Showing posts with label Hypocrisy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hypocrisy. Show all posts

Sunday, November 13, 2011

More Hypocrisy from the Loony Left

Israel National News (Arutz Sheva):

The latest bills to arouse the Left's ire are ones that, if passed, would limit the ability of foreign governments and international bodies to fund Israeli political NGOs. Also on the agenda is a law that would require Supreme Court nominees to undergo a parliamentary vetting process.

Foremost among the voices crying foul is that of MK Zehava Galon (Meretz). "The bills raised at the Ministerial Committee for Legislation poison democracy even without being voted upon," she stated Sunday. "Just by being presented, they encourage violence against activists for human rights and peace, strike terror into hearts and encourage self-censorship, which we are already witness to in several media outlets."

"Without the possibility of advancing a world view, opinions and aims that are not held by the majority at a particular point in time – there is no democracy, and when the majority attempts to silence the minority and deny it freedom of organization, expression and protest, this is not majority rule but majority dictatorship."
Interestingly it is Galon herself who, as leader of the Meretz faction, was instrumental in the court petitions that led to the State's shutting down of Arutz Sheva Radio eight years ago.

Arutz Sheva had broadcast for 14 years from a ship anchored at sea -- unfettered by centralized political regulatory procedures -- and was very popular among Israeli nationalists as the only alternative to mainstream leftist stations. An ultra-leftist station named the Voice of Peace had broadcast in precisely the same way for three decades, unmolested. Some feel that the government was already making preparations for the Disengagement from Gaza and possibly did not want Arutz Sheva making trouble.

As the High Court debated the motions against Arutz Sheva and eventually found in their favor, Galon and other Meretz heads repeatedly demanded that the Attorney General order Arutz Sheva closed down, their much-touted belief in free speech notwithstanding. Eventually, this is exactly what happened, on October 20, 2003.

A few weeks later Galon launched an attack on Arutz Sheva's sole remaining means of expression – its internet website (the one you are currently reading).

Galon again appealed to then-Attorney General Elyakim Rubinstein and claimed that an Op-Ed article on the Hebrew site entitled "Expulsion, not Transfer" constituted a violation of laws against incitement. She claimed the article was a call to "murder hundreds of thousands of Palestinians." 
The article in question, by Gil Ronen, assumed that since there is no chance for reaching peace with the Arabs of Yesha (Judea and Samaria), Israel has no alternative but to "remove this 'nation' from our midst." Ronen wrote that he does not support "transfer," as "the Palestinians are not European Jews, and we are not Germans." Instead, he painted a scenario of "gradual deterioration" in which the war against terrorists expands to include more targeted killings, more house demolitions, and more air raids. All of the actions envisioned in the article were depicted as being taken by the IDF. As Arutz Sheva noted at the time, Ronen specifically wrote that "no one will have to take the law into his own hands."

The article was written at the height of the Terror War launched by Yasser Arafat in which over 1,000 Jews were murdered and buses full of innocent passengers of all ages exploded on a near-daily basis.

AG Rubinstein accepted Galon's demands and ordered an investigation against Arutz Sheva. The investigation was closed after police found no grounds for prosecution.
Analyst Ariel Natan Pasko noted at the time that Galon was not just after Arutz Sheva's freedom of speech: "Clump-clump, clump-clump, clump-clump, hark, I hear the sound of the goose-stepping Bolshevik Israeli thought police in the distance," he wrote.

MK Zahava Gal-On, just a couple of months ago, asked the Attorney General to look into a Jerusalem Post editorial she said had "words of incitement to murder" in it. The Jerusalem Post editorial said, "The world will not help us; we must help ourselves. We must kill as many of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad leaders as possible, as quickly as possible, while minimizing collateral damage, but not letting that damage stop us. And we must kill Yasser Arafat, because the world leaves us no alternative." Where is Freedom of the Speech? Where is Freedom of the Press? When was it ever "incitement to murder", to call for the death of the enemy in wartime? Only in Israel, only on the Bolshevik Left, only to shut people up and divert attention from discussing the real issue, Arafat's war against Israel. By the way, in the end the Attorney General found nothing prosecutable in the editorial. Freedom of Speech 1, Thought Police 0.

Back in May 2003, MK Gal-On called on the Attorney General to "warn" members of the Yesha Rabbinical Council against releasing a Halakhic - Jewish law - ruling against the Road Map "peace" plan. Well, what are they supposed to issue, an economic impact report, they're rabbis? What? They're not allowed to think differently from Zahava?
Eight years down the line, it is Galon who claims that the nationalists are the ones guilty of censorship -- and that her camp is the victim being stifled.

Interestingly, the American Foreign Agent Act was created also to prevent foreign muddling in American internal affairs - at the time, to prevent Nazi propaganda.  There is absolutely no reason why foreign countries that wish ill for Israel should be allowed to donate billions of dollars to organizations that seek the destruction of Israel (slyly, by slapping the words "human rights" and "peace activists" onto themselves - human rights for all, except for the Jews in Israel).  Israel should handle its own internal affairs, without foreign countries trying to influence Israeli politics and running contrary to what the majority of the Israeli public wants.

Oh and by the way, doing something contrary to what mainstream Israeli public wants is not democratic.  So a 10 month unprecedented settlement freeze by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, under pressure from President Obama, was a huge risk, which cost him much popularity, and angered many Israelis.  That would be acceptable, except Mahmoud Abbas still refused to negotiate.  As such, nothing came out of the freeze.

That was just one year ago.  And yet, foreign countries are demanding another settlement freeze, brainwashed by Abbas repeating that Israel must freeze settlements to engage in peace talks.  Because to these foreign countries, the agenda of fantasy peace is so high on their list that all other affairs come only after it.  And to them, the Israeli-Arab conflict can only be solved through their help, and so they can have the title.  Only then will ultimate harmony and peace be brought to Earth. Only then will everyone hold hands around a campfire and sing "Kumbaya."

They disregard that peace between Egypt and Israel was established secretly, without foreign countries.  The same goes for the peace deals between Israel and Jordan.

So what exactly is this ridiculous nonsense coming from the left?  And why do foreign countries feel an imperative need to donate tons of aid to leftist organizations that wish ill for Israel and want to muddle in Israeli internal affairs?  Take for example, Great Britian.  For every pound (unit of currency in Britian) that Britain spends on NGO's in non-democratic Arab countries to promote democracy, Britian spends six pounds on suicidal NGO's in a democratic country - Israel.

The hypocrisy is astounding.

Sunday, October 9, 2011

Hypocrisy: Kurds, Syrians, and Palestinians

Jonothan S. Tobin:
The assassination of a Kurdish opposition leader in Syria may lead to more violence as protests against the Assad regime escalate. But it should also serve as a reminder of the hypocrisy of much of the world’s attitudes about the Middle East.
While most of the world has been obsessing about the alleged wrongs of the Palestinians, few seem to think it’s worth caring about the fact Kurds remain the object of violent suppression in both Syria and Turkey. Yet as we saw this past week, when Russia and China vetoed United Nations resolutions condemning the crackdown against dissent in Syria, few among the globe’s chattering classes seem willing to condemn any nation in the world other than Israel. Nor do many seem concerned with the plight of any national or ethnic group demanding sovereignty or rights other than those seeking to do so at the expense of the globe’s only Jewish state.

The focus of global attention in recent weeks has been the attempt of the Palestinians to get the United Nations to give them statehood without first having to make peace with Israel. This has resulted in an orgy of rhetoric about the right to self-determination of all peoples. But the plight of the Kurds, who have arguably suffered far more than the Palestinians or any other stateless people, doesn’t move the international community. Indeed, the only reason this latest outrage committed against the Kurds in Syria is getting any attention at all has been because it comes in the context of efforts by the Assad clan and its Alawite allies to hang on to power in Damascus.
Unlike Turkey and Syria, Israel has repeatedly stated its desire to negotiate a two-state solution to the conflict with the Palestinians. And unlike the situation of Kurds in most of the Middle East, Arab citizens of Israel also have full civil and legal rights. It should also be stated that, whatever crimes have been committed in the name of Kurdish independence, the goal of Kurdish groups is not the eradication of other nations. The same cannot be said of the Palestinians. But no one should hold their breath waiting for the UN or its misnamed Human Rights Council to give the Kurds’ far more grievous wrongs the same hearing they give the Palestinians.
Tobin's just saying it as it is.

Read the rest here.

Thursday, October 6, 2011

"P" for "Provocation" and "DD" for "Double Standards"

Today, my posts focused on lies, anti-Semitism, and conspiracy theories.

This post will deal with an offshoot of this, which is double standards & hypocrisy.  This post is in response to the condemnation over Israel's building in (East) Jerusalem.

Excerpt from JPost:
Clearly, both Clinton and Hague are suffering from “selective provocation syndrome,” which is when one deems Israel’s actions to be provocative while ignoring similar moves by the Palestinians.

Consider the following. According to data compiled by Peace Now, since the government ended the building freeze on Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria last October, there have been a grand total of just 2,598 buildings started.

It is this small number of new Jewish homes in the territories that has the critics up in arms.

They claim that by expanding Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, Israel is prejudicing the outcome of any final-status negotiations.

And yet, when it comes to Palestinian efforts to create facts on the ground, these very same critics inexplicably fall silent.

Indeed, this past Sunday, the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS) released data indicating that the number of Palestinian homes in Judea, Samaria and Gaza has soared by over 25% in the past four years.

This year alone, the Palestinians will build more housing units than Israel did in all of last year, even though our population is more than three times the size of theirs.

According to the PCBS, in 2011 the Palestinians will finish a whopping 33,822 dwellings, or 13 times the number currently being built by Jews in Judea and Samaria.

There is no doubt that this feverish building activity by the Palestinians will have an enormous impact on the ground, greatly expanding their presence in the “disputed” territories.

So why, then, is this too not regarded as a “provocation” that undermines peace efforts? Or is it only when Jews lay down cement that construction suddenly becomes confrontational? I guess not all “provocations” are created equal.

The fact is that it is neither logical nor fair to expect Israel to freeze building in Judea and Samaria or anywhere else while the Palestinians are busy at work.

Read the full article here.

Check out my previous post in response to this condemnation.

Gilo is a neighborhood, not a settlement.  Saeb Erekat even offered Gilo to Israel in 2008, although this offer led to nowhere, mainly because of the prospect of a divided Jerusalem.  Why now are the Palestinians and the world growing so upset over the natural building in a neighborhood, which would remain part of Israel in any peace agreement, and when the Palestinians build much more in the disputed territory?

In 2009, France stated that settlement building in Gilo is not an obstacle to peace.

I can't fully explain why countries like America and the U.K. are condemning this.  Perhaps they want to appease the Palestinians too, or they just don't know that much about Gilo.  Maybe it's become so implanted in their brains that when an Israeli builds a home, it's gotta be provocative and terrible and worthy of condemnation.

But I can answer you why the Palestinians are condemning it.  They're condemning it because otherwise they'd have no excuse as to why they can't return to the negotiating table.

Mind you, asking that Israel give up everything prior to negotiations/negotiating over negotiations isn't really a good excuse either...

Nor is asking for a freeze to settlement construction when Netanyahu did precisely that - an unprecedented 10 month settlement freeze.  What does Abbas do? Refuses to negotiaties, walks to the negotiating table in the tenth month, and when the month is over, and the freeze is lifted, leaves the table. 

If they don't even care about negotiating - as seen by the settlement freeze and Abbas walking in on the tenth month - then how can the world expect them to make peace?

Peace requires two parties.  But it requires more than that.  It requires two parties who are willing to make peace.

Israel has shown that multiple times - whether when giving back Sinai Peninsula to make peace with Egypt, when making peace with Jordan, when accepting Oslo Accords, during Camp David Accords, during Taba Accords, when they uprooted their own citizens from Gaza and got 12000 rockets in return, and when Prime Minister Olmert offered the most generous offer in 2008 which Abbas refused.

Wednesday, October 5, 2011

The U.N. is the "Theatre of the Absurd"

Melanie Phillips:

Some 1941 years ago, the Romans conquered the ancient Jewish kingdom of Judea by force and attempted to expunge all memory of the Jews’ claim to the land by renaming the area Palestine. Two days ago, Mahmoud Abbas attempted to do the same thing by diplomatic force at the UN.
The whole thing was of course a grotesque charade, outdone in its surrealism only by the reaction of the western world. For the UK and US governments and others said that such a unilateral declaration of independence was a setback for peace and a Palestinian state, which could only be achieved through negotiations between the Palestinians and Israel.
Not so. Negotiations do not have to be re-started in order to achieve this. If Abbas really wanted a state of Palestine to live in peace alongside Israel, he could have said a handful of words in New York which would have ended the conflict there and then and brought such a state into actual being.
For all that is needed is for Abbas to say, in Arabic as well as English, that he accepts the right of Israel to exist as the nation state of the Jewish people, and that his own people will no longer wage war against it. If he were to say that, and to match those words by deeds to show he meant them – for example, by ending the incitement in the educational materials and media under his command to hatred and murder of Jews and Israelis – there would be peace and a state of Palestine.
The problem is not the absence of a state of Palestine. The problem is that the Arabs want to get rid of Israel.
But this will never happen. For the dominant assumption in the west, the assumption that underpins virtually every political utterance on the subject and every interview on the BBC and the reporting even in notionally pro-Israel papers such as the Times or Telegraph that a state of Palestine would end the Middle East conflict, is not only wholly mistaken but is to mis-state that conflict.
For peace to be achieved, the belligerent has to stop making war. The Arabs have made war on the Jews in their ancient homeland since Israel became a state and indeed for three decades before that. For a solution to be arrived at, it’s necessary correctly to state the problem. The problem is not the absence of a state of Palestine. The problem is that the Arabs want to get rid of Israel.
For anyone paying attention to the actual words used, the evidence was there in Abbas’s own speech. His people, he declared, had been suffering for 63 years. What happened 63 years ago? The state of Israel came into being. So what Abbas was saying was not that the absence of a state of Palestine was the problem. The problem for him was the very existence of the state of Israel.
He also said:
        ‘...we agreed to establish the State of Palestine on only 22 per cent of the territory of historical Palestine – on all the Palestinian Territory occupied by Israel in 1967.'
But the West Bank and Gaza were not 22 per cent of historical; Palestine; they were far, far less. It was Israel that was established on a fraction of ‘historical Palestine’, having settled for that fraction as better than nothing at all. And if the Palestinians truly had accepted a state merely in the West Bank and Gaza, why then did they refuse the offer of precisely such a state on more than 90 per cent of that territory which was made to them in 2000 and 2008? Why does the very Palestinian logo on their flags and insignia show a map of this state of Palestine to which they aspire as having swallowed up Israel altogether?
In Ramallah on September 16, Abbas made his position even plainer. 'The Palestinian people', he stated, 'have been abused for 63 years, generation after generation, under occupation'.
No, it is not the settlements but the existence of Israel itself that is the problem which Abbas believes UN recognition of a state of Palestine would help resolve. It is Israel itself that Abbas wants to subsume into Palestine. In other words, as he himself has previously said, declaring UDI at the UN was a way of internationalising the conflict with Israel. UN recognition of a state of Palestine is therefore not a move towards peace but a signal for genocidal war.
The truly incredible bone-headedness (or worse) of the western response was encapsulated by a BBC Today programme interview on Friday morning with the UK’s former ambassador to the UN, Sir Jeremy Greenstock. Sir Jeremy declared that a state of Palestine was ‘not a threat to Israel’, and that the Palestinians were ‘desperate’ to end the ‘injustice’ done to them and to restart negotiations. Eh? What ‘injustice’? The Palestinians are the ones waging war on Israel, not the other way round. What desperation, when they have repeatedly turned down the offer of a state? What keenness to re-start negotiations, when Israel repeatedly offers them negotiations and they repeatedly refuse?
Even worse, Sir Jeremy also said that what was much more important for Israel than a state of Palestine was not to imperil any further its relationship with other countries in the region such as Egypt, Turkey or Iran. What?? Doesn’t Sir Jeremy realise that the Palestinians are despised by every country in the region? Hasn’t Sir Jeremy noticed that Turkey is now pursuing an Islamist agenda, with appalling implications not just for Israel but for the interests of the UK and the west, and that Egypt may well fall to the Islamists too? And as for Israel not upsetting Iran by its attitude to the Palestinians, hasn’t Sir Jeremy Greenstock understood that Iran is threatening Israel with nuclear extinction because it is a Jewish state? On what planet is Sir Jeremy Greenstock living?
To anyone with a scintilla of knowledge of the nine-decade Arab and Islamic war against the Jews in the Middle East, Abbas’s speech at the UN consisted of lie after lie after lie. He claimed that Israeli settlements in the West Bank were illegal and in breach of international law (untrue); he claimed that the settlements were in breach of the terms of negotiation (untrue; it is Abbas’s own unilateral declaration which tears up successive bilateral treaties); he claimed that Israel was targeting Palestinian civilians in Gaza (untrue; Israeli attacks, which carefully avoid hitting civilians wherever possible, are only in defence of its civilians against Hamas attacks --with which Abbas has now publicly lined himself up, not least by hailing as ‘martyrs’ those in Gaza who murder Israelis).
As for his claim that the settlements were the reason there was no peace, this was demonstrably ridiculous. As Netanyahu said in his own fine speech at the UN:
‘President Abbas ... said that the core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the settlements. Well, that's odd. Our conflict has been raging for -- was raging for nearly half a century before there was a single Israeli settlement in the West Bank. So if what President Abbas is saying was true, then the -- I guess that the settlements he's talking about are Tel Aviv, Haifa, Jaffa, Be'er Sheva. Maybe that's what he meant the other day when he said that Israel has been occupying Palestinian land for 63 years. He didn't say from 1967; he said from 1948. I hope somebody will bother to ask him this question because it illustrates a simple truth: The core of the conflict is not the settlements. The settlements are a result of the conflict.’
The Arab response has always been to refuse and instead to attempt to destroy the Jews’ presence in their own ancient homeland.
History records that, from the 1930s onwards, the Jews have never stood in the way of a Palestinian state if that would end the war of annihilation the Arabs have continuously waged against them. A Palestine state has been on repeated offer. The Arab response has always been to refuse and instead to attempt to destroy the Jews’ presence in their own ancient homeland. As certain Palestinian spokesmen themselves have acknowledged, Palestinian identity was itself constructed purely to destroy Israel. The reason for the objection to a state of Palestine is that it would be used to bring about the final destruction of Israel as a Jewish state, an aspiration which Abbas never ceases to proclaim.
As Netanyahu said in his speech:
‘We believe that the Palestinians should be neither the citizens of Israel nor its subjects. They should live in a free state of their own. But they should be ready, like us, for compromise. And we will know that they’re ready for compromise and for peace when they start taking Israel’s security requirements seriously and when they stop denying our historical connection to our ancient homeland.
I often hear them accuse Israel of Judaizing Jerusalem. That’s like accusing America of Americanizing Washington, or the British of Anglicizing London. You know why we’re called “Jews”? Because we come from Judea.”’
What Israel should be stating explicitly and repeatedly is that it is the Jews who are the indigenous people of what are now Israel and the West Bank – and indeed beyond. Commentators often refer to Judea and Samaria as ‘Biblical’ names as if they can therefore be disregarded today. Not so. Judea and Samara were the true historical names for Israel and the West Bank, used in international treaties and official documents of the Palestine Mandate period, and throughout which land the Jews were given the legal right to settle. Only now as the west mimics the Arab attempt to airbrush the Jews out of their own history have these names become synonymous with Jewish extremism.
What really illustrates the west’s moral bankruptcy over Israel and the Palestinians is that the day before the Abbas charade, the very same UN gave the stage to Iran’s Ahmadinejad from where he spouted his murderous lies and hatred of the west, including his implication that 9/11 was a US conspiracy. This is the leader of a regime which executes teenagers for homosexuality and which is developing nuclear weapons to commit genocide against Israel and hold the western world hostage. Yet far from expressing outrage at this use of the UN by such a man, far from drawing attention indeed to the utter suicidal madness of having the UN as a global policeman when its own Security Council is now chaired by Lebanon, a country in thrall to Iran through Hezbollah, the appearance of Ahmadinejad elicited barely a shrug by western media which instead worked themselves into a frenzy over Abbas and the ‘plight’ of the Palestinians.
Netanyahu again called it right. He said the world was menaced by a malignancy.
‘That malignancy is militant Islam. It cloaks itself in the mantle of a great faith, yet it murders Jews, Christians and Muslims alike with unforgiving impartiality. On September 11th it killed thousands of Americans, and it left the twin towers in smouldering ruins. Last night I laid a wreath on the 9/11 memorial. It was deeply moving. But as I was going there, one thing echoed in my mind: the outrageous words of the president of Iran on this podium yesterday. He implied that 9/11 was an American conspiracy. Some of you left this hall. All of you should have.'
Netanyahu called the UN a ‘theatre of the absurd’ and the ‘house of lies’. The western media mostly didn’t bother to report that, just as they didn’t bother to report much of his speech. What they are really waiting for is for the Palestinians to resume attacking Israelis as a sign of their ‘desperation’. They won’t report those attacks either. But they will report the Israelis’ response and call that ‘aggression’. That’s the prospect over which the western media, sensing a final kill, are now slavering.

True, true, and even more so, true.  Excellent article.