lectures 1-10, videotape and transcripts, online discussion transcripts Oct. 13-Dec. 18, 2002, AllLearn, Fall 2002.

[51] Beinin, Joel, AllLearn Session 9, Palestine Zionism and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, fall 2002.

[52] AllLearn Syllabus; Ha`aretz, Cairo al-Ahram Weekly; “Government shoots Itself in Foot with Printing Ban in Cairo's Free Zone,” Cairo Times, Apr. 16, 1998, Vol. 2, No. 4.

Of 29 required readings on his AllLearn syllabus, 19 have a distinctly anti-Israel outlook. AllLearn Syllabus. Interviews with current and former Stanford professors, students and AllLearn students. Required Reading, Books, Cohen, Michael, The Origins and Evolution of the Arab-Zionist Conflict (1987); Khalidi, Rashid, Palestinian Identity: The Construction of Modern National Consciousness (1997); Laqueur, Walter and Rubin, Barry, eds, The Israel-Arab Reader: A Documentary History of the Middle East Conflict (2001, 6th ed.); Smith, Charles, Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict (2001, 4th ed.); Chapters and Articles, “Balfour Memorandum of 1919,” From Haven to Conquest, ed., Kalidi, Walid, (Institute for Palestine Studies, 1971), 201-10; “Camp David and After: An Exchange,” New York Review of Books, Jun. 13, 2002, 42-49; “Exchange: Camp David and After – Continued,” New York Review of Books, Jun. 27, 2002, 47-49; “Final Report of the Israeli Commission of Inquiry into the Events at the Refugee Camps in Beirut” and “Arab Reaction to the Kahan Report,” Journal of Palestine Studies, 12 (no. 3, 1983): 89-116, 198-201; Begin, Menachem, The Revolt (1977 out of print), 60-85, 100-102, 214-28; Beinin, Joel, “Palestine and Israel: Perils of a Neoliberal, Repressive Pax Americana,” Social Justice 25 (no. 4, 1998): 20-39; Benvenisti, Meron, Sacred Landscape: The Buried History of the Holy Land since 1948, (2000), 101-110, 114-17, 144-92; Cobban, Helena. The Palestinian Liberation Organization, (1984), 3-18; Elon, Amos, The Israelis: Founders and Sons (1981, out of print), 41-56, 106-86; Finkelstein, Norman G., Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict (1995), 123-49; Friedman, Robert I. Zealots for Zion: Inside Israel’s West Bank Settlement Movement (1992), 3-42, maps preceding cont.; HaCohen, David, “Excerpt from a speech to the secretariat of the Mapai,” Ha-Aretz, Nov. 15, 1969; Halper, Jeff, “The 94 Percent Solution: A Matrix of Control,” Middle East Report 216 (Fall 2000):14-19; Lockman, Zachary, Comrades and Enemies, (1996) 21-57; Malley, Robert, and Hussein Agha, “Camp David: The Tragedy of Errors,” New York Review of Books, Aug. 9, 2001, 59-65; Masalha, Nur, “A Critique of Benny Morris,” Journal of Palestine Studies 21 (no. 1, Autumn 1991), 90-97; Morris, Benny, “Revisiting the Palestinian Exodus of 1948,” War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948 (2001, ed. Rogan, Eugene and Shlaim, Avi), 37-59; Rishmawi, Elias, “On the Beit Sahour Tax Revolt,” Homeland: Oral Histories of Palestine and Palestinians (1994, ed. Lynd, Staughton, Bahour, Sam and Lynd, Alice), 271-81; Shapira, Anita, “Politics and Collective Memory: The Debate over the ‘New Historians’ in Israel,” History & Memory 7 (no. 1 Spring/Summer 1995): 9-34; Shlaim, Avi, “The Oslo Agreement,” Journal of Palestine Studies 23, no. 3 (Spring 1994): 24-40; Stork, Joe, “U.S. Policy and the Palestinian Question,” The United States and the Middle East: A Search for New Perspectives (1992, ed., Amirahmadi, Hooshang), 125-48; Swedenburg, Ted, “The Role of the Palestinian Peasantry in the Great Revolt (1936-1939),” Islam, Politics, and Social Movements (1998, ed. Burke III, Edmund. and Lapidis, Ira), 168-203; Usher, Graham, “What kind of Nation? The Rise of Hamas in the Occupied Territories,” Political Islam: Essays from Middle East Report, (1997, ed. Beinin, Joel and Stork), 339-54.

[53] “Anti-Semitism in the Egyptian Media, parts I, II and III,” Memri.org, Mar. 16, 17 and 20, 2000.

[54] “PA ‘Mufti of Jerusalem and Palestine, discusses the Intifada,” citing Oct. 28, 2000 Al Ahram, memri.org, Nov. 9, 2000; Howeidy, Amira, “Crossing to martyrdom,” Al-Ahram, Apr. 25-May 1, 2002; “Wafa Idris: celebration of first Palestinian female suicide bomber, Part II,” citing Feb. 2, 2002 Al Ahram, memri.org, Feb. 13, 2002; “Egyptian government daily praises the martyrdom attack on Jerusalem café: ‘a heroic operation’,” Memri.org, Mar. 15, 2002; “The Arab leadership and media on Powell’s Middle East Trip,” citing Al-Ahram, Apr. 16, 2002, Memri.org, Apr. 26, 2002; Cook, Jonathan, “The ‘engineer’,” Al-Ahram Weekly, Apr. 18-24, 2002; Naffa, Hassan, “Knights and dragons,” Al-Ahram, Aug. 23-Sept. 3, 2003.

[55] “Leading Egyptian Newspaper raises Blood Libel,” Memri.org, Nov. 6, 2000; “Egypt’s Response to accusations of Arab Media anti-Semitism,” Memri.org, Jan. 3, 2003; “French Legal Authorities Investigating Editor of Major Egyptian Daily,” Memri.org, Sept. 6, 2002; Wistrich, Robert, “Muslim Anti-Semitism: A Clear and Present Danger,” American Jewish Committee, http://www.ajc.org/InTheMedia/PublicationsPrint.asp?did=503; Cooper, Abraham and Brackman, Harold, “The Fight Against Holocaust Denial,” Midstream, Apr. 2001, http://midstream.port5.com/0401/feature.html; Klinghoffer, Judith Apter, “Blood Libel,” History News Network, Apr. 8, 2002, http://hnn.us/articles/printfriendly/664.html; “Anti-Semitism in the Official Egyptian Press,” Spring 1998-1999, Jewish Virtual Library, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/

[56] Leffell, Jonathan, letter to Kristen Kim, AllLearn, Mar.19, 2003.

[57] Kaplan, Lee, “Solidarity with Terror,” FrontPageMagazine.com, Jul. 2, 2004; http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/printable.asp?ID=14064.

[58] Beinin, Joel, “The Good War,” The Nation, May 14, 2004, http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?I=20040531&s=beinin.

[59] http://www.justicewheels.org/mission.html; Alcalay, Ammiel, After Jews and Arabs: Remaking Levantine Culture (1992); Kushner Tony, et al, Wrestling with Zion: Wrestling with Zion: Progressive Jewish-American Responses to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (2003); Alcalay, Ammiel, “Stop-time in the Levant,” The Nation, Dec. 1999; Beinin, Joel, “The Good War,” The Nation, May 14, 2004, http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?I=20040531&s=beinin.

[60] Kushner Tony, et al, Wrestling with Zion: Wrestling with Zion: Progressive Jewish-American Responses to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (2003); Alcalay, Ammiel, “Stop-time in the Levant,” The Nation, Dec. 1999; Beinin, Joel, “The Good War,” The Nation, May 14, 2004, http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?I=20040531&s=beinin.

[61] http://www.teachtci.com/services/contact.asp; http://www.historyalive.com/Administrator/correlate.asp.

[62] Interview with Lee Kaplan, Mar. 12, 2004; http://www.fosna.org/; http://web.pdx.edu/~riadt/work/fosna/index.php?display=chapters; http://www.sabeel.org/old/news/ifos_enews/issue1.htm.

[63] Interview with Lee Kaplan, Mar. 12, 2004; Indiana State University, http://www.indstate.edu/polisci/faculty/perry.htm; http://fp.arizona.edu/mesassoc/Directory/Texas.htm.

[64] Interviews with Bay area parents; High school Middle East study unit.

[65] Kaplan, Lee, “Textbooks for Jihad,” FrontPageMagazine.com, Mar. 19, 2004; Wall, Alexandra, “Complaint of bias against Israel prompts high school text rewrite,” Jewish News Weekly of Northern California, Feb. 13, 2004; http://schoolpropaganda.us/TCI_Errors.htm.

[66] Beinin, Joel, “Origins of the Gulf War,” University of Wisconsin, Nov. 30, 1990, reproduced in Open Pamphlet Series, Feb. 19, 1991.

[67] Kedourie, Elie, “Iraq: The Mystery of American Policy,” Commentary, Vol. 91, No. 6, June 1991.

[68] Beinin, Joel, “Letter Against Expulsion of the Palestinians,” Dec. 2002, http://www.electronicintifada.net/v2/article989.shtml, (originally at http://www.professorsofconscience.org/); see also Blecher, Robert, “Living on the Edge: The Threat of ‘Transfer’ in Israel and Palestine,” Middle East Report, Winter, 2002, http://www.merip.org/mer/mer225/225_blecher.html

[69] Beinin, Joel, quoted in “Middle East Expert Discusses Issues in US/Israeli Relations,” Megan Groth, The Student Life, Nov. 28, 2002.

[70] Beinin, ibid. Kramer, Martin, “Profs condemn Israel in Advance,” and “The Expulsion that Never Was,” Sandstorm, Dec. 20, 2002 and Apr. 25, 2003, www.MartinKramer.org.

[71] Beinin, Joel, Session 9, Palestine Zionism and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, AllLearn, Fall, 2002.

[72] Spiegel, Stephen L., “U.S. Relations with Israel: The Military Benefits,” Sandstorm (1993), pp. 309-344; Organski, A.F.K. The $36 billion Bargain (1991).

[73] Congressional Research Service, U. S. Foreign Assistance: Israel, IB85066.

[74] Beinin, Joel, email to Jonathan Leffell, Jan. 14, 2003.

Here`s the link.

Saturday, December 18, 2004

IceViking: A few words about men`s contribution to the household

Wednesday, June 6, 2007
New Survey Confirms Men Do Fair
Share of Household Work
By Glenn Sacks
This column first appeared in the Pasadena Star-News & Affiliated Papers (4/7/02).


"Men are doing at least as much household work as women, according to a new survey conducted by the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research (ISR), the world's largest academic survey and research organization.

The recently released study shows that women do an average of 27 hours of housework a week, compared to 16 hours a week for men. Balanced against this, however, is the study's less-publicized finding that the average man spends 14 hours a week more on the job than the average woman."

"Of the 25 most dangerous jobs listed by the US Department of Labor, men comprise at least 90% of the labor force in all of them. According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, nearly 50 American workers are injured every minute of the 40-hour work week, and every day 17 die--16 of them male.

The whole of Glenn Sacks piece is available here.

I will here also link to Swedish columnist Malin Siwes Män jobbar när kvinnor städar.

Män jobbar när kvinnor städar
av Malin Siwe

Vad gör männen med sina extra 80 minuter? frågade sig kolumnisten Karin Thunberg i Svenska Dagbladet efter att ha läst den nya statistiken om hur svenskarna tillbringar sina dagar. Statistiska centralbyrån, SCB, har låtit 4 000 personer notera vad de har för sig om dagarna. Hur mycket tid de ägnar åt att diska, handla mat, stryka tvätt, bona golv, fika, torka rumpor för lön (sjukvård och omsorg), torka rumpor utan lön (hemma) och allt en människa har för sig under ett dygn.
TT, den nationella nyhetsbyrån, vinklade på att kvinnornas dubbelarbete minskat sedan SCB undersökte saken för tio år sedan. Svenskan ägnar 43 minuter mindre åt hushållsfix och familj nu. Men ändå, fyra timmar och fem minuter om dagen, utslaget på veckans alla dagar. Svensken nöjer sig med två timmar och 44 minuter.
Karin Thunberg räknar upp vad man kan göra på de där 80 minuterna som skiljer kvinnor och män: flyga till Köpenhamn från Stockholm, städa köket, knäcka två vinare. Och så frågan: Vad gör männen med sina extra 80 minuter?
Svaret finns också i SCB:s siffror. Männen yrkesarbetar. Drar in kosing. Bär hem lön. Faktum är att de som borde gnälla om dubbelarbete är männen. Lägger man ihop lönearbetstiden med hemarbetstiden blir den totala arbetstiden högre för män än för kvinnor. Skillnaden är inte stor. Men den finns i alla grupper utom en: sammanboende föräldrar med barn över sju år. I den gruppen arbetar kvinnorna lite mer. Men annars är det männen som arbetar mera. Oavsett om man jämför yngre barnfria singlar, yngre sambor utan barn eller äldre ensamstående eller sambor med vuxna barn. Av småbarnsföräldrarna jobbar männen mest. Sammanlagt.
Man kunde tänka sig att den ensamstående mamman jobbar mest av alla. Ska dra runt hela hushållet själv, att delegera till småbarn är ingen hit, och dessutom yrkesarbeta. Och ensamma morsor hamnar näst högst i slitlistan. Men sammanboende småbarnsfarsor toppar. De ensamma papporna var för få för att räknas.
Skillnaderna är över huvud taget mycket små i tidsanvändningen. Skillnaderna i totalsumma mellan könen kan räknas i enstaka minuter. Men de där extra minuterna är det männen som gör. (Kan vara mätfel, urskuldar sig SCB. I yrkesarbetstiden fråndras inte raster, medan en fikapaus i storstädningen markeras som fika och inte arbete. Om sedan tidsslaven noterar detta eller inte är en annan fråga.)
Hur som helst. Det totala arbetet är jämnt fördelat mellan könen. Ingen grupp kan hävda att den är mer utsliten än den andra. För enskilda individer ser det förstås helt annorlunda ut. Men på en slutkörd kvinna borde det alltså gå en utmattad man. Annars går statistiken inte ihop.
Men det är skillnad på arbete och arbete, säger du. På att få lön eller ingenting, och männen får lön för sin möda i större omfattning. Och det är sant.
Men det handlar också om att kvinnor väljer. Väljer att lönearbeta mindre. Väljer att dutta mer hemma. Varför skulle annars ensamstående kvinnor utan barn, oavsett ålder, lönearbeta mindre och hemarbeta mer än männen i samma ålder och situation? Kom inte och påstå att patriarkatet i största allmänhet hindrar kvinnor från att jobba över. Eller att manssamhället tvingar en singelkvinna att gå en extrarunda med dammtrasan. Hon väljer.
Och det är helt okej att välja krukväxterna framför att jobba mera. Men då blir inkomsten lägre. Inte på grund av ojämställdhet. Utan på grund av det egna valet.